A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Alternative fuel systems for aero-space



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 7th 04, 01:37 AM
kausikram k sayee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Alternative fuel systems for aero-space

all the space vehicles today depend on combustion tech for launching
purposes . this technology which depends on an oxidiser and a fuel
gives just enough thrust to take a space vehicle from the earth surface
to the space against the gravity. now the speed and fuel capacityof
these vehicles will not be enough for long space missions ....so is
there a way by which we can use an alternate technology to launch space
vehicles without using combustion technology ...is there a way to over
come or anull the gravitational forces and make a body levitate ....?

  #2  
Old October 8th 04, 11:36 AM
Victor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

kausikram k sayee wrote:
all the space vehicles today depend on combustion tech for launching
purposes . this technology which depends on an oxidiser and a fuel
gives just enough thrust to take a space vehicle from the earth surface
to the space against the gravity. now the speed and fuel capacityof
these vehicles will not be enough for long space missions ....so is
there a way by which we can use an alternate technology to launch space
vehicles without using combustion technology ...is there a way to over
come or anull the gravitational forces and make a body levitate ....?


That's an interesting question. There has been some talk about using
carbon nanotubes (CNTs) to create a space elevator, but unless the cost
of production for CNTs decreases a great deal, this will not be a
feasable option. I believe CNTs costs are on the order of $1000/kg.

If you are concerned with fuel depletion over a long duration, electric
propulsion (EP) is the way to go as it makes efficent use of propellant.
Though it is not very powerful, EP powering a spacecraft would be an
ideal choice for exploration missions or missions to the outer solar
system (Deep Space 1 and JIMO, for example). EP only operates in a
vacuum environment, so it will require a two-stage launch, most
likely the combustion engine you mention.

-Victor

  #3  
Old October 13th 04, 01:12 AM
Mirco Romanato
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Victor wrote:

That's an interesting question. There has been some talk about using
carbon nanotubes (CNTs) to create a space elevator, but unless the cost
of production for CNTs decreases a great deal, this will not be a
feasable option. I believe CNTs costs are on the order of $1000/kg.


last time I look for this was 100$/g probably now they are around to 50$/g.

$1000/kg would be a very good (for now) price tag for industries and
enought to start build the SE.

Mirco

  #5  
Old October 21st 04, 06:19 PM
Victor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

quasarstrider wrote:
(Bill Kno) wrote in message om...

CNTs will become less expensive to make. The space elevator will
become the "cheap" way to get, not only into space, but also as far as
Mars and the astroid belt.



Assuming they can make them strong enough that is.


I do not believe strength will be an issue. I cannot recall exact number
off the top of my head, but Wikipedia puts the strongest CNT specimen
around 63 GPa tensile stength,
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube). With advances in the
field of CNT alignment and growth methods, I believe 63 GPa will soon
become the norm, only to be surpassed by stronger "recipes" of CNTs.

As for the cost of CNTs, I agree they will become cheaper manufacture.
Right now, I believe it is a question of material science engineering
and growth methods. Once a cheap, reliable method is discovered, the
"CNT door" will open into many other realms, not just the space elevator.

  #8  
Old October 25th 04, 05:08 AM
Jim Kingdon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Plus its not like you're just going to be able to move this flimsy cable
out of the way, unless you put thrusters in the middle or something.


Well, at http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf...0.html#objects
they propose moving the space elevator by moving the anchor point
(which they have on a Sea Launch style floating platform, largely so
that they can move it).

In fact, that site (in particular
http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/contents.html and in general
http://www.isr.us/SEHome.asp?m=1 ) makes a pretty good stab at
answering the obvious objections to space elevators. They answer the
usual questions of the form "oh but it will never work because of X"
for a variety of values of X.

  #9  
Old October 25th 04, 03:03 PM
David Summers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Kingdon wrote in message ...
Plus its not like you're just going to be able to move this flimsy cable
out of the way, unless you put thrusters in the middle or something.


Well, at http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf...0.html#objects
they propose moving the space elevator by moving the anchor point
(which they have on a Sea Launch style floating platform, largely so
that they can move it).

In fact, that site (in particular
http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/contents.html and in general
http://www.isr.us/SEHome.asp?m=1 ) makes a pretty good stab at
answering the obvious objections to space elevators. They answer the
usual questions of the form "oh but it will never work because of X"
for a variety of values of X.


What I was referring to was not a killer impact, which has been
addressed as you say. I was talking about the buildup of non-lethal
impacts. For example from the data on the site you gave, a one micron
object will strike the cable in a given section length 200 times per
day (the linked article was unclear about the length in question, but
the width is 10 cm). Each of those collisions very slightly, almost
unmeasurably, decrease the strength of the cable.

My point is merely that this means constant maintenence will be
required to replace worn cables, on a very large object. From a
business point of veiw, this makes owning a cable a very expensive
proposition. Not impossible to do mind you, just expensive. I
believe that the same advances that the cable requires, when applied
to an RLV will be more cost effective (smaller object, less
maintenence). (Basically, we are finally getting our pre-orders of
unobtainium!)

-David

  #10  
Old November 22nd 04, 10:12 PM
Abrigon Gusiq
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Can Microwaves be used to heat the air around it or something else? To
use a field effect and no longer need to use old style combustion?

Mike


kausikram k sayee wrote:

all the space vehicles today depend on combustion tech for launching
purposes . this technology which depends on an oxidiser and a fuel
gives just enough thrust to take a space vehicle from the earth surface
to the space against the gravity. now the speed and fuel capacityof
these vehicles will not be enough for long space missions ....so is
there a way by which we can use an alternate technology to launch space
vehicles without using combustion technology ...is there a way to over
come or anull the gravitational forces and make a body levitate ....?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 August 5th 04 01:36 AM
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Policy 145 July 28th 04 07:30 AM
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) Rand Simberg Space Science Misc 18 February 14th 04 04:28 AM
First Moonwalk? A Russian Perspective Jason Donahue Amateur Astronomy 3 February 1st 04 04:33 AM
U.S. Space Weather Service in Deep Trouble Al Jackson Policy 1 September 25th 03 08:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.