Cosmos on Fox

[Backstep]

Just use sub-space engines, problem solved.

 

[Bluce Ree]

It does not need to be fast. It just needs to be able to provide continuous thrust and it can eventually reach close to the speed of light. Chemical rockets are speed limited inherently. The potential thrust from an ion engine is theoretically unlimited:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs21grc.html

View attachment 29639

I'm familiar with ion propulsion. It's just not practical for interplanetary travel. The time required to reach near light speed makes it practical for interstellar travel.





Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Bluce Ree]

Doesn't that have something to do with relatavistc speed in space? I mean, if you accelerate at the rate of 2km per second per second, at some point you are going to be going insanlely fast, yes??

Yes but it's very slow with ion propulsion. You're basically ejecting electrons to gain momentum. Even if you could achieve insanely fast speeds in a short enough time the energy required to slow it down would still make it impractical for interplanetary travel.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Gatefan1976]

Yes but it's very slow with ion propulsion. You're basically ejecting electrons to gain momentum. Even if you could achieve insanely fast speeds in a short enough time the energy required to slow it down would still make it impractical for interplanetary travel.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Ahh, so you need some kind of "gravity hook" to cease forward momentum. What about using a planetary orbit to do it? Speed off to Mars, then calculate a gravitational alteration using Mars itself to slow you down?

 

[Bluce Ree]

Ahh, so you need some kind of "gravity hook" to cease forward momentum. What about using a planetary orbit to do it? Speed off to Mars, then calculate a gravitational alteration using Mars itself to slow you down?

Depends on the speed. I don't have the calculation on hand but it's probably moot using ion acceleration.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Gatefan1976]

Well, I assume you would have pretty standard acceleration VS breaking potential going on here, but there should be a point where you can matematically determine how fast or slow an object is going to stop or slow another local celestial object. Of course, the problem is that the further away you go, requiring more speed, the less local gravitation will affect you...........

 

[Overmind One]

Yes but it's very slow with ion propulsion. You're basically ejecting electrons to gain momentum. Even if you could achieve insanely fast speeds in a short enough time the energy required to slow it down would still make it impractical for interplanetary travel.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

It can be supplemented with combustion rockets, using the same methane.

 

[Bluce Ree]

It can be supplemented with combustion rockets, using the same methane.

And still not achieve any significant speed for interplanetary travel.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Overmind One]

And still not achieve any significant speed for interplanetary travel.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

It is sufficient. We are using vastly inefficient propulsion systems in space. Other than the brilliant use of gaseous nitrogen to maneuver using small jets, liquid and solid propellants are just not efficient. They have to be stored and spent, and when it's gone it's gone. A combination of technologies makes sense. Magneto-plasma rockets are a good alternative to conventional propulsion systems:

http://phys.org/news174031552.html


Exactly what do you mean by "interplanetary travel"? Just how many places in this solar system which are far away (further than Titan) do we want to PERSONALLY visit? To get to Mars using a conventional rocket it would take 150-300 days. A magneto-plasma rocket (ion derivative) can do it in 39 days. Are you trying to say that burning fossil fuels in space makes sense?

 

[Bluce Ree]

It is sufficient. We are using vastly inefficient propulsion systems in space. Other than the brilliant use of gaseous nitrogen to maneuver using small jets, liquid and solid propellants are just not efficient. They have to be stored and spent, and when it's gone it's gone. A combination of technologies makes sense. Magneto-plasma rockets are a good alternative to conventional propulsion systems:

http://phys.org/news174031552.html


Exactly what do you mean by "interplanetary travel"? Just how many places in this solar system which are far away (further than Titan) do we want to PERSONALLY visit? To get to Mars using a conventional rocket it would take 150-300 days. A magneto-plasma rocket (ion derivative) can do it in 39 days. Are you trying to say that burning fossil fuels in space makes sense?

I'm saying we don't yet have the right type of propulsion. Conventional fuel is stupid for deep.space missions and ion propulsion has too slow an acceleration for interplanetary travel within our solar system.

Perpetual acceleration could get us to mars in 39 days theoretically but that's without taking into consideration that we need to slow down once we're there.



Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Bluce Ree]

You're talking about this new type of plasma engine:

http://www.universetoday.com/42167/trips-to-mars-in-39-days/

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Bluce Ree]

I misunderstood you then. I thought you were talking about ion propulsion that generates thrust using electron expulsion.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Overmind One]

I'm saying we don't yet have the right type of propulsion. Conventional fuel is stupid for deep.space missions and ion propulsion has too slow an acceleration for interplanetary travel within our solar system.

Perpetual acceleration could get us to mars in 39 days theoretically but that's without taking into consideration that we need to slow down once we're there.



Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

http://www.universetoday.com/14841/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars/

 

[Bluce Ree]

If you read my link, the engine needs to be coupled with nuclear power in order to achieve short interval interplanetary trips.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Overmind One]

If you read my link, the engine needs to be coupled with nuclear power in order to achieve short interval interplanetary trips.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Yes, the same engine is the one being talked about in both videos. The nuclear reactor option is only because we dont (yet) have a way to create 10-20 megawatts onboard a ship in a launchable powerplant of another type. But the future of space travel/exploration is not in chemical rockets.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Yes, the same engine is the one being talked about in both videos. The nuclear reactor option is only because we dont (yet) have a way to create 10-20 megawatts onboard a ship in a launchable powerplant of another type. But the future of space travel/exploration is not in chemical rockets.

Like.I said, chemical propellant based propulsion for deep space missions is idiotic.

Ion engine technology is still not quite there for interplanetary travel, though.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Overmind One]

Like.I said, chemical propellant based propulsion for deep space missions is idiotic.

Ion engine technology is still not quite there for interplanetary travel, though.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Agreed.

 

[mzzz]

I think the best option is sort of the train track system I talked about earlier in some other thread or similarly something like a mixture of a train system and the orbit of comets. Use long term ion propulsion on a "train" to establish an orbit like that of a comet and fix some stable smaller orbital "train stations" in the path of the "train's" orbit path. If you have enough of these, you could go all over the solar system. Think of it like how trains took off in the U.S. First you had the major one going from east to west bridging both sides. Then you had smaller train systems branching off the big ones. So you could have a bunch of big train orbits, then smaller ones branching off of that to get to specific destinations. All the while you can transport items on and off of them, like extra 'fuel' and provisions and whatnot. Set up a trading route in a similar schema. Timing of course sucks as you can see. There's options though I guess. One thing we do need is to figure out some cryogenics or something. But maybe in the future, people won't really care about such vast time differences.

 

[Backstep]

The Creationist group Answers In Genesis, which was already incensed about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s revival of Cosmos, is now complaining that the show lacks scientific balance because it fails to provide airtime for evolution deniers.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/creationists-demand-airtime-cosmos-sake-balance

 

[Overmind One]

The Creationist group Answers In Genesis, which was already incensed about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s revival of Cosmos, is now complaining that the show lacks scientific balance because it fails to provide airtime for evolution deniers.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/creationists-demand-airtime-cosmos-sake-balance