===========================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:37:04 -0400
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, KellySt@aol.com,
zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu,
rddesign@wolfenet.com, David@interworld.com,
lparker@destin.gulfnet.com
Subject: Re: new web site/status report

On 4/10/96 at 10:35 am EDT, Kevin wrote- 

>(At 1G continuous thrust)...Even the antimatter rockets can't get up to .99
lightspeed with a mass ratio of 52. 

Two points--

1. With the saturation of apparent velocity, the implications of .99
lightspeed are obscured. A peak apparent velocity of 0.99 ltyr/yr
represents a peak proper velocity of 7.0179 ltyr/yr and an acceleration
distance (at 1g) of 5.90 ltyr. (I.e., a destination distance of 11.8 ltyr with
1g deceleration, also. BTW, my astronomy book gives the distance to tau
Ceti as 10.3+/-0.3 ltyr.) What mass ratio does MARS require to decel-
erate at 1g from this peak velocity? (I think that's the 52, from Timothy's
3/30 table, that you're quoting, which is for 100 percent conversion of
captured microwave energy to exhaust kinetic energy.)

2. An optimum antimatter rocket with a peak proper velocity Uend of
7.0179 ltyr/yr has an optimum constant exhaust velocity Vexh of 0.8851.
The required mass ratio (r = exp[asinh(Uend)/Vexh]) is 19.89. (These
calculations assume no energy losses, but also assume no gain from
optimizing the exhaust-velocity profile.) 

Regards, Rex


===========================================================
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 19:00:42 +0200
From: zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl (Zenon Kulpa)
To: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com
Subject: Re: new web site/status report
Cc: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl, stevev@efn.org, 
jim@bogie2.bio.purdue.edu, KellySt@aol.com,
hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu, rddesign@wolfenet.com,
David@interworld.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, DotarSojat@aol.com 

>From kgstar@most.fw.hac.com Wed Apr 10 23:06:10 1996 

>P.S.S.
>By the way, I was wounderin. DID ANYONE LOOK AT THE NEW WEB
PAGES!!?? the ones under Explorer_Class, Status_Report, and
Support_Craft at Daves 

>http://165.254.130.90/LIT/InterStellar/project 

>Theres 50 - 60 pages of stuff up there so I expected some comment from
somebody. SOMEONE COULD AT LEAST LOOK AT THE PICTURES! 

Kelly, feel relieved ;-)
I have had currently no time to take active part in the discussions, even
my reading of the stuff rarely achieves the 10% mark... But seeing the
above cry for attention, I did make a peep... 

The contents seems quite impressive, though the form not so much (e.g., I
can't figure what some huge photos really portray, and why?). 

I would have lots of comments and remarks, and some probably quite
agitated -
do you remember our quarrels, Kelly? :-( However, no time now.
Be prepared, though - you do not know the day... ;-)) 

Regards,

-- Zenon KulpaX-Sender: S9421793@mail.student.utwente.nl
Mime-Version: 1.0



===========================================================
>Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 16:58:01 -0500
>To:T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)
From:kgstar@most.fw.hac.com (Kelly Starks x7066 MS 10-39) Subject:Re:
new web site/status report
>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,
David@InterWorld.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, DotarSojat@aol.com 

>At 11:19 PM 4/12/96, Timothy van der Linden wrote: 
>>To Kelly,
>>Thank you for looking at my page and giving several suggestions. 

>No problem.

>>>How on earth do you pronounce "Yrev Tsaf"? Does that mean anything
special? 

>>Try reading it backwards :-)

>Oh, hell! I thought it was someone out of Dutch mythology or something. 

>>>The fine print with purple charcters is a little hard to read but not a
big problem.

>>I'll make them a bit darker.

>Also might try using a dark red, blue, or green. Since those are the
monitors primary colors, they would focus clearer. 

>>>Some of the tables would be more helpfull if related to a physcal thing.
For example where you list fusion energy to specific impluse. Fusion
energy is listed in what I think are mass conversion ratios. (100, 200,
300, etc.) Which would be more help full if you had a table showing what
fusion reactions generate those amounts. Or more clearly explained the
table.

>>OK, I will add these, if I'm right these are at your page. 

>>>This is a big issue to me, since I'm trying to consider things from an
engineer point. So I usually need exaust velocity/specific impulse, or
power in watts per kilo/pound of fuel, or something. 

>>In the formulas for the power the factor M0 is used. Deviding by that
will give you power per kilo. In 2 tables the P[t]/M0 is shown. 

>True, but only if you know what the MO is for a given fuel (De, Li6, He3,
p+11B, whatever) 


>>>Mentioning which units your using in the equations would be a big help
too (kilos, gram, mols - watts, ergs, Joules, etc.) 

>>I had never thought of that, I always use SI units, but I will add a note
and use units at some places.

>Yeah you physics types never remember to write in the units. ;) Given that
every disapline and sub topic seem to use difernt measurments, it can
cause confusion. 

>>>Some parts I couldn't follow. For example. 

>>>===========================================================
Results of the calculations:

>>>Mass at time t
>>>: ( 8.1) ( 8.2)
>>>Power needed at time t
>>>: (14.1) (14.2)
>>>Total Energy needed
>>>: (12.1) (12.2)


>>>Use (xx.1) when condition (3.3) is true, otherwise use (xx.2)
=============================================================== 

>>>I have no idea what your saying here. In general I had a hard time
following the arangement of the equations and the numbering scheme. 

>>Hmm, I don't understand what isn't clear. The numbers between round
braces refer to an equation. That most formulas come in pairs (xx.1 and
xx.2) is because of condition (3.3). This condition exists because I dump
mass that isn't used (This is often the case with fusion-fuels). 

>>Indeed the numbering of (3) (3.0) (3.1) (3.2) (3.3) is less clear, I will see
what I can do about that. (The reason for that unhandy numbering was
because I added thing later and didn't want to change all numbering)
Further there are three groups of formulas, common formulas (x),
formulas that look like (xx.1) and formulas that look like (xx.2). The (xx.1)
use (3.1) and the (xx.2) use (3.2).

>>>I couldn't fiqure out how to work back to the equations. Possibly going
through the use of the equations a step at a time or something, might help. 

>>I do not understand where you have troubles with, I tried to make the
steps involved very small. Indeed sometimes the rewriting of a formula
may give a completly new look, but adding extra steps there would make
things look more complicated than they are.
>>What would you suggest (and where).
>>(I'm not sure if I understood your question correctly, if not could you
please restate it?)

>>>I tend to get lost in the equation section. Which can be frustrating
since it seems to be covering info I want to get. 

>>I referred to the few formulas you should need in the part: "Results of
the calculations:"

>>Mass at time t	: formulas (11.1) and (11.2)
>>Power needed at time t : formulas (17.1) and (17.2) Total Energy needed :
formulas (15.1) and (15.2) 

>>If you still don't see what you are looking for, please ask me again. 


>>Timothy

>Ok, I have to go but I'll try to check it next week. 

>Kelly



===============================================================


Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 23:19:57 +0100
To: 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,
David@InterWorld.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, DotarSojat@aol.com
From: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)
Subject: Kelly's page

Hi Kelly,

Well it is my turn, your pages are a bit more extensive, so I may not have
covered everything.

There are a lot of small esthetical flaws, here an extensive survey. (Sorry,
once I started, I couldn't stop).


Several pages end abrupt, adding a horizontal bar or something like that
may keep on from wondering if the document is incomplete. 

Several images (at the explorer page) have a blue-rectangle around them
(a link), I wonder if that is necessary. (Maybe for old browsers, I really
don't know) They suggest that clicking on them will reveal more
information. 

You use a lot of <PRE>formatted-areas, they have the habit to be longer
than the initial width of the window. Maybe decreasing the font
(<FONT=-1>a bit or breaking the lines more often will keep one from
needing to scroll aside. 

Your explorer class page has several chapters, you may want to add a table
of contents at the top of the document with links to the top every part. 

The Explorer_Hab_Ring.JPG in crewquarters isn't the right size. 

While most images have a white background the documents have the
original grey background. Your original explorer class page did have a
white one. Another suggestion would be to make the images transparent 

Several tables are over the total width of the window, it doesn't look nice.
Try removing the "WIDTH=100%" part in the TABLE. 

The tables in the food-number document are all in PREformatted text, this
makes the tables unnecessary large.

Some tables will look better if they the rows are centered <TR
ALIGN=CENTER> 

The "Overview of all concepts" link in the Explorer class document isn't a
relative but an absolute link.

The "Explorer class starship design" link in Stardrives refers to the
directory instead of the document (works though). 

The "Bussards Fusion reactor" in Stardrives doesn't work (can't find the
page). 

The "internally fueled fusion rockets " in External_fueled is not complete
"\stardrives" instead of "\stardrives.html" 

I'm not 100% but the "Vacuum landers" & "Aero landers" link in Manifest
referring to "..\Support_Craft" do not work. 

The "Shuttle craft" link refers to the directory instead of the document
(but works also).

Next letter I'll comment about the content, but most seems OK. 

Timothy
X-Sender: S9421793@mail.student.utwente.nl Mime-Version: 1.0


==============================================================
>Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 16:36:39 -0500
>To:T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)
From:kgstar@most.fw.hac.com (Kelly Starks x7066 MS 10-39) Subject:Re:
Kelly's page
>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,
David@InterWorld.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, DotarSojat@aol.com 

>At 11:19 PM 4/12/96, Timothy van der Linden wrote: 
>>Hi Kelly,

>>Well it is my turn, your pages are a bit more extensive, so I may not
have covered everything.

>>There are a lot of small esthetical flaws, here an extensive survey.
(Sorry, once I started, I couldn't stop).


>>Several pages end abrupt, adding a horizontal bar or something like that
may keep on from wondering if the document is incomplete. 

>>Several images (at the explorer page) have a blue-rectangle around them
(a link), I wonder if that is necessary. (Maybe for old browsers, I really
don't know) They suggest that clicking on them will reveal more
information. 

>>You use a lot of <PRE>formatted-areas, they have the habit to be longer
than the initial width of the window. Maybe decreasing the font (<FONT=-
1>a bit or breaking the lines more often will keep one from needing to
scroll aside. 

>>Your explorer class page has several chapters, you may want to add a
table of contents at the top of the document with links to the top every
part. 

>>The Explorer_Hab_Ring.JPG in crewquarters isn't the right size. 

>>While most images have a white background the documents have the
original grey background. Your original explorer class page did have a
white one. Another suggestion would be to make the images transparent 

>>Several tables are over the total width of the window, it doesn't look
nice. Try removing the "WIDTH=100%" part in the TABLE. 

>>The tables in the food-number document are all in PREformatted text,
this makes the tables unnecessary large.

>>Some tables will look better if they the rows are centered <TR
ALIGN=CENTER> 

>>The "Overview of all concepts" link in the Explorer class document isn't
a relative but an absolute link.

>>The "Explorer class starship design" link in Stardrives refers to the
directory instead of the document (works though). 

>>The "Bussards Fusion reactor" in Stardrives doesn't work (can't find the
page). 

>>The "internally fueled fusion rockets " in External_fueled is not
complete "\stardrives" instead of "\stardrives.html" 

>>I'm not 100% but the "Vacuum landers" & "Aero landers" link in Manifest
referring to "..\Support_Craft" do not work. 

>>The "Shuttle craft" link refers to the directory instead of the document
(but works also).

>>Next letter I'll comment about the content, but most seems OK. 

>>Timothy


>Thanks for the input! I'll fix it asap. 

>Kelly


===========================================================
>Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:15:13 -0500
>To:T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)
From:kgstar@most.fw.hac.com (Kelly Starks x7066 MS 10-39) Subject:Re:
Space Navy ideas from '50's
>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,
David@InterWorld.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, DotarSojat@aol.com 

>At 3:21 PM 4/12/96, Timothy van der Linden wrote: 
>>>The DSBF program would do more
>>>than insure the US an unassailable nuclear retailatory force; it would
open up the Solar System for colonization, much as the sailing ships of old
fulfilled both a military and exploratory function. I think I've considered
most of the major issues of such a force above; now, let's discuss it in
detail.

>>I this light (or should I say darkness) developing a huge maser beam by
the army would not be such a bad idea. I assume that possible enemies
would launch similar deepspace missiles and that means we want a
weapon against that again. What would be better then a huge beam? (huge
because the aiming would be difficult).

>>Timothy

>Huge enough for our uses would probably nnot be nessisary for them, and
certainly they wouldn't loan one to us for a decade or two. ;) 

>Oh, how much problem is it to get multiple lasers masers phase locked so
they will work in parralel. I.E. 10 million little lasers in a grid. 

>Kelly



===========================================================



===========================================================
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 23:19:47 +0100
To: 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,
David@InterWorld.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, DotarSojat@aol.com
From: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)
Subject: Re: new web site/status report

To Kelly,

>>Yes, that's about the case (25.35% to be more exact) 

>5 times the ships mass in Anti matter and 15 times in matter. Err. 

Or 1.1E13 times the ship mass when you use the best fusion-material you
can get. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Thank you for looking at my page and giving several suggestions. 

>How on earth do you pronounce "Yrev Tsaf"? Does that mean anything
special? 

Try reading it backwards :-)

How you pronounce it, that is hard for me, maybe "I_ref ts_af" (I tried
splitting it up in more familiar parts). 

>The fine print with purple charcters is a little hard to read but not a big
problem.

I'll make them a bit darker.

>Some of the tables would be more helpfull if related to a physcal thing.
For example where you list fusion energy to specific impluse. Fusion
energy is listed in what I think are mass conversion ratios. (100, 200,
300, etc.) Which would be more help full if you had a table showing what
fusion reactions generate those amounts. Or more clearly explained the
table.

OK, I will add these, if I'm right these are at your page. 

>This is a big issue to me, since I'm trying to consider things from an
engineer point. So I usually need exaust velocity/specific impulse, or
power in watts per kilo/pound of fuel, or something. 

In the formulas for the power the factor M0 is used. Deviding by that will
give you power per kilo. In 2 tables the P[t]/M0 is shown. 

>Mentioning which units your using in the equations would be a big help
too (kilos, gram, mols - watts, ergs, Joules, etc.) 

I had never thought of that, I always use SI units, but I will add a note and
use units at some places.

>Some parts I couldn't follow. For example. 

>===========================================================
Results of the calculations:

>Mass at time t
>: ( 8.1) ( 8.2)
>Power needed at time t
>: (14.1) (14.2)
>Total Energy needed
>: (12.1) (12.2)


>Use (xx.1) when condition (3.3) is true, otherwise use (xx.2)
=============================================================== 

>I have no idea what your saying here. In general I had a hard time
following the arangement of the equations and the numbering scheme. 

Hmm, I don't understand what isn't clear. The numbers between round
braces refer to an equation. That most formulas come in pairs (xx.1 and
xx.2) is because of condition (3.3). This condition exists because I dump
mass that isn't used (This is often the case with fusion-fuels). 

Indeed the numbering of (3) (3.0) (3.1) (3.2) (3.3) is less clear, I will see
what I can do about that. (The reason for that unhandy numbering was
because I added thing later and didn't want to change all numbering)
Further there are three groups of formulas, common formulas (x),
formulas that look like (xx.1) and formulas that look like (xx.2). The (xx.1)
use (3.1) and the (xx.2) use (3.2).

>I couldn't fiqure out how to work back to the equations. Possibly going
through the use of the equations a step at a time or something, might help. 

I do not understand where you have troubles with, I tried to make the
steps involved very small. Indeed sometimes the rewriting of a formula
may give a completly new look, but adding extra steps there would make
things look more complicated than they are.
What would you suggest (and where).
(I'm not sure if I understood your question correctly, if not could you
please restate it?)

>I tend to get lost in the equation section. Which can be frustrating since
it seems to be covering info I want to get. 

I referred to the few formulas you should need in the part: "Results of the
calculations:"

Mass at time t	: formulas (11.1) and (11.2)
Power needed at time t : formulas (17.1) and (17.2) Total Energy needed :
formulas (15.1) and (15.2) 

If you still don't see what you are looking for, please ask me again. 


Timothy

X-Sender: S9421793@mail.student.utwente.nl Mime-Version: 1.0