Don't Get Sore ...

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404011631590.21020-100000 DeleteThis @ccc7.wpi.edu>,
Jonathan D Gibbons <jonored DeleteThis @WPI.EDU> writes:

 >So basically, I don't think that we'll need to really be limited
 >by large
 >magnetic fields destroying unshielded electronics launched from a
 >mass-driver.

A magnetic 'levit train' is not contained within
a series of electromagnetic torroids. The
electromagnetic fields are under the train --
not around the train.

A magnetic 'levit train' does not include sensitive
radio frequency receiving equipment designed to
detect and demodulate very low power signals.
Receiver's RF input circuits are susceptible to
signal overload damage. (Presumably a 'levit train'
has a high power communications channel through the
track or surrounding cabling -- sturdy electronic
implementation.)

And without too much of a smile, I have to wonder
what a mass driver would do to a person's metal
dental fillings -- ouch. (Have you ever read the fable
'Hansel and Gretel'? The old witch cackles "Stick
your head in the induced electromagnetic field oven,
little Hansel, and see if its hot enough.")

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

In article <406C9102.4DD1374D DeleteThis @alcyone.com>,
Erik Max Francis <max DeleteThis @alcyone.com> writes:

 >Richard Ballard wrote:
 >
  >>If a mass driver creates sufficient velocity so that the capsule
  >>escapes the Moon's gravity well and the Earth's gravity well,
  >>the capsule then is in the Sun's gravity well. Assuming that
  >>the capsule is pointed (and remotely steered -- obviously you
  >>do not want nuclear waste capsules orbiting the Sun like comets)
  >>appropriately, I observe no difficulty in causing the capsule to
  >>fall into the Sun.
 >
 >You do not understand orbital mechanics. Ignoring gravity assists,

"Ignoring gravity assists"?

 >to get an object on the surface of the Moon, you need to reach lunar
 >escape, then Earth escape, and then cancel all velocity relative to
 >the
 >Sun. That takes tremendous amounts of deltavee.
 >
  >>If a lunar mass driver cannot accelerate a cargo capsule out
  >>of the Moon's gravity well and the Earth's gravity well, then
  >>a lunar mass driver cannot support a Mars mission. There
  >>is no reason to argue numbers.
 >
 >Obviously, since you have no idea what you're talking about.
 >
 >--
 > __ Erik Max Francis && max DeleteThis @alcyone.com
<font color=purple> > && <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.alcyone.com/max/</font" target="_blank">http://www.alcyone.com/max/</font</a>>

Let's temporarily forget the Moon.

A probe from Earth to Mars fights the Sun's gravity.
A probe from Earth to the Sun is accelerated by the Sun's gravity.
There might be with-orbit direction versus against-orbit direction
considerations here, but you have not convinced me.

And I doubt you can convince me that throwing something
_out_ of a gravity well requires less energy than throwing
something _down_ a gravity well. That is the issue.

I am _not_ interested in fabricated special cases
such as ignoring gravity assists.

Steering avoids cometary orbits around the Sun and
creation of nuclear spacejunk.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <406CB127.DEAC7D19 RemoveThis @alcyone.com>,
Erik Max Francis <max RemoveThis @alcyone.com> writes:

 >LV Poker Player wrote:
 >
  >>No. Orbital speed does not work this way. If you just cancel the
  >>orbital
  >>speed, all you do is drop into a lower and faster orbit.
 >
 >If you cancel your orbital speed, your orbit becomes a degenerate
 >conic
 >section known as a line and you fall directly in. You do indeed drop
 >into a lower, fast orbit -- it's an "orbit" that's a line that
 >meets the
 >Sun and grows faster and faster.
 >
 >If you cancel your velocity, you have zero angular momentum. You
 >cannot
 >drop into a lower orbit _around_ the body, all you can do to conserve
 >angular momentum (which gravity does) is to move radially inward.

Moving radially inward is called 'falling into the Sun' --
my original premise. And because orbital velocity is
not cancelled _instantaneously_, we will need some
remote steering capability as I stated originally.

 >--
 > __ Erik Max Francis && max RemoveThis @alcyone.com
<font color=purple> > && <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.alcyone.com/max/</font" target="_blank">http://www.alcyone.com/max/</font</a>>

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040402150845.08805.00000609.TakeThisOut@mb-m02.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer.TakeThisOut@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

  >>From: rball84213
 >
  >>A probe from Earth to Mars fights the Sun's gravity.
  >>A probe from Earth to the Sun is accelerated by the Sun's gravity.
 >
 >Another person who does not understand orbital mechanics.
 >
 >When you are in orbit, you are fighting inertia. It does not
 >matter whether
 >you are trying to go up or down. The Earth is in orbit around
 >the sun, and
 >going to a higher orbit such as to Mars or to an inner orbit
 >such as to Venus
 >takes the same delta v. Trying to go all the way to the sun
 >takes a lot more
 >delta v than either of these destinations.

You are in orbit and your capsule has momentum. Momentum
equates to instantaneous velocity in some direction. Assuming
no burn, the only other factor is gravitational acceleration.

Now, you burn to reduce your momentum. You infintisimally
drop out of orbit and begin spiraling in towards the sun. Your
capsule tends to fall into a new, cometlike orbit circling the Sun.
But you continue burning and steering (deliberately decreasing
velocity and modifying direction, further decaying the spiral
trajectory) to head into the Sun. You deliberately fall into the
Sun and the nuclear waste is incinerated by the Sun's heat.

IMO much of your delta-v issue deals with getting from
one planet to the other (planetary orbit angular phase
difference considerations -- for example Earth at
1:00 o'clock and Mars at 7:00 o'clock with the Sun at
the center) and whether you launch _in_ the orbit
direction or _against_ the orbit direction (determined
by launch location, launch direction and launch time of
day). The Sun is at the _center_. Create an inward
spiral and you WILL find the Sun without encountering
any _planetary orbit_ angular phase difference
considerations.

You can junk science up with numbers and jargon, or
you can explain concepts simply and intuitively. Planets
(and stars like the Sun) often are termed 'gravity wells'.
It takes less energy to drop something down a well
than to stand at the well bottom and toss something out
of the well.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040402154021.08805.00000612.RemoveThis@mb-m02.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer.RemoveThis@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

  >>From: rball84213
 >
  >>And I doubt you can convince me that throwing something
  >>_out_ of a gravity well requires less energy than throwing
  >>something _down_ a gravity well. That is the issue.
 >
 >They both require exactly the same energy, and in the case
 >of the sun it is somewhat enormous.
 >
  >>I am _not_ interested in fabricated special cases
  >>such as ignoring gravity assists.
 >
 >A gravity assist, if avalable, actually helps us.
 >You should learn terminology as well as orbital physics.

Until you can demonstrate a device that turns off the
Sun's gravity, take your special cases and your sarcasm
and sit on them. Usenet is not an engineering spec,
and I am not going to play by rocket scientist rules.
Rocket scientist rules are 'Use obscuration to ensure
continued employment'.

You are in orbit and your capsule has momentum. Momentum
equates to instantaneous velocity in some direction. Assuming
no burn, the only other factor is gravitational acceleration.

Now, you burn to reduce your momentum. You infinitisimally
drop out of orbit and begin spiraling in towards the sun. Your
capsule tends to fall into a new, cometlike orbit circling the Sun.
But you continue burning and steering (deliberately decreasing
velocity and modifying direction, further decaying the spiral
trajectory) to head into the Sun. You deliberately fall into the
Sun and the nuclear waste is incinerated by the Sun's heat.

IMO much of the delta-v issue deals with getting from
one planet to the other (planetary orbit angular phase
difference considerations -- for example Earth at
1:00 o'clock and Mars at 7:00 o'clock with the Sun at
the center) and whether you launch _in_ the orbit
direction or _against_ the orbit direction (determined
by launch location, launch direction and launch time of
day). The Sun is at the _center_. Create an inward
spiral and you WILL find the Sun without encountering
any _planetary orbit_ angular phase difference
considerations.

You can junk science up with numbers and jargon, or
you can explain concepts simply and intuitively. Planets
(and stars like the Sun) often are termed 'gravity wells'.
It takes less energy to drop something down a well
than to stand at the well bottom and toss something out
of the well.

  >>Steering avoids cometary orbits around the Sun and
  >>creation of nuclear spacejunk.
 >
 >Maybe we should worry about our precious bodily fluids,
 >while we are at it?

You have watched the film "Dr. Strangelove" starring Peter Sellers
too often. Worry about your own bodily fluids -- and more.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

In article <20040403114420.12501.00007087 DeleteThis @mb-m04.aol.com>,
Richard Ballard <rball84213 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
 >Planets
 >(and stars like the Sun) often are termed 'gravity wells'.
 >It takes less energy to drop something down a well
 >than to stand at the well bottom and toss something out
 >of the well.

That does not follow.

People who drop things down wells are not in orbit around the well. If you
weren't in orbit around the sun, it would be easier to drop something in than
to toss something out. When you *are* in orbit around the sun, then it is
*not* easier to drop something in than to toss something out, because in
order to make something fall in, you need to cancel the orbital velocity.

And your idea of spiraling in towards the sun is nonsense. Spiraling in
only happens when there is friction. If you're in orbit around the sun
and your ship gets a push towards the sun, the ship gets closer--and then
gets farther away again. It doesn't spiral in.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.rahul.net/arromdee" target="_blank">http://www.rahul.net/arromdee</a>
(DVDs/manga/games for sale. <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.rahul.net/arromdee/sale.html" target="_blank">http://www.rahul.net/arromdee/sale.html</a>)

Tikritis: "Saddam is in our hearts! Saddam is in our blood!"
Americans/Iraqi Police: "Saddam is in our jail!"<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

Richard Ballard wrote:
 > You can junk science up with numbers and jargon, or
 > you can explain concepts simply and intuitively.

All this time, I thought I was doing science, when it turns out, I was
just junking it up.

On a serious tone, although making things intuitive can aid understanding,
one has to take care that the intuition is correct, as human intuition
is occasionally reasonable, logical, and dead wrong. As here:

 > Planets (and stars like the Sun) often are termed 'gravity wells'.
 > It takes less energy to drop something down a well
 > than to stand at the well bottom and toss something out
 > of the well.

Yes, but at the present time, it already has energy and angular momentum.
Even if you know exactly how much and in which direction to apply the
thrust, you have to apply about two-and-a-half times as much thrust to
kill the angular momentum in order to put it into the Sun as it would
take to fling it out into space altogether. What's more, the accuracy
with which that thrust must be applied is much greater in the case of
killing the angular momentum than it is in the case of increasing it.

All right, but that increased need for accuracy is in large part due to
the great distance that we are from the Sun, relatively speaking. If we
do it closer in, then the requirement for accuracy is much less stringent.

Although that's true, it is then moving much faster than it was when it
was close to the Earth. It's much closer to the Sun then, and the amount
of thrust needed to kill the angular momentum is correspondingly higher,
perhaps prohibitively higher, depending on how close you want to get.

Brian Tung <brian.DeleteThis@isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://astro.isi.edu/" target="_blank">http://astro.isi.edu/</a>
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/" target="_blank">http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/</a>
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/" target="_blank">http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/</a>
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt" target="_blank">http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <c4mvrv$86q$2@blue.rahul.net>,
arromdee.RemoveThis@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) writes:

 >And your idea of spiraling in towards the sun is nonsense.
 >Spiraling in
 >only happens when there is friction. If you're in orbit
 >around the sun
 >and your ship gets a push towards the sun, the ship gets
 >closer--and then
 >gets farther away again. It doesn't spiral in.

A continuous retroburn insufficient to cancel forward
momentum simulates your 'only happens when there is friction'.
This is obvious and you are needlessly argumentative.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040403131407.22368.00000468.TakeThisOut@mb-m14.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer.TakeThisOut@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
  >>I know about a maneuver where a probe makes a close approach
  >>to a planetoid, whips around the planetoid accelerated by the
  >>planetoid's gravity, and continues onward with increased velocity
  >>as a result of the maneuver. This maneuver was used by the
  >>probes that visited first Jupiter and then Saturn. If that is your
  >>definition of a 'gravity assist', then your definition is not
  >>relevant to the problem under discussion.
 >
 >We need to kill off a lot of velocity to get into the sun.

Just keep retroburning and steering. You are not attempting
to land on the Sun -- hit it hard. And if you enter the Sun
off-center you will incinerate -- the whole point of the exercise.

You are needlessly argumentative.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040405003246.16062.00000679.DeleteThis@mb-m23.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer.DeleteThis@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

   >>>We need to kill off a lot of velocity to get into the sun.
  >>
[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
  >>Just keep retroburning and steering.
 >
 >Keep retroburning until you have killed off about 50 km/s.
 >Instead, spend your
 >money on several launches into Earth orbit.

Are you con fused, or has this thread turned into a game of
'Pin the tail on the Richard'?

The _original issue_ (one of several) was launching capsules
filled with nuclear waste that had been generated on the lunar
(and terrestrial) surface for the purpose of incinerating the
waste in the Sun. A 'near miss' approach to the Sun's center
should be adequate. You obviously want remote control
capability, and you want to avoid nuclear waste capsules
circling the Sun in cometlike orbits.

Other than deliberately creating spacejunk, I know no reason
to launch capsules of nuclear waste into terrestrial orbit.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

In article <20040404075333.22963.00000112 RemoveThis @mb-m22.aol.com>,
Richard Ballard <rball84213 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
  >>And your idea of spiraling in towards the sun is nonsense.
  >>Spiraling in
  >>only happens when there is friction. If you're in orbit
  >>around the sun
  >>and your ship gets a push towards the sun, the ship gets
  >>closer--and then
  >>gets farther away again. It doesn't spiral in.
 >A continuous retroburn insufficient to cancel forward
 >momentum simulates your 'only happens when there is friction'.
 >This is obvious and you are needlessly argumentative.

If you do a continuous retroburn , you'll only "spiral" as long as you're
burning, and even then you won't get a real spiral. If it's insufficient
to cancel forward momentum, then once you stop the burn, you'll be in an
orbit which will take you closer for a little while but will then take you
farther away again. You will not fall in.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.rahul.net/arromdee" target="_blank">http://www.rahul.net/arromdee</a>
(DVDs/manga/games for sale. <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.rahul.net/arromdee/sale.html" target="_blank">http://www.rahul.net/arromdee/sale.html</a>)

Tikritis: "Saddam is in our hearts! Saddam is in our blood!"
Americans/Iraqi Police: "Saddam is in our jail!"<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

In article <20040404075335.22963.00000115.DeleteThis@mb-m22.aol.com>,
Richard Ballard <rball84213.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
  >>We need to kill off a lot of velocity to get into the sun.
 >Just keep retroburning and steering. You are not attempting
 >to land on the Sun -- hit it hard.

That will not work, unless you cancel the orbital velocity. You won't
hit the sun by doing this.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.rahul.net/arromdee" target="_blank">http://www.rahul.net/arromdee</a>
(DVDs/manga/games for sale. <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.rahul.net/arromdee/sale.html" target="_blank">http://www.rahul.net/arromdee/sale.html</a>)

Tikritis: "Saddam is in our hearts! Saddam is in our blood!"
Americans/Iraqi Police: "Saddam is in our jail!"<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[Comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <c4s9jp$kqb$1@blue.rahul.net>,
arromdee RemoveThis @violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) writes:

 >If you do a continuous retroburn , you'll only "spiral" as
 >long as you're
 >burning, and even then you won't get a real spiral.
 >If it's insufficient
 >to cancel forward momentum, then once you stop the burn ...

Continue burning.

It would be nice if we could use the ever increasing
light density on a capsule aproaching the Sun to power
an ion propulsion system. That would solve the fuel
expenditure problem.

 >..., you'll be in an orbit which will take you closer
 >for a little while but will then take you
 >farther away again. ...

I already said that a cometlike orbit around the Sun was
not the solution.

 > ... You will not fall in.

Happily the Sun is a big target, does not require a soft
landing, and a close approach will accomplish incineration.

This might be _unaffordable_ today from a fuel expenditure
standpoint, but given an affordable ion drive I believe the
concept is practical. It also completely incinerates the
nuclear waste -- a nice feature.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ...