>Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:22:12 -0500 >To:DotarSojat@aol.com >From:kgstar@most.fw.hac.com (Kelly Starks x7066 MS 10-39) Subject:Re: Re: Thanks, from Brian >Cc:T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl, kgstar@most.fw.hac.com, stevev@efn.org, jim@bogie2.bio.purdue.edu, zkulpa@zmitl.ippt.gov.pl, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu, rddesign@wolfenet.com, David@interworld.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, bmansur@oc.edu >At 5:26 PM 3/15/96, DotarSojat@aol.com wrote: >>Brian Mar 15, 1996 >>Your chosen field of biochemistry is certainly key to solving the life- support problems of long-term space flight. Unfortun- ately, until NASA has successfully accomplished a crewed Mars mission, I feel that attempting to define the technology re- quirements of long-term life- support systems for interstellar flight will be futile. We need real-world, empirical knowledge of the interactions between the crew and their environment and among the crew members. And before the Mars mission, I believe that the most significant step that NASA could take to lay the groundwork for that mission, both in addressing the life-support technological concerns and in stimulating public interest and support for a Mars mission, would be to do Biosphere II right. >We do have a couple decades of submarine experience. Not as long term as a Mars or interstellar flight, but far more successfull than Biosphere-II. ;) >Air and water recycling is probably not to much of a problem (and we found food was a non-issue), but I do worry about trace contamination. Decades in a sealed building could get toxic without some good decontamination equipment. >>If consideration of long-term life-support systems (as well as related human-factors provisions) for interstellar flight should be postponed until Mars experience is available, not so with propulsion systems for interstellar flight. A competent trans- Mars propulsion system can be assembled from today's state of the art (as I show in a 1993 IDA Paper "Entry Velocities at Mars and Earth for Short Transit Times"). A propulsion system for interstellar flight, however, is not only well beyond our current propulsion technology, but it stretches our projections of current physics to the breaking point. >I'ld be interested in your Mars paper. Perhaps you could publish it on the nearer term sections of the new LIT site? >Unfortunatly I tend to concur with you analysis of interstellar propulsion. Our ideas are possible within the relm of physics, but laughable within the world of the pragmatic. But we try to remain optimistic about coming up with something. >Kelly =========================================================== Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:30:57 -0500 From: David@interworld.com (David Levine) Organization: InterWorld (Really Cool Stuff Division) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Timothy van der Linden Cc: KellySt@aol.com, kgstar@most.fw.hac.com, stevev@efn.org, jim@bogie2.bio.purdue.edu, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu, rddesign@wolfenet.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, bmansur@oc.edu, DotarSojat@aol.com Subject: IPS This was posted recently on sci.space.tech. I had mentioned these guys back when we passed our one year anniversary. At the time their site was totally empty - no content at all. I checked recently and there was still no real content, and they're charging people for membership. Anyway, for what it's worth, here's what they posted.... (they've been getting some good press... always makes me feel depressed... you guys have been working so much for so long, and no one knows...) (BTW, Forward and Matloff are both in on this). ----------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Interstellar Propulsion Society Date: 17 Mar 1996 06:51:15 GMT From: jhujsak@cts.com (John Hujsak) Organization: CTS Network Services Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle, sci.space.tech, alt.starfleet.rpg, alt.startrek.creative, alt.startrek.klingon, aus.sf.star-trek, de.rec.sf.startrek, rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc Interstellar Propulsion Society Membership Division Announcement In 1963, Dr. William Pickering, then President of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, predicted that a hundred years hence humans will travel to other star systems at relativistic velocities. More than thirty years have passed since Dr. Pickering's affirmation and we are still far from achieving this lofty goal. Most of the progress to date has been made by a relatively small group of independent research scientists scattered around the world, working largely in isolation. The distances between stars are vast when compared to normal human scales of measure. Our nearest stellar neighbor worthy of exploration, Alpha Centauri, would take over 40 years to reach at a velocity of 10% of the speed of light. Significant breakthroughs in physics and technology are needed to reduce this transit time to the point where the human race can begin exploration of our neighboring stellar systems. The Interstellar Propulsion Society was founded as a non-profit organization with a single objective ... To accelerate scientific and engineering advancements in space propulsion leading to robotic and manned missions to other star systems at fractional light speeds, relativistic velocities, and beyond. The Society has no other agenda. Its sole purpose is to provide a medium for scientists and engineers around the world to join in collaborative research efforts that advance interstellar propulsion theory and technology. The recent emergence of the Internet, World Wide Web, digital library systems, collaborative work tools and other related technologies now provides the basis for constructing a worldwide research center in cyberspace. Their wide availability and low cost enable participation by research scientists with very modest means, located in distant corners of the world. The Interstellar Propulsion Society is now constructing this virtual research center. The Society is supporting collaborative research through a number of mechanisms: * An on-line digital research library for consolidating the results from past and ongoing research efforts * A quarterly newsletter for distribution to all members * A professional peer-review research journal * A World Wide Web based newsgroup for Society members at all levels * Participation in advanced propulsion studies with major centers such as NASA * Collaborative research tools and support services to facilitate distributed projects conducted by Society members * Society funded scientific research in high-risk, high-payoff areas The Society is structured for three basic levels of participation, a Professional class, a Patron class and a Corporate class. Professional membership is designed for those who wish to participate toward the Society's objectives through scientific and engineering contributions. Patron membership is open to the general public, a worldwide constituency that has a high interest in the challenge of interstellar travel and believes that one day it will happen. Corporate membership is reserved for industries and institutions that are interested in fostering the basic research that leads to the Society's objectives. The Interstellar Propulsion Society is currently represented by eleven different countries: - Argentina - Australia - Bahrain - Canada - Germany - Greece - Italy - Poland - Russia - United Kingdom - United States Within the next near we hope to double this number. The Interstellar Propulsion Society is now uniquely positioned to continue the momentum of research in advanced space propulsion. The realization of this depends on your participation. Please join us for a year of exciting research and activities. The Society Web site is located at: http://www.tyrian.com/IPS/ The site and all of its resources are open to the general public. Application forms for membership at all levels can be downloaded from the Society Web site. If you currently lack Web access you may email your request to: IPSmembership@tyrian.com or mail your request to: Interstellar Propulsion Society 12675 Danielson Court, Suite 414 Poway, CA 92064 USA Regards, Jonathan T. Hujsak President Interstellar Propulsion Society ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- IPS Organizational Structure Dr. Dana Andrews - Boeing Defense and Space Group Dr. James R. Arnold - University of California, San Diego Dr. Stanley Borowski - NASA Lewis Research Center Brice N. Cassenti - United technologies Research Center Dr. Anton M. Chernenko - Space Research Institute (IKI), Russia Dr. Robert L. Forward - Forward Unlimited Dr. Nathan J. Hoffman - Energy Technology Engineering Center Dr. Geoffrey Landis - Nyma Inc. Dr. Michael R. LaPointe - Horizon Technologies Development Group Dr. A.R. (Tony) Martin - AEA Technology, UK Professor Greg Matloff - NYU Dr. Franklin B. Mead, Jr. - Phillips Laboratory Marc Millis - NASA/Lewis Research Center Declan J. O'Donnell - Attorney at Law Dr. Gerald A. Smith - Pennsylvania State University Dr. Robert Zubrin - Martin Marietta Strategic Systems Jonathan T. Hujsak, President Douglas Tabor, Communications Dir. Robert W. Ryan, Secretary & CFO Dr. William P. Shine, Programs Dir. Burton S. Brockett, Art & Graphics Dir. Journal of the IPS: Editor in Chief: Marc Millis, NASA Lewis Research Center ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- -- David Levine Application Engineer InterWorld Technology Ventures, Inc. http://www.interworld.com/staff/david/ david@interworld.com ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:47:57 -0500 From: DotarSojat@aol.com To: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl, kgstar@most.fw.hac.com, stevev@efn.org, jim@bogie2.bio.purdue.edu, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu, rddesign@wolfenet.com, David@interworld.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, bmansur@oc.edu Subject: Re: Re: The future...etc. Kelly and some unidentified person he quotes on 3/17/96 at 11:02 am (I plan someday to be able to decipher your quotes) say that it is "frustrating being stuck in the 1990s while trying to design a ship whose technology is really at least 100 years beyond our reach." What would you think about modifying the purpose of the Project slightly? In a Reusable Launch Vehicle Study I ran 30 years ago (my, how time flies!), we had a purpose you might consider for this Project. The purpose was (paraphrased, because the Report is in my office 26 miles away, and I don't plan on going in there in the near future) (1) to make an internally consistent comparison of the different options, with conceptual design only in enough detail to allow rating them regarding feasibility and cost, and (2) to determine the advancements in technology in relation to current levels required to make them achievable. While that study mainly considered options consistent with a decision to develop the Space Shuttle only five years hence (which we didn't know at that time), it spent a lot of time examining the competitive standing and techno- logical requirements for scramjets (aka "the Aerospaceplane"), which may still be decades in the future today. Such a comparative study could be a guide to steer future efforts away from the losers, but mainly would provide the "mission push" to support advancement in the key technologies. Rex P.S. To David: While the Interstellar Propulsion Society may provide a forum to publish sophisticated technical papers, I view the LIT/SSD as a forum to stimulate and shape the minds of the emerging generation, who will be around to accomplish the goals. I would rather participate in stimulating enthus- iasm than in deferring to existing authority. It's a lot more rewarding to figure how it should be done than to con- tribute to extending the status quo. It's better to be part of an organization where what you say is more important than how you say it. I could go on and on... -Rex ============================================================= >Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 08:21:33 -0500 >To:DotarSojat@aol.com >From:kgstar@most.fw.hac.com (Kelly Starks x7066 MS 10-39) Subject:Re: Re: The future...etc. >Cc:T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl, kgstar@most.fw.hac.com, stevev@efn.org, jim@bogie2.bio.purdue.edu, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu, rddesign@wolfenet.com, David@interworld.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, bmansur@oc.edu >At 5:47 PM 3/18/96, DotarSojat@aol.com wrote: >>Kelly and some unidentified person he quotes on 3/17/96 at 11:02 am (I plan someday to be able to decipher your quotes) say that it is "frustrating being stuck in the 1990s while trying to design a ship whose technology is really at least 100 years beyond our reach." >>What would you think about modifying the purpose of the Project slightly? In a Reusable Launch Vehicle Study I ran 30 years ago (my, how time flies!), we had a purpose you might consider for this Project. The purpose was (paraphrased, because the Report is in my office 26 miles away, and I don't plan on going in there in the near future) (1) to make an internally consistent comparison of the different options, with conceptual design only in enough detail to allow rating them regarding feasibility and cost, and (2) to determine the advancements in technology in relation to current levels required to make them achievable. --- >Thats a couple of twisted sentences. Dave was interested in a space development section to complement the starship design section. Though launchers near term seem to have settled on the SSTO as bets choice, a comparison could be interesting. >Humm, but then that topic gets a lot of coverage already. >Oh, did I send you a copy of my fusion shuttle idea? I suppose the old Explorer page would covered it. >>--- While that study mainly considered options consistent with a decision to develop the Space Shuttle only five years hence (which we didn't know at that time), it spent a lot of time examining the competitive standing and techno- logical requirements for scramjets (aka "the Aerospaceplane"), which may still be decades in the future today. >Humm, I helped write a mission studies paper on NASP when I was at JSC. Had a few contacxts in the McDonnel Douglas NASP program until it started to fold up a few years back. >>Such a comparative study could be a guide to steer future efforts away from the losers, but mainly would provide the "mission push" to support advancement in the key technologies. >>Rex >>P.S. To David: While the Interstellar Propulsion Society may provide a forum to publish sophisticated technical papers, I view the LIT/SSD as a forum to stimulate and shape the minds of the emerging generation, who will be around to accomplish the goals. I would rather participate in stimulating enthus- iasm than in deferring to existing authority. It's a lot more rewarding to figure how it should be done than to con- tribute to extending the status quo. It's better to be part of an organization where what you say is more important than how you say it. I could go on and on... -Rex >IPS does seem like a refernce forum of papers (to be added later) rather than a discussion forum. That was one big advantage LITs newsletters gave it. The ability to participate hands on without a couple PhDs. >Kelly ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ X-Sender: kgstar@pophost.fw.hac.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:28:05 -0500 To: David@interworld.com, T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl, kgstar@most.fw.hac.com, stevev@efn.org, jim@bogie2.bio.purdue.edu, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu, rddesign@wolfenet.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, bmansur@oc.edu From: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com (Kelly Starks x7066 MS 10-39) Subject: LIT VS ISP THE NAME? Dave mentioned his anoyance over the lack of visibility of LIT in comparison to ISP before, and I commented that LIT may not be a good name/frount end. If you pop into the LIT home page and see Lunar Institute of Technology 2032 and all the rest. You might be forgiven in assuming it was a science fiction club or something. It hardly sounds like a serious attempt fourm for discussion of space or star flight. (Presentation is everything.) Possibly putting the starship design project under another home page (or its own home page), or renaming LIT to something more serious sounding might help get us some visibility as a serious forum. Certainly the starship design project seems to have most of the interest. Comments? Kelly ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Kelly Starks Internet: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com Sr. Systems Engineer Magnavox Electronic Systems Company (Magnavox URL: http://www.fw.hac.com/external.html) =============================================================== Subject: Re: Laser Aperture Size Cc: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com (Kelly Starks x7066 MS 10-39) Bcc: X-Attachments: At 9:26 PM 3/21/96, L. Parker wrote: >At 08:27 AM 3/18/96 -0500, you wrote: >>Ouch, if we could get down to .2-.3 I'ld figure we could do the rest by rocket. But if we're talking about that kind of time to get down to .3c it won't help much. >Sorry Kelly, but all of the ideas I've so far encountered don't give much hope of getting a sail powered ship much above .3c in a realistic amount of time. But, just to be fair, I haven't seen ANY ideas that can get a ship above .3c in a realistic amount of time. The sail system could get you up to higher speeds if you assume rediculas amount of power being supplied by the maser arrays. Then again I don't know how rediculas you'ld need to get to .3c eiather. ;) My Explorer class with its externalkly feed fussion rockets could certainly get itself up to .3 c and probably back down again, assuming less rediculas amounts of power, but a hell of a lot of fusion isotopes. >Perhaps by combining several approaches such as a combined sail/RAIR launch with a gravity assist for launch with similar sets of acrobatics for deceleration.... >But this scenario is dishearteningly complicated. >Lee Parker Well It doesn't have to be that complicated! Gravity assist is obviously of no use unless you find a black hole near by (To little power for our needs.) but you could say use a sail to boost the ship up to speed (.3c) here. Pull in the sail and store it for the cruse, then use fusion rockets to decel into the target system. To get back, refuel and boost out of the system using the rockets, and deploy the sail for deceleration into Sol. I do know what you mean about discouraging thou. It seems like were not going to be able to realisticly build a usable starship without some new tricks from physisits. The only adaquate power source now is anti-mater, but thats not really usable or practical. Perhaps a mater conversion system? So physisits are talking about possibility of rotating the quantum particals to convert a partical of mattar to anti-mater. If this could be done on demand the ships could have the power to weight ratio's of anti- matter without the danger of bulk anti-matter storage, or the current cost of antimatter production. Hey, if it could be done with off the shelf tech, people would be talking about building the things now. Kelly Oh, note for sail people. Those e7 to e15 kg sails. Given that steel is only about 7800 kg per cubic meter, steel sails would fold up into cubes of steel from 11 meters to 5 kilometer on a side. Just an FYI.