Starships
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Will Davis - 04 Jul 2008 21:11 GMT Ok thank you all that have replied to my post. Frankly I am reall interested in the theory of space travel in the near future. Th problems which you all have said I already knew, I'm trying to fin solutions to such problems. For intance the problem of re-entry t Earth. Instead of having the ship come directly to the plane space-ports would be in orbit around the planet. Since there already i a space station in orbit then the next logic step as far as space goe is colonization of either the moon or general space. Then followin that there would be the possiblity of interstellar travel hopefully Thoughts
-- Will Davis
Spaceman - 05 Jul 2008 00:35 GMT > Ok thank you all that have replied to my post. Frankly I am really > interested in the theory of space travel in the near future. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > following that there would be the possiblity of interstellar travel > hopefully. Thoughts? The first step in space travel would be to map the trip and all obstacles in an absolute way, otherwise you will be crashing into things that were not foreseen. Part of that step would also be to create an absolute time clock so you would have no worry of hitting things that were not supposed to be there according to a dilated clock. Until those two things are done, It would be pretty stupid to just blast off out into that absolute wilderness that one spec could blow up your ship before you knew it was even coming at you..
:)
 Signature James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
PD - 05 Jul 2008 01:43 GMT On Jul 4, 3:11 pm, Will Davis <Will.Davis.2b46...@physicsbanter.com> wrote:
> Ok thank you all that have replied to my post. Frankly I am really > interested in the theory of space travel in the near future. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that there would be the possiblity of interstellar travel hopefully. > Thoughts? Having a spaceport in orbit doesn't really help much. A low earth orbit like where the ISS orbits means that the space station is traveling at roughly 1000 mph, or Mach 16. Thus, to get down to the ground from a spaceport still involves decelerating through the atmosphere at high speed.
It is possible to orbit directly over a fixed spot on the Earth, but that means putting the spaceport out in geosynchronous orbit, 36000 km or 22,300 miles up. That's quite a ways out there. If you do, though, this raises the possibility of a "space elevator", a promising idea originated by Arthur C Clarke. You can Google that to find out the technical challenges of doing that, not the least of which is that a trip up and down the elevator would take months.
PD
Sam Wormley - 05 Jul 2008 04:20 GMT > Ok thank you all that have replied to my post. Frankly I am really > interested in the theory of space travel in the near future. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that there would be the possiblity of interstellar travel hopefully. > Thoughts? The ISS is Low Earth Orbit (LEO) protected from the solar wind by the Earth's magnetic field... not anything close to the kind of thing you are envisioning.
Androcles - 05 Jul 2008 06:49 GMT | Ok thank you all that have replied to my post. Frankly I am really | interested in the theory of space travel in the near future. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | that there would be the possiblity of interstellar travel hopefully. | Thoughts? When the LGM (little green men) find out that you haven't even colonised Antarctica yet with its abundance of water, Earth-like gravity, perfect mix of atmospheric gases, six months of glorious sunshine all summer long, absolutely ideal conditions to support human life without even needing a spacesuit, a whole damn continent still unexplored, they'll be having a good laugh at your idiotic attempts at "the possib[i]lity of interstellar travel hopefully" and promptly exterminate you for your disease. Stupidity is contagious. Oops, I just caught some... forget I mentioned the LGM and hand me back my sanity.
G. L. Bradford - 05 Jul 2008 09:35 GMT > Ok thank you all that have replied to my post. Frankly I am really > interested in the theory of space travel in the near future. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that there would be the possiblity of interstellar travel hopefully. > Thoughts? We will create / adapt / improvise / expand and grow our way into the universe at large.
I wouldn't worry about the naysaying Dark Age physicists and Earth First Utopians (Gibbon's mental "pygmies" updated) living today. Had Columbus and everyone else listened to their types back in his day we more than likely would not be advanced in energies, powers and capabilities much beyond 1492 even now. The Ottoman Turks would have conquered an inward looking, and imploding, Europe and put its advancement back some 500 or more years. China (less than a hundred years prior) had already been set back some 500 years or so by its own naysaying and inward looking -- implosive -- elites, schools and bureaucracies.
The biggest problem is we should already have bases on the Moon, large gravitied [general purpose] space stations in Earth orbit, capable mass transportation system shuttles and ships plying the lanes to space and in space, and at least the first space colony city-state complex coming on line around L4 or L5. With all that expanding and growing frontier activity, our (then) increasingly frontier-like economies on Earth would be doing a heck of lot better than they -- increasingly implosively -- are doing now.
About 230 years ago, an American farmer / writer named Crevecoeur commented on how people immigrating into a vast new frontier environment seemed to just naturally expand in mind, genius, energy and potential to be creative and do, equally vastly. Edward Gibbon wrote of just the opposite occurring in a tyrannically frontierless world imploding into itself. Shrinking minds, genius, energy and potential producing, evolving, mental "pygmies" -- savage mental midgets -- as the vast, the very vast, now otherwise irresistibly immovable, mass.
But maybe we haven't reached that point yet. A move to begin now what we should have begun long ago (and were [tyrannically] kept from doing by inward looking -- government, university and, in general, ideological -- powers that be) might reverse civilization's decline and fall from the accelerating growth of a [savage] mental midgetry. New (energetic) Worlds in the making.....including a brand spanking new (energetic) Old World in the making right here. Being in the presence, the environment, of an energetic vastness expanding minds -- the mass mind and genius -- vastly, expanding possibilities, potentials, capacities, capabilities, vision and creativity vastly. It's not something new, it's simply the nature of the thing (simply the nature of opening....of going nova).
GLB
Robert J. Kolker - 05 Jul 2008 15:05 GMT > We will create / adapt / improvise / expand and grow our way into the > universe at large. Only if we increase our lifespans greatly. The stars are far away and we travel slowly.
> The biggest problem is we should already have bases on the Moon, large > gravitied [general purpose] space stations in Earth orbit, capable mass [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be doing a heck of lot better than they -- increasingly implosively -- > are doing now. I agree! The Moon is close enough to colonize without risking life and health on long-time free fall voyages. In addition we can use the backside of the Moon (where there is no earth glow) to build observatories much larger than the puny Hubble Telescope. Moon colonization is feasible and it is a better bootstap for constructing long trip space craft, than orbital facilities. If there are metallic deposits on the moon we can mine them, and if we find water, the problem of long term colonization is mostly solved.
Bob Kolker
Uncle Al - 05 Jul 2008 18:15 GMT > Ok thank you all that have replied to my post. Frankly I am really > interested in the theory of space travel in the near future. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that there would be the possiblity of interstellar travel hopefully. > Thoughts? Thoughts? We have some, yes. You should get some.
Reentry heat is solved by coming in backwards. Rocket exhaust is much cooler than the apparent temp of the atmosphere at the viewed relative velocity of reentry,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/kinetic/kintem.html
Be clever and zoom in with not against the planet's rotation. A blunt ablative thermal shield bounces most of the energy back into the plasma plume. Sharp edges burn. The Space Scuttle is an obscenity.
Space stations? Conservation of enery, linear and angular momentum. Don't be an idiot about path changing either - it doesn't.
There exist no solutions within extant physics for practical interstellar travel,
"The Starflight Handbook" Mallove and Matloff.
There exist no solutions within extant physics for practical intersystem travel, either. Price 100 kg of xenon. Mercury ion engines short out and dissolve the spacecraft. Solar sails are bullshit when you go to make one. Unless you want to ride a nuclear reactor bareback, massive radiation shielding negates any propulsion advanatge - and don't be one of the mainteneance crew.
 Signature Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Larry Snyder - 05 Jul 2008 21:11 GMT Why not build this? http://www.pacificsites.com/~snyder/Space%20Drive/SpDrive.html Larry
Androcles - 05 Jul 2008 22:50 GMT | Why not build this? | http://www.pacificsites.com/~snyder/Space%20Drive/SpDrive.html | Larry Q. Why not pick yourself up by your own shoe laces? (If this doesn't make sense, go to B below.)
A. Quite right, it can't be done. Like your idea for a space drive, it will not work. Have a nice day. **
Androcles.
B. Explain: If you don't understand physics, especially Newton's third law and the principle of relativity, don't feel bad. Other people do, they'll take care of it. You can become an actor or a singer or a cook or something. If you wish to LEARN, reading this might help.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm
If you do not understand this page read it again until you do. Ask questions if you need to. In the meantime, picking yourself up by your own laces is as crazy as your space drive and if you still insist you can do it, go see a psychiatrist or learn REAL physics, not Einstein's, Lorentz's or Maxwell's drivel.
Androcles.
** For the intelligent only. Do not attempt this question if you are a kook.
Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way is the same?
1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B) where A = (0,0,0,t) A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v)) B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) x' = x-vt
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
Other answers by kooks.
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
According to xxein: It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
Uncle Al - 05 Jul 2008 22:59 GMT > Why not build this? > http://www.pacificsites.com/~snyder/Space%20Drive/SpDrive.html > Larry Because it's bullshit. Aside from the obvious, aside from spillover on both ends, calculate beam divergence given emitter aperture and transmitted wavelength for, say, 100 miles separation between emitter and target. It's bullshit.
Engineering aside, calculate available thrust vs. transmitted power at 100 miles separation (minimal orbital injection). It's bullshit.
 Signature Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
|
|
|