Faster Than Light! (but not on an MB......)

bluegoatwoods said:
Yes. I'm no expert here, but I think the reason that low acceleration is favored is simply that it's impossible to imagine a reasonable way of fueling high accelerations.

Imagine the old Saturn V third stage. The engine that propelled the Apollo spacecraft from Earth orbit into it's path to the Moon. That engine did all of it's work in a handful of minutes. And it used up all of its fuel doing that. I think it used part of its fuel, actually, helping the craft to attain Earth orbit also. But the principle is the same; such a huge tank (larger than the spacecraft) using up it's fuel very quickly. In my post I toyed a bit with the idea of something similar burning for, say, a month. To get up to very high speed. But that was just playing with theoretical possibilities. Fueling such a thing would be practically impossible.

Ion drives and such, while very low thrust, are actually able to operate for long periods of time. Very long compared to chemical fuels. So they are our best bet by default.

But it does look as though moving at really high speeds is dangerous enough that the danger is a bigger problem than the fueling.
Click to expand...

also bear in mind you are limited to 2 g's for manned craft (assuming you want live/living/work crew) - and not chriogenic(sp) -I'm sure there would g-limits for frozen bodies too (just have no clue what that would be), assuming you want to revive them later.
 
bluegoatwoods said:
I guess I see what you're getting at, xseler. You're being 'carried' by a beam of light. If you could, somehow, 'swim' with it then your total speed would be c + (your speed relative to the light beam). Something greater than 'c', certainly.

I suppose one effect would be your red-shifting this beam of light. But that wouldn't affect your speed.

I'm guessing, though, that finding a way of being pushed by a beam of light might be every bit as difficult as finding a way to travel through hyper-space or to invent an inertialess drive.

It gets worse, too. Merely achieving the speed of light, or a bit more, isn't gonna be enough. To even begin to explore any reasonable portion of our own galaxy will require speeds in the neighborhood of 1000 x c at least.

It just gets harder and harder.
Click to expand...

you can explore our Galaxy right now!

Space Engine

http://en.spaceengine.org/

lovely vids by talented guy

https://www.youtube.com/user/LifeLive42
 
Fluid suspension has been experimented with, and would permit some improvement in acceleration, I don't know how much.

HOTOL, horizontal take off and landing is attractive as a method of launching a vehicle, as less fuel is used, and we can get a conventional airframe 10 or 12 miles up without difficulty. The question is how big the launch plane would need to be, and where would you fly it from? Mega flying boat, anyone?
 
Ludwig II said:
I don't even have to blink an eye, I just shift a couple of chemicals around.

No, not those.
Click to expand...

ya - a couple come to mind for me, but its been 25 yrs ;-/.

namely the three lettered one.

alcohol is nice too.

never like weed - made me dumb and paranoid. in fact you couldn't pay me to take it. well maybe. I doubt I'd take it for free though (that is the only way I did 25 yrs ago).
 
I don't need it, it seems I have a naturally occurring sideshift ability. This is neither a boast, nor a lament.
 
Ludwig II said:
Fluid suspension has been experimented with, and would permit some improvement in acceleration, I don't know how much.
Click to expand...


yes. joe Haldeman's forever War used this for crews under "Evasive manuvers" -seems one character had a winkle in her suit that she didn't notice and which "tore her in half" (killed her I think -----can't rem. read it around 1980 - been awhile.

BTW if you like SciFiction - check out "Mindwebs" (Robert Hanson is great)and "X-Minus One" under the OTR (oldtime radio) section at The Internet Archive.

200 shows to listen too - most quite good.
 
Ludwig II said:
I ask if the Moon orbiting is the motor for magnetism here,=; Venus has no moon, and Phobos & Deimos are but stray rocks that orbit Mars.
Click to expand...

maybe. that is plausible. I'm not a physicist.

note however Mercury does have one (Magnetic field) and she don't have a moon.

so ?? ?

....................

who knows.....................that what makes the Universe so grand and keeps Man Humble.
 
If you were that close to the sun, you'd be magnetic. Mercury is non rotational relative to the Sun, but does the Sun's own magnetism and gravity induce it? It would be useful to have a scientist with a common way with words here.

I still like the idea of a 20,000 ton flying boat with a shuttle on it's back. HOTOL was talked about in the 1950s, and we even had a puppet show here, Fireball XL5, using a disposable rocket sled to fling the spaceship off the launch rails.
 
Ludwig II said:
If you were that close to the sun, you'd be magnetic. Mercury is non rotational relative to the Sun, but does the Sun's own magnetism and gravity induce it? It would be useful to have a scientist with a common way with words here.

I still like the idea of a 20,000 ton flying boat with a shuttle on it's back. HOTOL was talked about in the 1950s, and we even had a puppet show here, Fireball XL5, using a disposable rocket sled to fling the spaceship off the launch rails.
Click to expand...

actually Mercury is 3/2 or 2/3 - I forget. Rotates three times for every 2 Revolutions - or inverse. so the Sun does rise and set on Mercury.

We did know this until our last probe visited it (same with mag, field (I think)) One of the Mariners? not sure - a few years ago. not that long ago - within the last decade I think. don't quote me on that though.

Fireball XL5 huh - love Gerry/Silvia stuff esp the fab U.F.O. (Ed Biship is the Brit's Captian Kirk - and Ed wasn't even British!)

gotta love the intro music and Gabriel's Purple hair too (sister to the dead singer Nick Drake),

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td28dK1fVxc

love this show - after discovering it two yr ago on YT - went and bought the DVD set even.
 
Yow!

This thread has gone places since I last looked in. More than I can catch up with, for that matter.

But I'm pretty sure that the magnetic field of a planet is caused by having a liquid iron core plus rotation.

So..Moon. No iron core and slow rotation= no magnetic field. Mars. No (or minimal) iron core and fast rotation=no magnetic field. Mercury...iron core plus slow rotation= moderate (?) magnetic field.

Venus? I would sure think that it must have an iron core, but it rotates pretty slowly. I'd expect a weak magnetic field. But I'll admit I don't know offhand just what it has there.

And then you must also consider the equivalent of relativistic effects. Maybe. The Earth's magnetic field would seem to be at some particular strength measured by an observer on the Moon. Would it seem to be some different strength to an observer on the ISS? Because of the different apparent rotational speed of the Earth? But I've never heard of this before. Maybe it's a non-issue. It's just something that comes to mind.

But consider this. A satellite, or an International Space Station, crosses the Earth's lines of magnetic force quite rapidly. It's also made of electrically conductive materials. Wouldn't this seem to suggest the possibility of unwanted electric currents running through it?

But I suppose that the answer would be that although there would be some currents in the ISS, they're minimal. On the grounds that the magnetism felt by the ISS is much, much weaker than what would be felt by, say, the armature of an electric motor.

Still, there's bound to be some currents running through the ISS. I'll bet they have to take grounding of their equipment very, very seriously. And what could they possibly ground to other than the very structure of the ISS?
 
Oh..Oh! Something else for us space buffs. And it's kinda sad.

Remember the Orbital Sciences Cygnus spacecraft that blew up in December? I've learned since that it was named the "Deke Slayton".

Of course, Deke is dead and gone (RIP). And he's surely beyond caring about such things.

But I'm saddened to think that 'his' ship met such a fate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top