Re; ISS Recycling old Ideas?
Things change, or do they? Ten years ago on CompuServe Cold Fusioneer Jed Rothwell was being flamed by Forum Sysop Tom LeCompte,and Frank E. Reed, (University of Illinois) and the Brit Alan Dunsmuir, and the gal Mahariqe van Gans (sp) as AOL was getting the Internet started as it is now. Laid back, Bernard E. Beard was getting his PhD in Physics. Terry Blanton was the ace of the Encounters Forum. And lurking Carl Sagan sent me greetings from his hospital bed, but I didn't know how to hit "enter" to send the reply. (We had corresponded by phone fax earlier). We managed the Terraformation of Venus and Mars and turned asteroids into space ships. Google pulls up LeCompte Reed.Bernie Beard when to Memphis Tenn. Deja Vu all over again? :-) Fred
Re: ISS
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:14:02 +1100: Hi, [snip] About the same. The time frame is not acceleration limited. Its limited by orbital windows. Some have proposed making a cycler using ISS modules. The minimum fuel option is a cycler. A cycler is a craft that orbits the sun in such a way that it takes a crew to Mars in three months and then swings around the sun unmanned to pick up a new crew. A Wouldn't this be going pretty fast as it passes the Earth, and would that make it hard to catch up with it? Yes quite a delta t but your transfering only crew, baggage and some cargo not the mass of living quarters, power systems etc. I favor faster craft. second cycler going in the opposite direction would take three months to drop someone home from mars and then spend a year going around the sun. Ion engines are too slow for manned flight we want to go faster than three months for manned missions. That gives us three options. Avoiding solar flares, we have more than three months warning but less than six I believe. Some say we have more than a year but we've only looked at a years data from the new sats in close to the sun. Ion engines are OK for dead cargoes but solar sails can match ion engines and plasma sails beat them. The best sail design is at: http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/propulsion.html 2nPa is good thrust, better than Ion and you are not burning fuel. Also you can combine robotic craft with manned craft in a way they accumulates momentum in six unmanned craft. And then bounce them off the manned crafts fields. This takes a months acceleration from the solar wind and packs it into a few minutes of field interaction. This is my reusable reaction mass drive. Not yet published. If you could run a drive at one g continously Mars is 3 to 5 _days_ away but you'd need a hell of a bumper bar. How long would it take if you accelerated then decelerated? That is the time if you accelerated for half the time and decel for half the time. no coasting. Is there an online trip calculator? Not to my knowlage. Nuclear salt water rocket 0.1 g ~ 3 -5 weeks, a good plasma drive 0.01 g ~4 to 7 weeks, The best sail 0.005 ~6 to 9 weeks. Reactionless drives rule. Too bad about newtons laws. ;-) [snip] Lab racks with power and cooling. Their not much use on mars because there systems are optimized for zero g. On mars you want your lab on the ground or better still in the rover. I should think that a space station orbiting Mars would be quite useful. It could function as a planetary observatory, and as a relay station for both information and supplies. A.o. it could provide regular weather updates for ground crews. The Mars mission, should not be seen as a one shot, but rather as the beginning of an ongoing program. Viewed in that light, a space station in orbit makes a lot of sense. It could also function as a staging post. Multiple shuttle trips between Mars and the orbiting station could be then be made using fuel manufactured on the surface. [snip] You don't need to resupply and crew swap a Mars net robot sat. The russian are concidering a base on phobos. The delta t equations make phobos easyer than the moon. You dont have to land you just dock woth the big rock. That said the Japs are trying to dick a rover/hopper with an asteroid and it's prooving tricky. What's the lifting capacity of the Russian's largest rocket? You missed this one. Sorry I don't really know. There are two or more Russian programs, all semiprivate now, the numbers change regularly and I'm not up to date. Energia is retired. The medium sized craft are their strenght. [snip] How many satellites are already in Mars orbit, and is there any [snip] There's at least three and one on the way but there are incompatibilities and other problems in the current constellation. Doesn't sound like a lot of forward thinking went into that little lot. Yep and they prang half the stuff they send into the planet or in on case the moon. Mars Net is store and forward email, much bigger data streams and the sats can talk to each other in the same language so you can send 'live' video. If you have a constant real time link, then you don't need store and forward capability, just a transfer capability. The storage capability can exist on the main orbital vessel. It's a back up option. It means that if all but one breaks down then you've still got comms. Also their clocks are optimized for limited gps type navigation. Not so critical. Inertial navigation is currently pretty advanced, so there is no real need for anyone to get lost. True for a rover but a good system for a man on foot with limited life support is required. [snip] BTW I don't think the Hafnium reactor is for real. You think it was a misinformation program
Re: Podkletnov's Disks
RC Macaulay wrote: Wes and Fred, Force field reaction may be closer to describing the event. Yep but what lies at the heart of and defines the field, if not zpe then it must be something very new. Generally when we get a directional beam we get a flow of something. Photons, electrons, etc. Is it impossible to think in terms of a beam of zpe. Can I send pictures to vortex or do they get blocked or deleted? I have a crude jpeg diagram. Richard
Re: A low cost alternative to the space elevator
Hey folks, there is another site that may relate to this debate see: J. Slough Louis Giersch http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/PlasmaMag/ They are thinking a drive in the vacuum of space but it could be bagged to operate in the atmosphere. Mark If the fields so big it will have real or imaginary environmental effect to deal with. Indiced effects in matter near the launch site. By imaginary I mean screeming greenies at the launch site. I have a degree in the relevant fields, sustainable development and human ecology [ a very green degree you might say] if I can help check about environmental effects email me. Jed Rothwell wrote: Mark Goldes wrote: Geomagnetic propulsion is based on the use of the earth's magnetic field as a force field analogous to the stator of an electric motor. I understand that. You might compare it to a linear motor railroad. In effect, it is as through the small artificial field source expands itself into a huge magnetic balloon, because of the low density of the earth's magnetic field. Instead of using a physical plate you are making a huge virtual magnetic plate. How huge? It would have to hundreds of square kilometers, wouldn't it? How much energy does it take to make such a gigantic field? Cohering the seemingly insignificant forces that act upon every point on the surface of the balloon, yields a considerable resultant force. The forces that act on the balloon appear to be orders of magnitude stronger than those you propose to harness. Helium balloons can be very small, and I have made functional toy hot air balloons around 2 m tall, out of paper. What is the smallest magnetic field you can harness to launch a toy lifter of this design? You (or the inventor) would have a great deal more credibility if you can demonstrate the principle in a toy. - Jed
OT: Addicted to Logic
Logic and problem-solving abilities are perhaps the two most impotant natural or raw mental traits we are born with, yet do we ever really take the time to try to improve them? Were it not for that bit of enticing logic itself, as stated above, I never would have gotten addicted. All I needed was on more intrusion into a busy schedule ;-) Now I am hooked. Yup, addicted to improving the capacity for logic, under the guise of a game. The game is called Sudoku and is very popular in Japan, and becomming a craze in the West. Like baseball, its popularity there belies it being an Ameican invention, but no matter who takes claim, it is definitely addictive. Sudoku puzzles are a simple 9x9 grid, with some numerical hints pre-placed, and range in difficulty from gentle to diabolical. While it is asserted that each sudoku can be solved by logic alone, I am not fully convinced, having yet to solve the ones at the end (where of course I started, before realizing the better part of valor should prevail). I reccommend Will Shortz's introductory book, but - do yourself a favor and start at the first. The rules are trivial to learn, and no math ability is required, just patience and logic. The opening pages are a fairly complete set of strategems for solving the most difficult ones and guesswork is couter-productive (as you will quickly find out). The rules to Sudoku are trivial to learn, but the involvemnt quickly addicting (even on a football weekend). Will S., the acknowledged puzzle king, is becoming the regualr connection for millions of former couch-potatoes-turned-grid-junkies... and someone needs to rat him out to the Deptartment of Homeland Security. I'm sure this is an Al-Quedda plant to keep National attention diverted (or did Gilead/Halliburton play a role?). If you become addicted too, be aware that I am already considering starting a 12 step porgram - Sudohuholics Anonymous, even though I'v only been hooked for two days. Jones
OT - The politics of War
Title: Message Times change, technology improves yet the "Politics of War" are eternal..! 'Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. it works the same in any country.' --Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, andthe Luftwaffe Commander in Chief.
Re: ISS
In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Sun, 06 Nov 2005 22:36:36 +1100: Hi, [snip] If you could run a drive at one g continously Mars is 3 to 5 _days_ away but you'd need a hell of a bumper bar. How long would it take if you accelerated then decelerated? That is the time if you accelerated for half the time and decel for half the time. no coasting. Then why would you need a hell of a bumper bar? [snip] function as a staging post. Multiple shuttle trips between Mars and the orbiting station could be then be made using fuel manufactured on the surface. [snip] You don't need to resupply and crew swap a Mars net robot sat. That's not really what I was referring to anyway. The russian are concidering a base on phobos. Then they apparently see some value in the notion. The delta t equations make phobos easyer than the moon. You dont have to land you just dock woth the big rock. That said the Japs are trying to dick a rover/hopper with an asteroid and it's prooving tricky. May not be so difficult for a manned craft. No time lag in decision making. [snip] It's a back up option. It means that if all but one breaks down then you've still got comms. Ah, next time it comes around! :) Not so critical. Inertial navigation is currently pretty advanced, so there is no real need for anyone to get lost. True for a rover but a good system for a man on foot with limited life support is required. Anyone that walks so far that he is no longer in sight of his rover on another planet deserves whatever he gets. Mars is not like Earth, where one can be stopped by something as simple as a river. Rovers should be able to go anywhere a person can. The exception is climbing up mountains, or down into gorges, but a human in a space suit shouldn't be doing that either. That's what shuttles are for. IOW you fly there, you don't climb. Climbing on Mars will prove nearly always fatal. One rip in your suit, and you're a goner. [snip] I'll have two please but the odds of finding Ice and a lava cave in the same place is low. The jackpot would be ice in a lava cave. Judging by previous indications of water ice, it seems to be pretty wide spread in the polar region(s). The chances of finding a cave there as well, may be better than you think. A week spent in orbit first, would give plenty of opportunity to more closely examine previously identified potential sites, and make a final choice. Previously you mentioned a pebble bed reactor. What are you going to do about neutron shielding? (water?) If you used an ion drive, then human waste could be ionized and fed to the drive as reaction mass. That would mean that no separate reaction mass need be taken along, and the weight saved could be used for extra food and water for the crew. It would also mean that waste need not be recycled, which I'm sure the crew would prefer. Or don't the numbers add up? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
