1500 years is an assumption on your part. The travel time is, as Van Rijn pointed out, propulsion dependent.Originally Posted by danscope
Order of Kilopi
1500 years is an assumption on your part. The travel time is, as Van Rijn pointed out, propulsion dependent.
Last edited by Noclevername; 2012-Sep-23 at 02:24 PM. Reason: spelling
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
Unless you drop a repair and maintainance crew (robotic or human) with each bouy, it probably won't work. Either way, it will cost a great deal of mass. Better to just develop a more powerful transmitter.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Established Member
So now you're removing the enthusiasts' 'key' explanaton for why interstellar comms is not practically feasible, eh? Well that's some good news, I suppose …
Ok, so mysteriously some remote 'B end' of the link has materialised out of thin air .. well, unless someone can show me how this mysterious outpost was built, (including manufacturing and material quality standards, tolerances, etc), my answer would be the same as before .. not practically feasible. In other words, in this hypothetical, I see no practical reasons presented, which might allow one to assume that such a link would be capable of passing intelligible, meaningful messages. Incidentally, care to elaborate on what 'conventions' resulted in the 'conventional design', and what was the practical physical basis for those 'conventions'? (After all, word-play doesn't really get around the 'key' issues of practicality here, so we need to clarify that particular term).
In my previous posts, my focus just happened to be about materials longevity, power combination design constraints, reliability, deep-space big antenna viability etc .. only because they came to mind .. there are plenty of other practical considerations, (based on theoretical physics), which could render the whole idea non workable .. yet again.
Order of Kilopi
I thought there was a seperate thread for RF transmitter discussion.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
No. I've made the point repeatedly that an interstellar probe (not communication) is currently impractical because of propulsion limitations.
Then I agree with cjameshuff: You are making an argument from incredulity. It is an ATM argument. I see no reason to continue with this discussion.In other words, in this hypothetical, I see no practical reasons presented, which might allow one to assume that such a link would be capable of passing intelligible, meaningful messages.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
You can't just "drop communication buoys" in space. Like a lost puppy they will follow you. You'll have to provide them with powerful retrorockets or shoot them out of a powerful mass driver to your rear.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
You'd have to have rockets powerful enough to overcome all the speed built up by the starship. The further into the acceleration phase, the more fuel needed to stop the relay buoy. The amount of fuel needed for any signifigant number of relays would probably outweigh the fuel for the main vessel. A mass driver would be more desirable, as it would effectively add to the acceleration of the ship.
As far as the relays being self-charging, any method of beaming energy to them would also be more than strong enough to transmit signals a far greater distance. You could collect enough starlight to power them-- if you have planet-sized light collectors; The mass needed for that would not be carryable by a starship. So again, we're back to making them nuclear powered, which would require a reactor for each relay-- not mass-efficient. Direct laser communication from the starship is your best bet.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
Self - repairing comm bouys with RTG's that last for 1000 years? Really ? I don't think so, Tim.
Established Member
Nonsense.
If a practical integrated design is produced, which can be demonstrated to work … then it could then be taken as practically feasible. I'm still waiting for one.
We don't have to agree on practical feasibility .. but don't label the issues as ATM .. all matters raised are in accordance with the Laws of Physics (albeit at unexpected levels of granularity). Just because there is no agreement, (possibly due to unfamiliarity with engineering matters), doesn't mean something has to be scientifically ATM.
At this point, I am also willing to discontinue this side discussion.
Order of Kilopi
If that was addressed to me, you really need to go back and read what I wrote-- that comm buoys are not feasible even without considering those factors. If it wasn't, since you didn't indicate which "Tim" you were answering, next time maybe the Reply With Quote button would be useful. Also, RTG and reactor, different animals.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Established Member
How are they different from a maintainability standpoint?
Is your speculated reactor practically maintainable in a largely isolated space-based environment?
Could you please show how this is so.
Order of Kilopi
It's not, that's one reason why I said they are a bad idea. See post #302.
It's not "my" speculated anything. I was just requesting that danscope get the terminology right, or at least quote me correctly. He somehow interpreted my comments to mean the exact opposite of what I was saying.
Last edited by Noclevername; 2012-Sep-25 at 08:24 AM.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
Since my name is also Tim i'll also respond. When i said "nuclear powered" i was indeed thinking of an RTG, not a reactor. However i was not saying it is a good idea (it's not), i was merely commenting that the lack of solar power doesn't mean it can't be powered if one, for whatever weird reason, would decide to go that way.
Order of Kilopi
The "I don't think so, Tim" reference was a quote from the TV show Home Improvement. My name is Michael.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
I gather from later comments that you were actually referencing a US TV show. Please try to remember that there are a lot of people on this board who are located outside of the US and that not everybody in the world watches US TV. It reminds me of the time when one member (from the US, obviously, unfortunately it's mostly Americans who make this kind of assumption) asked me why I was staying up so late, when in fact it was early afternoon! Please don't assume that everybody else is in America!
As above, so below
Established Member
When I suggested dropping buoys, I did have some notion that it was more complicated than just "dropping them out the back". But the concept is still valid.
As for self powered, I had in mind something similar to the way long distance fibre is boosted now. You insert amplifiers into the fibre at intervals, which uses the signals power itself to amplify and pass on to the next amplifier. I worked for NT making such devices for a transatlantic cable.
Sure "there is no cable" in space, but the principle still holds I think.
ETA - After checking for sources it appears I was mistaken. I didn't realise the undersea cables had a dc power supply powering the repeaters. This of course would make the direct implementation of repeaters in this format impossible in space.
Last edited by headrush; 2012-Sep-25 at 09:00 AM. Reason: amplifier error
Order of Kilopi
Oh rightNever seen that show.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote