
Nicely thorough
Glad to see you remembered there exists more genres of video games than first-person shooter. Oh wait, you didn't.
327 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Oct 2009
I would speculate that the reason they don’t, is because NASA personnel know how far away the stars are. Furthermore, if they did acknowledge the possibility in any way, they would be totally unscientific as there is no evidence yet of extraterrestrial intelligent civilizations.
And it may well be there is no such thing as an interstellar spacefaring race anywhere! After all, the age of the Earth is a significant fraction of the age of the Universe, and in order for our Solar System to exist at all there must have been at least one complete generation of supergiant stars, and I think that in order to get the amount of interesting elements like uranium that we find on Earth there was probably another generation of star formation in between too. We may in fact, as improbable as it seems, be the first spacefaring life in the cosmos — we have exactly as much evidence for that as we do against it.
1. The “wall of water” would be a solid sphere of ice.
2. You don’t need fancy Star Trek scanners, unless you count radar amongst their ilk.
3. Any impact other than a deliberate landing would be catastrophe.
4. Four or five LIGHT-YEAR path separation? Further apart than Sol and Proxima Centauri? That really disqualifies any sort of assertion the ships are “together”. And I don’t know what you mean by 1-month separation — by definition, any separation by a light-year means much more than a year separates them, unless they are neutrinos.
The economics of interstellar travel are such that — in my opinion — no biological crew will ever fly between the stars. I think it would be vastly more economical for humans to discover (a) how to build space-hardened computers that can match human intellect in no more than 1kg of mass, power supply and shielding excluded, and (b) transfer our consciousness into them, and (c) build MUCH tinier spacecraft to carry the eHumans to other worlds — as researchers and visitors, not invaders.
This sounds like preposterous hand-waving, but when you consider that 70 years ago the word “computer” was a job title and not a machine, then taking a century or two of development to meet points (a) and (b) will be more than enough to compensate for the savings of the tiny craft in (c).
Our future is in the stars, if we can survive — and our survival, I feel, is contingent on our abandonment of biology for ourselves.
Since there are many effects involved with relativistic speeds (time dilation, length contraction, mass increase etc.) the observer sitting on an LHC proton at .99999c would see the other photon (which, to the boffin in the control room, is also moving at .99999c) approaching at, say, .999999999c or so — but still possessing the appropriate amount of kinetic energy.
However, it is NOT true that massive physical objects can’t APPARENTLY move faster than light w.r.t. each other; the expansion of space itself, which results in the redshift of distant galaxies, results in APPARENT motion at speeds greater than c if you look at points more than about 20 billion light-years away. This is further than the 14-or-so-billion-light-year limit imposed by the fact space was opaque for a while after the Big Bang; but it is nevertheless accurate.
While a satellite may move quickly compared to, say, a car, it is FAR FAR FAR slower than relativistic speed.
The relativistic time compensation required for GPS relates to the fact that here, deep in Earth’s gravity well, time runs more slowly. Has nothing at all to do with the motion of the satellites.
The hull was indeed NFG around antimatter; but it was perfectly functional when it impacted the neutron star. Then same, however, could not be said for the contents, which crushed into neutronium at the nose. Also, the reason that craft crashed was the tidal effect from passing too close to the neutron star.
The systems in the human body were designed for a 1g acceleration/gravity influence at all times, pulling fluids towards the feet. If there is no such influence on the body, as in microgravity, the fluids pool in the head since the compensation mechanisms are fighting nothing.
You mean, heating the floorpans so vigourously they turn into micron-sized particles moving horizontally at 100 km/h? Yes, that is what we call the work of explosives. And that is precisely what was observed.
Now, what is your explanation for the nanothermite? Because there is NO REASON for that material to be found there, and it was found in all three buildings' dust — BEFORE the cleanup operations.
There are certainly total-crock idiotic baseless theories about 9/11 as with anything else (directed energy weapons, etc.) but that does NOT imply the official conspiracy theory is correct.
There are many, MANY serious flaws and downright gaping holes in the official account, which may easily be patched by referring to physical evidence; physical evidence which was POINTEDLY AND DELIBERATELY IGNORED by the "investigators". This includes the nanothermite (which is not an imaginary product of tinfoil-wearing idiots; it's a product of Lawrence Livermore Labs) which was strewn throughout the WTC debris. It includes the fact that the energy released in this "gravitational collapse" is orders of magnitude larger than extremely generous estimates of the towers' gravitational energies. It includes the fact that the only steel-framed highrises IN HISTORY to collapse in this fashion without the aid o high explosives were WTC 1, 2 and 7.
I'm in the "tinfoil brigade"? If so, than God I am not in the deep pit of denial you are in.
And if you want to find my real name, it's published in The Register. Go ahead and find it.
"In fact, if there was no 9/11 it would have been necessary to organise one to justify them."
It *was* organized that way, by your friends at Project for a New American Century, whom you may note had a not-so-tenuous connection with the power base of the US, not to mention (for example) the security company in charge of the WTC (Securicor, with a Bush on the executive board), or Ace Elevator (who performed the largest "elevator modernisation" in history in the 9 months prior to 9/11, and whose techs ran like hell as soon as the attacks started), and so on and so forth.....
Add to that, the fact that the three WTC office tower collapses on 9/11/01 were thermodynamically inconsistent with a gravitational collapse (as they left little to no energy to dismember the structure) and they are mechanically inconsistent with fire-initiated collapse (as they all imploded or exploded with remarkable symmetry despite totally asymmetrical damage).
The fundamental problem is that our society is intellectually lazy and unused to determining truth for themselves, on the basis of reasonably objective evidence. If you are prepared to perform physical analyses and to LISTEN to the implications of the physics, the mendacity of the powers that be is undeniable and unmistakable.
NOT AC, because AC is pointless, and to speak the truth anonymously undermines it.
According to NIST themselves, the damage to Building 7 was more cosmetic than anything; and if that damage had caused the collapse then the building would have fallen to the south, in the manner of a felled tree which falls to the damaged side. WTC7 did not topple, it fell straight down directly through all of its undamaged structure; to "explain" this NIST claims it was "differential expansion of steel and concrete" which they could only get to happen by heating up the steel and NOT the concrete in their computer models. In other words, they haven't explained shit. Furthermore, the only steel-framed buildings they could cite for structural failures from fire were the McCormack Center in Chicago (very light steel frame without fire protection and extremely high fire load) and Place Alexis Nihon here in Montreal, in 1986.
Alexis Nihon is a most interesting case; a telephone switching box failed and caught fire on the 10th floor, setting an adjacent storage room, which was packed to the roof with paper in violation of fire codes. That fire burned through the firewall to the adjacent stairwell, and the blazing inferno caused a girder to fall out. Did it melt? Sag under heating load? No, it had shitty Quebec construction, and the improperly welded shear-tabs that attached the girder to the columns failed. Did Place Alexis Nihon collapse into its own footprint? Of course not, it stands to this day and is a busy shopping centre.
And that is the total sum history of structural failure in steel-framed buildings due to fire. Oh, except for two 110 storey towers that exploded like sticks of dyanamite, and a 47-stroey tower that crumpled into its own footprint while expending not a single joule on destroying its own framework (since it fell at free-fall speed, according to NIST). And which resulted in a grand total of zero changes to building codes and design practice, because it really is not mysterious at all what happened to them; there is just very uncomfortable implications to the Western power apparatus.
...since you claim to be simultaneously surprised by (a) things being in focus and (b) large depth of field. If you set up the camera for (b) then does (a) not happen pretty much automatically?
For example, I took a film photo of a seagull flying at me in perfect focus less than 10 feet away, with DOF to infinity, 1/1000 sec exposure. How on Earth did I set that up as the seagull flew straight at me? I didn't; I set it up before and hey presto! the seagull flew past and an amazing photo resulted.
A piston launcher tube separates from the engine after ignition; but aside from that it's not too different from a mortar (or any other type of gun). The idea of capturing the gases on engine ignition and using that pressure to generate forward motion is identical.
There is of course an identical recoil force; this may be attenuated slightly by adding a very small exhaust port (or ports) on the outer tube, which redirect some gases downward. But I like the idea of the inertia of the payload providing launch oomph, and that kick-off is also an obvious way to trigger the release of the payload compartment and its recovery chute.
I assume you mean low-impulse black powder engines. These top out at E power levels; but there are also composite (ammonium perchlorate) engines that go up to (ready for this?) N power. Yep, 500 times more impulse than the largest black-powder motors. They still only burn for about 4–5 seconds, but with an average thrust more like 4 or 5 kilonewtons: one of these will add tens of thousands of feet of altitude, provided we can keep it stable.
I just tested the guiderail section with the following results:
Mass 131 grams
Length 92cm (36")
TEST 1
Loading: 20kg gradually applied at midspan (simply supported at ends)
Result: Some cracking sounds, minor glue joint failure (easily improved part)
TEST 2
Loading: 40kg at midspan (my son sitting on it, then picking his feet off the floor)
Result: some cracking at ends, more minor glue joint failures
CONCLUSION: I still have the test rail (despite intending to load it to failure), and with moment resistance of 200Nm over this span, we have more than enough stiffness for guide rails. We will need four of these (2 per wing) which add up to about 500g per metre. We can probably get guiderails weighing 300g/m which will adequately guide the rocket-plane.
I have built a test section of guiderail out of basswood and balsa: extremely strong (will test it to failure tonight and post a video for your edification).
There will only be one way to get enough speed for aero-stabilization at high altitude, and that is extremely fast acceleration off the line. The way to accomplish this is using a piston-launcher. See http://www.apogeerockets.com/sunward_piston_launcher.asp for an example at small scale.
The concept is this: by capturing the exhaust on engine ignition and using it to force two concentric tubes apart, we can use the mass of the main payload to create a dynamic force that accelerates the rocket much more rapidly. Then, using lightweight trusses to guide the rocket vertically between Eccentrica-style balloon clusters, we can have a long guided acceleration with a very high initial burst of speed.
Of course, this will place strain on the balloons, probably causing them to burst, but with bungee shock-cords this force can be attenuated; and the rig will stay reasonably straight during the fraction of a second that the plane’s traveling through it.
I agree with lawndart about the issues of aerodynamic stabilization. I have been working out a design (drawing coming in later today) with one main lift balloon, three smaller stabilization balloons at lower inflation and a vertical launch guide between the three stabilizer balloons. When the main balloon bursts, the plane launches between the three lower ones.
For weight concerns, obviously any struts have to be extremely light for their stiffness. A spaceframe made of basswood can meet these criteria; I can forward photographs of representative possibilities.
— Murray Pearson
...then look no further than scripting QuarkXPress. Oh, dear, what a nightmare that was. Mind you, it was not impossible; I knew a fellow who wrote an automatic catalogue-creator for the office-supplies company Staples, and he made a dandy profit (after most definitely earning his paycheque on the first one).
But James, I am afraid I have no idea what printing bug you’re referring to, and I used XPress HARD — pushed it further than just about anyone was capable of, in the early days. It was quite a nice piece of software back then.
But Quark Inc. were always douchenozzles.
...don’t forget dynamic forces. You know, Newton’s Third Law, the action/reaction one.
We’re talking a multi-kilogram plane — the MAJORITY of the weight of the entire ballocket — suddenly moving along a curved path with nothing to anchor it! The rail with thrash about and the rocket will leave at an utterly random angle, it’s worse than useless.
At the stratospheric altitudes we’re considering here, we have about 1% of sea level air pressure. Aerodynamic controls are going to be minimally effective. Forget about casually flying around the balloon, the turning radius would be ludicrous.
I have been toying around with the LOHAN-001 concept posted in the last article and I have a stability suggestion. If the rocket pod on the tower is mounted on a nice bearing and the engines thereon are canted, then the pod itself can be induced to spin at a tremendous rate for gyro-stabilization. By using a series of engines (perhaps even ignited by as low-tech a method as chemical fuses), we can choose a thrust pattern that will start with a largish spike of thrust (to overcome static friction) followed by a long and relatively constant burn at low thrust. This will result in the mass of the gyro staying high (conferring stability) for as long as possible.
The main engine can then be relocated where it belongs, at the tail. With a fuselage like I sketched out — it has a 10cm (4") diameter — there is room for a BIG main engine. Like in the M impulse class or thereabouts, the kind of engines that can get rockets to 50,000 feet from ground level and that can get LOHAN to truly preposterous altitudes. (The set of 12 E engines I first suggested would add up to the lower end of the I class; this new approach will increase impulse almost 20 times.
With an engine like that the speed of the plane will be stupendous, and strength will be the overarching concern. That means scratching the folding wing (which is okay, since the main thrust will be behind it now) and skinning the wing in plywood or carbon fibre.
Comments?
— Murray Pearson
The design’s a flying wing; the tractor tower is there ONLY for the vertical upward portion, after which it’s jettisoned.... and then it won’t be nose-heavy any more. But on the upward flight, you definitely DO want a nose-heavy configuration for stability.
The wing I chose for the concept is a flying wing slope racer, designed for high speed, with a fuselage added for payload capacity (and to make it look like a flying vibrator). The slight nose-forward positioning of the fuselage allows for the leading-edge ballast to be omitted and replaced with payload, while maintaining a proper CG for gliding flight after the nose tower jettisons.
— Murray Pearson
...because the drag of the thrust on the titanium cone would essentially equal the motor’s thrust. It would be spectacularly inefficient.
Besides, it’s really not too hard to get simultaneous ignition. In my test rig over the weekend — which was my first ever attempt at a cluster rocket — I achieved ignition of three engines with nothing more than a 6V lantern battery and parallel-wired Estes ignitors. Of course, for weight reasons you don’t want to use that for LOHAN, but a stack of supercapacitors kept charged up with lightweight high-tech batteries can source a spectacular jolt of current for a brief time, enough to get 6 engines going with no problem, and not weighing too much either.
— Murray Pearson
I was going to point out the weight of a rigid launch rail, but in fact that might be a really good idea — provided the rail is made from extremely light materials, such as a basswood/thin plywood truss.
A metal rail of sufficient thickness would be ludicrously heavy, but a carefully-made wooden launch rail / balloon-separating apparatus could be just what the doctor ordered.
Hi-ho, I am gonna fire up my crappy CAD software tonight, and send Lester another file.
— Murray Pearson
Thanks for the vote of confidence!
We may be able to get quite effective attitude control if we combine slight directional rocket-pod adjustments with a super-fast gyroscope in the pod..... This may take servos capable of delivering a lot of force, so using longish lever-arms is advisable. The lever arm could, for example, extend 50cm down the rocket tower to the servos, which would be able to make small directional changes and control the craft.
— Murray Pearson
With the configuration I have suggested — 2 stages of 6, Aerotech E15 composite engines each — the burn time will only be about 5 seconds total. But that should be enough to get a 3 kilogram plane up to hundreds of kilometres per hour.... if it doesn’t completely tumble.
A nose gyroscope may be a good idea for initial stability.
Here is a comparison of the Aerotech E15 (which I have been harping on about) and the Apogee E6:
http://www.jetboyrockets.com/motor/compare/19/23/
One REALLY nice thing about the Apogee engine (aside from the fact it’s from Apogee Components, who totally kick ass) is the fact there is the E6-P version which has no ejection charge at all (the P stands for 'plugged', it’s intended for use in boost-gliders). I wonder why I did not notice that earlier?
I really do not think the E28 is a good idea — boost-gliders need long continuous thrust, not high thrust which greatly increases dynamic loading.
— Murray Pearson
Yesterday (Saturday), after reading about the pendulum fallacy, I built a small test rocket in tractor configuration without stabilizing fins or a launch-lug for guidance. It achieved a maximum altitude of about one foot and was completely unstable! I stand corrected.
Clearly this needs some testing and research on attaining stable launch.
Weight. To hold the craft steady far enough away to ensure clear passage past the enormous balloon (at altitude), the beam would have to be very long indeed — especially if the counterweight was substantially less than the aircraft weight, which I am estimating at about 2 kilograms (the wing by itself, without ballast, is 900 grams). Hoisting that much dead weight will surely limit altitude. Furthermore, with my aforementioned aimable thrust-pod, it will be a far smaller penalty to launch at 45° slope and use thrust-vectoring to attain a near-vertical trajectory after, say, 50 metres of flight.
— Murray Pearson
The thrustlines are 2D projections of diagonal thrust, which was my initial idea and is, frankly, probably not the optimal configuration. But, say, if we have a 6-engine cluster per stage, then we can have four engines firing above the wings at a shallow angle, and two engines pointing over the folded wings at a greater angle, such that the horizontal thrusts balance out.
One detail that Lester did not mention is the toughening of the wings from covering the foam with 1/64" (0.4mm) aircraft-grade plywood and heatproofing with a layer of aluminum foil, shiny side out.
My concept was using two, 6-engine cluster stages with Aerotech E15 engines (http://www.jetboyrockets.com/motor/detail/23/) which have a relatively steady and long burn (2.6 sec, average thrust 15N, max 28N per engine) along with the specific impulse oomph of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant, and the advantage of having reloadable cartridges.
— Murray Pearson