|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Flea-hops into space.
Until some nuclear-powered system of propulsion which does not involve mass
ejection is invented, then Man is limited to making the occasional flea-hop into space at great risk to the crew. Does SOTA nuclear physics hold out any hope for another force which might be exploited other than simple reaction or reaction against the Earths magnetic field? Eric Fenby. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Flea-hops into space.
"Eric Fenby" writes:
Does SOTA nuclear physics hold out any hope for another force which might be exploited other than simple reaction or reaction against the Earths magnetic field? No. =ALL= of the forces in physics satisfy Conservation of Linear Momentum, which is the physical basis for Newton's Third Law of Action And Reaction. -- Gordon D. Pusch perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;' |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Flea-hops into space.
"Gordon D. Pusch" wrote in message ... "Eric Fenby" writes: Does SOTA nuclear physics hold out any hope for another force which might be exploited other than simple reaction or reaction against the Earths magnetic field? No. =ALL= of the forces in physics satisfy Conservation of Linear Momentum, which is the physical basis for Newton's Third Law of Action And Reaction. -- Gordon D. Pusch So all those programmes which postulate some sort of interstellar travel in the far distant future are pure fantasy. The proposed (?) project to send manned missions to Mars has much more in common with sending someone over Niagara Falls in a barrel than it has with Star Trek. It's all very depressing and primitive. I had hoped that all that arcane data coming out of places like CERN about "gluons" and particles with "upness" and "charm" would have provided at least a glimmer of hope for some sort of new principle which might be exploited. Oh dear. I'm really depressed now. JHB. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Flea-hops into space.
"Jason Hovercraft-Bingley" writes:
"Gordon D. Pusch" wrote in message ... "Eric Fenby" writes: Does SOTA nuclear physics hold out any hope for another force which might be exploited other than simple reaction or reaction against the Earths magnetic field? No. =ALL= of the forces in physics satisfy Conservation of Linear Momentum, which is the physical basis for Newton's Third Law of Action And Reaction. So all those programmes which postulate some sort of interstellar travel in the far distant future are pure fantasy. It's taken you _this_ long to figure out that escapist TV fantasies like _Star Drek: Fill-In-The-Blank (tm)_ are almost entirely composed of bovine byproduct, without the _slightest_ shred of truth or scientific accuracy whatsoever ?! I had hoped that all that arcane data coming out of places like CERN about "gluons" and particles with "upness" and "charm" would have provided at least a glimmer of hope for some sort of new principle which might be exploited. All that stuff is basically what Lord Kelvin snidely referred to as "Stamp Collecting." There have been no _truly_ new and fundamental discoveries in physics in nearly two decades, at this point; every high-energy experiment we do simply confirms the "Standard Model" to another decimal place. Ironically, nowadays all the _real_ action is in biology --- the very field Lord Kelvin snidely was comparing to "Stamp Collecting"... Oh dear. I'm really depressed now. Sorry to disappoint you, but reality is a harsh and uncharitable overlord. Learn to deal with it. -- Gordon D. Pusch perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;' |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Flea-hops into space.
"Mike Miller" wrote in message m... "Eric Fenby" wrote in message ... Until some nuclear-powered system of propulsion which does not involve mass ejection is invented, then Man is limited to making the occasional flea-hop into space at great risk to the crew. I disagree. Some very sizable chemical rockets have been proposed, like Bono's ROMBUS. 500 tons to orbit adds up. Further, nuclear reaction engines (nuclear solid core rockets, frex) seem to offer useful increases in launch capacity. I think he's talking about reactionless propulsion systems, dude. Does SOTA nuclear physics hold out any hope for another force which might be exploited other than simple reaction or reaction against the Earths magnetic field? How about a space elevator? Take a cable car to orbit. Mike Miller, Materials Engineer Neat idea, but, IIRC, really, really tough to do with current technology. I mean, how high up does your space elevator need to go, and how much mass in materials would that take? --Jason (aka "Gio" on the classic btech boards ^_^) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Flea-hops into space.
"Jason Donahue" wrote in message ...
"Mike Miller" wrote in message m... "Eric Fenby" wrote in message ... Until some nuclear-powered system of propulsion which does not involve mass ejection is invented, then Man is limited to making the occasional flea-hop into space at great risk to the crew. I disagree. Some very sizable chemical rockets have been proposed, like Bono's ROMBUS. 500 tons to orbit adds up. Further, nuclear reaction engines (nuclear solid core rockets, frex) seem to offer useful increases in launch capacity. I think he's talking about reactionless propulsion systems, dude. Does SOTA nuclear physics hold out any hope for another force which might be exploited other than simple reaction or reaction against the Earths magnetic field? How about a space elevator? Take a cable car to orbit. Mike Miller, Materials Engineer Neat idea, but, IIRC, really, really tough to do with current technology. I mean, how high up does your space elevator need to go, and how much mass in materials would that take? --Jason (aka "Gio" on the classic btech boards ^_^) Your answers are here .. http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/contents.html Summary, not so tough to do with current technology. ~er |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Flea-hops into space.
"Jason Donahue" wrote in message ...
"Mike Miller" wrote in message m... How about a space elevator? Take a cable car to orbit. Neat idea, but, IIRC, really, really tough to do with current technology. I mean, how high up does your space elevator need to go, and how much mass in materials would that take? It's less an issue of "how high up" than "how far down from geosynchronous orbit." An orbital elevator is a structure in geosynch orbit. Materials mass is probably in the megatons or more, especially if you include the anchor asteroid that helps keep the elevator under tension. But you probably need to get less stuff into orbit to move an asteroid than you do to build an elevator, and you avoid the bother of repeated launches with nuclear rockets or inventing new kinds of reactionless physics. Mike Miller, MatE |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Flea-hops into space.
"Mike Miller" wrote in message om... "Jason Donahue" wrote in message ... "Mike Miller" wrote in message m... How about a space elevator? Take a cable car to orbit. Neat idea, but, IIRC, really, really tough to do with current technology. I mean, how high up does your space elevator need to go, and how much mass in materials would that take? It's less an issue of "how high up" than "how far down from geosynchronous orbit." An orbital elevator is a structure in geosynch orbit. Materials mass is probably in the megatons or more, especially if you include the anchor asteroid that helps keep the elevator under tension. But you probably need to get less stuff into orbit to move an asteroid than you do to build an elevator, and you avoid the bother of repeated launches with nuclear rockets or inventing new kinds of reactionless physics. Mike Miller, MatE No good. By the time we are clever enough to build a space elevator NEO will be full of junk and bits of builders rubble. Impacts with the structure would be only a matter of time. Any such impact would at a stroke treble the amount of junk in that particular orbit then every subsequent orbit would be a destructive hailstorm of shrapnel. If the elevator ever broke up then NEO would be unuseable because of the scrap metal/matrix material and miles of the said scrap metal would fall across several different nation's territories. It's increasingly worrying for the Shuttle (which already orbits with it's engines forward) and NEO must be cleaned up before we can even plan more extensive use of it. For these reasons and others I don't think an elevator will ever be built. I want a starship, or at the very least a nuclear-powered platform capable of scooting about the solar system and which is powered by some sort of drive which does not depend on mass ejection. Perhaps we should put manned space exploration away for fifty years while we learn how to walk. In the meantime robots are just great and getting greater. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Flea-hops into space.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |