[meteorite-list] Speed-of-light question

[Chris Peterson]

> But since
> we are describing impossible fictional devices, there is no need to be
> constrained to those parameters.  Along with the fictional 
> steady-accelleration
> engine, you could toss in inertial dampera and allow for a much heavier
> accelleration at the start and end points, with a engines-off crusing 
> period in
> between, which may burn much less unobtanium than steady accelleration.

Engines capable of steady acceleration are not impossible or fictional. They 
are real and already in use. It is a mere <g> engineering problem to produce 
one that can operate long enough to reach another star.

On the other hand, inertial dampers (as I assume you mean the term) are 
fictional and very likely impossible.

An unmanned probe could tolerate higher accelerations, and therefore reach 
its destination much closer to the theoretical minimum in our time frame- 
those of us waiting behind for it to get there and start sending information 
back. That is, just under the light time to get there, and exactly the light 
time for the data to arrive back at Earth.

Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Darren Garrison" <cynapse at charter.net>
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Speed-of-light question


> Not to be petty, but I beat Doug by at least half an hour.  :-)  The time 
> stamp
> on my e-mail is screw up is all (because of my time zone settings in XP. 
> Unless
> you concider using a web calculator to be cheating...
>
> But the numbers given by Doug's math, your math, and my cheating are only 
> one
> possible answer out of many.  All assume a steady constant accelleration 
> to the
> midpoint, followed by a steady constant decelleration (which is really 
> just an
> accelleration pointed in the opposite direction) to the destination.  But 
> since
> we are describing impossible fictional devices, there is no need to be
> constrained to those parameters.  Along with the fictional 
> steady-accelleration
> engine, you could toss in inertial dampera and allow for a much heavier
> accelleration at the start and end points, with a engines-off crusing 
> period in
> between, which may burn much less unobtanium than steady accelleration. 
> Say you
> have an Orion style spacecraft and a sufficient supply of antimatter 
> bombs, and
> the human crew can survive, within their inertial dampening cocoons, maybe
> 1,000g of accelleration (or make up your own figure.)  There would be any 
> number
> of accelleration rates and times, plus mid-flight cruises, that could give 
> you
> the number you want.
>
> Play with those numbers.  :-)