Astronomy / Space NASA: New "impossible" engine works, could change space travel forever

19th hole

1
These kind of inventions, IF they work at all, the patents are usually bought up by multi nationals (legally or other means...) and burried into the ground and further developed behind curtains to be seen and experienced by a very few. Examples of genious inventors biting the dust? How about Mr. Tesla? to name one of many... These inventions do not fit into the current system of worldpower(s) hierarchy in their derailed opinion and few, that's why you and I can only brag about puny rocket engines... since 1969... 46 years later... hahaha. Especially in the field of revolutionary energy generation, they are even more radical.

back to 80's music... these forums...
 
Last edited:

Tinman

Tinman
19th hole said:
These kind of inventions, IF they work at all, the patents are usually bought up by multi nationals (legally or other means...) and burried into the ground and further developed behind curtains to be seen and experienced by a very few. Examples of genious inventors biting the dust? How about Mr. Tesla? to name one of many... These inventions do not fit into the current system of worldpower(s) hierarchy in their derailed opinion and few, that's why you and I can only brag about puny rocket engines... since 1969... 46 years later... hahaha. Especially in the field of revolutionary energy generation, they are even more radical.

back to 80's music... these forums...
Click to expand...

Hmm...I think you took a wrong turn somewhere on the internet.

Conspiracy town is that way ---------------->

[video=youtube;5muY64Oyp10]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5muY64Oyp10[/video]

:D :p
 

Surfinjo

Surfinjo
T.j said:
NASA tests Cannae Drive

Not quite Astronomy but I'm a mod so...:p :D

Still fascinating stuff.
Click to expand...

I approve in your case. (Obsequious bowing and scraping :)) After all, what's the point of being a boss mod if you can indulge in a little corruption now and again?

These are all well and good and may, one day, make a lot of sense. But surely the pressing need is to get stuff to and from the weightless position in the first place?

Endless blasting rockets is expensive, polluting, dangerous, and with the enormous stresses exerted, must be a major factor in causing many of the mechanical failures which have ended so may potentially promising missions.

The Shuttle was little more than a gimmick. It certainly didn't solve any problems which is why the project was abandoned at the first opportunity.

I wondering if anyone might care to share some of their ideas for an alternative launch vehicle?

How would it work? What are the potential problems to be overcome?
 

Space Fan

Banned
S
Earth's gravity well - deep. By necessity - keeps our atmosphere in place.

Launch - from smaller gravity well - build on Moon, launch from there.

Much talk of gravity wells: nothing posh - just a measure of the grav potential: GM/r (note r, not r squared)

GM/r much lower for Moon.

Launch from there once vessels built.

Even better, launch from orbit - but difficult to aggregate resources there.

It will happen.
 
Last edited:

Surfinjo

Surfinjo
Space Fan said:
Earth's gravity well - deep. By necessity - keeps our atmosphere in place.

Launch - from smaller gravity well - build on Moon, launch from there.

Much talk of gravity wells: nothing posh - just a measure of the grav potential: GM/r (note r, not r squared)

GM/r much lower for Moon.

Launch from there once vessels built.

Even better, launch from orbit - but difficult to aggregate resources there.

It will happen.
Click to expand...

Nice, but kinda defeats the point since we still need to get to the moon or wherever.


How does the notion of a space elevator sound?

It would require the cables to be made of very strong, very light alloys.

It would be very expensive, but if we flatter the Americans enough, they can easily afford it.
 

Space Fan

Banned
S
Space elevator - not impossible. Material science (esp light and super strong materials) is advancing quicker than power density science. Why not.
 

Surfinjo

Surfinjo
A rather different approach I thought of involved using balloons to raise a craft, equipped with third stage rockets for example, to a sufficient height that it is just above the atmosphere, the rockets kick in and complete the job.

That would almost eliminate the fuel to take the craft to the edge of space.

The vibration and physical damage would be reduced, but not eliminated.

The overall risk would remain.
 

edd

edd
Surfinjo said:
A rather different approach I thought of involved using balloons to raise a craft, equipped with third stage rockets for example, to a sufficient height that it is just above the atmosphere, the rockets kick in and complete the job.

That would almost eliminate the fuel to take the craft to the edge of space.

The vibration and physical damage would be reduced, but not eliminated.

The overall risk would remain.
Click to expand...

It'll get you to the edge of space but:
a) it is only the edge and getting further out still takes a lot of fuel
b) it is not at orbital velocity so even staying at the edge of space takes a lot of fuel
You can try calculating how much energy is needed to get to the ISS with how much it takes to get to its orbital velocity for example, and the difference is not small.
 

Surfinjo

Surfinjo
edd said:
It'll get you to the edge of space but:
a) it is only the edge and getting further out still takes a lot of fuel
b) it is not at orbital velocity so even staying at the edge of space takes a lot of fuel
You can try calculating how much energy is needed to get to the ISS with how much it takes to get to its orbital velocity for example, and the difference is not small.
Click to expand...

It will. But it will reduce the amount of fuel needed, compared to a ground based launch, by a considerable amount.

It was intended as a contribution to a suggestion of launching from Space.

The point is, I'm trying to think outside the box.
 

Surfinjo

Surfinjo
starman said:
Cannae change the law of Physics Captain
Click to expand...

No, but we can change the way we approach things.

Once we went around on carts dragged by horses and used tar to seal boats.

Traveling, once in space, is not a big deal. A relatively tine amount of energy can take an object a long way.

Getting there is the problem.


Here's an example. Some guy, in 2014, reached 41.5 KM above the earth. A craft in geostationary orbit can be as low as 36 KM.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/s...breaking-felix-baumgartners-world-record.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit
 
Last edited:

Space Fan

Banned
S
Surfinjo said:
No, but we can change the way we approach things.

Once we went around on carts dragged by horses and used tar to seal boats.

Traveling, once in space, is not a big deal. A relatively tine amount of energy can take an object a long way.

Getting there is the problem.


Here's an example. Some guy, in 2014, reached 41.5 KM above the earth. A craft in geostationary orbit can be as low as 36 KM.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/s...breaking-felix-baumgartners-world-record.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit
Click to expand...

Geostationary (synchronous) orbit has a fixed altitude where the angular velocity of the satellite is equal to that of Earth (in other words, 360 degrees in slightly under 24 hours) - it is a very high altitude, around 36,000 km. You can't do it at any other altitude.

Low earth orbit requires a very high speed - you have to be beyond the atmosphere to orbit successfully, or the satellite will burn up / lose speed. 100km is the absolute minimum (the accepted altitude where the atmosphere is so thin as to be negligible.)
 

Surfinjo

Surfinjo
Space Fan said:
Geostationary (synchronous) orbit has a fixed altitude where the angular velocity of the satellite is equal to that of Earth (in other words, 360 degrees in slightly under 24 hours) - it is a very high altitude, around 36,000 km. You can't do it at any other altitude.

Low earth orbit requires a very high speed - you have to be beyond the atmosphere to orbit successfully, or the satellite will burn up / lose speed. 100km is the absolute minimum (the accepted altitude where the atmosphere is so thin as to be negligible.)
Click to expand...

The point is to demonstrate that the principals are feasible.
 

edd

edd
Surfinjo said:
The point is to demonstrate that the principals are feasible.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the idea (and in fact I sold it rather short earlier as I didn't properly account for the rocket equation) and air to space launches are taken seriously - I believe balloons have been suggested too but they have other issues and often you're looking at plane based launching. Balloons in particular are going to find it difficult to lift any significant payload to very high altitudes.

Definitely an idea people have looked at and are still looking at but you shouldn't expect it to be amazingly effective.
 

Surfinjo

Surfinjo
I don't really. I'm trying to encourage a round of free thinking on the subject.

As you say, the ideas are essentially sound.

The two I suggested each have different advantages.

Neither would particularly save on fuel, though your suggestion that a balloon couldn't life enough is not necessarily correct. It really depends upon what you want to lift.

The space elevator would be enormously expensive to set up and not save a lot of fuel. But it would have the distinct advantage that it would reduce the mechanical stress on cargo during launch.

I don't see either being a reality in the fore seeable future, but the ideas are there. I hope you might be able to come up some of your own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom