[TML] Molding Ships

Thu Oct 4 08:08:35 MDT 2007

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tml-bounces at travellercentral.com
> [mailto:tml-bounces at travellercentral.com]On Behalf Of
> shadow at shadowgard.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 6:08 PM
> To: The Traveller Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [TML] Molding Ships
>
>
> On 3 Oct 2007 at 11:42, Charles Prevatte wrote:
>
> > > From: tml-bounces at travellercentral.com
> > > [mailto:tml-bounces at travellercentral.com]On Behalf Of James Ramsay
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 2:43 AM
> > > To: The Traveller Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [TML] Molding Ships
> > >
> > >
> > > Charles Prevatte wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, you missed the point.  I was mainly talking about what a
> > > very small
> > > > group of "space men" and their ship could have done
> reasonably in that
> > > > situation.  Even a very few spy or comunications sats would
> > > have taken more
> > > > tech than could be cobbled together from one small space ship.
> > > Leonard already answered this. If the ship has a missile turret they
> > > could probably launch a ton of sats and never leave the ground.
> > >
> > > > While upgradeing a factory, or even several, to produce year
> > > 2000+ engines for
> > > > helecopters would have been trivial.
> > > Combat useful helos require more than the airframe. Training
> the pilots
> > > would take significant amounts of time, especially as you
> have to start
> > > the training program with no senior pilots.
> >
> > Ouch, got me there.  Well if you assume one of your "space men"
> is a pilot
> > you have a work arround.
>
> Only if he's a *helicopter* pilot. It's a rather arcane skill and
> nothing else transfers well.
>

VERY TRUE!

> > > No I don't. I said increasing production of already combat active
> > > machines or doing minor improvements to those machines (such as the
> > > T-34/85), and improving logistics using the computers on a space ship
> > > would be a better idea. Improved logistics and satellite
> tracking would
> > > affect the outcome of a war more then 50's and 60's war machines.
> >
> > Again the sats.  I do not see them as posible with 1920-1945
> tech.  No solar
> > cells, batery life would be short, and the electronic would be
> very power
> > hungery.  Drop the sats, and you could be on the right tract.
> It depends on
> > what the tactical situation is and how mush time you have to
> get the "help"
> > to the front lines.  Oh and by the way, there wer ehelecopter
> in WW2, they
> > just were not very effective because of the engines power to
> weight ratio.
> > That was one of the reasons I mentioned them.  1942 to be exact.
>
> Selenium cells existed. You need more of them for the same power, but
> they were known tech. And a lot of better battery designs exist.
>
> Though just building something big enough to have techs on hand may
> take a bit longer but is easier to work with long term.
>

1883 was the first Selenium photovoltaic device.  Charles Frizz built it.
1946 Russel Ohl patented the 'modern' solar cell.  It was 1% effecent.  6%
effecent solar cells were Bell Labs in arround 1954-1957.  They were the
lower limit for practical use in space.  That is why I have some doubts
about Selenium cell in use in space.

I'm not curtain the Selenium could have been ramped up enough to produce
enough power for a space station or statalite.  There are questions about
space effects on the substrate, and mass to power ratio and structural
support.  That tech path has not as far as I can find been R&Ded to see what
it's upper limits are.  Silicon took over in the late 50s, and is light
enough and durable enough (when properly used) for space use.  Also new R&D
is raising the effecincy and pwoer output per square inch for silcon and not
plasic solar cells while reducing the cost that soon solar cells will be
cost competative with coal and nuclear generated electricity.  If we ever
cross that point, we will have reached the point were a techno paradise
would be theoretically posible.  Whether it will ever happen if we ever have
that capability, will depend on us.  Cheap clean energy is the closest thing
to the holly grail I can think of in today's world.

I have read that 12% solar cells are in production (expensive) and that up
to 25% effecency have been built (experimentally).  I have also read that a
new plastic based solar cell will be commercially available "in a year or
two" that could be up to 15% effectent.  (I read a lot of technical journals
as a matter of course (work)).  The new plasic cells are suppose to be very
cheap (relatively) and long lasting enough that they could have crossed the
price barrier.  If so, then we will not be dependant on oil for much longer.
Keep your fingures crossed.

Charles L.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1046 - Release Date: 10/3/2007
10:08 AM