Friday, January 30, 2015

Immunosuppressant therapy, Fungal Pneumonia, and Second Thoughts

At my GI appointment on Tuesday (1/27) we decided to use combination therapy (Azathioprine + Remicade) to treat my Crohn's Disease.  The addition of Azathioprine to the Remicade boosts Remicade's effectiveness (by about 10%) and some doctors believe reduces the chances of developing antibodies to the therapy.

I originally agreed to this therapy.

However, after the appointment, I thought long and hard about it and the remnants of my fungal pneumonia.  Many medical professionals, including my GI doctor, told me that if I had started Remicade back in September with my fungal pneumonia, I would be dead by now.

That's a pretty scary thought.

So I called my GI back and told him, I would prefer to err on the side of caution.  I only want monotherapy with Remicade (no Azathioprine) until such time as I'm declared Cryptococcus free.  At that time we should reconsider the use of Azathioprine depending upon how I'm responding to the Remicade therapy.

After all, if the conservative approach is wrong, I'll still be around to try a different course of treatment. If we go too aggressive with treatment any corrective action or lawsuit won't help me much when I'm 6 feet underground.

My GI doctor agreed.  We'll stick with monotherapy, continue antifungal therapy, and keep close tabs on the fungal pneumonia

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

GI Doctor Visit and decisions

I went to my Gastroenterologist (GI) doctor and talked to him about many topics.  However, a summary of the meeting is:

  1. I still have fungal pneumonia
  2. The doc wants to know how active my CD is
  3. I'm approved to start biological therapy
I get to sign up for Remi infusions again. Doctor and infusion center working on the details. I'll post my date when they call.  This will be my fourth infusion appointment :| I had to cancel the previous three appointments due to last minute discoveries of complicating infections.

My Fungal Pneumonia

The big thing I'm wrestling with right now is I have one of those serious infections that can kill you if you start Remicade. After 4+ months of intensive therapy, my infectious diseases (ID) doc has approved me to use Remicade (I'm responding very well to anti-fungal therapy). My GI wants me on combo therapy - Imuran (an immune suppressant) and Remicade (also an immune suppressant) to get the CD under control.

I've decided to push back on the use of Imuran and insist on monotherapy with just Remicade until I've completely cleared the pneumonia and there is no sign of infection.

I figure if we err on the side of caution, I'll still be around to fix the medications and dosing problems. If we err on the side of too aggressive treatment,
then it could kill me in rather short order and I won't get a chance to learn from my mistakes.

Interesting side-note about the pneumonia - back in September the blood titer for Cryptococcus tested positive.  The research I've done indicates this means the organism is circulating in your blood stream and could be spreading.

My latest blood titer for Cryptococcus tested negative.  This does not mean the infection has resolved.  However, it does mean the organism is no longer circulating (which is still very good news).


My Crohn's Disease

Because I've had surgery and my CD has become active again, my GI wants to get a new colonoscopy of the affected portion of my bowel.  He'll be better able to judge the level of activity and use the images as a baseline point for the biological therapy.

However, I also suffer from
gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and have not had that looked at in over ten years.  Because I've mentioned some problems with this, he recommended that I get an endoscopy at the same visit as my colonoscopy.

These are scheduled for March.




Starting Biological Therapy


Remicade has been around longer and more data has been collected about it. Remicade shows better effectiveness over the first 12 months of treatment than any other biological. However, after 12 months the biologicals all perform similarly. I also believe (but am not yet certain) that it performs better on fistulizing CD.

Remicade has an increased risk of allergic reaction compared to other biologicals - however, you still have a risk of allergic reaction if you use other biologicals like Humira.

Today, I chose to start with Remicade over Humira but I don't feel that strongly about one over the other.



This is my Humira vs Remicade pro/con list:
Remicade - 

  1. has more data for treating Crohn's Disease
  2. has more data for healing fistulas
  3. better chance of remission in the first year, 
  4. (for me) medication is substantially cheaper 
  5. GI prefers Remi -> Humira transition over Humira -> Remi transition

Humira - 

  1. same odds of long-term benefit as Remi 
  2. (for me) is over-all cheaper (no nursing or infusion center costs) 
  3. less chance of allergic reaction to the drug

Monday, January 26, 2015

Surgical Bloating - 4 months after surgery

My surgical bloating (as I blogged at that link) lasted for many months and only gradually declined.



I'm including a picture from last month (about 3 months after surgery) for comparison.



As you can see, the incision and wound did eventually heal.  I don't have any pain from either now.

However, if I wear a belt or other clothing that confines my waist, it can sometimes cause a lot of pain in my gut.

Still no running - but lots of other stuff

I still haven't resumed running since the flu diagnosis I received on 12/19.  I feel completely recovered (and have felt that way for weeks).  I am also mentally ready and willing to resume.  However, I've been too busy doing other activities requiring a great deal of physical activity.

Almost every day I've been splitting some firewood (15 minutes or more).  On one day last weekend, I spent 2 hours splitting firewood.  This work is great for an upper body workout and provides good high exertion aerobic activity but it doesn't do much for my legs.

Similarly, I've been spending at least 30 minutes a week shoveling out the horse shed for our two horses.  This is moderately intense physical exertion and gets my heart rate into the 150s.

Lastly, last Friday (1/23) I had to dig out our septic system.  Another 20 minutes of moderately intense physical activity.

Summary
I have not done any running :(

But I'm keeping plenty active.  I am putting almost as much time into doing these hard chores as I'd like to put into running.

I estimate that I spend 4 or so hours per week doing vigorous physical activity (heart rate above 130 bpm).

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Colorectal Surgeon visit and other stuff

I had a another doc visit today - my colorectal surgeon. He's following-up on the three fistula surgeries he performed on my fistula in 2013 (Incision & Drain, Seton placement, and Fibrin glue closure) and three more in 2014 (bowel resection, wound debridement, and another incision and drainage). He inspected my two current anorectal fistulas.  On all of these issues he gave me 2 thumbs up and agreed that I could resume playing volleyball :)

He received the note from my Infectious Diseases (ID) doc stating that he approved the use of biologicals like Remicade to treat my Crohn's Disease.  He told me that Remi has a higher chance of successfully resolving my fistulas than any surgical treatment he could offer.  He highly recommended that I proceed with the biological therapy.

I've now gotten the approval of two of my doctors to begin treating with biologicals.  I still need the approval of my final doctor, my GI.  I see the Gastroenterologist (GI aka ordering doctor) on Tuesday 1/27.  At this appointment, I expect to get his approval and schedule an infusion while in his office.

Wish me luck.

My GI doctor ordered me to resume my Azathioprine (AZA aka Imuran).

In other news my AZA script which cost $30/month last year, now costs $90/month.  I'm in my deductible window so I pay 100% of all medical costs until the deductible is met.

AZA costing $90/month

6MP costing $90/month
MTX costing $15/month

In other news I received on the same day.  The two blood tests performed on my on 1/15 were a Liver function panel (hepatic) and a Cryptococcus "titer" - which I think looks for my antibodies to the Cryptococcus fungus.


I tested positive twice back in September.  A positive titer means that the organism is in my blood and able to spread (very bad news).

A negative titer does NOT mean my body eliminated the Cryptococcus but it does mean it no longer circulates in my blood - which means it can't spread (very good news).

Combine this with the positive CT scan results and I think I'm medically ready to move forward with Remicade.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Infectious Diseases doctor visit

Today (1/15/15) I went to my Infectious Diseases (ID) doctor to discuss the radiologists report on my 12/22/15 chest CT scan.

My ID doc was very pleased with my progress.  He wanted to know what my surgeon's and GI doc's plans for treatment were.  Unfortunately, those appointments come next week and the week after.  I told the ID doc that they were waiting on the results of this visit to make final decisions about how to proceed.

  • My ID doc wanted to know my thoughts on how the surgeon and GI doc wanted to proceed.
  • I replied they wanted to resume my old Crohn's Disease medications and put me on biologicals.
  • He asked what the odds were that we'd proceed with the biologicals if he gave permission.
  • I replied nearly 100%.
  • He stated that he would give permission if we continued the anti-fungal treatment.  He also stated that many doctors prescribe antifungals as prophylaxis when biological treatments are given.  He also stated that as long as I stayed on biologicals, he'd keep me on the antifungals.
  • I agreed.
  • He sent authorization to both my surgeon and GI doctor to proceed with the biological treatments.
So I see the surgeon on 1/22 and the GI doctor on 1/27.  I expect both to suggest that I start the biologicals and I expect the GI doctor to write the order and set up the appointment while I'm in the office.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Radiologists Report on Chest CT

I've included a transcription of the radiologists report on my Chest CT.  I bolded the portions I thought were most pertinent.

EXAM:
Chest Thorax w/wo IV contrast CTS


CLINICAL INDICATION:
48-year old patient with a history of cyrptococcosis 117.5

COMPARISON:
9/7/2014

CONTRAST:
90 mL Isovue 370

EXPOSURE:
474 mGycm

FINDINGS:
Cuts through the chest were obtained from the thoracic inlet through the costophrenic sulci with and without intravenous contrast enhancement.

The mediastinal vascular structures enhance normally.  The aorta is normal in caliber without evidence of dissection.  The pulmonary arteries are well visualized and normal in appearance.  There is no adenopathy present in the hila or mediastinum.

Within the bilateral upper lobes, there has been interval improvement in the amount of airspace disease/opacity.  There is a small cavitary lesion in the left upper lobe measuring approximately 1.7 x 1.4 cm which was not definitely visualized on the prior
study.  The right lower lobe airspace disease has nearly completely resolved with only a mild amount of opacity present (series 4, image 48).  No new pulmonary masses or opacities identified.

The visualized portions of the upper abdominal viscera are grossly normal.

IMPRESSION:
1. Significant improvement in the bilateral upper and right lower lobe opacities compared to the prior study of 9/7/14 compatible with interval response to treatment.  Residual opacity is present in the bilateral upper lobes.  There has been near complete resolution of the right lower lobe opacity.  Continued followup is recommended.

2. Interval development of a probable small cavitary lesion measuring 1.7 cm in the left upper lobeOpacity is identified within the lumen which likely represents residual airspace disease.  Followup is recommended.



What looks better?
  • Left upper lobe
  • Right upper lobe
  • Especially the right lower lobe (almost no sign of disease now)

What looks normal and/or unchanged?
  • Heart
  • Major blood vessels
  • Pulmonary (lung) blood vessels
  • Lymphnodes
  • Left lower lobe (not much sign of disease there in the first report)
  • Everything below the diaphragm

What looks worse?
  • Development of a new "cavitary lesion"

Medical terminology
Caution I have no formal medical training or education.  What I know (and think I know) I learned by reading about my disease, internet searching, and speaking to doctors.  So my definitions of medical terminology are worth what you paid for them :)

  • Bilateral - both sides (left & right)
  • Lobe - consider each lung divided in half into upper and lower lobes
  • Opacity - unable to see through it on the x-ray - caused by disease or scarring
  • Residual opacity - I suspect but have not confirmed that this means the radiologist thinks my body has eliminated the disease in this spot and the remaining "opacity" is due to lung scarring - not disease.
  • Cavitary lesion - "cavitary" means a cavity and implies it is gas filled (otherwise they might call it a cyst).  However, the radiologist cannot determine whether the cavity is fluid filled or gas filled by means of x-ray or CT scan.  A lesion of this sort indicates some of my lung tissue or fungal tissue died and is in the process of being absorbed by my body.  Cavitary lesions are a common feature of fungal lung infections (along with several other types of infections like m. Tuberculosis)
  • Residual airspace disease - means my body is exuding fluids into my lungs (aka pneumonia) from fighting the fungus.

What it all means
Well, my ID doctor was tickled with the results :)

No new areas of disease
Some areas are almost completely healed.
Other areas show significant improvement with much of the remaining "opacity" due to scarring and not fungus.
One region of fungal infection developed a "cavitary lesion" which looks like normal disease & healing progression

Monday, January 12, 2015

Ups and Downs

Bad stuff:
Over the holidays I suffered especially severe diarrhea and gradually lost weight.  Last week I suffered severe cramps requiring both Bentyl and Norco to control the pain.  This week I've suffered severe fatigue and chest aches.

Good stuff:
Problems seem to only be cropping up singly and I remain nearly 100% functional through most of this.  I will visit all of my primary doctors within the next 3 weeks.

I'll write updates on all my main conditions after visiting my docs:

1/15 - ID doc
1/22 - Surgeon
1/27 - GI doc

Oh yeah, I may be getting braces in February.

Friday, January 9, 2015

The Engines for the Movie Interstellar

The Engines for the Movie Interstellar

I’ve now devote 3 – 5 blog posts to the movie Interstellar when I could be posting about (and have started) 5 other worthy topics.

Why is that?

Frankly, I’m not sure.  I suspect it’s because the movie produced in me a sense of wonder at our place in the Universe, excited me with a sense of exploration, and portrayed space travel in a manner we might be able to achieve in the next couple of decades.

I’ve broken the movie into acts.  I have no idea whether this corresponds to the actual acts as laid out in the script but these divisions work for my purposes.



Act
Part of Movie
Act I
Prelaunch
Act II
Prewormhole voyage
Act III
Postwormhole exploration
Act IV
Black hole
Act V
Cooper Station & beyond


The movie shows 5 different spacecraft, order of appearance:



Implied Mission Requirements
Apparent Vehicle
Performance Requirements

delta Vel
Thrust to
Mass Ratio
Exhaust Vel
Impulse
Spacecraft
km/s
Weight

km/s
sec
Act I Ranger
1.0
N/A
1.7
5
459
Endurance
50
0.5
2.5
98
10,000
Act III Ranger
8.5
1.5
1.7
30
3,061
Cooper Station
66.0
1.2
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Act V Ranger
14,000
1.2
1.7
50,000
5,102,041



I’ll discuss each craft’s apparent propulsion system, its required performance, and whether any currently postulated propulsion system aligns with the capabilities shown in the movie.  For this analysis, I’ll heavily reference the Atomic Rocket’s Engine List as well as perform many calculations for myself.


Also let me preface this by two important points of spacecraft design missing from the movie; thermal radiators and radiation protection.  To make these craft work, we simply need to forget that these two elements would be essential for any such craft even though they are lacking in these designs.

Definitions

Payload Fraction

For these calculations, I’m using a term I call payload fraction, defined as the payload mass (not volume) divided by the apparent mass of the vehicle.  For the craft, the payload area appears almost entirely empty – usually just containing atmosphere and people.  I’m assuming most of the payload mass resides in the supplies and infrastructure used to maintain this livable area.  The remaining mass of the vehicle consists of vehicle structure + engine and its fuel.

Mass Ratio

A far more common and useful (for my purposes) number is the vehicle mass ratio.  This is the maximum weight of the vehicle divided by the vehicle weight without fuel and provides information about the amount of fuel the vehicle has available for completing the mission.  For my purposes, I’ll have to guestimate this number based upon other observations.

Fuel

In conventional chemical rockets, the rocket fuel (the substance used to generate energy) and propellant (the mass ejected for thrust) are the same substance.  For propulsion concepts in which the fuel and propellant are the same, I’ll use the term “fuel”.

Propellant

For some engine concepts (e.g. ion thrusters), the fuel and propellant are not the same substance.  In the case of a nuclear powered ion thruster, uranium would be the fuel while xenon might be the propellant.  In propulsion concepts like this, I’ll differentiate between the two and use both terms.


Spacecraft

Act I Ranger(s)

Multiple spacecraft are called Rangers throughout the movie, starting with the crash/dream sequence at the very beginning.

Performance

Metric
Value
Mission
delta V
km/s
1
T/W
T/W
N/A
Vehicle
Apparent Mass Ratio
Mt/Md
1.7
Engine
Exhaust Vel
km/s
5
Impulse
sec
460


As initially portrayed in this sequence as well as the launch sequence, the craft only performs orbital maneuvers (the launch stack provides the launch capabilities).  This would be comparable to the Space Shuttle Orbiter using its OMS engines for maneuvers.  My perspective on the craft from watching the movie is a very large fraction of the craft’s volume is devoted to payload (crew cabin).  My feeling is that this could be upwards of 40% but I’ll be generous and call it 25%.  That leaves 75% of the volume of the craft for structure, engines, and fuel.

The apparent payload volume is mostly empty space (e.g. crew cabins) and possesses very low density; however, at least some of this space contains the storage spaces and machinery of life which possesses a much higher density.  I also assume that other portions of the ship (fuel, propellant, engines, structure, etc.) contain little empty space and are packed as densely as possible.  All of these items would be stored in the aerodynamic structures, walls, floor, etc.  The nooks and crannies of the vessel.

The Ranger’s configuration; engines parallel to the passenger cabin, no apparent radiation shielding, and no bulk area in which to place a reactor; the craft can’t include a nuclear reactor for power or propulsion.  The craft’s configuration and lack of support infrastructure on the visited planets also eliminate concepts such as laser light craft, light gas gun, ram accelerators, space elevators, and mass drivers.  After eliminating infrastructure launch mechanisms, fission, fusion, and anti-matter power; then the drive table leaves only a few viable alternatives chemical and Metastable Helium.

The observed maneuvers only require engine performance characteristics consistent with chemical rockets or other engines displayed at the beginnings of the Atomic Rocket’s Engine List.  The minimum performance (it would be OK or even desirable for these numbers to be larger but this would be sufficient for observed capabilities) would therefore be something like:



Drive type
Exhaust Vel
Thrust / Weight
Min Engine Mass
Notes
km/s

tonnes
Liquid Hydrogen - Liquid Oxygen Chemical
4.6
81,632
<1 span="">
Based upon Space Shuttle Main Engine performance


Space Shuttle Main Engine

 
Verdict: this craft is plausible and completely “doable” with today’s technology.  Think of it as a modestly improved space shuttle orbiter with a primary purpose of moving people and minimal cargo capacity.



Endurance

The Endurance flies to Saturn on a 2-year high energy trajectory (much higher energy than the 6-year minimum energy direct Hohmann transfer trajectory).  I assume that it reserved at least that much delta V for maneuvers in the Gargantua system, requiring a total delta V of 46 km/sec – a very high performance craft.


Metric
Value
Mission
delta V
km/s
50
T/W
T/W
0.5
Vehicle
Apparent Mass Ratio
Mt/Md
2.5
Engine
Exhaust Vel
km/s
98
Impulse
sec
10,000


If we assume all modules possess the same mass and use the online resources, the maximum mass fraction would be 1.18 – which requires performance far beyond anything in the Atomic Rockets Drive Table except for the Fission Fragment Rocket (FFR), Nuclear Pulse Propulsion (NPP), and VASIMR concepts.  Despite the fact that both the NPP and FFR possess far more performance than required, the Endurance configuration does not conform to either the FFR (humongous nuclear power plant with little measurable thrust) or NPP (nuclear bombs) engine concepts.  It does look a little like a VASIMR (Variable Specific Impulse Rocket) and VASIMR provides the necessary specific impulse/mission delta V, however, VASIMR also requires a very large nuclear reactor and provides thrust much smaller than shown (thousandths of a g instead of about ½ a g).

If we assume that another 4 non-engine modules contain propellant, then we get a slightly more reasonable mass ratio of 2.5.  This allows us to use a concept much more likely for the Endurance – a Nuclear Thermal Rocket with an open-cycle gas core.  This propulsion system requires nuclear reactors and spews radioactive materials in its exhaust.  However, it has the necessary thrust, specific impulse, and configuration to conform to that shown in the movie.

But that only leaves 4 modules for habitation, life support, and colonization.  One small consolation would be that the both Landers and Ranger 2 would likely be packed with supplies before departure – so consider that equivalent to 1-2 modules for a total of 5 or more modules devoted to habitation, life support, and colonization.


Drive type
Exhaust Vel
Thrust / Weight
Min Engine Mass
Notes
km/s

tonnes
Nuclear Thermal Rocket (Open Cycle)
50
51
10
requires large separation between engine and people
VASIMR
60
0.0007
30
minuscule thrust, needs large sail or huge reactor
Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
9,800
100
8
requires large separation between engine and people
Fission Fragment Rocket
14,990
0.003
9
minuscule thrust, needs large sail or huge reactor


Open Cycle-Gas Core Nuclear Thermal Rocket


VASIMR

Fission Fragment Rocket











Act III Ranger(s)

Later in the movie we are treated to the same Rangers used as re-entry craft (minimal or no propulsion requirements due to aero-braking) with the ability to also perform Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) back to Endurance after a trip to the planet.  It performed this feat multiple times.  The other space to ground ships (only called “Landers”) possess performance characteristics nearly identical to that of the Ranger.

Assumptions:
  • The Ranger is refueled by Endurance between flights (no discussion or evidence of this, but let’s assume it’s true)
  • Despite having higher surface gravity, Miller’s planet possessed much lower total mass than Earth (possible but unlikely)
  • Mann’s planets possessed much lower total mass than Earth (likely)

As with the initial assessment of the Ranger craft, the configuration of the craft eliminates engine designs which release a large amount of radiation (fission, fusion, and anti-matter).  The performance requirements for this observed behavior also eliminates chemical rockets.


Metric
Value
Mission
delta V
km/s
10
T/W
T/W
1.4
Vehicle
Apparent Mass Ratio
Mt/Md
1.7
Engine
Exhaust Vel
km/s
30
Impulse
sec
3061


All measures of engine performance require vast improvement over the Ranger performance observed in Act I.  Most of them require an order of magnitude improvement and completely rule out any sort of chemical propulsion.  Since the Ranger’s configuration also eliminates the use of a nuclear reactor (no room for radiation shielding), nearly all other potentially viable candidates are also eliminated.

The only viable candidate is the Metastable Helium IV-A (provides performance of about 2/3 of desired).  This is real but almost entirely theoretical engine concept.  No serious investigation of its potential as a rocket engine fuel has been performed.

The fuel for the Metastable Helium engine is Metastable Helium IV-A, a diatomic metastable Helium atom bonded to stable helium and stored as a solid.  It should remain stable for about 8 years – which would be good enough for the Ranger trips to each planet.  However, Endurance would require a fuel production facility to generate the stuff because it could not store it for the period of time shown in the movie.

Since too much jostling, heat, sudden impacts, etc. would detonate your fuel (and destroy your ship).  This might explain why conventional chemical fuels were used for the initial launch from Earth.  You’d only use this fuel when no alternatives were available.  A side note to this would be that metastable Helium would not require a flame and therefore the flooded engines shown on Miller’s planet would not have been a problem.

Verdict: Short of using the Metastable Helium propulsion, this craft is not plausible.  This is not just an engineering problem.  Given our current understanding of physics, this configuration of the Rangers rules out the use of the high energy nuclear powered engines.  However, the plot required the crew to be able to return from forays to the planets and this was the plot “vehicle” used for that purpose (similar to Star Trek’s use of their transporters).




Drive type
Exhaust Vel
Thrust / Weight
Min Engine Mass
Notes
km/s

tonnes
Metastable He IV-A
21
0.65**
10
Highly unstable fuel


**A thrust to weight of 0.65 excludes its use as a launch engine; however, improvements in engine design might reduce this engine mass so that it provided the necessary thrust.


Cooper Station

Don’t let the name fool you.  Cooper Station and its twin seen in orbit around Saturn (and potentially others not shown) are actually very large spacecraft and not stations.


Metric
Value
Mission
delta V
km/s
66
T/W
T/W
1.2
Vehicle
Apparent Mass Ratio
Mt/Md
Unknown
Engine
Exhaust Vel
km/s
Unknown
Impulse
sec
Unknown


Cooper station was either the station shown under construction back on Earth (or its twin).  Not shown but assumed in its presence around Saturn, the station needed to lift-off Earth and travel out to Saturn.  Since the timing of these events was not shown, we do not know the trip time.  I assume that Cooper Station requires a similar amount of delta V to reach its destination.

Based upon the dialog throughout the movie, we must assume that Cooper Station uses some sort of gravitic drive.  Since I have no idea what a gravitic drive is or how it works, I can’t compare it to other concepts discussed in this post and can’t realistically provide any estimate of its performance.
One conjecture is that a gravitic drive might allow you to magnify or dilute the amount of gravitational attraction exerted upon the ship from one direction or another.  Using such a technology allows the ship to nullify the pull of the Earth while amplifying that of the Moon or Sun and simply “fall” off the surface of the Earth.  If this could be made true, then the ship is literally capable of any acceleration since as long as the ship and its contents are all “falling” at the same rate they’ll all experience “free-fall” (zero-g) conditions.

This would be a form of reactionless drive and is expressly forbidden by the laws of physics (laws of thermodynamics) as we know it.  Depending upon the specifics of how it operated, it may also violate the conservation laws of energy and momentum but possibly not.

However, humans could have launched these sized vessels from Earth using vintage 1959 era technology, namely nuclear pulse propulsion.  This technology would not require the solving of Dr. Brand's equations in the first place.  I hope we would be intelligent to use this technique if the survival of the species depended upon it.

According to the Physics Today site a NPP type system could launch an O'Neill Cylinder of up to 3.2 km by 320 m in size (Model 2) with launch mass to spare (4.5 Mtonnes vs 8 Mtonnes capability).

O'Neill Cylinder









Drive type
Exhaust Vel
Thrust / Weight
Min Engine Mass
Notes
km/s

tonnes
Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
9,800,000
100
8
requires large separation between engine and people
Gravitic
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Total fiction, unknown performance


Nuclear Pulse Propulsion

Engines which might provide the sort of performance portrayed in the movie.  None of these propulsion systems (except the gravitic) match the observed configuration of the Cooper Station Rangers.





Cooper Station Ranger


Metric
Value
Mission
delta V
km/s
1,400
T/W
T/W
1.2
Vehicle
Apparent Mass Ratio
Mt/Md
1.7
Engine
Exhaust Vel
km/s
50,000
Impulse
sec
5,000,000


This vessel doesn’t look much like the vessels called Rangers from the first part of the movie.  It is a much smaller two seat spacecraft (instead of the Rangers with a cabin from earlier in the movie).  At the end of the movie, Cooper steals the vessel to find Dr. Brand on Edmunds’ planet.

Assume that it must travel a distance in the Gargantua system (wormhole to Edmunds’ planet) equal to traveling from the Earth to Saturn – this provides us with the distance (about 1,000,000,000 miles).
This ship needs to provide life support for Cooper during the trip to Edmunds’ planet.  The vessel’s very small size doesn’t permit much life support (air, water, food, & thermal control).  Therefore, I assume it must make that trip in a matter of days or Cooper will die before he gets to Edmund’s planet.

The Atomic Rockets Mission Tables show that a round trip voyage to Saturn using constant 1-g acceleration can be done in 18 days (a one way trip would take 9 days).  Could Cooper survive on the food, oxygen, water, & power provided by the Future Ranger for 9 days?  I assume the answer is “yes”.

1-g of constant acceleration all the way to Saturn requires about 14,000 km/s of mission delta V.  Although Atomic Rocket’s drive table includes engines that could manage this sort of performance, none of them would fit on the Ranger craft shown in Cooper Station.

The engine types that might deliver this level of performance are only anti-matter, certain exotic high-energy fusion reactions, and photon (light sail).  Both of the reactor concepts require an extremely large separation (a kilometer or more) between the engine and crew to attenuate the radiation enough to ensure crew survival.  The photon propulsion system would not provide the necessary thrust.  Essentially, no engine concept that obeys the laws of physics as we currently understand it, could deliver the level of performance this vessel must possess.

Therefore, I’m left with the impression that the Ranger’s utilized “gravity” drives developed from Dr. Brand Sr.’s gravity equations and implied in the performance of Cooper Station.  We have no ability to estimate the type of performance available from such a divergent technology.  However, I did post the mission performance requirements.

Engines which might provide the sort of performance portrayed in the movie.  None of these propulsion systems (except the gravitic) match the observed configuration of the Cooper Station Rangers.

 
Drive type
Exhaust Vel
Thrust / Weight
Min Engine Mass
Notes
km/s

tonnes
Nuclear Saltwater Rocket
4,700,000
24
33
requires large separation between engine and people
Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
9,800,000
100
8
requires large separation between engine and people
IC Fusion
10,000,000
10
1000
requires large separation between engine and people
Antimatter Beam
100,000,000
100
10
requires large separation between engine and people
Photon
299,792,458
low

minuscule thrust, needs large sail or huge reactor
Gravitic
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Total fiction, unknown performance









IC Fusion



Antimatter Beam Rocket