Flea-hops into space.

Until some nuclear-powered system of propulsion which does not involve mass
ejection is invented, then Man is limited to making the occasional flea-hop
into space at great risk to the crew.

Does SOTA nuclear physics hold out any hope for another force which might be
exploited other than simple reaction or reaction against the Earths magnetic
field?


Eric Fenby.

"Eric Fenby" writes:

Does SOTA nuclear physics hold out any hope for another force which might
be exploited other than simple reaction or reaction against the Earths
magnetic field?

No. =ALL= of the forces in physics satisfy Conservation of Linear Momentum,
which is the physical basis for Newton's Third Law of Action And Reaction.


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

"Gordon D. Pusch" wrote in message
...
"Eric Fenby" writes:

Does SOTA nuclear physics hold out any hope for another force which
might
be exploited other than simple reaction or reaction against the Earths
magnetic field?

No. =ALL= of the forces in physics satisfy Conservation of Linear
Momentum,
which is the physical basis for Newton's Third Law of Action And Reaction.


-- Gordon D. Pusch

So all those programmes which postulate some sort of interstellar travel in
the far distant future are pure fantasy. The proposed (?) project to send
manned missions to Mars has much more in common with sending someone over
Niagara Falls in a barrel than it has with Star Trek. It's all very
depressing and primitive. I had hoped that all that arcane data coming out
of places like CERN about "gluons" and particles with "upness" and "charm"
would have provided at least a glimmer of hope for some sort of new
principle which might be exploited. Oh dear. I'm really depressed now.

JHB.

"Jason Hovercraft-Bingley" writes:

"Gordon D. Pusch" wrote in message
...
"Eric Fenby" writes:

Does SOTA nuclear physics hold out any hope for another force which
might be exploited other than simple reaction or reaction against the
Earths magnetic field?

No. =ALL= of the forces in physics satisfy Conservation of Linear
Momentum, which is the physical basis for Newton's Third Law of Action
And Reaction.

So all those programmes which postulate some sort of interstellar travel
in the far distant future are pure fantasy.

It's taken you _this_ long to figure out that escapist TV fantasies
like _Star Drek: Fill-In-The-Blank (tm)_ are almost entirely composed
of bovine byproduct, without the _slightest_ shred of truth or scientific
accuracy whatsoever ?!


I had hoped that all that arcane data coming out of places like CERN
about "gluons" and particles with "upness" and "charm" would have
provided at least a glimmer of hope for some sort of new principle which
might be exploited.

All that stuff is basically what Lord Kelvin snidely referred to as
"Stamp Collecting." There have been no _truly_ new and fundamental
discoveries in physics in nearly two decades, at this point; every
high-energy experiment we do simply confirms the "Standard Model"
to another decimal place.


Ironically, nowadays all the _real_ action is in biology --- the very field
Lord Kelvin snidely was comparing to "Stamp Collecting"...


Oh dear. I'm really depressed now.

Sorry to disappoint you, but reality is a harsh and uncharitable overlord.
Learn to deal with it.


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

"Mike Miller" wrote in message
m...
"Eric Fenby" wrote in message
...
Until some nuclear-powered system of propulsion which does not involve
mass
ejection is invented, then Man is limited to making the occasional
flea-hop
into space at great risk to the crew.

I disagree. Some very sizable chemical rockets have been proposed,
like Bono's ROMBUS. 500 tons to orbit adds up.

Further, nuclear reaction engines (nuclear solid core rockets, frex)
seem to offer useful increases in launch capacity.


I think he's talking about reactionless propulsion systems, dude.

Does SOTA nuclear physics hold out any hope for another force which
might be
exploited other than simple reaction or reaction against the Earths
magnetic
field?

How about a space elevator? Take a cable car to orbit.

Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Neat idea, but, IIRC, really, really tough to do with current technology. I
mean, how high up does your space elevator need to go, and how much mass in
materials would that take?

--Jason (aka "Gio" on the classic btech boards ^_^)

"Jason Donahue" wrote in message ...
"Mike Miller" wrote in message
m...
"Eric Fenby" wrote in message
...
Until some nuclear-powered system of propulsion which does not involve
mass
ejection is invented, then Man is limited to making the occasional
flea-hop
into space at great risk to the crew.

I disagree. Some very sizable chemical rockets have been proposed,
like Bono's ROMBUS. 500 tons to orbit adds up.

Further, nuclear reaction engines (nuclear solid core rockets, frex)
seem to offer useful increases in launch capacity.


I think he's talking about reactionless propulsion systems, dude.

Does SOTA nuclear physics hold out any hope for another force which
might be
exploited other than simple reaction or reaction against the Earths
magnetic
field?

How about a space elevator? Take a cable car to orbit.

Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Neat idea, but, IIRC, really, really tough to do with current technology. I
mean, how high up does your space elevator need to go, and how much mass in
materials would that take?

--Jason (aka "Gio" on the classic btech boards ^_^)

Your answers are here .. http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/contents.html

Summary, not so tough to do with current technology.

~er

"Jason Donahue" wrote in message ...
"Mike Miller" wrote in message
m...

How about a space elevator? Take a cable car to orbit.

Neat idea, but, IIRC, really, really tough to do with current technology. I
mean, how high up does your space elevator need to go, and how much mass in
materials would that take?

It's less an issue of "how high up" than "how far down from
geosynchronous orbit." An orbital elevator is a structure in geosynch
orbit.

Materials mass is probably in the megatons or more, especially if you
include the anchor asteroid that helps keep the elevator under
tension.

But you probably need to get less stuff into orbit to move an asteroid
than you do to build an elevator, and you avoid the bother of repeated
launches with nuclear rockets or inventing new kinds of reactionless
physics.

Mike Miller, MatE

"Mike Miller" wrote in message
om...
"Jason Donahue" wrote in
message ...
"Mike Miller" wrote in message
m...

How about a space elevator? Take a cable car to orbit.

Neat idea, but, IIRC, really, really tough to do with current
technology. I
mean, how high up does your space elevator need to go, and how much mass
in
materials would that take?

It's less an issue of "how high up" than "how far down from
geosynchronous orbit." An orbital elevator is a structure in geosynch
orbit.

Materials mass is probably in the megatons or more, especially if you
include the anchor asteroid that helps keep the elevator under
tension.

But you probably need to get less stuff into orbit to move an asteroid
than you do to build an elevator, and you avoid the bother of repeated
launches with nuclear rockets or inventing new kinds of reactionless
physics.

Mike Miller, MatE

No good. By the time we are clever enough to build a space elevator NEO will
be full of junk and bits of builders rubble. Impacts with the structure
would be only a matter of time. Any such impact would at a stroke treble the
amount of junk in that particular orbit then every subsequent orbit would be
a destructive hailstorm of shrapnel. If the elevator ever broke up then NEO
would be unuseable because of the scrap metal/matrix material and miles of
the said scrap metal would fall across several different nation's
territories. It's increasingly worrying for the Shuttle (which already
orbits with it's engines forward) and NEO must be cleaned up before we can
even plan more extensive use of it.
For these reasons and others I don't think an elevator will ever be built.
I want a starship, or at the very least a nuclear-powered platform capable
of scooting about the solar system and which is powered by some sort of
drive which does not depend on mass ejection. Perhaps we should put manned
space exploration away for fifty years while we learn how to walk.
In the meantime robots are just great and getting greater.

(Mike Miller) wrote in message . com...
"Jason Donahue" wrote in message ...
"Mike Miller" wrote in message
m...

How about a space elevator? Take a cable car to orbit.

Neat idea, but, IIRC, really, really tough to do with current technology. I
mean, how high up does your space elevator need to go, and how much mass in
materials would that take?

It's less an issue of "how high up" than "how far down from
geosynchronous orbit." An orbital elevator is a structure in geosynch
orbit.

Materials mass is probably in the megatons or more, especially if you
include the anchor asteroid that helps keep the elevator under
tension.

But you probably need to get less stuff into orbit to move an asteroid
than you do to build an elevator, and you avoid the bother of repeated
launches with nuclear rockets or inventing new kinds of reactionless
physics.

Mike Miller, MatE

It should be pointed out, that if you don't want or can't _get_ an
asteroid for couter-balance, you can extend the ribbon out (way out)
past GEO for the same effect. Extending the ribbon gets you a
sling-shot that can be used to launch 'stuff' to the rest of the
system - care packages for the Mars outpost, perhaps, or supplies.

ER