| Author |
Message |
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
 Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:19 pm |
|
| stroppy wrote: | Prankish Smart. I agree, this concept may take time. Also this one is worth considering as well:
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006
The elevator concept is exciting and achievable but wouldn't it be susceptible to such things as geological problems, vulcanic disturbance and temperature stress...being that even the smallest heat expansion of less than a mm over many km of structure would cause the whole thing to go out of whack? |
That looks very instresting indeed but a little on the fantasy side.
I think the answer to getting into space without the enoumous about of fuel needed is a engine that does not consume rocket fuel but uses some other form of fuel (that is of much less quantity/lighter for the same power and distance as rocket fuel) that eliminates the need for rocket stages and allows us to use the one reusable craft without additional rockets to lift into orbit and beyond and then back again without the massive about of fuel that would normally be needed. I think that this will need to be one of the first steps.
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:30 am |
|
I also would like to add, that in my opinion we should be moving forward all the time from what works now and advancing that technology expanding logically.
Gravity warp drives or orbital elevators are a very theoretical, exotic technology that would require us to go right back to square one on what we have and reinvent the wheel, so to speak. It would also be nessessary to conduct much more research in such new technologys before even considering it as practical.
|
|
|
stroppy
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 80
Location: Oz
|
| Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:44 am |
|
| PrankishSmart wrote: | I also would like to add, that in my opinion we should be moving forward all the time from what works now and advancing that technology expanding logically.
Gravity warp drives or orbital elevators are a very theoretical, exotic technology that would require us to go right back to square one on what we have and reinvent the wheel, so to speak. It would also be nessessary to conduct much more research in such new technologys before even considering it as practical. |
You're probably right, from a practical and cost p.o.v. however I can't help thinking that, technologically we got hooked on burning and combusting far too early on in the piece without exploring other options. Nikola Tesla was exploring discreet magnetic fields and the conducting of electrical energy in ways other than via copper right up until he died. Unfortunately for us, large energy companies in the States sort of closed him in when they realised that his agenda was cheap and easy power for all.
Upon his death his notes were investigated and found to be in a mess but they held tantalising clues, including stuff about magnetic fields that people never quite understood.
My old astronomy lecturer used to hammer us with his belief that all sources of energy were still not known to us, generally because of our physical sensory limitations. He was of the opinion that other forms of magnetism and gravity control were possible and he used UFO tech. as an example. No, he didn't fervently believe in every UFO account but he did believe that they existed and exhibited a propulsion that used focused control of gravity. He also said that our researchers needed to think outside the square and start to examine the whackier end of gravity physics more closely. He maintained that spending too much time on building a better skyrocket was farcical.
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:46 am |
|
| stroppy wrote: | | PrankishSmart wrote: | I also would like to add, that in my opinion we should be moving forward all the time from what works now and advancing that technology expanding logically.
Gravity warp drives or orbital elevators are a very theoretical, exotic technology that would require us to go right back to square one on what we have and reinvent the wheel, so to speak. It would also be nessessary to conduct much more research in such new technologys before even considering it as practical. |
You're probably right, from a practical and cost p.o.v. however I can't help thinking that, technologically we got hooked on burning and combusting far too early on in the piece without exploring other options. Nikola Tesla was exploring discreet magnetic fields and the conducting of electrical energy in ways other than via copper right up until he died. unfortunately for us, large energy companies in the States sort of closed him in when they realised that his agenda was cheap and easy power for all.
Upon his death his notes were investigated and found to be in a mess but they held tantalising clues, including stuff about magnetic fields that people never quite understood.
My old astronomy lecturer used to hammer us with his belief that all sources of energy were still not known to us, generally because of our physical sensory limitations. He was of the opinion that other forms of magnetism and gravity control were possible and he used UFO tech. as an example. No, he didn't fervently believe in every UFO account but he did believe that they existed and exhibited a propulsion that used focused control of gravity. He also said that our researches needed to think outside the square and start to examine the whackier end of gravity physics more closely. He maintained that spending too much time on building a better skyrocket was farcical. |
You're right. I am just thinking of the speed of the migration of these new technologies. I think larger companys need to research more into the theory side of these exotic technologies. It's also a question of how much time should we spend researching and how much time testing and building.
In any case, I think were still going to be using rocket propellant by the time man is going to Mars. Just... lots of propellant. But who knows in 100 years time what we will be using.
I actually saw a blueprint of a 'saucer type' ufo and it's gravity 'warp drive' and looked pretty damn intresting and convincing.
|
|
|
stroppy
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 80
Location: Oz
|
| Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:54 am |
|
If it were left up to an old fart like me then I'd give politicians like Johnny and Georgie boy the boot and start to inspire people to believe that funding research was valuable and achievable. Imagine what could have been achieved using the money that went into certain invasions etc. by investing in pure research. Poor old Steve Bracks even had a hell of a time getting the cyclotron up and (almost) going in Victoria.
I'm of the firm opinion that, just like genetic breakthroughs that are coming like lightning now, more energy, money and pure research into alternative propulsion will start to pay big dividends. You're right. We will probably get to Mars on a "better skyrocket" but what happens after that is anyone's guess, seeing that Nasa has put atomic propulsion back on the drawing board.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sat Mar 25, 2006 2:24 pm |
|
| PrankishSmart wrote: |
I think the answer to getting into space without the enoumous about of fuel needed is a engine that does not consume rocket fuel but uses some other form of fuel (that is of much less quantity/lighter for the same power and distance as rocket fuel) that eliminates the need for rocket stages and allows us to use the one reusable craft without additional rockets to lift into orbit and beyond and then back again without the massive about of fuel that would normally be needed. I think that this will need to be one of the first steps. |
What you are referring to is called specific impulse (ISP), which is a pure number (with no units) indicating how much thrust a fuel gives per unit of mass. For chemical rockets, ISP is proportional to the temperature of combustion. There is only a limited number of chemicals or combinations of chemicals which have the appropriate burn rates and temperatures for rocket use, and many of them are unacceptable due to safety or environmental concerns. Also, lower density fuels give better ISP and mass ratios, although they make the rocket larger. Oxygen and hydrogen are low-density, have relatively high ISP, and are relatively safe to handle. That's why NASA uses them.
The developing private space industry will need to explore new fuels, or better uses for known ones. Generally speaking, they will probably go with lower ISP fuels and pay the price of larger vehicles.
One of the big challenges we face is producing second stage boosters which can be fully recycled (first stage boosters already can, becuase they separate while still in the atmosphere). Second stage boosters are left in limbo, neither low enough or slow enough for atmospheric recovery methods, and not high enough or fast enough to stay in orbit, so they burn up during reenetry. Something called a ballute might work.
We also need to come up with better methods of reentry from orbit. One way would be to slow down before hitting the atmosphere. This requires nearly as much fuel as getting into orbit. One long-term solution is using propellant made on the Moon. A short-term possibility is a "geo-magnetic" braking system, but such a thing hasn't been developed yet.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
