So?  The whole premise of this thread is that fuel is cheep.  Constant 
acceleration will make the time fly on those long inter-stellar trips.  Also
it would provide a nice solution to your artifical gravity problem.

>
>Also, what is "1G acceleration"? I pressume that's an Earth G, but if you're
>flying to a planet that's larger -- or smaller -- than Earth you have to
>re-calculate your "G" (so you can fall into orbit on arrival, right?).

No.  You can accelerate at what ever rate you want.  One G would be nice for
people use to living on earth.  If people were stronger or willing to put up
with greater G force you could get there quicker.  As far as achieving orbit
that has nothing to do with your traveling acceleration.  And you don't fall
into orbit like droping into a groove on a record.  You need at least two
well placed engine thrusts to get a nice orbit around anything, regardless of
size.

I would like to see more decisions by the captian about what orbit to go into
when approaching a planet.  Like if it is an unexplored planet, he says "Polar
Orbit, Mr. Data.  Begin maping Mr. Wrof" or if he is going to send the Away
teem down: "Synchronous Orbit Mr. Data.  Mr. Ricker prepare your away teem"
so the Enterprise stays over the away teem read to beam them back.  Or perhaps
they launch a probe into a polar orbit to do the mapping and/or serve as a
transproter relay.  They could sound a lot more techincal with out confusing
people and get more realism rather that the bull s**t deus ex machina that they
usually use.  

They missed a great opertunity in that episode were they are caught in a trap 
with that ancient space ship and had to leave with minimum thrusters.
Picard takes control and Data says they don't have enough momentum to get out
so Picard uses a gravity assist from an asteroid, great idea but the big-e
turned *in front* of the asteroid, not going behind it.  What BS.

>
>I could be way out here, and expect to be corrected, but something I would like
>to know is:
>
>What are the structural peramiters required for "high-speed" outer-space
>travel. Clearly things like "wind-drag" don't factor in, but there must be a
>"shape" of ship which flies better. For example, a "sail-ship" might move fine
>at the speed of the solar wind, but if you burn fuel to accelerate, the sails
>will collapse under their "lower momentum"... or will they.

Solar sailers are only good near a star, they won't work in interstellar space.
No light, no solar wind to move them.  The biggest problem with high speed 
interstellar travel is fuel.  The Bussard ram get that uses interstellar
hydrogen to power it is an interesting solution.  Anti-mater is a compact
way to store fuel but expensive to produce.  Finding an anti-matter planet
would be like gold to a space fareing people.

>
>I'd appreciate refernce books if anyone has any. This IS a facinating
>discussion...

A great book on this subject is: packed away where I can't find it at the
moment but it is something like the handbook of interstellar travel.  It is
well writen and has a lot of good theories well explianed.

>
>
>
>Spongebo - THE EYE-BALL KID (:::::-)
>
>spongebo@cithara.login.qc.ca


|"But what jobs are there in a backwards reality for a dead hologram and an  |
| android with a head shaped like a novelty condom?" -A.J. Rimmer            |
|                                                                            |
| Randy McFarland                         mcfar@sunfse.ese.lmse.lockheed.com |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies