| 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. |
Alotta Baggage
Amarr
Imperial Manufactorum
Armada Assail
|
Posted - 2011.02.09 00:52:00 -
[31]
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.
We'll remember to activate thermal and kinetic hardners this time.
Originally by: Magnus Andronicus
ur character looks like a f***ing clown dude.
|
Selinate
Amarr
Red Water Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.02.09 01:32:00 -
[32]
well, at this point this thread is such a cluster of bad physics that I'm going to have to give up before I even started.
Still, OP, look up Ion thrusters. They're about the closest thing you'll get.
|
Mister Cletus
|
Posted - 2011.02.09 02:21:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Alotta Baggage
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.
We'll remember to activate thermal and kinetic hardners this time.
lol...I have thus far been unsuccessful at effective trolling so I thought I would use the forums for some serious questions regarding things I sincerely wish to learn about.
People can say what they want about trolls, but I consider it an honor to have comments like this in response to my post. Besides, I appreciate a bit of humor, especially when.......
.....my post begins to generate thoughts like this.
Originally by: Selinate
well, at this point this thread is such a cluster of bad physics that I'm going to have to give up before I even started.
Still, OP, look up Ion thrusters. They're about the closest thing you'll get.
Although I appreciate each and every response and each one has helped me immensely, (well, perhaps the clowns comments weren't very helpful but amusing nonetheless) I didn't intend to start a debate on the subject.
Ion thrusters. This will probably serve my purpose better than anything else. Thanks Selinate. I even like the sound of that. Could be an adult film title. (Damnit Baggage Lady! Now you have me trolling my own post.)
|
Lady Skank
Ban Evasion inc
|
Posted - 2011.02.09 09:15:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
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
Long term life support for use in a hostile environment already exists, actually its even more hostile than space. Nuclear submarines can maintain a very large crew compared to space exploration and the only limiting factor is food for the crew.
Co-opt the various technology NASA developed with submarine tech with a fully closed water reclamation system and use a small fission reactor and bingo you have oxygen, water and power for a small crew indefinitely, in fact the various space stations over the years show its possible.
All that's really lacking is the engine tech as its totally dependant on chemical rockets.
|
Toshiro GreyHawk
|
Posted - 2011.02.09 09:41:00 -
[35]
They've already used Nuclear Power in Space.
Nuclear Power In Space
Russian Nuclear Reactors In Space.
US Nuclear Reactors In Space.
.
Orbiting vs. Kiting
Faction Schools |
Sturmwolke
|
Posted - 2011.02.09 10:46:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Sturmwolke on 09/02/2011 10:47:47
Checkout this links:
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/~jfs/neep533_lect32_99_fusionProp.html
http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/11/fusion-propulsion-if-bussard-iec-fusion.html |
Selinate
Amarr
Red Water Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 03:22:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Selinate on 10/02/2011 03:22:57
As far as I know, the above types of nuclear reactors are use solely for electrical systems on the vessels, and not propulsion.
Quote:
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?
(I just noticed this)
There is no way to magically turn matter that you just collect randomly into energy, and the entire reason that certain substances are used as fuel for combustion (or most nuclear devices), is because of the potential energy they contain within either the chemical bonds (for combustion) or nuclear bonds (for nuclear devices), and simply put, even if the matter in space had either of these to be easily accessible and energy abundant, there wouldn't be enough of it to supply the energy required to propel the craft, unless you used antimatter. The issue with using antimatter, though, is...
A) How are you going to produce enough of it to have the energy needed? Granted you don't need much of it at all, but producing it right now is a monumental task usually left to massive particle colliders like CERN, aside from positrons (and even since those are just antimatter electrons, their mass is so small that it's near negligible).
B) How are you going to store it in such a vessel? The moment that antimatter comes into contact with any normal matter is the moment that it annihilates into pure energy, so you can't use a normal gas tank (of course). I do believe that they trapped some antimatter for a certain amount of time up at the CERN (at least, last I checked they did), but it wasn't very much and it didn't last forever. I'd guess they used electric fields and magnets to suspend the antimatter since it's of an opposite charge, and magnets can be used to hold it in a given plane, but these kinds of systems take a lot of energy (at least at this point of technology), and hence you probably don't want to load them up on a space craft, not to mention the fact that the magnets would probably screw with all of the electronics and such on the craft itself.
C) And lastly, the type of energy produced in such a reaction (antimatter-matter) is not always necessarily usable in propulsion. For example, positron-electron annihilation produces gamma radiation, typically. This can't really be used for propulsion purposes.
just my 2 cents.. well, I guess more like my dollar...
|
Grimpak
Gallente
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 03:43:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Selinate
Edited by: Selinate on 10/02/2011 03:22:57
As far as I know, the above types of nuclear reactors are use solely for electrical systems on the vessels, and not propulsion.
Quote:
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?
(I just noticed this)
There is no way to magically turn matter that you just collect randomly into energy, and the entire reason that certain substances are used as fuel for combustion (or most nuclear devices), is because of the potential energy they contain within either the chemical bonds (for combustion) or nuclear bonds (for nuclear devices), and simply put, even if the matter in space had either of these to be easily accessible and energy abundant, there wouldn't be enough of it to supply the energy required to propel the craft, unless you used antimatter. The issue with using antimatter, though, is...
A) How are you going to produce enough of it to have the energy needed? Granted you don't need much of it at all, but producing it right now is a monumental task usually left to massive particle colliders like CERN, aside from positrons (and even since those are just antimatter electrons, their mass is so small that it's near negligible).
B) How are you going to store it in such a vessel? The moment that antimatter comes into contact with any normal matter is the moment that it annihilates into pure energy, so you can't use a normal gas tank (of course). I do believe that they trapped some antimatter for a certain amount of time up at the CERN (at least, last I checked they did), but it wasn't very much and it didn't last forever. I'd guess they used electric fields and magnets to suspend the antimatter since it's of an opposite charge, and magnets can be used to hold it in a given plane, but these kinds of systems take a lot of energy (at least at this point of technology), and hence you probably don't want to load them up on a space craft, not to mention the fact that the magnets would probably screw with all of the electronics and such on the craft itself.
C) And lastly, the type of energy produced in such a reaction (antimatter-matter) is not always necessarily usable in propulsion. For example, positron-electron annihilation produces gamma radiation, typically. This can't really be used for propulsion purposes.
just my 2 cents.. well, I guess more like my dollar...
yeah Antimatter is the holy grail of energy production, but as a propellent, I think there are better alternatives.
---
Quote:
The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 04:04:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Selinate
There is no way to magically turn matter that you just collect randomly into energy
Note that:
1) Fuel =/= reaction mass. You can get away with just harvesting random matter if you're using heat from a nuclear reactor to provide energy to the matter you're throwing out the back of your rocket.
2) The most common element in the universe is hydrogen, which is excellent fuel for fusion.
-----------
|
Karma
Vortex Incorporated
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 11:59:00 -
[40]
don't you want a steady slow burn when accelerating in space...
I'd imagine that a nuclear blast would add too many g-forces to the vessel it's propelling.
and you (probably) can't turn a nuclear blast into a slow burn... cause you'd need to actually *contain* the explosion to do that... unless you fire off several tiny nukes in succession... but even then you'd (probably) get pretty some pretty harsh g-forces to contend with.
|
Rana Ash
Minmatar
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 20:08:00 -
[41]
So are Solar Sails out of the question?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
lyret dedreen
|
Ische Qou
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 22:40:00 -
[42]
A few videos about the nuclear BOMB driven space vehicle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l2QopJbDBs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rEa9ACC-TM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQCrPNEsQaY
|
Selinate
Amarr
Red Water Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 04:58:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Selinate on 11/02/2011 04:58:39
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Originally by: Selinate
There is no way to magically turn matter that you just collect randomly into energy
Note that:
1) Fuel =/= reaction mass. You can get away with just harvesting random matter if you're using heat from a nuclear reactor to provide energy to the matter you're throwing out the back of your rocket.
2) The most common element in the universe is hydrogen, which is excellent fuel for fusion.
... And I rest my case for bad physics in this thread.
|
ivar R'dhak
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 11:53:00 -
[44]
Actually the biggest problem for our current-tech manned inter-planetary space travel is radiation shielding.
As it is now, just one solar flare would fry the crew of a manned "space ship". No matter what drive. Actually we can¦t even get past the Van Allen Belts.
So it¦s unmanned drones for now. And on those the ion drives seem most promising.
As for manned Mars or Moon travel, forget it. Pure public relation exercise so NASA keeps its funding and can keep us all from developing proper NON-chemical reaction vehicles.
______________
Mal-¦Appears we got here just in a nick of time. What does that make us?¦
Zoe-`Big damn heroes, sir.`
Mal-¦Aint we just.¦ |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released
WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 13:26:00 -
[45]
Originally by: ivar R'dhak
As for manned Mars or Moon travel, forget it.
Actually, there has been six manned moon landings between 1969 and 1972, but considering the bat-sh*t craziness in your posts, I imagine the many layers of tinfoil is tightly screwed to your skull?
I know this is the internet but please spare us from any of your fanfic involving Startrek, UFOs and anal probes. |
Miss Miranda
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 13:32:00 -
[46]
just to contribute a little.. I think the best part of it all was we (the USA) did all this back in the day, then we cut funding for it all and quietly let it pass without any fanfare.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/NERVA.html - The Nerva project was canned in 1973. summary - highest power: 4500 megawatts thermal power; 5,500¦F exhaust temperature; 250,000 pounds thrust; 850 sec. of specific impulse; 90 min. of burn time; thrust to weight ratios of 3 to 4
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/Phoebus.html
official government site for reference. http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000144.html
--as i look into it more it seems like in 2003/2004 there was a slight revival.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf82.html
With this being some cool stuffs. yeah, cuz i'm a nerd.
2003 Project Prometheus successfully tested a High Power Electric Propulsion (HiPEP) ion engine. This operates by ionizing xenon with microwaves. At the rear of the engine is a pair of rectangular metal grids that are charged with 6,000 volts of electric potential. The force of this electric field exerts a strong electrostatic pull on the xenon ions, accelerating them and producing the thrust that propels the spacecraft. The test was at up to 12 kW, though twice that is envisaged. The thruster is designed for a 7 to 10-year lifetime with high fuel efficiency, and to be powered by a small nuclear reactor.
|
ivar R'dhak
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 19:34:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Alpheias
I know this is the internet but please spare us from any of your fanfic involving Startrek, UFOs and anal probes.
Why are you TV-brainwashees always so fascinated with other peoples backsides?
Mysterious.
As is the complete lack of any common sense on basic physics concepts.
If it would be any good I¦d tell you to research the outer LEO radiation problem or the concept of the Van Allen Belts in general, but borderline ******ed peeps like you don¦t much care for facts when it contradicts their precious textbooks and "common knowledge" as seen on the TeeVee.
______________
Mal-¦Appears we got here just in a nick of time. What does that make us?¦
Zoe-`Big damn heroes, sir.`
Mal-¦Aint we just.¦ |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 19:48:00 -
[48]
Originally by: ivar R'dhak
If it would be any good I¦d tell you to research the outer LEO radiation problem or the concept of the Van Allen Belts in general, but borderline ******ed peeps like you don¦t much care for facts when it contradicts their precious textbooks and "common knowledge" as seen on the TeeVee.
Wait, you actually don't believe we went to the moon? I thought people that stupid were just a myth!
Anyway, ever hear of this thing called the cold war? You know, this minor event that was going on around the time we put people on the moon? Well, guess what the Soviets would have done if we had faked the whole thing (physics 101: it would be incredibly obvious if we did). Could "tell the entire world and make the Americans look really bad" possibly be on that list? Just maybe?
-----------
|
Alpheias
Euphoria Released
WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 20:10:00 -
[49]
Originally by: ivar R'dhak
Originally by: Alpheias
I know this is the internet but please spare us from any of your fanfic involving Startrek, UFOs and anal probes.
Why are you TV-brainwashees always so fascinated with other peoples backsides?
Mysterious.
As is the complete lack of any common sense on basic physics concepts.
If it would be any good I¦d tell you to research the outer LEO radiation problem or the concept of the Van Allen Belts in general, but borderline ******ed peeps like you don¦t much care for facts when it contradicts their precious textbooks and "common knowledge" as seen on the TeeVee.
That muppet like you use 'common sense', 'contradict' and 'common knowledge' in one post just made my evening.  |
Redflare
Caldari
Black Metal Armory
Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 02:02:00 -
[50]
start here (it's a cool primer): http://space.au.af.mil/documents/orbital_dynamics.pdf
then go here: http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Roger-R-Bate/dp/0486600610
then look for something more recent on the same subjects.
then look up information regarding chemical and electrical engineering (and, of course, astronautical propulsion systems).
____________________________________________
[center]Due to the overwhelming number of people with "Red" in there name, I'd consider it required that everyone call me LOMPOCUS from now on![/c |
Selinate
Amarr
Red Water Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 04:02:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 11/02/2011 19:51:17
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 11/02/2011 19:50:54
Originally by: ivar R'dhak
If it would be any good I¦d tell you to research the outer LEO radiation problem or the concept of the Van Allen Belts in general, but borderline ******ed peeps like you don¦t much care for facts when it contradicts their precious textbooks and "common knowledge" as seen on the TeeVee.
Wait, you actually don't believe we went to the moon? I thought people that stupid were just a myth!
Anyway, ever hear of this thing called the cold war? You know, this minor event that was going on around the time we put people on the moon? Well, guess what the Soviets would have done if we had faked the whole thing (physics 101: it would be incredibly obvious if we did). Could "tell the entire world and make the Americans look really bad" possibly be on that list? Just maybe?
Originally by: Selinate
... And I rest my case for bad physics in this thread.
I assume you're talking about yourself here, since the system I'm describing is one that has actually been proposed and studied by scientists/engineers for use on long-distance rockets.
You're either a terrible troll, or an idiot.
Please, learn physics before you come back to this thread.
|
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 04:20:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Rana Ash
So are Solar Sails out of the question?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
for manned space travel, yes. Solar sails are too slow - sure, sunlight is free and all, but you have to maintain people in space for an incredible length of time to get the velocity you need to get anywhere, and that costs way more than a chemical rocket and some fuel.
For probes or eventual cargo? I could see solar sails being useful...maybe. The other problem is that they're really limited to the inner solar system by the inverse square law - the further out you go, the less light there is for the sail to reflect, the less thrust you get. Twice as far out, quarter of the thrust...
Originally by: ivar R'dhak
Originally by: Alpheias
I know this is the internet but please spare us from any of your fanfic involving Startrek, UFOs and anal probes.
Why are you TV-brainwashees always so fascinated with other peoples backsides?
Mysterious.
As is the complete lack of any common sense on basic physics concepts.
If it would be any good I¦d tell you to research the outer LEO radiation problem or the concept of the Van Allen Belts in general, but borderline ******ed peeps like you don¦t much care for facts when it contradicts their precious textbooks and "common knowledge" as seen on the TeeVee.
The van allen belts are not the impediment to space travel you think they are, you can add shielding and minimize the risk by crossing at different latitudes to minimize the radiation exposure. Also, considering you're demonstrating a keen lack of understanding of basic concepts of science and engineering yourself, it's pretty comical to criticize others for it.
_____________________
Look down. Back up. Where are you? You're on a forum, with the alt your alt could post like. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 05:13:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Selinate
I am either a terrible troll, or an idiot.
I really need to learn physics before I come back to this thread.
Yes, you are entirely correct. Here is a the result of 30 seconds of research into the subject: Bussard ramjet. Perhaps you should read at least the most basic explanations before you make any more ignorant posts?
-----------
|
Mister Cletus
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 05:47:00 -
[54]
I haven't had a chance to check on the post over the last day and am a little behind the curve so I won't bother to quote everything I could comment on.
Instead, I will just reiterate that I appreciate all of the tips that everyone has given and all of the tips and links have been pretty easy to look up and read about. Honestly, I had no idea that there were so many theory's, ideas and experiments regarding this subject and I have now become a little bit fascinated with this subject.
The only downfall to starting this whole subject is that by looking around at what you guys have given me, I stumbled upon a new subject to be fascinated with as well.....quantum mechanics and it's theory's, especially the idea of information teleportation and it's other potential uses. But that is a whole other subject, lol!
|
ivar R'dhak
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 00:31:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Chaos Incarnate
it's pretty comical
Agreed, you have no idea how amused I am.
Especially on your insinuations one could "easily" avoid something like this with basically an advanced rock throw(Apollo Missions).
But it¦s not my job to dispel Nasa & textbook myths.
That¦s your problem.
______________
Mal-¦Appears we got here just in a nick of time. What does that make us?¦
Zoe-`Big damn heroes, sir.`
Mal-¦Aint we just.¦ |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 01:55:00 -
[56]
Originally by: ivar R'dhak
But it¦s not my job to dispel Nasa & textbook myths you peeps believe in.
That¦s your own problem.
So I take it you have no answer for why the Soviets didn't provide proof (easy to do if NASA really did fake the moon landings) that the US was lying about going to the moon, even when doing so would have destroyed US credibility on a scale they could only dream of?
Not that I really expect you to answer, of course, since anything you could say would only make you look like more of a paranoid nutcase.
-----------
|
Alpheias
Euphoria Released
WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 11:23:00 -
[57]
Originally by: ivar R'dhak
Edited by: ivar R''dhak on 13/02/2011 00:54:48
Originally by: Chaos Incarnate
it's pretty comical
Agreed, you have no idea how amused I am.
Especially on your insinuations one could "easily" avoid something like this with basically an advanced rock throw(Apollo Missions).
But it¦s not my job to dispel Nasa & textbook myths you peeps believe in.
That¦s your own problem.
Speaking of amusing, you go on about how the "TeeVee" is something that can't be trusted and go as far to calling everyone watching TV for brainwashed but all the stuff that you have been linking to thus far is something that can, after all it is on the internet and not from the evil "TeeVee" that brainwashes.
I do understand the underlying desperation coming from you here as you share with all other conspiracy theorists the same fundamental flaw, always trying to find something wrong with the math or the evidence so you can be the ones that exposes the "truth".
Still, isn't it ironic that the only truth here is that you and other conspiracy theorists are perpetually irrational and illogical while claiming the opposite? |
Selinate
Amarr
Red Water Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 14:15:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Originally by: Selinate
I am either a terrible troll, or an idiot.
I really need to learn physics before I come back to this thread.
Yes, you are entirely correct. Here is a the result of 30 seconds of research into the subject: Bussard ramjet. Perhaps you should read at least the most basic explanations before you make any more ignorant posts?
showing me a rocket designed by a physicist? Do you know why physicists are different from engineers? Because they can derive equations that describe the equations of the universe all day but can't design a cardboard box.
You're a complete moron. Do you know how much energy it would require to make those electromagnetic fields? The density of hydrogen is FAR too low to justify the energy you'd get from fusion, especially from the fact that the majority of the hydrogen in space (actually a larger majority than it is here on earth) is actually hydrogen-1 instead of deuterium, which is primarily used in fusion reactors. Even with the amount you'd gain, I'd guess right off the bat that the energy required to form those electromagnetic fields would FAR outweigh the amount of energy you'd get from fusing the particles together.
But let me guess, you're one of those space-travel enthusiasts who gets a hard-on every time you hear about some awesome new way to travel through space (just like the physics enthusiasts who love to talk about these awesome laws of the universe, and think they actually grasp the topic, but haven't even seen the equations to justify it, nor could they understand it if they did). Let me go ahead and spoil it for you. A vast vast majority of these designs will never work. That one you just mentioned, for the reason I just mentioned.
But please, keep trying. Post another article about something you *claim* to understand. It will only amuse me.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 18:52:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 13/02/2011 18:53:29
Originally by: Selinate
You're a complete moron. Do you know how much energy it would require to make those electromagnetic fields?
Do you? Have you actually designed, in full detail, all of the required systems and calculated exactly how much energy is required to produce the electromagnetic fields? Or are you just guessing?
PS: congratulations on once again missing the importance of this little thing called "reaction mass". The advantage of the Bussard ramjet is not producing net energy gain, it's the ability to get reaction mass without carrying large (and heavy) tanks of it on your rocket. The energy required to produce the fields can be produced by a nuclear reactor (great energy source, not a source of reaction mass) without breaking the design.
Quote:
The density of hydrogen is FAR too low to justify the energy you'd get from fusion, especially from the fact that the majority of the hydrogen in space (actually a larger majority than it is here on earth) is actually hydrogen-1 instead of deuterium, which is primarily used in fusion reactors.
Oh hey, 30 seconds of wikipedia research (probably more than you've done on the subject) tells me that this question is still up for debate. Perhaps you should offer your brilliant insights to the scientists involved and tell them that you've already solved the problem?
Quote:
Even with the amount you'd gain, I'd guess right off the bat that the energy required to form those electromagnetic fields would FAR outweigh the amount of energy you'd get from fusing the particles together.
You'd guess? I thought you were absolutely certain about this? You know, with absolutely undeniable facts and all that. You mean you don't actually know the answer, and you're just guessing and calling anyone who disagrees with your guess an idiot?
Quote:
Let me go ahead and spoil it for you. A vast vast majority of these designs will never work. That one you just mentioned, for the reason I just mentioned.
You're right, failed designs are part of engineering. That's why we need to actually invest money in research and try to build the various designs, not just guess that they won't work and give up.
-----------
|
Selinate
Amarr
Red Water Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 19:11:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Selinate on 13/02/2011 19:14:00
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 13/02/2011 18:53:29
Originally by: Selinate
You're a complete moron. Do you know how much energy it would require to make those electromagnetic fields?
Do you? Have you actually designed, in full detail, all of the required systems and calculated exactly how much energy is required to produce the electromagnetic fields? Or are you just guessing?
PS: congratulations on once again missing the importance of this little thing called "reaction mass". The advantage of the Bussard ramjet is not producing net energy gain, it's the ability to get reaction mass without carrying large (and heavy) tanks of it on your rocket. The energy required to produce the fields can be produced by a nuclear reactor (great energy source, not a source of reaction mass) without breaking the design.
Quote:
The density of hydrogen is FAR too low to justify the energy you'd get from fusion, especially from the fact that the majority of the hydrogen in space (actually a larger majority than it is here on earth) is actually hydrogen-1 instead of deuterium, which is primarily used in fusion reactors.
Oh hey, 30 seconds of wikipedia research (probably more than you've done on the subject) tells me that this question is still up for debate. Perhaps you should offer your brilliant insights to the scientists involved and tell them that you've already solved the problem?
Quote:
Even with the amount you'd gain, I'd guess right off the bat that the energy required to form those electromagnetic fields would FAR outweigh the amount of energy you'd get from fusing the particles together.
You'd guess? I thought you were absolutely certain about this? You know, with absolutely undeniable facts and all that. You mean you don't actually know the answer, and you're just guessing and calling anyone who disagrees with your guess an idiot?
Quote:
Let me go ahead and spoil it for you. A vast vast majority of these designs will never work. That one you just mentioned, for the reason I just mentioned.
You're right, failed designs are part of engineering. That's why we need to actually invest money in research and try to build the various designs, not just guess that they won't work and give up.
Keep trying, It only amuses.
And since I've actually done a lot of these calculations and I know the kind of energy it takes to form these magnetic fields and how much fusion gives off, yes, I'm certain you idiot. Now go try and learn stuff from a reputable source, not wikipedia.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 19:16:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Selinate
And since I've actually done a lot of these calculations and I know the kind of energy it takes to form these magnetic fields and how much fusion gives off, yes, I'm certain you idiot. Now go try and learn stuff from a reputable source, not wikipedia.
Please keep going on and on about energy required vs. energy produced and ignoring the fact that the point is getting reaction mass, not net energy. It's really amusing to watch a self-proclaimed "expert" fail to even understand the basic principles of the design they're talking about. |
Selinate
Amarr
Red Water Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 19:19:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Originally by: Selinate
And since I've actually done a lot of these calculations and I know the kind of energy it takes to form these magnetic fields and how much fusion gives off, yes, I'm certain you idiot. Now go try and learn stuff from a reputable source, not wikipedia.
Please keep going on and on about energy required vs. energy produced and ignoring the fact that the point is getting reaction mass, not net energy. It's really amusing to watch a self-proclaimed "expert" fail to even understand the basic principles of the design they're talking about.
Again, keep trying. Your understanding of our physical universe is such a cluster **** of failure, it's only rivaled by know-it-all high school freshmen who think that because they've read a couple of wikipedia articles, they know what they're talking about. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 19:28:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Selinate
Again, keep trying. Your understanding of our physical universe is such a cluster **** of failure, it's only rivaled by know-it-all high school freshmen who think that because they've read a couple of wikipedia articles, they know what they're talking about.
Yep, right on schedule, yet another post of "LOL U SUCK AT PYSICS" without even a minimal attempt at explaining:
1) What errors I have made. And given that I'm quoting actual experts (you know, people paid to design rockets, not forum "experts") who presumably have more than a high school understanding of physics, I seriously doubt this "error" is anything as basic as you claim.
2) Your laughable misunderstanding of the entire purpose of the Bussard ramjet, as demonstrated by the fact that you keep ranting on and on about net energy losses.
Conclusion: you're nothing more than the usual forum "expert" who got caught in a basic mistake and is now flailing desperately for a way out. |
Selinate
Amarr
Red Water Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 19:34:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Originally by: Selinate
Again, keep trying. Your understanding of our physical universe is such a cluster **** of failure, it's only rivaled by know-it-all high school freshmen who think that because they've read a couple of wikipedia articles, they know what they're talking about.
Yep, right on schedule, yet another post of "LOL U SUCK AT PYSICS" without even a minimal attempt at explaining:
1) What errors I have made. And given that I'm quoting actual experts (you know, people paid to design rockets, not forum "experts") who presumably have more than a high school understanding of physics, I seriously doubt this "error" is anything as basic as you claim.
2) Your laughable misunderstanding of the entire purpose of the Bussard ramjet, as demonstrated by the fact that you keep ranting on and on about net energy losses.
Conclusion: you're nothing more than the usual forum "expert" who got caught in a basic mistake and is now flailing desperately for a way out.
The reason I'm not explaining it is because of the same reason that folks like Brian Greene always talk about the wonders of modern physics in front of huge audiences, but never explains why it happens the way he explains it. It's over your head, just like it's over the 45 year old soccer mom with a degree in Business's head. It would take pages to explain it to you, and I'm not going to put in the effort for your sake.
Take a class on these things. Try to understand it a bit better. Until then, have fun continuing in failure.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.14 05:30:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Selinate
The reason I'm not explaining it is because of the same reason that folks like Brian Greene always talk about the wonders of modern physics in front of huge audiences, but never explains why it happens the way he explains it. It's over your head, just like it's over the 45 year old soccer mom with a degree in Business's head. It would take pages to explain it to you, and I'm not going to put in the effort for your sake.
Well, fortunately YOUR mistakes are simple enough that I can explain them very easily. Let's start with Rockets 101:
If you want go go anywhere, you need to throw something in the opposite direction, preferably at high velocity. No matter how much energy you have, if you don't have something moving in the opposite direction you aren't going anywhere. This something is called "reaction mass". Normally, to get anywhere useful, you need large amounts of it. This of course adds tons of mass to your rocket, which means you need more thrust to get anywhere, which means you need more reaction mass to get that thrust, and so on in the spiral of death.
The point of the Bussard ramjet is that you don't need to carry your reaction mass with you since you collect it as you go. This significantly reduces the mass of your rocket, allowing much better performance and making it a lot easier to launch into orbit.
Net energy gain has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the Bussard ramjet. Need power for the fields? Bring a nuclear (fission) reactor to provide it, problem solved. Your endless rants about net energy gain only prove that you don't even understand the most basic principles of the subject you are trying to argue about.
-----------
|
Alpheias
Euphoria Released
WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2011.02.14 06:26:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Selinate
The reason I'm not explaining it is because of the same reason that folks like Brian Greene always talk about the wonders of modern physics in front of huge audiences, but never explains why it happens the way he explains it. It's over your head, just like it's over the 45 year old soccer mom with a degree in Business's head. It would take pages to explain it to you, and I'm not going to put in the effort for your sake.
Take a class on these things. Try to understand it a bit better. Until then, have fun continuing in failure.
Why? You are the one that are quick to take the high ground on the subject of physics and you are the one that has made it your entire "argument" basically a attack on Merin Ryskin for the lack of understanding physics without weighing up your repeated claims that you know what you are talking about with anything concrete.
I am beginning to wonder if you are attacking Merin for bringing a theoretical propulsion concept like the Bussard ramjet into the discussion, you wouldn't be that silly would you? |
Hans Zwaardhandler
|
Posted - 2011.02.15 04:01:00 -
[67]
Really got me interested in this man 
Okay, to answer an earlier question, using particles in space to fuel a spaceship works in theory (like communism and a breeder reactor) but in practice is difficult to carry out. The amount of material between stars is very small, and converting it to pure energy; well you are going to need one hell of a engine. At the same time, hydrogen is a possible option, but also difficult as the amount of it in space is small to the point that using a ramscoop to harvest it during space travel is time-consuming, to the point of you'd be better off with trying to row across the stars
Also, the nuclear idea is really good (especially those ion thrusters) but where exactly is all of that nuclear material going? You can't exactly toss it out of airlock and hope it doesn't go backwards and hit earth, otherwise there may be a major PR issue with the space agency that launched said spacecraft. 
|
Toshiro GreyHawk
|
Posted - 2011.02.15 12:59:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Selinate
...
As far as I know, the above types of nuclear reactors are use solely for electrical systems on the vessels, and not propulsion.
...
Yes. That is correct. The links were provided because some people in previous posts did not seem to realize that nuclear reactors had already been used in space ... albeit not as propulsion.
.
Orbiting vs. Kiting
Faction Schools |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |