From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:10m7aq6$11a0o$1@dont-email.me...

"a425couple" wrote in message news:6hzhR.203219$uL07.196361@fx44.iad...
from https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html

The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
never happen.
---------------------------------
We have an excellent theoretical understanding of the physics within our
solar system, based on experimental measurements first performed on Earth
and later confirmed in orbit, but it fails at larger scales. There are apparently things we can't detect and measure from here. ---------------------------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

I don't believe Ancient Alien theories, for example the ancient Egyptian
value for Pi was 256/81 which is less accurate than 22/7 and wouldn't have been acquired from an advanced entity. Preliterate artifacts may show considerable freeform artistic talent but only minimal geometric knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Altamira

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

a425couple wrote:

from https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html

The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will never happen.

They said that of supersonic flight before, too.

The fantasy "exists on the exact same level of
plausibility as wizards," argues Jason Pargin, author of John Dies at
the End. [...]

Not an expert in the field, not even a scientist. His uneducated opinion is entirely irrelevant.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military



"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:10mae77$237sg$1@dont-email.me...

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:10m7aq6$11a0o$1@dont-email.me...

"a425couple" wrote in message news:6hzhR.203219$uL07.196361@fx44.iad...
from https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html

The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
never happen.
---------------------------------
We have an excellent theoretical understanding of the physics within our
solar system, based on experimental measurements first performed on Earth
and later confirmed in orbit, but it fails at larger scales. There are apparently things we can't detect and measure from here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

-----------------------------------

https://mkaku.org/home/articles/hyperspace-a-scientific-odyssey/

The square root of -1 is an interesting parallel. It has no apparent
existence in our 3D Cartesian coordinates, yet its math describes an "imaginary" orthogonal 4th dimension of AC energy in capacitance and inductance exquisitely well.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

Jim Wilkins wrote:

The square root of -1 is an interesting parallel.

A common misconception. The imaginary unit is NOT defined as the square
root of reA1. Instead, the imaginary unit is defined such that its square is equal to reA1, so that it is a solution of the equation x-# + 1 = 0.

IOW: rae-# := reA1 rcA reU(reA1) = -#rae.

It has no apparent existence in our 3D Cartesian coordinates, yet its math describes an "imaginary" orthogonal 4th dimension of AC energy

Nonsense.

in capacitance and inductance exquisitely well.

That this works has to do with Euler's formula:

exp(rae -a) = cos(-a) + rae sin(-a).

[One can see that this identity holds by writing it in terms of the Taylor
series of each function.]

It is thus possible to represent a point on a circle as a complex number,
and periodic quantities as complex numbers, especially those with constant (angular) frequency:

-a(t) := -e t rcA exp(rae -e t) = cos(-e t) + rae sin(-e t).

F'up2 <news:sci.math>
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

On 2/11/26 16:42, Steve Silverwood [KB6OJS] wrote:

On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 19:42:05 +1100, Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

I 100% agree. It's great to see some sensible discussion in this ng
instead of the usual sci fi nonsense.

Oh, my. Where do you think scientists GET their wild ideas of things
to invent? Case in point: lots of research is going into things like
FTL and matter-energy transferal from watching Star Trek! Don't go
dissin' the Sci-Fi guys, they come up with some great ideas! :)

Welcome Steve. I am glad you have chosen to join us posting.

Yes, Whisper refuses to accept that writers of science fiction
are often very knowledgeable. They often write of good ideas.
Where would we be without the world wide communications
possible by geosynchronous satellites?

Arthur C. Clarke first wrote about geosynchronous satellites in
a technical paper titled "Extra-Terrestrial Relays rCo Can Rocket Stations Give Worldwide Radio Coverage?," published in the October 1945 issue of Wireless World. He proposed using three satellites in a 36,000 km
equatorial orbit to provide global communication coverage.

Key details about this landmark publication include:
Concept: Clarke described how artificial satellites could act as relay stations for radio and television, remaining in a fixed position
relative to the Earth's surface.

The "Clarke Orbit": Due to this pioneering work, the geostationary orbit
is now often referred to as the Clarke Orbit or the Clarke Belt.
Initial Conception: While often cited as 1945, the concept was actually outlined earlier in a memo privately circulated among the British Interplanetary Society in May 1945.

Realization: While the idea was groundbreaking, the first satellite in geostationary orbit, Syncom 2, was not launched until 1963.


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

"a425couple" wrote in message news:G%1kR.645015$Fjhe.339857@fx11.iad...

On 2/11/26 16:42, Steve Silverwood [KB6OJS] wrote:

On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 19:42:05 +1100, Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

I 100% agree. It's great to see some sensible discussion in this ng
instead of the usual sci fi nonsense.

Oh, my. Where do you think scientists GET their wild ideas of things
to invent? Case in point: lots of research is going into things like
FTL and matter-energy transferal from watching Star Trek! Don't go
dissin' the Sci-Fi guys, they come up with some great ideas! :)

Welcome Steve. I am glad you have chosen to join us posting.

Yes, Whisper refuses to accept that writers of science fiction
are often very knowledgeable. They often write of good ideas.
Where would we be without the world wide communications
possible by geosynchronous satellites?

Arthur C. Clarke ...

---------------------------------------------- https://bigthink.com/books/science-fiction-novels-by-scientists/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Forward

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

On 2/7/2026 12:34 PM, a425couple wrote:

The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
never happen. The fantasy "exists on the exact same level of
plausibility as wizards," argues Jason Pargin, author of John Dies at
the End. Not because science lacks imagination, but because the
distances involved are so absurd that no amount of future technology
could overcome them without literally breaking the laws of physics.

We have ISS. Can we expand ISS into a huge space-ship or star-ship? Only
time will tell. I believe human being will try to build it but not on
the ground, possibly at Lagrange points.

Building a huge space-ship that can both land and fly to space indeed
sounds impossible, right now. SpaceX Starship is just the beginning??? :)
--
@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

We have ISS.

Yes.

Can we expand ISS into a huge space-ship or star-ship?

No.

Only time will tell.

The ISS is going to be deorbited, i.e. destroyed, soon :'-(

I believe human being will try to build it but not on the ground,

Yes, that would make little sense. Like a too large radio telescope, the
ship will be crushed under its own weight while still in construction.

possibly at Lagrange points.

Unlikely. Being at a Lagrange point does not mean that you do not need thrusters to stay there (at least L1 and L2). Also, the Lagrange points of
a system can be very far away from each body (L1 and L2 of Sol--Terra, where solar observatories and e.g. the JWST are orbiting, respectively, are 1.5 million km away from Terra). Standard orbits are much less expensive in
terms of fuel, both maintaining them and getting there and back.

Building a huge space-ship that can both land and fly to space indeed
sounds impossible, right now.

I doubt that this is a feasible design to begin with. Even in Star Trek the only *starship* class that could land on a terrestrial planet was the most modern class, the Intrepid class represented on screen by the U.S.S.
Voyager; for landing on planets they usually use(d) relatively small shuttlecraft that were carried along by a starship, and the transporter beam (crash landings aside, of course).

SpaceX Starship is just the beginning??? :)

Correct.

F'up2 alt.astronomy
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote in message news:10nk4m8$3r7ml$4@toylet.eternal-september.org...

Building a huge space-ship that can both land and fly to space indeed
sounds impossible, right now. SpaceX Starship is just the beginning??? :)

The Shuttle did both with some help. The trip up required it to carry about
9 times its weight in fuel which was too impractical to consider without boosters for extra initial lift, though once they burned out (2 minutes,
45~48 km, 1500 m/S) and separated its fuel mass had decreased enough that
its internal engine thrust could continue accelerating it, reaching ~8000
m/S orbital velocity on the fuel remaining in its huge external drop tank.
The engines were tilted up so their thrust line could pass through the combined center of gravity.

The big problem in reaching orbital velocity is that the rocket has to carry and accelerate the fuel and oxidizer it will burn later. Typically they are 90% or more of liftoff weight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

Those Shuttle engines now power Artemis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program
"For many Artemis program missions, the Space Launch System's two solid
rocket boosters' engines and casings and four main engines and the Orion spacecraft's main engine will all be previously flown Space Shuttle main engines, solid rocket boosters, and Orbital Maneuvering System engines. They are refurbished legacy engines from the Space Shuttle program, some of which even date back to the early 1980s."

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote in message news:10nk4m8$3r7ml$4@toylet.eternal-september.org...

We have ISS. Can we expand ISS into a huge space-ship or star-ship? Only
time will tell. I believe human being will try to build it but not on
the ground, possibly at Lagrange points.
--------------------------------------
The ISS is fragile and deteriorating, notably by hull cracking and air leaks in the Russian sections. When the Russian Nauka vessel's attitude thrusters fired unintentionally the torque came close to the station's structural
limit, the reaction gyros that normally control orientation had to be shut down so they wouldn't fight the thrusters and twist the structure. The ISS
was at risk until the thrusters ran out of fuel.

https://www.engineering.com/the-nauka-module-iss-mishap-what-happened/

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

Well, there are other considerations.
AI powered mission to span thousands of years----

from https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html

The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
never happen. The fantasy "exists on the exact same level of
plausibility as wizards," argues Jason Pargin, author of John Dies at
the End. Not because science lacks imagination, but because the
distances involved are so absurd that no amount of future technology
could overcome them without literally breaking the laws of physics.

Proxima Centauri, the nearest star, is 4.25 light-years away rCo a 50 trillion-mile round trip. Getting to Mars is already a borderline
impossible 3-year, half-trillion-dollar ordeal that we've spent decades
just talking about. Getting to Proxima Centauri would be like doing the
Mars trip 170,000 times in a row. At current spacecraft speeds, it would
take 500,000 years.

Even in the "hopelessly optimistic scenario" of traveling at one-tenth
the speed of light rCo thousands of times faster than anything we know how
to build rCo a grain of sand hitting the hull would detonate with nuclear force. The trip would still take 80+ years, requiring a ship that's essentially a self-contained civilization with enough redundancy to
survive every conceivable disaster, powered by more energy than humanity
has ever produced.

As for the sci-fi workarounds? "Suspended animation" is just asking us
to invent immortality. "Generation ships" would mean imprisoning people
in space without their consent rCo children born on the ship would live
and die having never seen a tree, a lake, or any human being outside
their floating prison. "We can make this work if we just solve literally
all of the flaws in human psychology, morality and socialization,"
Pargin writes.

His real frustration is that this fantasy was sold to us as humanity's purpose. "If it depresses you to imagine humans still confined to Earth
1,000 years from now, it's your imagination that has gone wrong because
that is, inarguably, the best case scenario."

Previously:
rCo Author Jason Pargin on the 2000-era website that accidentally
destroyed the world
rCo Not quite jumping to hyperspace, but Star Wars-esque spacecraft
propulsion isn't all sci-fi


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.aviation.military

"a425couple" wrote in message news:6hzhR.203219$uL07.196361@fx44.iad...

Well, there are other considerations.
AI powered mission to span thousands of years----

from https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html

The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic

Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester

Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
never happen.
---------------------------------
We have an excellent theoretical understanding of the physics within our
solar system, based on experimental measurements first performed on Earth
and later confirmed in orbit, but it fails at larger scales. There are apparently things we can't detect and measure from here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
"Assuming that the lambda-CDM model of cosmology is correct, dark energy dominates the universe, contributing 68% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe while dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter contribute 27% and 5%, respectively, and other components such as neutrinos and photons are nearly negligible."

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2