EVE Search - Question space Space Propulsion having nothing to do with EVE Online

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Question space Space Propulsion having nothing to do with EVE Online

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mister Cletus	Posted - 2011.02.08 03:58:00 - [1] Realizing that Eve-Online and these forums are filled with crazy smart people compared to me, I have a question that perhaps someone can help with or direct me in the right direction. I am currently working on a project that requires me to research methods of space propulsion. (mostly out of my own interest) What I am a bit confused about is why nuclear power is not more prevalent in space travel. I understand that in space, something has to be forcefully ejected from the craft in order to created forward movement but admittedly, a lot of what I read is a bit over my head. It seems like one of the problems for long range space flight would be the amount of fuel needed to complete a mission would be unreasonable but here is where I get confused. If the matter expelled for propulsion can be many different things, it seems like it would be a matter of having a sustainable source of converting that matter into energy. I understand that certain propulsion systems require the matter, whatever it is, to be heated and that a nuclear reactor has been thought of as a way to heat it. But why can't that matter be some of the things that inhabit space? I have read that space is not totally empty, with particles of dust, radiation and such but perhaps those things are too scattered and it is not yet feasible to effectively collect this space stuff to use as propulsion fuel? When I couple these thoughts with the resources needed to sustain people on a journey like this, it seems that nuclear power would be just the ticket for providing plenty of electricity for the things that need it. Such as some sort of oxygen separator not unlike some re breathers that could recycle the oxygen that we breath out allowing the supply to last much longer. This may sound random and unorganized but I just don't know the best way to understand why our technology today won't allow us to take longer forays into space considering the sheer amount of systems that seem to have been looked at as possibilities. Does anyone feel motivated or bored enough to try and explain a bit in layman's terms or at least give me a heads up to some decent resources? Just so you know, I have looked at Wiki and it seems to be a font of information but is a lot of times written a little to complex for me to understand. There are a lot of other resources that I have found but they seem to be either technical reports or otherwise a bit above my level. Anyone want to take a shot at this?
Caleidascope Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.02.08 04:03:00 - [2] Radiation. Find out how to make "clean" nuclear explosions and then Orion Drive is a go. You do know what is Orion Drive? Right?
Hooooooorza Darksun	Posted - 2011.02.08 04:10:00 - [3] Originally by: Caleidascope Radiation. Find out how to make "clean" nuclear explosions and then Orion Drive is a go. You do know what is Orion Drive? Right? Launch parts of it in a conventional rocket, assemble in space, suddenly it doesn't matter whether or not it is "clean" anymore.
Alotta Baggage Amarr Imperial Manufactorum Armada Assail	Posted - 2011.02.08 04:14:00 - [4] Space is where the devil lives Originally by: Magnus Andronicus ur character looks like a f***ing clown dude.
Caleidascope Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.02.08 04:18:00 - [5] Originally by: Hooooooorza Darksun Originally by: Caleidascope Radiation. Find out how to make "clean" nuclear explosions and then Orion Drive is a go. You do know what is Orion Drive? Right? Launch parts of it in a conventional rocket, assemble in space, suddenly it doesn't matter whether or not it is "clean" anymore. Two basic problems. 1) What if something happens to the nuclear bombs on the way to the orbit? Public goes ape mulk! 2) Once the Orion Drive is functioning, you are detonating nuclear bombs against some plate, this plate gets irradiated. Sure, the plate will last a while, maybe long enough to finish the mission, maybe not.
Mister Cletus	Posted - 2011.02.08 04:19:00 - [6] Originally by: Caleidascope Radiation. Find out how to make "clean" nuclear explosions and then Orion Drive is a go. You do know what is Orion Drive? Right? Scanning Wiki real quick, I now know the concept of orion drive. I find it interesting that sewage was thought of a a reaction medium. So all you would have to do is keep the astronauts pooping and there is your unlimited fuels supply...lol The concept of of detonating a nuclear device behind the ship to allow it to "ride the wave", by using a cushion to protect the ship seems like an iffy way to do things. I just quickly scanned that info but it sounds dirty and old fashioned. The testing seems to have been done in the 50's. I didn't see it, but it doesn't mean it's not there, but I was wondering more about travel in the vacuum of space and not really the method of reaching escape velocity on initial launch.
Mister Cletus	Posted - 2011.02.08 04:24:00 - [7] Originally by: Alotta Baggage Space is where the devil lives I would agree with you depending on what you are calling the devil. Are you referring to the fictional character created by by the author(s) of the greatest work of fiction in history? Or are you referring to the scary little monster things that live in the vacuum of space and attach themselves to your hull and eat the electronic components of your ship?
Caleidascope Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.02.08 04:27:00 - [8] Originally by: Mister Cletus Originally by: Caleidascope Radiation. Find out how to make "clean" nuclear explosions and then Orion Drive is a go. You do know what is Orion Drive? Right? Scanning Wiki real quick, I now know the concept of orion drive. I find it interesting that sewage was thought of a a reaction medium. So all you would have to do is keep the astronauts pooping and there is your unlimited fuels supply...lol The concept of of detonating a nuclear device behind the ship to allow it to "ride the wave", by using a cushion to protect the ship seems like an iffy way to do things. I just quickly scanned that info but it sounds dirty and old fashioned. The testing seems to have been done in the 50's. I didn't see it, but it doesn't mean it's not there, but I was wondering more about travel in the vacuum of space and not really the method of reaching escape velocity on initial launch. Orion Drive is a method of propulsion. You can use it in space. Frankly, it is probably better for use in space because there the radiation is not going to poison anything important, like planet we live on, for example. And you obviously have not really thought it through. We are launching people into space on top of very modern powder kegs. Sure, it is not gunpowder, but the general idea behind the modern rocket propellant is the same as the gunpowder. And we have been doing rockets since 1600s. Compared to that, Orion Drive is a breath of fresh air.
Hooooooorza Darksun	Posted - 2011.02.08 04:29:00 - [9] Originally by: Mister Cletus Originally by: Caleidascope Radiation. Find out how to make "clean" nuclear explosions and then Orion Drive is a go. You do know what is Orion Drive? Right? Scanning Wiki real quick, I now know the concept of orion drive. I find it interesting that sewage was thought of a a reaction medium. So all you would have to do is keep the astronauts pooping and there is your unlimited fuels supply...lol The concept of of detonating a nuclear device behind the ship to allow it to "ride the wave", by using a cushion to protect the ship seems like an iffy way to do things. I just quickly scanned that info but it sounds dirty and old fashioned. The testing seems to have been done in the 50's. I didn't see it, but it doesn't mean it's not there, but I was wondering more about travel in the vacuum of space and not really the method of reaching escape velocity on initial launch. The Orion drive was primarily for spaceflight. And while it's "dirty and old-fashioned" it's also the simplest way to get anything outbound going at a high velocity - to the point of people talking about it in terms of c (.1c being an extremely optimistic upper estimate). Also, these nukes are minuscule - transporting portions of the payload at a time wouldn't be terribly risky, proper precautions taken.
Alotta Baggage Amarr Imperial Manufactorum Armada Assail	Posted - 2011.02.08 04:34:00 - [10] That was a gremlin, may have been a tiny asian guy too Originally by: Magnus Andronicus ur character looks like a f***ing clown dude.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 04:45:00 - [11] Short answer: 1) We don't really have anywhere to go that would make nuclear propulsion worth it. It doesn't do you much good to have an awesome engine when you don't have the long-term life support required for the crew (with unmanned probes, it's easier to just be patient and let gravity do the work), so why invest the time and money? You'd need to have a dramatic change in politics to make manned space travel a priority before developing nuclear propulsion becomes useful. 2) OMG NUKES ARE SCARY. Good luck getting anyone to risk losing their election over nuclear spacecraft when space travel isn't a priority for anyone. But mostly it's the first problem. Technology-wise, there's no reason we can't do it, but we don't have the political willpower it would require. -----------
Mister Cletus	Posted - 2011.02.08 05:06:00 - [12] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Short answer: 1) We don't really have anywhere to go that would make nuclear propulsion worth it. It doesn't do you much good to have an awesome engine when you don't have the long-term life support required for the crew (with unmanned probes, it's easier to just be patient and let gravity do the work), so why invest the time and money? You'd need to have a dramatic change in politics to make manned space travel a priority before developing nuclear propulsion becomes useful. 2) OMG NUKES ARE SCARY. Good luck getting anyone to risk losing their election over nuclear spacecraft when space travel isn't a priority for anyone. But mostly it's the first problem. Technology-wise, there's no reason we can't do it, but we don't have the political willpower it would require. Now you are starting to hint at more of what I would like to learn. Unless I am unintentionally reading too much into your post, you seem to suggest that nuclear space travel would indeed be a safe and realistic possibility but it is other outside political influences that prevent the development of such a system. Although I agree that nukes can be scary when talking about bombs, if they use nuclear power safely and effectively for sea going vessels and power generating applications, I don't think that would be scary at all. Besides, most politicians are much more volatile and unpredictable than any nuclear device. I am much more frightened about what they would do!
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 05:30:00 - [13] Originally by: Mister Cletus Unless I am unintentionally reading too much into your post, you seem to suggest that nuclear space travel would indeed be a safe and realistic possibility but it is other outside political influences that prevent the development of such a system. Realistic? Sure. While we (obviously) don't have a working prototype, the theory behind it looks just fine and there's no reason to suspect that we couldn't build one if we wanted to. This isn't a guarantee, but it's at least as realistic as any of the alternatives. Safe? Well, at least no worse than any other form of propulsion. Space travel, at least in the foreseeable future, is never going to be safe. Quote: Although I agree that nukes can be scary when talking about bombs, if they use nuclear power safely and effectively for sea going vessels and power generating applications, I don't think that would be scary at all. That's exactly the point. The actual safety of nuclear propulsion/etc has absolutely nothing to do with the general perception that OMG NUKES ARE REALLY SCARY. People are just idiots, and it prevents legitimate work from being done because the politicians are too spineless to risk votes. -----------
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.02.08 09:28:00 - [14] That half the world population would freak out when nuclear reactors are shot into space is indeed one point, especially when something goes wrong and they fall back (even if nothing actually gets irradiated they will complain). A more realistic means of nuclear propulsion than an Orion drive would be an ion drive powered by a nuclear reactor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster Probably when missions are planned where they want to use ion thrusters or similar propulsion systems for large distances that they want to do in reasonable time they will consider using nuclear power plants, but for a satelite for example it is kinda overkill.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.02.08 11:01:00 - [15] Originally by: Mister Cletus But why can't that matter be some of the things that inhabit space? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet Quote: I have read that space is not totally empty, with particles of dust, radiation and such but perhaps those things are too scattered and it is not yet feasible to effectively collect this space stuff to use as propulsion fuel? Jump to the "Pre-seeded trajectory" heading in the above. Also, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel Jump to heading "Proposed methods of interstellar travel". Quote: When I couple these thoughts with the resources needed to sustain people on a journey like this, it seems that nuclear power would be just the ticket for providing plenty of electricity for the things that need it. Such as some sort of oxygen separator not unlike some re breathers that could recycle the oxygen that we breath out allowing the supply to last much longer. That's not so much a problem of technology as it is a problem of scale, and therefore cost. Technological improvements here would be focused on reducing amounts of material needed and therefore overall cost needed. Quote: This may sound random and unorganized but I just don't know the best way to understand why our technology today won't allow us to take longer forays into space considering the sheer amount of systems that seem to have been looked at as possibilities. Again, it's basically a matter of cost. We COULD already have had built colonies on the Moon, started colonizing Mars, sent out generational seed ships to nearby stars and so on and so forth if "price" would have not been an issue. Unfortunately, it's a HUGE issue. Quote: There are a lot of other resources that I have found but they seem to be either technical reports or otherwise a bit above my level. Try http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.php. It's written quite accessibly (IMO, anyway). Look at the big index on the right side. It's a mix of science and science-fiction, but then again... Worth browsing at least. _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts _
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.02.08 11:40:00 - [16] also, thought there was a treaty that forbidden the use of nukes in space. ..or was it just nukes as weapons themselves? anyways things are hard. nuclear propulsion is interesting, but we would still need life support systems and actual shield systems that could support both solar flares and cosmic radiation. atm you could get a crew to jupiter and watch helplessly as they die from radiation from the jovian van allen belts, which are very, very powerful. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Thuul'Khalat Gallente Veto Corp	Posted - 2011.02.08 11:46:00 - [17] World Military Expenditure in 2009 was about 1.6 TRILLION dollars NASA 2009 budget - 17 billion ESA 2009 budget - About 4 billion Russian Space Agency 2009 budget - About 3 billion Chinese Space Agency 2009 budget - Estimated 1 billion So, we spent about...$1,600,000,000,000 on killing eachother and we spent about.......$25,000,000,000 on the 4 biggest space agencies combined And people ask why the world is going to hell... Imagine what could be done if only 10% of the money wasted on death and destruction was used elsewhere. (Budget figures from Wikipedia, Chinese figure is an estimate as well... the chinese doesn't really tell) ---
dr cisco	Posted - 2011.02.08 19:11:00 - [18] Edited by: dr cisco on 08/02/2011 19:13:53 i had the idea for using a fusion reactor like the sun has (the fuel would come form the hydrogen abundant in space), which would be used to create antimatter, which would then be used for an antimatter version of project orion, which would be able to reach a theoretical 80% light speed. but there is a cash problem, i say we just switch the US militarily and NASAs budget for a year or 2 and see what happens. my prediction? we still have enough money for self defense and we get a outpost on the moon. NASA will make more progress in the 2 years than the entire space race and the military will have to THINK about their budget instead of just asking daddy for money whenever they need anything like a spoiled brat.
Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.08 19:20:00 - [19] From wikileaks there has been arguing between the Chinese and USA about space weapons - specifically land based ballistic missiles that can shoot down satellites in space. The Chinese did it first (It was telling that there was no official Chinese press release about this in a timely fashion as the military just did it without telling the ruling politicians). The US got ****ed then did the same under some excuse. .................................................. One man with courage is a majority
Mister Cletus	Posted - 2011.02.08 20:51:00 - [20] Originally by: Akita T A lot of reasonable thoughts that helped me a lot Thank you, very helpful. All of the responses to my questions were awesome but just because you are Akita T, this one made the whole thing worth while. (Gratuitous Ass Kissing for no better reason than you are famous and have red hair with freckles) The Project Rho link will suit my needs perfectly and is exactly the sort of resource that I needed help to find.
Mister Cletus	Posted - 2011.02.08 20:57:00 - [21] Originally by: Grimpak also, thought there was a treaty that forbidden the use of nukes in space. ..or was it just nukes as weapons themselves? anyways things are hard. nuclear propulsion is interesting, but we would still need life support systems and actual shield systems that could support both solar flares and cosmic radiation. atm you could get a crew to jupiter and watch helplessly as they die from radiation from the jovian van allen belts, which are very, very powerful. A good point about needing to develop appropriate shielding. But if you need shielding from the radiation already floating around out there, why would the radioactive by-product of nuclear propulsion, whatever form it may be, be any different?
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.02.08 21:37:00 - [22] Edited by: Grimpak on 08/02/2011 21:44:19 Originally by: Mister Cletus A good point about needing to develop appropriate shielding. But if you need shielding from the radiation already floating around out there, why would the radioactive by-product of nuclear propulsion, whatever form it may be, be any different? tbh shielding strength. if I'm not mistaken, the jovian Van Allen belts are stronger than your theoredical orion drive's radioactive emissions by some orders of magnitude. there's also the issue where the orion drive means that you only need to put shielding on the rear of the ship itself, meaning you can put the habitable areas of the spaceship far from the engine itself, while cosmic radiation itself and said van allen belts pretty much submerge the entire spaceship in radiation. Most viable way to surpass this problem is to completely shield a small portion of the ship (a "safehouse" of sorts), where the crew will retreat when in danger of being irradiated by the cosmic equivalent to several Tzar Bomba's radioactive fallout. the cosmic ray problem also means that once you get out of the protective cover of the sun's heliosphere, your spaceship will also be bombarded heavily by said cosmic rays which are pretty much X-rays and/or gamma rays. If, again, I'm not mistaken, said sun heliosphere extends itself beyond Eris afaik. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Arowe Telak Caldari Crimson Empire. Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.02.08 21:38:00 - [23] Edited by: Arowe Telak on 08/02/2011 21:39:53 Originally by: Mister Cletus Originally by: Grimpak also, thought there was a treaty that forbidden the use of nukes in space. ..or was it just nukes as weapons themselves? anyways things are hard. nuclear propulsion is interesting, but we would still need life support systems and actual shield systems that could support both solar flares and cosmic radiation. atm you could get a crew to jupiter and watch helplessly as they die from radiation from the jovian van allen belts, which are very, very powerful. A good point about needing to develop appropriate shielding. But if you need shielding from the radiation already floating around out there, why would the radioactive by-product of nuclear propulsion, whatever form it may be, be any different? Just to clarify, currently all nuclear detonations that are not underground are considered unlawful by the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963. The treaty has nothing to do with limiting radiation (obviously because there's plenty of radiation in space already). It was intended to end the nuclear arms race of 60's. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996 is similarly designed to prevent any new nuclear arms races from occurring, though it currently isn't in force anyways. The fact that Project Orion (or any other propulsion involving a nuclear detonation) is banned by the two Test Ban Treaties is merely a side effect. Additionally, one of the reasons that new super-powerful rocket engines aren't being heavily researched is that most space agencies are spending most of their research money just trying to figure how to keep their astronauts alive in interplanetary space. Getting to destinations faster through better rockets is a lower priority. That said, there are some propulsion types that require no large technological leaps and have been researched. One such idea that was also researched in the 50's and 60's before being discarded due to materials technology being too far out of reach at the time is the Nuclear Thermal Rocket. It's basically a normal liquid fueled rocket engine but with a nuclear reaction instead of a chemical reaction to generate heat. It's fairly popular in scifi as well. This is the technology that powers the Discovery from Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example.
dr cisco	Posted - 2011.02.08 21:58:00 - [24] nuclear ban treaties, politics always gets in the way of SCIENCE. It may be a powerful weapon but don't make NASA suffer if they want to use it as a power source!
Selinate Amarr Red Water Syndicate	Posted - 2011.02.08 22:20:00 - [25] Edited by: Selinate on 08/02/2011 22:20:46 "nuclear power" is rather vague. Ion thrusters could be considered nuclear propulsion.
Ische Qou	Posted - 2011.02.08 22:55:00 - [26] Didn't notice if any of you brought it up but the original Orion drive was estimated to kill a single person per lift-off. Single lift off would add 1% to the radiation already made by the atmospheric nuclear tests. Orion drive using hydrogen-bombs would kill 0,1 man per lift-off, estimated. Because of its nuclear bombs the Orion project was a military one, and because it was a military one the guys who were in it had to find some military purpose for it. One general decided to make a large scale model of an Orion drive space battle station equipped with hydrogen boms and nuclear cannons. This he showed to Kennedy, who in turn cancelled the project. The ban on atmospheric nuclear tests also pretty much ruled out this method of propulsion.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 23:16:00 - [27] Originally by: dr cisco nuclear ban treaties, politics always gets in the way of SCIENCE. It may be a powerful weapon but don't make NASA suffer if they want to use it as a power source! Treaties don't get in the way of anything. If there was actually enough political willpower to build Orion (or any other form of nuclear propulsion), the treaties could just be modified to allow an exception. -----------
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.02.08 23:35:00 - [28] Originally by: Ische Qou the original Orion drive was estimated to kill a single person per lift-off. Single lift off would add 1% to the radiation already made by the atmospheric nuclear tests. Orion drive using hydrogen-bombs would kill 0,1 man per lift-off, estimated. Because of its nuclear bombs the Orion project was a military one, and because it was a military one the guys who were in it had to find some military purpose for it. workaround: put engine into orbit using conventional methods. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Caleidascope Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.02.09 00:07:00 - [29] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Ische Qou the original Orion drive was estimated to kill a single person per lift-off. Single lift off would add 1% to the radiation already made by the atmospheric nuclear tests. Orion drive using hydrogen-bombs would kill 0,1 man per lift-off, estimated. Because of its nuclear bombs the Orion project was a military one, and because it was a military one the guys who were in it had to find some military purpose for it. workaround: put engine into orbit using conventional methods. The engine in this case is a bunch of nuclear bombs. What if something happens to the rocket that is caring them to orbit? Like the Challenger and Columbia disasters. Really... People take things for granted. We use rockets today because we have been using them for the past 400 or more years. We have used rockets for signals and fireworks at first. Now we use them to get into space. But the fact is that we have used rockets, experimented on rockets, studied rockets by some of the brightest minds in the history of humanity for the past 400 years. Rockets work, more or less, because we spent 400 years on them!
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.02.09 00:39:00 - [30] Originally by: Caleidascope The engine in this case is a bunch of nuclear bombs. What if something happens to the rocket that is caring them to orbit? Like the Challenger and Columbia disasters. well all things considered, it depends of what type of fuel you're using for the nuke engine. depending of the type of fuel (can't fathom the "nuke juice" being U235 really), if anything happens, the engine becomes at most, a "dirty bomb". of course that simply putting it into orbit aboard a conventional rocket isn't enough. I would encase it in a cocoon that could withstand explosive forces and atmospheric reentry, OR the fuel itself goes up in said cocoon separated from the rest of the orion drive and is assembled on orbit. We have already transported nuclear material into orbit (extrasolar probes and the jovian probes are all nuclear-powered), so it wouldn't be a first. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.