be refuelled via an ISRU fuel depot sent by chemical rockets on a slow-boat trajectory years previously
[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kind
Quote from: MichaelF on 07/15/2009 03:46 amQuote from: GI-Thruster on 07/15/2009 02:52 amFrom another thread:"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives. As would nuclear pulse drives."VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date. It is, however, more than enough to do the job. Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance. Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks. Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.This isn't quite so. Beyond the trip time, you need to consider the time and cost of assembling a VASIMR interplanetary vessel in orbit. This is a project in the order of building the ISS without having the benefit of the shuttle for heavy loads. So it will be twice as hard, and likely twice as much construction time, which of course increases the odds of it being cancelled before completion by a factor of ten.
Quote from: GI-Thruster on 07/15/2009 02:52 amFrom another thread:"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives. As would nuclear pulse drives."VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date. It is, however, more than enough to do the job. Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance. Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks. Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.
From another thread:"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives. As would nuclear pulse drives."VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.
Quote from: 93143 on 07/18/2009 07:24 pm[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kindNo I wouldn't say that it is. What currently occupies me is weather or not the age of the universe matter for it's validity, otherwise it seems to check out (numbers wise). Which is the reason I'm waiting further experiments that are more conclusive and made by independent peer reviewed credible sources.
Quote from: mlorrey on 07/18/2009 06:42 pmQuote from: MichaelF on 07/15/2009 03:46 amQuote from: GI-Thruster on 07/15/2009 02:52 amFrom another thread:"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives. As would nuclear pulse drives."VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date. It is, however, more than enough to do the job. Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance. Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks. Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.This isn't quite so. Beyond the trip time, you need to consider the time and cost of assembling a VASIMR interplanetary vessel in orbit. This is a project in the order of building the ISS without having the benefit of the shuttle for heavy loads. So it will be twice as hard, and likely twice as much construction time, which of course increases the odds of it being cancelled before completion by a factor of ten.That does not appear to be the case. In fact, it's probably the least efficient way to do anything.We wouldn't be "constructing" anything in LEO. EOR (similar to the Orion/EDS) of a propulsion/reactor module, a hab module and a descent module* would do quite nicely.Since the goal is to get people to martian surface, one-way, it works quite nicely.*-depending on how you like it, the hab module could be the descent module.
Quote from: Eric_S on 07/19/2009 12:47 amQuote from: 93143 on 07/18/2009 07:24 pm[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kindNo I wouldn't say that it is. What currently occupies me is weather or not the age of the universe matter for it's validity, otherwise it seems to check out (numbers wise). Which is the reason I'm waiting further experiments that are more conclusive and made by independent peer reviewed credible sources.That's a sensible attitude. I'm curious what you make of the test results of the rotator back last April or so (posted in this thread.) I am still a bit shocked there has been no real response from academia or USG. Even the skeptics are silent. I don't get it.
... Either one must accept that, at least as far as inertia is concerned, GR is an "action at a distance" interaction (to account for the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces) -- see Hoyle and Narlikar's book Action at a Distance in Physics and Cosmology (Freeman, 1974) -- or inertial effects must be considered to be contained in the "constraint" equations on initial data (which are elliptic, rather than hyperbolic, and "propagate" instantaneously as a result) -- see Ciufolini and Wheeler, Gravitation and Inertia (Princeton, 1995). Wheeler hardly mentions Raine at all -- presumably because Raine didn't include the energies associated with gravity waves in his analysis -- and perhaps because Wheeler, despite being an early advocate (with Feynman) of action at a distance electrodynamics, seems to have regarded action at a distance as a serious theoretical consideration as silly. ...
... I have to point out to them that if we had only taken that approach 150 years ago, we would still be making horse drawn buggies and buggy whips and could still be communicating over the 1840s style telegraphs. ...
Instantaneous-action-at-a-distance is the kiss of death of a physical theory, and rightly so.Physicists who rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance made those great advances in the late 1800s. Physics transitioned from the electric+magnetic laws to electromagnetic waves.
So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.
Those who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.
Quote from: mlorrey on 08/11/2009 01:35 amSo Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.No, the post I was replying to used the telegraph as an example. That was based on various instantaneous-action-at-a-distance electric and magnetic laws. It caused all sorts of confusion -- eg. a telegraph line somehow "knew" how long it was, that reducing inductance in the line would speed up signalling when the exact opposite was true, etc. We would still be stuck in that age if certain physicists (Maxwell, Heaviside, etc.) had not rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance and discovered electromagnetic theory. Everything else followed that.QuoteThose who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.You're going to have to come up with a better slogan. Einstein was anti-action-at-a-distance. Do you *really* believe that a change light years away instantaneously causes an effect here?