Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

andiwm2003

macrumors 601
Mar 29, 2004
4,382
454
Boston, MA
jayscheuerle said:
What do you mean by a renewable fuel? I can't think of anything except solar sails that fit into this category.

i guess jane doe is thinking about engines that get the fuel on the way. e.g. you could ionize interplanetary/interstellar gas with a laser and "suck it up" by the spaceship, get it into a "nuclear fusion chamber" and accelerate it through a rocket like exhaust. but that is a technology far away....
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,055
6
Yahooville S.C.
That was nice, but the formula is wrong and ill tell you why, it doesnt allow for time slow down as you get closer to light meaning your traveling less distance per unit of time from the travelers perspective, to a observer here on Earth as our Astronaut speeds up we dont see any time slowdown, yet that trip has just got a lot lot longer for the observer on Earth. I think we should just worry about our Solar System. At the moment we cant get to Low orbit with Nasa and its Sucking Shuttle.
 

andiwm2003

macrumors 601
Mar 29, 2004
4,382
454
Boston, MA
Dont Hurt Me said:
That was nice, but the formula is wrong and ill tell you why, it doesnt allow for time slow down as you get closer to light meaning your traveling less distance per unit of time from the travelers perspective, to a observer here on Earth as our Astronaut speeds up we dont see any time slowdown, yet that trip has just got a lot lot longer for the observer on Earth. ...............................

the formula is right. the slowdown in time only makes the trip appear shorter for the astronaut at close to c speed. the amount of time and fuel needed is correct.

but you are right, we should aim for mars first. and even that is probably more likely a robotic mission in 20 years from now.
 

cblackburn

macrumors regular
Jul 5, 2005
158
0
London, UK
jayscheuerle said:
I'd rather spend the money on a robotic probe to Europa with a nuclear powered ice melting/digging probe and lots of life detection aboard. The spirit of human exploration is noble enough, but there's really nowhere for us to go and no reason other than ego to make the trips to the Moon (again) and to Mars. Money spent on robotic probes will have a much higher return scientifically, but not emotionally.

There is a more than reasonable chance that we will find, and be able to mine, Helium-3 on the Moon. This will allow large scale, safe, nuclear fusion to take place back on the earth.

That is more then enough reason to go :)

Chris
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,055
6
Yahooville S.C.
andiwm2003 said:
the formula is right. the slowdown in time only makes the trip appear shorter for the astronaut at close to c speed. the amount of time and fuel needed is correct.

but you are right, we should aim for mars first. and even that is probably more likely a robotic mission in 20 years from now.
No its not because we cant reach light? we havent a clue how close we could get so those calculations doesnt allow for the brakes the universe will put on us. Anyways Low Orbit seems to be the big problem along with a Apollo redo that will cost Billions and Billions more then the 100 billion they are claiming. NASA has never ever once been correct on its estimates of space flight. Everytime its more and more $$$ and little back. Example 1.5 Billion for foam Fix that doesnt work?..........??? 1.5 Billion for freaking foam glue that dont stick. We should be demanding congressional investigations into our Space Pork Program.
 
From what I understand, as we get closer to the speed of light, our mass increases and requires more fuel to move. Though relativistic effects change time for those on an extremely fast moving ship, communication with earth would still happen at Earth's clock speed, so even though a ship's crew that travels 500 light years away feels like they get there in 12 years, we wouldn't receive confirmation of their arriving there for over 1000 years after they left. Without communication to others, the information they acquire due to exploration will be self serving and nothing more, therefore Earth has nothing to gain by sending people to the stars...

To Mars first I guess...:)
 

jane doe

macrumors 6502
Feb 18, 2004
315
2
jayscheuerle said:
What do you mean by a renewable fuel? I can't think of anything except solar sails that fit into this category.


Back in the early 90s I co designed a propulsion system that ran off of hydrogen atoms. Since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe (that we know of so far). The dispersion is about 1 atom per cubic meter. Since this is the case the rate of collection is equal to the velocity in any given direction. For all practical prepossess this is what I mean by renewable.

The only major problem with this is there needs to be some type of "kick off" propulsion system to get the speeds needed to have enough hydrogen atoms collected to be of any use.

NASA has looked at several technologies like this in the past but this is not something that would be ready within the next 10 years, not at the rate we are going.
 

jane doe

macrumors 6502
Feb 18, 2004
315
2
I think we're gotten way off topic talking about theoretical missions when we still have the major problem of getting into LEO. This is the first and most important item on the list.

I remember reading a paper years ago that was proposing the use of elevators to get into low orbit. I think someone has started talking more about this recently. Again I'm not sure the cost per pound (or what ever unit of mass you want to use).
 

andiwm2003

macrumors 601
Mar 29, 2004
4,382
454
Boston, MA
jane doe said:
Back in the early 90s I co designed a propulsion system that ran off of hydrogen atoms..........................................

sounds quite cool. what is the critical speed to make that work?

and actually how would you slow down because once you are under the critical speed to collect the hydrogen there is no power to break?:confused:
 
jane doe said:
I remember reading a paper years ago that was proposing the use of elevators to get into low orbit. I think someone has started talking more about this recently. Again I'm not sure the cost per pound (or what ever unit of mass you want to use).

Fascinating concept first put forth by Arthur C. Clark.

You can read all you want about a push to build one here:

http://www.spaceelevator.com/

Lots of technological problems to solve, but it's a sound and exciting theory.
 

joeconvert

macrumors 6502
Nov 18, 2003
299
0
TX
jayscheuerle said:
I'd rather spend the money on a robotic probe to Europa with a nuclear powered ice melting/digging probe and lots of life detection aboard. The spirit of human exploration is noble enough, but there's really nowhere for us to go and no reason other than ego to make the trips to the Moon (again) and to Mars. Money spent on robotic probes will have a much higher return scientifically, but not emotionally.


Used to think the same thing.... before I read up on the science of the Apollo missions. While I'll admit the the cost of live support etc. is high in a spacecraft the value of having a THINKING creature you could talk to on the lunar surface was invaluable for the geologists on Earth. Not to metnion that we (the US) eventually sent a geologist to the moon as part of 17.
 
joeconvert said:
Used to think the same thing.... before I read up on the science of the Apollo missions. While I'll admit the the cost of live support etc. is high in a spacecraft the value of having a THINKING creature you could talk to on the lunar surface was invaluable for the geologists on Earth. Not to metnion that we (the US) eventually sent a geologist to the moon as part of 17.

I still stand by the fact that sending humans has a far greater emotional payoff than scientific payoff when you compare it to sending dozens of probes for the same price. Just ONE of the rovers we have on Mars right now has more computing power than the entire Apollo command center probably did. These aren't simple moon buggies. I'd also venture that Spirit and Opportunity have undertaken far more scientific experiments and have sent us far more wide-ranging and valuable data than everything put together over the 6 manned trips that actually made it to the moon.

By the time humans set foot on Mars, most of the exciting information will have been uncovered by the probes that precede it. It will just be a very expensive and risky show.
 
The Bussard Ramjet - an Interstellar Drive?

The Bussard ramjet (or 'ramscoop') was first proposed in 1960 by the American physicist Robert W Bussard. It is intended to circumvent the problems of rocket economics by collecting fuel as it goes along.

The Problem

Conventional rockets carry all their fuel with them - a familiar image is the Saturn V Moon rocket. This vehicle had to do a round trip of less than three light seconds (about three quarters of a million kilometres), and yet was the largest, most powerful vehicle ever built. The vast majority of its weight and size were taken up with fuel. An interstellar rocket, which would have to travel distances measured in light years, would therefore be enormous, and most of the fuel would be used accelerating other fuel. This is simply not practical.

Bussard's Solution

The entry on Jets and Rockets explains in detail why jet engines don't work in space. In summary, it is because a jet engine works by accelerating a medium, such as air. In space, of course, there is no such medium. Or is there?

Space is not, in fact, completely empty. Even between the stars there is hydrogen gas, at a density of about one or two atoms per cubic centimetre. This is the 'medium' for the Bussard ramjet.

As with conventional ramjets, the Bussard ramjet cannot accelerate from a standing start. Some other drive technology must first be used to accelerate the ship to a measureable fraction (say 1%) of lightspeed.

When the ship is moving fast enough, it is encountering enough atoms of interstellar hydrogen every second to make it worth collecting them and using them as fuel.

The Invisible Scoop

Even at these speeds, the hydrogen collector would need to be quite large. Estimates vary, but a typical figure for the diameter is 50,000 kilometres! Obviously, no physical collector this large is practical. Instead, the hydrogen collector would consist of a vast electromagnetic field, generated by superconducting coils on the ship. This field would ionise the hydrogen atoms and magnetically funnel them into the engine intake. There they undergo a fusion reaction, and the exhaust is directed out of the rear.

Journeys by Ramscoop

The pilot of a Bussard ramjet could conceivably set it to accelerate at a constant 1g. This would be convenient, as it would provide a shipboard environment indistinguishable from Earth. There would be none of the inconveniences of ship-board gravity generated by centrifugal force, such as very obvious Coriolis effects, variable gravity from circumference to axis, and having to build the rooms with two 'down' directions, one for when the ship is accelerating and one for when it is coasting with spin.

Another advantage of a constant 1g acceleration is that it would allow the pilot to make very long journeys. To an observer on Earth, such a ship would take hundreds of thousands of years to reach the centre of the galaxy. Thanks to relativistic time dilation, however, the pilot would be only 20 years older on arrival. So, for the pilot, the centre of our galaxy is only 20 years away!

A Science Fiction Dream

Leaving aside the fact that we are not yet able to build fusion engines or sufficiently powerful superconducting coils, the Bussard ramjet sounds at first like an excellent prospect for interstellar propulsion. Unfortunately, there are strong theoretical objections to the principle of the Bussard ramjet.

Fusion as generated on Earth requires deuterium, which accounts for only about 0.01% of interstellar hydrogen. Fusion in the Sun uses normal hydrogen, but achieving the conditions necessary for that would be very difficult. An optimistic estimate would be that only 1% of the hydrogen would be actually usable as fuel. So in fact much of the propulsive power would be used up slogging through a soup of useless hydrogen.

Also, one of the byproducts of the fusion reaction is neutrons. Any crew compartment would need extremely heavy shielding against this radiation, adding to the mass of the ship.

Unless these and other serious problems can be addressed, the Bussard ramjet will remain a science fiction concept. Of course, we literally cannot imagine the capabilities of future technology, so the stated objections may eventually seem trivial.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,055
6
Yahooville S.C.
jane doe said:
I think we're gotten way off topic talking about theoretical missions when we still have the major problem of getting into LEO. This is the first and most important item on the list.

I remember reading a paper years ago that was proposing the use of elevators to get into low orbit. I think someone has started talking more about this recently. Again I'm not sure the cost per pound (or what ever unit of mass you want to use).
We do seem to ignore this point , i still think a smaller 4 crew shuttle like vehicle riding on the nose of any booster would do well, we need a Sports car to space not a Bus. We need to get Nasa out of the Rocket building and more into the science and then that science needs to be used to improve space travel not making Bombs or sitting on paper not being used. Billions on X projects pissed away that Nasa knew couldnt work. Stuff like that and the 1.5 billion Foam Fix:rolleyes:
I know 1.5 billion given to a handful of companys would give us low a orbit craft, with Nasa we get paper, some triple expanding foam that dont stick.
 

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Nov 1, 2001
22,568
6
VA
jayscheuerle said:
Now I can almost see the Earth and the Moon being a static orbit, but the Earth and Mars? They vary quite a bit in distance apart AND you're going to need to fly by the Sun when they're on opposite sides of it and I'd assume THAT would impart a bit of a velocity change, no?


Its already been proposed to do the Earth-Mars shuttle - but like you said it would be a bit more complicated depending on both planet's orbits. You'd have to use more fuel for the long ones, but you could also set them up so that you don't really visit at the points of farthest distance to travel.

D
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.