You are not logged in.
Well,
I think you don't get it , The orion drive was designed for interstellar voyages. We need to work on a complete method of human and cargo movements from earth to orbit, from orbit to moon, orbit to mars, moon to mars, and orbit to outer planets.
Most of the long haul voyages could be serviced by the orion drive and the nerva engine could be used for local space movement ( earth - moon space including the L points ). This would also provide a reduced cost base for resource movements within this region and improve the scalability for the space industry sector.
NERVA Engine could also provide the right conditions for large scale expansion in orbit , at L points and Lunar surface with large caro hauls possible with limited fuel requirements.
We could also develop a large space probe with an orion drive, large electric power , computer memory and scientific systems platform for a 30,000 + Au orbit around our solar system and relay information that they collect back to earthor through this interplanetary bases.
All these things are possible if, we move the right way with the technology, ship design, and implementation of technology throughout all space faring nations.
Offline
Measuring Isp in terms of seconds only makes sense if you believe that force and mass are measured by the same units. Otherwise it reduced to meters per second.
Read a physics book you moron. Isp has been measured in terms of seconds ever since the term was invented.
Do not be bamboozled by the huge 1,000MT figure, as huge as it is that kind of lifting power will not be useful for the real development of space. Development will never take place until we can build things in space, and it will never take place until we have reuseable medium launch capability
A popular figure for space industriastion is 10,000tons of investment placed in LEO. A heavy launch vehicle in the 100ton range might be better for this than a reusable medium vehicle; though a light/medium reusable vehicle would definately be neded in the long run.
Nope. The extreme mass of the railgun and its systems will be so large that no practical ship could be built that would get anywhere. To have a high practical Isp for a given system, you would require a very low thrust too.
This is why I got annoyed with you last time GCNR. You get apples and oranges confused, and then quote rules for oranges to explain why apples won't work. And then to top it all you make sweeping statements that an examination of space history proves incorrect.
1) It's not a rail gun. That's a completely seperate technology.
2) This is precisely the drive that NASA selected for its sample asteroid mining missions. It was in fact THE FIRST seriously considdered on-site resources utilisation system which you lot seem to hold in such high reguard, and remains the only one capable of accepting anything as reaction mass.
Yes it would probably be miles long, and yes it would probably have low thrust. However it is very efficient and involves no wear and tear and few moving parts, can be refueled relatively easily and doesn't bat an eye at fuel impurities. These advantages mean that for some long range missions, it is preferable to most other engine types.
ANTIcarrot.
Offline
"But for getting to places like saturn and back again a mass driver would probably be better because of the very high potential ISP and very high 'fuel' tollerances."
"Yes it would probably be miles long, and yes it would probably have low thrust. However it is very efficient and involves no wear and tear and few moving parts, can be refueled relatively easily... These advantages mean that for some long range missions, it is preferable to most other engine types."
Uhhh how best to say this:
"No"
Mass driver, railgun, whatever you want to call it... a device that uses electricity to directly impart momentum via magnetism or electrostatic forces to high-metal space rocks in order to effect propulsion over interplanetary distances/time scales/gravity fields... is a stupid idea for a ship. Now, I am making sure to re-read your post several times to make sure that you actually said that it would be both miles long and better then advanced fission engines. Are you trying to make a joke Anti?
Have you the slightly clue how heavy that would be?... A basic GCNR engine is theorized to weigh around 100MT, and a VCR/VASIMR engine in the region of ~200MT. Add another 50MT for an intermediate reactor and LH2 condenser for GCNR or ~10-20MT for VASIMR's condenser...
And then there is the bogus "no moving parts" claim... You have to get the rocks down to small bundles somehow. And how do you propose to do that? You have to have a method to cut, break, and smash the mostly metal space rocks down to small chunks. I would be very interested to know how you intend to do that without moving componets, either on the ship or on the mining/fueling asteroid base.
And you vastly, radically dismiss the importance of having at least some thrust if you intend to get anywhere in a reasonable time frame. Such a vehicle with really low thrust would eaisly take years and years to get anywhere with much payload, at which point your ship is so old that it isn't practical to reuse after a circut or two. For instance, an ion drive mission out to Neptune is theorized to take fifteen years or so to get there from Earth orbit... Its just useless for ships with reasonable travel times. And if you need to make a navigational correction? Well, your're hosed. Not to mention the crew might not want to spend years between destinations when they could have spent months, if you want to use it for manned uses.
A railgun has two possible uses:
1: To catapult bulk material from asteroids or the Moon for processing or transport in orbit.
2: To nudge asteroids or comets, where speed isn't a factor.
If it is not for one of these two applications, its useless because of the huge mass, low practical thrust, and the need for mining operations. Even if you need to push asteroids, you might as well just bring an Orion warhead magazine/launcher and use the asteroid itself as the pusher plate.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Read a physics book you moron. Isp has been measured in terms of seconds ever since the term was invented.
Isp is really measured in lb(force)*seconds/lb(mass). Some people then cancel the lb(force) and the lb(mass), despite the fact that they are not the same type of unit. If you reduce it correctly, you end up with a velocity. Many people actually do measure Isp in terms of velocity, especially when they are not particularly worried about Earth's gravity.
Offline
Euler, Specific Impulse is the time that 1kg of fuel will give 1kg of thrust in a given engine system in earth's gravity. As I said, read a physics book you stupid moron!
And apples and oranges again GCNR? Or is it that you just can't admit that in the slightest way, you might be wrong about something?
Firstly you stick that stupidity about engine mass up your backside and smile. We both know that has nothing to do with engine performance. You want to talk about length? Fine. I withdraw my statement that they have to be miles long. A prototype rail gun capable of accelerating a bullet to 5-10kmps is about 5m long. Electromagnets can be as powerful as you have power for them. The mass-driver would be as long as a piece of string.
it would be both miles long and better then advanced fission engines. Are you trying to make a joke Anti?
I don't know about you but I'd say that the Nimitz (that's the aircraft carrier) is both longer and better than a speed boat - even if it doesn't have a fraction of the acceleration. So again, your whole rant about mass and size is completely irrelevent. And given that the GCNR is fundimentally limited to an ISP of about 3000, and magnetic based drives have no upper limit...
So, um, no. I'm not joking.
And then there is the bogus "no moving parts" claim...
True. The feed system will have moving parts. And of course the buckets themselves will be moving at quite considderable velocities. The engine will however be frictionless and will consist of solid state eyetems, which tend to wear out much slower than high tempreature rocket engines, or ion engines.
Let's also remember that this thread was started about a rocket engine we can build. This statement does not apply to a gas core nuclear rocket.
And you vastly, radically dismiss the importance of having at least some thrust if you intend to get anywhere in a reasonable time frame.
And you forget that there are many real and theoretical missions where getting there tomorrow is not even remotely important. Any mission to the outerplanets is going to take years anyway, even with our technology. Even with tomorrows technology it will take years.
The Daedalus design study had an average acceleration of 0.1mps2. Would you similarly claim that a engine with such a low acceleration is similarly a waste of time?
Then again you seem to think that engine mass matters, and since you little GCNR engine weighs less than, I'm sure you think it is better!
ANTIcarrot.
Offline
Please, this would not be the first time that you have continued to push a stupid idea that is obviously nonsense and completly rediculous, yet you absolutely refused to budge when confronted with the facts time and time again.
*snorts* You are comparing the little tiny inch-wide metal bullets a military railgun would fire versus the size and mass of the buckets for an accelerator drive? And how much does this gun weigh? ...Last I checked, it would hardly fit in a warship turret.
You have to be either brain dead or intentionally avoiding the fact that your "engine" will be so fantastically huge and heavy, easily weighing a thousand or even several thousands of tonnes, that it will completly erase any supposed advantages it would possibly have. Higher engine mass will obliterate any possible advantages for the system.
If you seek to dial up the "exhaust" velocity to best the 100MT GCNR engine, it will in turn require far more energy to power the accelerator, which requires multiple megawatts to fling the occasional little bullet, which will nessesitate a bigger reactor. Bigger magnets/coils/wires. Bigger cooling systems. Heavier structural componets to support them, particualrly the drive coils since they are thrust-bearing, and so on... The excess mass of these items will easily counteract the bennefit of increased velocity at a practical thrust level. The mass of your engine ABSOLUTELY is important, that it cannot fling large enough "buckets" fast enough to make up for its increased mass.
No upper limit? It does not side-step the thermodynamics, that in order to achieve high propellant velocities, irrespective of what or how the propellant is pushed, you need a very large amount of energy in order to achieve both high specific impulse and reasonable thrusts. This "reasonable thrust" level IS all important relative to the engine's mass. If your thrust/weight ratio is nil, even if you have great Isp, you'll never even make it out of orbit from gravitational losses, drag, or solar pressure.
If your thrusts are not at least as high as those offerd by advanced ion engines in development today, then there is no mission for such a low-thrust system that would justify its development to push spacecraft. Your power plant and the bucket system would be so OLD by the time you got anywhere that they would not be functional! Much less shipping anything time sensitive.
And the need for an advanced superhigh power nuclear reactor to make it work which doesn't exsist any more then a GCNR engine does... which would be far, far lighter AND develop all its thrust in the space of minutes or hours and avoid all that time poking along waiting to accelerate, so even if it has a lower Isp it can still be much faster.
You might try this idea as a comedy act at aerospace & engineering conventions Anti, I think that would be right up your alley anyway.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Euler, Specific Impulse is the time that 1kg of fuel will give 1kg of thrust in a given engine system in earth's gravity. As I said, read a physics book you stupid moron!
Specific impulse is the amount of impulse produced per unit of fuel. Impulse is the time integral of thrust. Thrust is a type of force, so it is measured in Newtons(not kilograms). So impulse is measured in Newton seconds. Mass is measured in kilograms. That means that specific impulse has units of Newton seconds per kilogram. However, 1 Ns/kg= 1 (kg*m/s^2)s/kg= 1 m/s.
Electromagnets can be as powerful as you have power for them.
No, they can't. If you try to make an electromagnet that is too powerful, its own magnetism will rip it apart. Fortunately, the threshold at which the magnet would destroy itself is sufficiently high to make this sort of application practical.
magnetic based drives have no upper limit...
Again, mass drivers do have an upper limit in terms of Isp based on the energy density of their fuel (unless it is solar powered). The practical limits are also much lower than the absolute limits due to inefficiencies and the very low acceleration that a very high Isp system would have.
Then again you seem to think that engine mass matters, and since you little GCNR engine weighs less than, I'm sure you think it is better!
Engine mass does matter. There is little point in having an engine with a very high Isp if the engine mass far outweighs the reaction mass.
The Daedalus design study had an average acceleration of 0.1mps2. Would you similarly claim that a engine with such a low acceleration is similarly a waste of time?
Daedalus was a design for an interstellar probe whereas your design is supposed to be for traveling inside the solar system. Also, as a pure fusion rocket Daedalus can expect to be more efficient than any electric rocket, so if your rocket tried to get the same Isp as Daedalus you can expect it's acceleration to be even lower.
Offline
Rather than using a railgun to shoot rocks out the back of a ship as propellant, why not use a railgun to shoot the ship off towards Mars or some other destination? Such a railgun would have to be much larger than one on board a ship and would have much higher energy requirements, but since it would remain in orbit around Earth this would not be such a problem. The ship itself would have almost no engine or propellant mass. (Small thrusters would be useful in case any course adjustments had to be made, but mostly the ship would just be coasting after the initial acceleration and wouldn't be carrying any rockets, engines, or fuel tanks left over.)
If a space elevator were built, making a railgun such as this would only make sense. In order for the elevator to keep its center of mass in geosynchronous orbit, it would have to extend cables 36,000 kilometers away from Earth to counter those extending towards Earth. Attaching coils to these to make a railgun wouldn't be that much more work if you were already building the elevator, and I imagine that considerable velocities could be achieved with 36,000 kilometers to work with. A large power plant (solar arrays and/or a nuclear plant probably) would already be necessary to power the space station that would probably be built at the top of the elevator as well as possibly for the elevator itself. Realistically, though, such a project may well not be feasible for quite some time.
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun.
-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
by Douglas Adams
Offline
The big conceptual problem with that idea is that it would only work one way, and you would need an entirely different means of getting back to Earth for the next load.
Although 36,000km is a long way, you have to build up a large amount of velocity, and you have to do it against the full force of gravity from ground stop. If the railgun is pushing the ship up, then it will also pull down on the elevator. Since the elevator is just barely strong enough to hold its own weight and a few payload cars, this extra pull would snap a realistic cable.
Also, supporting, powering, and synchronizing the "rails" of the railgun will be very difficult, and they will also add enormous weight to the cable.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I don't think Orion drive are totaly useless for space travel, but the range of its application will certianly be limited.
First off, neither is going to be lifting people off of the planet. Railguns cannot practicaly do it. And while Orion might be able to, one must be realistic, the enviromentalist are never going to let it happen, end of story. I also tend to agree with GCN's assement that it would be economicaly impractical.
Even travel within our system is difficult. Orions push plate and shock absorption system are very massive and so assembly of such a vehicle is fairly difficult. Also if launching from Earth oribt, there may be EMP effects to consider as well. But for voyages to the outer system, it does have it's advantagtes, high thrust, high specific impulse, and a realitivly simple system.
But where an orion type system realy comes into it's own IMO is in moving asteriods. I'm not 100% convinced that moving the entire asteriod is more practical than just moving the end product. But if that is what you want to do then an orion type system is definelty the way to do it. Big NTR, Railguns, Ion Drives, ect are all far more complex and massive then an orion type system, and offer little advantage in terms of thrust and ISP. Indeed, you may be able to do without a pusher plate and shock absorption system at all using the asteriod itself for that role. In that case all you would have to deliver would be a well protected system for delivering the nuclear weapons. Perhaps you land a well armoured shack on one end of the asteriod and deploy the nuclear weapons via a small rocket/probe. In any case the system would be simple and effective.
But for interstellar travel I think Orion will probably be quite useless, it simply does not deliver enough ISP. And the number of nuclear weapons you would have to build would very large, there may not be enough nuclear material.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Offline
Austin Stanley,
I agree that the orion drive has limits but coupled with hyperspace travel through a jumpgate system would be useful.
Hyperspace travel happened on earth, mid 1940's by accident with an experiment with electromagnetic cloaking. We just need the research from those experiments and using today's technology could make it more stable and useful, then you have increased the range.
Of Course as our technology advances so does our understanding of space prpulsion and new forms are developed and replaced existing forms. But We need to expand into the solar systems and then up to 100 lights years from earth and then beyond. We need to have supply lines for colonization and also economic connections, communication connections and society connections including a political structure as well. Alot for the next 100 years or so.
Offline
Hyperspace drive. Um. Yeaaah... *cue X-Files music*
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Austin Stanley,
I agree that the orion drive has limits but coupled with hyperspace travel through a jumpgate system would be useful.
Hyperspace travel happened on earth, mid 1940's by accident with an experiment with electromagnetic cloaking. We just need the research from those experiments and using today's technology could make it more stable and useful, then you have increased the range.
Of Course as our technology advances so does our understanding of space prpulsion and new forms are developed and replaced existing forms. But We need to expand into the solar systems and then up to 100 lights years from earth and then beyond. We need to have supply lines for colonization and also economic connections, communication connections and society connections including a political structure as well. Alot for the next 100 years or so.
You been watching too much Star Trek or Star Gate science fiction shows. I like to watch them too, but I remind myself that this is only science fiction and not real life.
Drum Roll Please!
The so-called experiment that you are referring to was the Philadelphia experiment. Is was supposedly broken by some guy that later sold the rights to publish a book on that subject. That guy had questionable credentials and is a supposed known liar. At least that one of the story going around and there are many other stories going around too. As to what the truth is, I don't know and don't claim to know. What he say's he saw or claim that he saw or he claimed that other witnesses saw is open for debate. There is actually no such data on any such of an experiment that I know of and nor can it be validated. But from what I know, it probably did not happen, but it made a Great Movie though.
On this forum you need to keep a credible plan for going out into space. Now you may be more aggressive than other people on this forum or have much bigger plans, but they need to be credible plans for going into space or otherwise you will lose the interest of other poster on this forum.
That why I concentrate my efforts building a small colony on the Moon in a twenty to twenty five year time frame and build a city on Mars in forty to fifty year time frame. We can do it if we choose to do it, but it will be expensive to do it and we will have to make a national commitment to do it. But, it can be done with either technologies we have now or could develop over the next twenty or thirty years or so. We talk much past this or mining the asteroid or build donut shaped habitats that are a mile in diameter that we got from mining the asteroid belt for building city in space, then you may as well be talking to some science fiction forum or convention.
Any thing much more aggressive than this, is so far out there, that you don't have any credibility with any one that you might be posting to on this forum.
Larry,
Offline
Nobody in any credible scientific circle has come up with anything rational that could aproach or exceed the speed of light, not even the quacks at the Breakthrough Propulsion group (who are now unemployed).
At this point in time, there is no known means to cheat the inviolable laws of relativity to achieve "warp speed" or any practical means to reach large fractions of C with any type of propulsion.
The best ideas in the book right now are laser-pushed solar sails or an all-antimatter (and very low acceleration) drive, and they can hardly top 0.10-0.15C for a practical vehicle. A giant Orion might be competitive, but the ship would have to be immense. No other propulsion schemes come close.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Martian Republic,
I am taking about science fact, If you talked to people , decades earlier they would tell you that you are crazy, talking nonsense, some people today still believe we haven't been on the moon.
Scientists working on the origins of our universe have found many answers and more questions about the creation of the universe including quantum mechanics, a layer of subspace that our laws don't apply. Professor Hawkins has proven a multi-verse exists ( with many different universes with different properties each different to each other including our universe) Hyperspace has also be proven through science to exist, but yet our technology hasn't establish a method to access and use it.
And regarding Star Trek, we have cell phones ( mobile phones ), PDA / Handheld computers, Stick Memory Cards from star trek, some of the medical technology came from Science Fiction and more, Some look at the concepts not the story, because you can see how they accelerate faster that light and they are using physics, remember the laws of physics keep changing as our understanding increases.
The Orioin and other Nuclear Drvie technologies were developed in the late 1950's to early 1970's , but using the technology of today we could improve , enhance and increase the performance of those systems and control over those systems.
All I was saying the existing technology can be used to move around our solar system and we continue to develop faster and faster drive systems.
GCNRevenger,
It was science fiction that has show the science reality the way before the science reality has proven it works. Cold fusion was a myth , now fact. 200 years ago we didn't have cars or planes or electricity all not practical and now look at us, don't think we can't find that hyperspace does work and how to access it in the next 200 years.
Faith , openess to new ideas, and a drive to discover is the heart of a true pioneer and explorer.
Offline
You been watching too much Star Trek or Star Gate science fiction shows. I like to watch them too, but I remind myself that this is only science fiction and not real life.
Well, jump gats are from babalon 5 which is a pretty awesome science fiction show. My girlfriend bought me the movies for Christmas. I am very skeptical of claims of hyperspace and if it resembles anything like what is on science function but I am curious. What is the reference of the experiment.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Okay Tristar, there are a few problems with your statement:
-Steven Hawkins has NOT proven the multiverse theory, nor has "Hyperspace" been proven to be real. Your statement is factually untrue.
"And regarding Star Trek, we have cell phones ( mobile phones ), PDA / Handheld computers, Stick Memory Cards from star trek..."
-There is a fundimental difference between a Hyperspace/FTL drive and the kinds of things you are talking about. Nothing about the wonders of modern technology... computers, the Apollo missions, etc as "magical" and "impossible" as they seemed a century ago... None of them violated the laws of physics.
Let me reiterate that: none of them violate the laws of physics... "warp drive" does however.
And no, we cannot improve on nuclear drive systems indefinatly, because they have a fundimental physical limitation to the amount of energy that can be packed into a given mass of nuclear fuel. Once technology advances until most of this energy can be harnessed, there are no possible improvements. The best practical nuclear drive is probobly limted to around 0.03-0.04C inherintly because of the laws of physics, not because of how our technology uses this energy.
The concepts of "fairness" or the "pioneer spirit" or whatnot have no place in science, and as far as open mindedness goes, the scientific "threshold" is inherintly skeptical... and unless your theory can be backed by observation, then thats all it is, and you shouldn't be trying to build a rocket around an unproven theory.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
GCN Revenger,
You are " limited speed " person similar to " flat earth " person, that is what it sounds like from what your have typed. I am not, I have faith in our development and exploration skills as a race to unlock the abilities to move from earth to other star systems faster than light.
Lets get back to the real issue that is orion engine system could be used in the interim for solar system travel until we develop a better drive system. The answer is YES.
Offline
You are " limited speed " person similar to " flat earth " person, that is what it sounds like from what your have typed. I am not, I have faith in our development and exploration skills as a race to unlock the abilities to move from earth to other star systems faster than light.
Lets get back to the real issue that is orion engine system could be used in the interim for solar system travel until we develop a better drive system. The answer is YES.
And you are sounding like a dreamy psuedoscience "feelings not fact" person, whos opinions are "unclutterd" by hard evidence or the rationality of the scientific method.
All evidence points to 1.00C being a universal speed limit and an inviolable physical constant for all things with mass. There is nothing to "develop" nor "exploration skills" nor any other open route of human progress that will change this fact.
Until such time as there is observable, measurable, repeatable physical proof that there is a way to cheat the 1.00C speed limit for normal matter, then you have no business believing that it is possible. That is how science works.
About Orion...
Would Orion work? Probobly. Is Orion a good idea to explore the solar system? Probobly not. Is Orion good for pushing asteroids? Very likly. Is Orion good for general space travel otherwise? Almost certainly not.
-Large pusher-plate/shock absorber mass
-Hyper expensive "propellant"
-Limited world output of fissile material
-Vehicle performance versus GCNR/VASIMR questionable
-Extreme political sensitivity about safe & secure operation
-Not viable for ground launch despite capability
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Professor Hawkins has proven a multi-verse exists ( with many different universes with different properties each different to each other including our universe)
No, he hasn't.
Hyperspace has also be proven through science to exist, but yet our technology hasn't establish a method to access and use it.
No, it hasn't.
remember the laws of physics keep changing as our understanding increases.
People can't change the laws of physics.
It was science fiction that has show the science reality the way before the science reality has proven it works....200 years ago we didn't have cars or planes or electricity all not practical and now look at us, don't think we can't find that hyperspace does work and how to access it in the next 200 years.
There are also a lot of science fiction ideas that have proved to impossible or impractical.
Cold fusion was a myth , now fact.
Cold fusion is still a myth.
Faith , openess to new ideas, and a drive to discover is the heart of a true pioneer and explorer.
Openness to new ideas can be a good trait, but blind faith in ideas that have little/no evidence to support them is usually counterproductive.
You are " limited speed " person similar to " flat earth " person, that is what it sounds like from what your have typed.
I think that people who say they know how to create a vehicle that can exceed the speed of light are a lot more like "flat Earth" people then people who don't claim to know any way to violate relativity.
Offline
You been watching too much Star Trek or Star Gate science fiction shows. I like to watch them too, but I remind myself that this is only science fiction and not real life.
Well, jump gats are from babalon 5 which is a pretty awesome science fiction show. My girlfriend bought me the movies for Christmas. I am very skeptical of claims of hyperspace and if it resembles anything like what is on science function but I am curious. What is the reference of the experiment.
Here a few links and a google search at the end if you want to continue the search of the Philadelphia experiment. But, I’m not really interested in it, but if you are, this will get you started.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq21- … aq21-2.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq21- … aq21-1.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq29- … aq29-1.htm
http://www.google.com/search?client=fir … ...+Search
http://www.google.com/search?client=fir … ...+Search
Larry,
Offline
You are " limited speed " person similar to " flat earth " person, that is what it sounds like from what your have typed.
I think that people who say they know how to create a vehicle that can exceed the speed of light are a lot more like "flat Earth" people then people who don't claim to know any way to violate relativity.
I would like to add, that unless there is clear and contradictory evidence that shows Relativity to be wrong or there is some other unknown method to cheat the 1.0C limit, that there is no basis to believe otherwise.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I would like to add, that unless there is clear and contradictory evidence that shows Relativity to be wrong or there is some other unknown method to cheat the 1.0C limit, that there is no basis to believe otherwise.
There have been theories based on general relativity on how to travel at warp speed. Unfortunately they rely on exotic matter.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Unless someone demonstrates a method for creating such exotic matter, or at least a clear theoretical path that has no physical law roadblocks, then it is not a valid point of contention to FTL travel.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Its interesting to use FTL or Hyperspace words or language and then skeptics come out and argue it down, but they don't know either. We are not yet ready for the understanding into FTL Transportation as we haven't go through with short distance travel, but we need to continue research and take all the theories and current research to the next level.
Its like saying we aren't going to Mars, It will start a large discussion with heated arguements. The fact is that Orion Drive is a viable method to move vast amounts of humans into the solar system onto colonies on Mars and mining settlements throughout our solar system and lets us develop newer technologies that will add the creation of faster drive systems.
As I have confidence that humanity will have a colony on Mars in my lifetime, one day we will go faster that light and travel to other star systems and other galaxies within our brilliant universe.
Offline