OT Totus, I Thought You Would Enjoy this New Propulsion System.....

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Is the like the EM drive technology? Interesting concept.
 
totus44 said:
Is the like the EM drive technology? Interesting concept.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd say most definitely EM Tech, and Quantum Tech, are like siblings. It's long been my understanding, EM Tech led to this Quantum new tech. Kind of like stumbling onto a new theory of Tech, when testing the EM systems, they stumbled upon more than they thought they'd see or get in return....

I'd even go so far, as to say EMI/EMP tech gave birth to this new glance at Quantum tech....~!! At least that's been my understanding as well as my NASA Engr. Buddies, who also say as much.....over time....!!!
 
Interesting concept where a steady thrust will accelerate to significant velocities over time.if we call up the current design using a nuclear reactor as the power source.....trip to Mars is 8 months w/o the need to carry fuel?

What top speed do you think is feasible?

Like to see this tested on a caterpillar sensor/telescope array...disconnect a segment every couple of 100 million miles. The can serve as a solar system relay array. Love to get an eyeball outside the solar system.
 
totus44 said:
Interesting concept where a steady thrust will accelerate to significant velocities over time.if we call up the current design using a nuclear reactor as the power source.....trip to Mars is 8 months w/o the need to carry fuel?

What top speed do you think is feasible?

Like to see this tested on a caterpillar sensor/telescope array...disconnect a segment every couple of 100 million miles. The can serve as a solar system relay array. Love to get an eyeball outside the solar system.
Click to expand...


I have yet to do only the speeds a craft would take, how fast it could go, without vaporizing or imploding astronauts. We all know the movie Interstellar, was a good movie, yet had many mytho's I could be here all day to debunk. With a space craft travelling at the speeds of light, approx. 186, 000 mph, no space craft can be built with the present day Technology, to withstand such forces of mind boggling speeds; without a manned space craft utterly imploding, or falling apart. Below are some times, and speeds, unmanned aircraft have gone to Mars or beyond.

Keep in mind, these were/are: Un-Manned Vehicles.....I will do the math, to determine the speeds necessary within a week, when I get back. I can say Tom, you are damned close with your own math equations. Yes, a Manned Craft could easily make it to Mars in 8 months. In fact, the basis of my own calculations are more on the extreme of the fastest safe time, a craft would take to get to Mars. Getting back is a whole different problem, as it deals with speeds necessary, of which we would need some type of fuel dock ports b/t the ISS and Mars, as the trip back will be determined on extra fuel, no Space Craft could carry, and get outside Earth's atmosphere. The weight Loads would be too heavy.

Secondly, the trajectory of Mars alignments with Earth, are as crucial as any math equation to get to Mars. I've included a link or two, to show why trajectory involves the perfect window, usually with Mars at its closest proximity to Earth, and of course never when Mars is behind the Sun, we cannot get around the Sun, to Mars successfully, at least not with the Tech we have right now.
Back to Interstellar the movie. Not only was the space ship used full of windows, such windows would be a vital single point failure to get to the Moon let alone mars. A Rocket is being prepared for a Manned Mission to Mars, and makes Apollo look small....

http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningStar/Unit7/unit7_sub3.htm
 
The speed of light
Light travels at approximately 186,282 miles per second (299,792 km per second). Therefore, a light shining from the surface of Mars would take the following amount of time to reach Earth (or vice versa):

  • Closest approach: 182 seconds, or just over 3 minutes

  • Farthest approach: 1,342 seconds, or just over 22 minutes

  • On average: 751 seconds, or just over 12.5 minutes
Fastest spacecraft so far
The fastest spacecraft launched from Earth was NASA's New Horizons mission, which is en route to Pluto. In January 2006, the probe left Earth at 36,000 mph (58,000 kph). The time it would take such a probe to get to Mars would be:

  • Closest approach: 942 hours (39 days)

  • Farthest approach: 6,944 hours (289 days)

  • On average: 3,888 hours (162 days)

No planet is more steeped in myth and misconception than Mars. This quiz will reveal how much you really know about some of the goofiest claims about the red planet.


But then things get complicated …
Of course, the problem with the previous calculations is that they measure distance between the two planets as a straight line. Traveling through the farthest passing of Earth and Mars would involve a trip directly through the sun, while spacecraft must of necessity move in orbit around the solar system's star.

Although this isn't a problem for the closest approach, when the planets are on the same side of the sun, another problem exists. The numbers also assume that the two planets remain at a constant distance; that is, when a probe is launched from Earth while the two planets are at the closest approach, Mars would remain the same distance away over the course of the 39 days it took the probe to travel. [Countdown: The Boldest Mars Missions in History]

In reality, however, the planets are continuously moving in their orbits around the sun. Engineers must calculate the ideal orbits for sending a spacecraft from Earth to Mars. Their numbers factor in not only distance but fuel efficiency. Like throwing a dart at a moving target, they must calculate where the planet will be when the spacecraft arrives, not where it is when it leaves Earth. Spaceships must also decelerate to enter orbit around a new planet to avoid overshooting it.

How long it takes to reach Mars depends on where in their orbits the two planets lie when a mission is launched. It also depends on the technological developments of propulsion systems.

Here is a list of how long it took several historical missions to reach the red planet. Their launch dates are included for perspective.

These are all UNMANNED Space Crafts times:

  • Mariner 4, the first spacecraft to go to Mars (1964 flyby): 228 days

  • Mariner 6 (1969 flyby): 155 days

  • Mariner 7 (1969 flyby): 128 days

  • Mariner 9, the first spacecraft to orbit Mars (1971): 168 days

  • Viking 1, the first U.S. craft to land on Mars (1975): 304 days

  • Viking 2 Orbiter/Lander (1975): 333 days

  • Mars Global Surveyor (1996): 308 days

  • Mars Pathfinder (1996): 212 days

  • Mars Odyssey (2001): 200 days

  • Mars Express Orbiter (2003): 201 days

  • Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (2005): 210 days

  • Mars Science Laboratory (2011): 254 days
 
...after reading all of this I somehow felt I was trapped in an episode of "The Big Bang Theory" with Sheldon Cooper comparing notes with Steven Hawking.

:blazerwookie::blazerwookie::blazerwookie:
 
yankeesince59 said:
...after reading all of this I somehow felt I was trapped in an episode of "The Big Bang Theory" with Sheldon Cooper comparing notes with Steven Hawking.

:blazerwookie::blazerwookie::blazerwookie:
Click to expand...

LMAO; hilarious input 59, I thought I was also trapped in a room With Sheldon Cooper, and Hawking walking and talking....good one Ron, see you soon buddy....!
 
...thanx matts...I don't envy you having to move...I hate moving.
 
Matt's to problem I have with poo pooing warp travel is the assumption that the vehicle moves through space, and while not an ideal vacuum there is some measure of friction. And that "linear motion" is a function of velocity, distance vs time. This set of requirements sets up failure.

The solution has to be we move space....squeezed in front and stretch behind the ship. Although that model has been simplified by the design of pulsed warp bubbles and "softening of space". Both achievable BTW with existing electromagnetic energy systems (on larger scales).

Interstellar took the easiest and lowest energy solution, that of the worm hole. Again, feasible is you're not selection the frame of reference where the ship moves distance vs time. Then windows aren't an issue either.
 
totus44 said:
Matt's to problem I have with poo pooing warp travel is the assumption that the vehicle moves through space, and while not an ideal vacuum there is some measure of friction. And that "linear motion" is a function of velocity, distance vs time. This set of requirements sets up failure.

The solution has to be we move space....squeezed in front and stretch behind the ship. Although that model has been simplified by the design of pulsed warp bubbles and "softening of space". Both achievable BTW with existing electromagnetic energy systems (on larger scales).

Interstellar took the easiest and lowest energy solution, that of the worm hole. Again, feasible is you're not selection the frame of reference where the ship moves distance vs time. Then windows aren't an issue either.
Click to expand...


Indeed windows can be Structure Bearing Members, themselves. Tho' I know of only 2 Vehicles which used as much, ie, SBM for Aeronautical flights....

This note may be a bit off the wall, but I've often found numerous answers within the question or problems identified. This may be totally off the wall, yet I believe it to be true. Tho' one see's as much in old Star Trek Shows, "Beam me up Scotty"....I did not get this idea at all from that old show.

I've often thought how can manned deep space missions become successful, by moving so fast, mankind or even the Space Vehicle would vaporize, break up in seconds? In order to fly at the speed of light, or beyond as much, without vaporizing a human pilot. Perhaps the answer IS; Modern Day Technology should be looking at how to vaporize an object (apple/orange), and while displacing molecules of such, the trick would be to re-place all those molecular structures back into the same pattern, prior to vaporizing objects, then monky's, then real human crash test dummies.

Just a thought, on what some would say is the absurd approach, yet honestly I believe this to be true, if it takes another Century to prove. Tho', I've really honestly not got a clue, how such tech can be perfected if possible at all. Probably not, but then only Jules Verne thought landing on the Moon in the mid 1800s was possible, and he was often refereed to my non-Sci=Fi readers, as a heretic, esoteric mad man.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top