Mach Effect progress

[GIThruster]

Why not use artificial gravity? A couple of BA 2100s tethered apart.

IMHO, this is the future of asteroid mining. Even with cheap transport, there is no reason to transport dross. You want to process ores in situ and ship just the at least partially refined product. The only trouble with this is out at the asteroid belt, the solar flux is so low you need a bigger reflector to get power densities for melting rock, but reflector material is cheap and you don't even need to convert much of the flux to electricity. You can use sunlight to melt stuff if you've got enough of it. Actually being in control of the gravity you have from spinning is then useful for the refining process.

[GIThruster]

ok, but you are talking about current astronaut suits, which are quite bulky and inflated. The objective is to have skintight suits and gloves in the future

Yes but you'e still wearing gloves and this is just one of many examples one could choose. The fact is, if you can work in your shorts and a tee shirt, as opposed to wearing a pressure suit, you should work in shorts. You'll be much more productive.

[djolds1]

Why not use artificial gravity? A couple of BA 2100s tethered apart.

With Mach Effects, there is little need for rotational pseudo-gravity. Paul March outlined how to use ME devices to create pseudo-gravity back when ME devices were being called UFGs; a STAIF paper from 2005, I think.

[djolds1]

ok, but you are talking about current astronaut suits, which are quite bulky and inflated. The objective is to have skintight suits and gloves in the future

Yes but you'e still wearing gloves and this is just one of many examples one could choose. The fact is, if you can work in your shorts and a tee shirt, as opposed to wearing a pressure suit, you should work in shorts. You'll be much more productive.

Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards vs Iowa Riverside Shipyard. Which is easier to build at?

Space will be useful for social posing, raw materials acquisition and initial processing, and isolation of necessary but very polluting industrial processes. Beyond that however, a habitable and comfortable environment has the edge. IF you can move product from surface to space with EXTREME cheapness.

[djolds1]

ok, but you are talking about current astronaut suits, which are quite bulky and inflated. The objective is to have skintight suits and gloves in the future

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/second-s ... suits-0918

http://www.computerworld.com/article/26 ... -skin.html
""With conventional spacesuits, you're essentially in a balloon of gas that's providing you with the necessary one-third of an atmosphere [of pressure,] to keep you alive in the vacuum of space," said Dava Newman, a professor of aeronautics and astronautics and engineering systems at MIT, in a statement. "We want to achieve that same pressurization, but through mechanical counterpressure — applying the pressure directly to the skin, thus avoiding the gas pressure altogether… Ultimately, the big advantage is mobility, and a very lightweight suit for planetary exploration.""

These have been under discussion and consideration for over a quarter century. The Big Space conservatism and manic fear of change has won out thusfar.

[GIThruster]

Why not use artificial gravity? A couple of BA 2100s tethered apart.

With Mach Effects, there is little need for rotational pseudo-gravity. Paul March outlined how to use ME devices to create pseudo-gravity back when ME devices were being called UFGs; a STAIF paper from 2005, I think.

I think What Paul was supposing is that the radiation reaction for any Mach Effect event, might be constructively and destructively interfered with to generate artificial gravity, but I don't think there have ever been any real calculations for this. It remains a very plausible possibility but this is why we need real physicists doing gravinertial physics.

Would be great to reduce the inertia of any bit of pebble in the path of a fast flying spaceship and make it bounce off so the ship is protected. No need to have a deflector dish if you can eliminate the inertia of a rock as it impacts a spacecraft.

[djolds1]

Why not use artificial gravity? A couple of BA 2100s tethered apart.

With Mach Effects, there is little need for rotational pseudo-gravity. Paul March outlined how to use ME devices to create pseudo-gravity back when ME devices were being called UFGs; a STAIF paper from 2005, I think.

I think What Paul was supposing is that the radiation reaction for any Mach Effect event, might be constructively and destructively interfered with to generate artificial gravity, but I don't think there have ever been any real calculations for this. It remains a very plausible possibility but this is why we need real physicists doing gravinertial physics.

Would be great to reduce the inertia of any bit of pebble in the path of a fast flying spaceship and make it bounce off so the ship is protected. No need to have a deflector dish if you can eliminate the inertia of a rock as it impacts a spacecraft.

That's a very E.E. "Doc" Smith world. Might as well just call ME propulsors "Bergenholms" and have done with it. Also provides Smith's predicted solution to the threats of ME tech - ME drives make acceleration and thus Relativistic Kinetic Kill Munitions too easy. But if an object is "inert," no problem.

[birchoff]

I guess I should learn to clear state my assumptions.

• We have the ability to easily build space suites that do not suffer from all the issues we currently face with the ones currently in use.
• With ME we have the ability to easily move any astreroid or ice rock to another location to make processing easier.
• We have the ability to artificially create gravity, either by centripetal force or mastery of ME (assuming this is actually possible).
• We have Closed Loop Environmental Support Systems
• A Bootstrapped industrial base that has the ability to quickly build a massive number of Reflectors and Solar cell of any desired shape or size.
• Understand how to combine composites, regolith, and water into the appropriate shell to offer Solar radiation protection and cosmic radiation protection for Stations.
• The required engineering designs and 77k superconductors needed to provide active radiation protection to smaller ships.

Now with these assumptions; the benefits of being able to effectively dial in any particular magnitude of gravity you need is two fold. First it makes any mining or manufacturing process that depends on atomic weight for some sort of separation easier. It also makes manipulating large structures easier. Now I cant speak for everyone but personally I think the early years of humanities expansion into space is going to be filled with a crap ton of mining and building large structures. Another thing space at least the region around stars has a lot of is free energy. The only thing that is needed is either reflectors to concentrate the light or solar cells to convert it to electrical energy. Now I know I said the energy is free; its not totally free because you have to spend money on reflectors and or solar cells and maybe a little maintenance. But for the most part those should all be fixed costs to any industrial organization that plans to take advantage of it.

Now depending on how long it takes us to get to this level of sophistication (time determines how much AI will develop) I expect a constant stream of people flocking to newly built stations, martian and Venusian colonies and outposts. Which changes an interesting part of the manufacturing equation, the location of demand. If the center of gravity for the demand of manufactured goods shifts from earth to include the moon, mars, venus, and lagrange point stations. The cost of shipping is reduced if I can locate my loading dock outside of a gravity well, the time it takes goods to reach their respective markets is also reduced if I am in a lagrange point.

Now I fully expect goods that can only be made from raw materials found on earth to be made on earth, even more so if their primary consumer is on earth (same for any other location in the universe). But most everything else I see should move into orbit. That said it will be the goods whose cost is dominated most by the things offered for less cost in space that will lead the charge. Now there is one wrinkle in my idea, that is, how much does it cost to build a facility capable of manufacturing goods in space. I do not know what the answer to this question would even look like. I expect that the costs of such an endeavor would decrease overtime as we gain experience with station building using materials sourced purely from space. But I have no clue how long that would take. I can only say that once we have the necessary capability and most importantly the same level of experience to build manufacturing plants in space as on earth. That should only serve to speed up the transition.

[birchoff]

Why not use artificial gravity? A couple of BA 2100s tethered apart.

With Mach Effects, there is little need for rotational pseudo-gravity. Paul March outlined how to use ME devices to create pseudo-gravity back when ME devices were being called UFGs; a STAIF paper from 2005, I think.

Any idea where I can get that paper, cannot seem to find it with my limited google fu.

[birchoff]

Not sure if this thread is the right place for this question/line of discussion. please point me to the right place if you feel it should go elsewhere.

I noticed someone made the comment about hobbyists making their own ME thrusters. Which got me thinking. What will the government involvement be?

For performance levels where ME can only be used in Micro Gravity situations outside of NASA, the Military, and Intelligence sourcing them from a manufacturer for their satellites to increase their in space capabilities. I doubt there is much to fear from a perceived improper application (what ever that is) at this level of performance.

For performance levels where ME can be used to lift nano - cube sats, similar to what Fireflyand Electron want to do then I can see governments getting worried that someone would strap a crude explosive to a battery powered ME and target some soft or hard target? The good thing is the uproar about drones will basically hash out this particular problem, for the most part.

For performance levels where ME can be used to routinely used to carry out missions shuttle used to do. Then I wonder if governments begin to feel threatened that their populace can freely leave to go to some colony/outpost/station that is not beholden to them. What happens when governments start noticing that a significant part of their tax base is migrating?

[93143]

[*] We have the ability to artificially create gravity, either by centripetal force or mastery of ME (assuming this is actually possible). [...] Another thing space at least the region around stars has a lot of is free energy. The only thing that is needed is either reflectors to concentrate the light or solar cells to convert it to electrical energy.

If we can use M-E to create gravity, we stopped needing solar power a while back.

The cost of shipping is reduced if I can locate my loading dock outside of a gravity well

Why? Didn't we just get through agreeing that high-performance M-E makes gravity wells effectively irrelevant?

[birchoff]

Yes ME propulsion makes gravity wells effectively flat. But thats from the perspective of how easy it is to climb out of. Not from the perspective of the energy cost to drive the ME thruster. that cost still exists. it might be lower but it isnt free, its like needing a full tank a gas versus half a tank. Where as before you needed 100 tanks of gas and you could only take a quarter of the load at a time.

As for Gravity control. Not sure what centripetal force masquerading like gravity gets you from the perspective as an energy source. I think its more likely that in the short to mid term it will be the main way we go about artificially generating gravity. As GiThruster said no one has begun looking at if the theory works out to provide us with gravity control. Also, in case you saw the earlier discussions on using ME thrusters on a flywheel. Since we dont have a complete understanding of what happened to the gravity inertial field if we begin treating it like the new oil I would air on the side of caution. Mainly because I suspect that between solar cells, fission, fusion we will have more than enough ways to meat our basic energy needs.

Personally I think we would be stupid for abandoning solar power. Last I check the machines we build as still fallible and if I am whipping around the galaxy and loose power it would be very re assuring that I can point my craft at a star and hang out till someone comes to find me. Hell I would even keep fuel cell tech around.

[kunkmiester]

Lifting from Earth vs an asteroid or the Moon is a matter of mass--you need more powerful thrusters which means a bigger ship, crew, etc. It's not the energy, especially if METs can be used to generate power, it's everything else. The "semi" I use for Earth deliveries will require several times the power of the one I use for the moon, and will thus require greater resources. They may not be much, but it'll be enough to justify a larger or smaller ship.

Likely the biggest cost to space travel a few decades after it's settled in won't be capital, it'll be labor.

[Betruger]

Yes ME propulsion makes gravity wells effectively flat. But thats from the perspective of how easy it is to climb out of. Not from the perspective of the energy cost to drive the ME thruster. that cost still exists. it might be lower but it isnt free, its like needing a full tank a gas versus half a tank. Where as before you needed 100 tanks of gas and you could only take a quarter of the load at a time.

As for Gravity control. Not sure what centripetal force masquerading like gravity gets you from the perspective as an energy source. I think its more likely that in the short to mid term it will be the main way we go about artificially generating gravity. As GiThruster said no one has begun looking at if the theory works out to provide us with gravity control. Also, in case you saw the earlier discussions on using ME thrusters on a flywheel. Since we dont have a complete understanding of what happened to the gravity inertial field if we begin treating it like the new oil I would air on the side of caution. Mainly because I suspect that between solar cells, fission, fusion we will have more than enough ways to meat our basic energy needs.

Personally I think we would be stupid for abandoning solar power. Last I check the machines we build as still fallible and if I am whipping around the galaxy and loose power it would be very re assuring that I can point my craft at a star and hang out till someone comes to find me. Hell I would even keep fuel cell tech around.

Err and meet

[93143]

Not sure what centripetal force masquerading like gravity gets you from the perspective as an energy source.

Nothing. I'm referring to M-E gravity control like what GIThruster was talking about. If you can do that, you can almost certainly make an M-E energy generator quite easily.

Also, in case you saw the earlier discussions on using ME thrusters on a flywheel

I started the earlier discussions on using M-E thrusters on a flywheel. And I think you're being unnecessarily paranoid about possible side effects. There's a lot of energy in the universe, and in any case this scheme isn't qualitatively different from just driving around in an M-E hovercar powered by batteries. I have some ideas about cosmic ramifications, but they aren't fully formed, so I'll keep them unsaid for now.

Solar power is fine as a backup (if you're near a star), but for main power it's really limiting. Batteries run out; I'd prefer a secondary M-E power supply as a backup to the first one. Nuclear is good if and only if there are no better options; even fusion is relatively expensive, complicated and hazardous, not something a private citizen should have to deal with in his space runabout. Plus it has waste heat issues - advanced M-E is probably at least on par with aneutronic direct conversion for radiator size, and could in principle get arbitrarily efficient.

The "semi" I use for Earth deliveries will require several times the power of the one I use for the moon, and will thus require greater resources. They may not be much, but it'll be enough to justify a larger or smaller ship.

With high-performance M-E, manned spacecraft will probably be capable of one gee nominal acceleration for extended periods, for both crew comfort and fast transit. It's really not much of a stretch from that to being able to operate from Earth. You could use lower-power units specially designed for unmanned deliveries to or from lighter bodies, I suppose, but they'd be slower - maybe useful for continuous logistics streams, but for time-constrained deliveries I'd expect unmanned vehicles to use much higher thrusts for the sake of speed...

A spaceship is a lot more than just the engine. Even now, I believe spacecraft tend to be much more expensive than their propulsion systems. They should get a lot cheaper if M-E proves out and we start making lots of them, but it's entirely possible that considering all the other stuff that has to be included besides propulsion and structure, the difference between a 0.2-gee spacecraft and a 1.5-gee spacecraft will turn out to be too small to be worth the restrictions incurred by low thrust.