Let's build a full scale StarTrek USS Enterprise in space
Discussion
Gene Vincent said:
Tim330 said:
I'm not a Physicist as it may soon become clear but I would think that if "the hand of God" slowed the earth down or a (big) rocket on the surface fired against the direction of orbit thereby reducing the speed of the earths orbit we would move closer to the sun?
I know it is counter-intuitive, but that is the rule of the spheres.Stole this off the net...
Mercury - 47.8725 km/sec = 107,000MPH
Venus - 35.0214 km/sec = 78,350 MPH
Earth - 29.7859 km/sec = 66,630 MPH
Mars - 24.1309 km/sec = 54,000 MPH
Jupiter - 13.0697 km/sec =29,240 MPH
Saturn - 9.6724 km/sec = 21,640 MPH
Uranus - 6.8352 km/sec = 15,290 MPH
Neptune - 5.4778 km/sec = 12,250 MPH
Pluto (TNO, or dwarf planet) = 10,700 MPH
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/At_what_speed_does_each_...
It depends on a multitude of factors, there are plenty of descriptions of orbital mechanics on the net, there are conditions that would cause to end up in the sun, but similarly it would be possible to move to a different orbit or fling the Earth out of solar orbit.
nelly1 said:
Pesty said:
EFAThe only 2 current known theoretical and practical propulsion methods to the stars are:
1. Anti-matter propulsion
2. Gravity drive
Of the 2, with Humans aboard, Gravity drive is the only practical solution as it resolves the acceleration problem. You effectively turn a strong gravitational field on and off, the frequency + Amplitude determines the rate of acceleration. The benefit being that the GF acts equally (given the distances involved) on all elements of the vehicle equally. So you can have strong and rapid acceleration to high <C velocities without the issues of G loading on the human body.
The other major benefit of Gravity Drive is it doesn't require mass ejection.
There are major technical hurdles to be overcome to implement either solution, but gravity drive is the only one that could provide near C velocities. (The ISP of the system determines your maximum velocity in a pure vacuum)
Additionally the gravity drive system is not limited by the mass of the ship, just the acceleration capability.
1. Anti-matter propulsion
2. Gravity drive
Of the 2, with Humans aboard, Gravity drive is the only practical solution as it resolves the acceleration problem. You effectively turn a strong gravitational field on and off, the frequency + Amplitude determines the rate of acceleration. The benefit being that the GF acts equally (given the distances involved) on all elements of the vehicle equally. So you can have strong and rapid acceleration to high <C velocities without the issues of G loading on the human body.
The other major benefit of Gravity Drive is it doesn't require mass ejection.
There are major technical hurdles to be overcome to implement either solution, but gravity drive is the only one that could provide near C velocities. (The ISP of the system determines your maximum velocity in a pure vacuum)
Additionally the gravity drive system is not limited by the mass of the ship, just the acceleration capability.
annodomini2 said:
Gene Vincent said:
Tim330 said:
I'm not a Physicist as it may soon become clear but I would think that if "the hand of God" slowed the earth down or a (big) rocket on the surface fired against the direction of orbit thereby reducing the speed of the earths orbit we would move closer to the sun?
I know it is counter-intuitive, but that is the rule of the spheres.Stole this off the net...
Mercury - 47.8725 km/sec = 107,000MPH
Venus - 35.0214 km/sec = 78,350 MPH
Earth - 29.7859 km/sec = 66,630 MPH
Mars - 24.1309 km/sec = 54,000 MPH
Jupiter - 13.0697 km/sec =29,240 MPH
Saturn - 9.6724 km/sec = 21,640 MPH
Uranus - 6.8352 km/sec = 15,290 MPH
Neptune - 5.4778 km/sec = 12,250 MPH
Pluto (TNO, or dwarf planet) = 10,700 MPH
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/At_what_speed_does_each_...
It depends on a multitude of factors, there are plenty of descriptions of orbital mechanics on the net, there are conditions that would cause to end up in the sun, but similarly it would be possible to move to a different orbit or fling the Earth out of solar orbit.
Simply accelerating the planet along its current path will cause the Earth to fall into the sun. (that was the question)
The answer is to force the earth at a right angled tangent opposite to the Sun, the Earth (as a result of vector trajectories) will actually slow its radial (orbital) speed.
Gene Vincent said:
If you read my posts carefully, you find that I have answered the questions asked correctly.
Simply accelerating the planet along its current path will cause the Earth to fall into the sun. (that was the question)
The answer is to force the earth at a right angled tangent opposite to the Sun, the Earth (as a result of vector trajectories) will actually slow its radial (orbital) speed.
There are multiple paths to achieve the goal.Simply accelerating the planet along its current path will cause the Earth to fall into the sun. (that was the question)
The answer is to force the earth at a right angled tangent opposite to the Sun, the Earth (as a result of vector trajectories) will actually slow its radial (orbital) speed.
The tangent needs to be slightly behind the perpendicular, as at a perfect perpendicular, it will move you away from the Sun and not slow you down and will shift into an elliptical orbit. The amount of angle is proportional to the amount of force you can generate.
Acceleration in the direction of motion, i.e. increasing relative orbital velocity will cause it to move away from the Sun, initially, but it will shift into an elliptical orbit (unless you accelerate up to escape velocity). You then need to decelerate into a circular orbit at your desired orbital period.
However from a human perspective this would probably not be ideal as there will be elements of the orbit where it passes much closer to the Sun. There is also a risk of interaction with other planetary bodies as their orbits are crossed.
As you stated previously this would also perturb the orbits of the other planets, Jupiter and Saturn would take a huge time to move, but Venus or Mars may suffer and also end up in elliptical orbits, resulting in collisions.
It's probably not impossible, but the mechanics and resultant mathematics of such an undertaking is not a simple one.
The other problem is in certain orbits closer to Jupiter, e.g. Where the asteroid belt is would cause the Earth to be literally torn apart.
annodomini2 said:
The only 2 current known theoretical and practical propulsion methods to the stars are:
1. Anti-matter propulsion
2. Gravity drive
Of the 2, with Humans aboard, Gravity drive is the only practical solution as it resolves the acceleration problem. You effectively turn a strong gravitational field on and off, the frequency + Amplitude determines the rate of acceleration. The benefit being that the GF acts equally (given the distances involved) on all elements of the vehicle equally. So you can have strong and rapid acceleration to high <C velocities without the issues of G loading on the human body.
The other major benefit of Gravity Drive is it doesn't require mass ejection.
There are major technical hurdles to be overcome to implement either solution, but gravity drive is the only one that could provide near C velocities. (The ISP of the system determines your maximum velocity in a pure vacuum)
Additionally the gravity drive system is not limited by the mass of the ship, just the acceleration capability.
I think 'major technical hurdles' somewhat underestimates the difficulty in turning gravity on and off. 1. Anti-matter propulsion
2. Gravity drive
Of the 2, with Humans aboard, Gravity drive is the only practical solution as it resolves the acceleration problem. You effectively turn a strong gravitational field on and off, the frequency + Amplitude determines the rate of acceleration. The benefit being that the GF acts equally (given the distances involved) on all elements of the vehicle equally. So you can have strong and rapid acceleration to high <C velocities without the issues of G loading on the human body.
The other major benefit of Gravity Drive is it doesn't require mass ejection.
There are major technical hurdles to be overcome to implement either solution, but gravity drive is the only one that could provide near C velocities. (The ISP of the system determines your maximum velocity in a pure vacuum)
Additionally the gravity drive system is not limited by the mass of the ship, just the acceleration capability.
That works for small objects... it doesn't for objects such as the Earth that have a large mass and their concomitant gravitational field.
...I'll put it another way, a Saturn 5 when sitting on its launch pad is already travelling at the rotational speed of the Earth, to get it to escape we don't point it along that rotational path do we. We point it at a right angled tangent to that path.
To dislodge the Earth from its orbit around the sun, simply accelerating it will cause it to collapse into the sun, to get away from the tug we would have to do the same as we do with a Saturn 5, head away at right angles to our locus of gravity (our Sun), the shape of our trajectory would closely resemble that curve described in your illustration.
...I'll put it another way, a Saturn 5 when sitting on its launch pad is already travelling at the rotational speed of the Earth, to get it to escape we don't point it along that rotational path do we. We point it at a right angled tangent to that path.
To dislodge the Earth from its orbit around the sun, simply accelerating it will cause it to collapse into the sun, to get away from the tug we would have to do the same as we do with a Saturn 5, head away at right angles to our locus of gravity (our Sun), the shape of our trajectory would closely resemble that curve described in your illustration.
Bedazzled said:
Gene Vincent said:
...I'll put it another way, a Saturn 5 when sitting on its launch pad is already travelling at the rotational speed of the Earth, to get it to escape we don't point it along that rotational path do we. We point it at a right angled tangent to that path.
Watch a rocket launch, they point vertically to gain altitude in order to reduce drag from the atmosphere, then they rotate onto their backs and accelerate in the direction of the Earth's rotation to reach orbit (or escape velocity). That's why most rockets are launched from the equator.To move out radially we need an impetus sufficient to achieve the feat, this is done by propulsion radially, that curved path in your illustration is the result of radial impetus, not concentric impetus, concentric propulsion would upset our equilibrium, the 'trade off' is that we would adopt a closer orbit to the sun for any increase in our orbital speed, accelerate along our circular path 11x as I pointed out would mean that we would career into the Sun.
hairykrishna said:
annodomini2 said:
The only 2 current known theoretical and practical propulsion methods to the stars are:
1. Anti-matter propulsion
2. Gravity drive
Of the 2, with Humans aboard, Gravity drive is the only practical solution as it resolves the acceleration problem. You effectively turn a strong gravitational field on and off, the frequency + Amplitude determines the rate of acceleration. The benefit being that the GF acts equally (given the distances involved) on all elements of the vehicle equally. So you can have strong and rapid acceleration to high <C velocities without the issues of G loading on the human body.
The other major benefit of Gravity Drive is it doesn't require mass ejection.
There are major technical hurdles to be overcome to implement either solution, but gravity drive is the only one that could provide near C velocities. (The ISP of the system determines your maximum velocity in a pure vacuum)
Additionally the gravity drive system is not limited by the mass of the ship, just the acceleration capability.
I think 'major technical hurdles' somewhat underestimates the difficulty in turning gravity on and off. 1. Anti-matter propulsion
2. Gravity drive
Of the 2, with Humans aboard, Gravity drive is the only practical solution as it resolves the acceleration problem. You effectively turn a strong gravitational field on and off, the frequency + Amplitude determines the rate of acceleration. The benefit being that the GF acts equally (given the distances involved) on all elements of the vehicle equally. So you can have strong and rapid acceleration to high <C velocities without the issues of G loading on the human body.
The other major benefit of Gravity Drive is it doesn't require mass ejection.
There are major technical hurdles to be overcome to implement either solution, but gravity drive is the only one that could provide near C velocities. (The ISP of the system determines your maximum velocity in a pure vacuum)
Additionally the gravity drive system is not limited by the mass of the ship, just the acceleration capability.
This is well proven theory.
The technical hurdles are:
1. Being able to accelerate enough mass to generate a significant gravitational field.
2. The energy to do this.
3. Slowing the mass down fast enough as to not cause issues for the occupants.
4. Getting the whole thing to stay in one piece.
5. Getting the mechanism reliable enough for a deep space operation.
annodomini2 said:
If you accelerate a mass to approaching the speed of light it's mass increases exponentially and it's resulting gravitational field increases.
This is well proven theory.
Yes. This is true. Now explain how this lets you build a 'gravity drive'. It is not the same thing as being able to turn gravity on and off at will. This is well proven theory.
Here's something for interstellar travel that is 'allowed' under current knowledge of physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
Just a couple of issues to work on though, namely..."However, if certain quantum inequalities conjectured by Ford and Roman hold, then the energy requirements for some warp drives may be absurdly gigantic, e.g. the energy equivalent of -10^64kg might be required to transport a small spaceship across the Milky Way galaxy. This is orders of magnitude greater than the estimated mass of the universe."
Just a couple of issues to work on though, namely..."However, if certain quantum inequalities conjectured by Ford and Roman hold, then the energy requirements for some warp drives may be absurdly gigantic, e.g. the energy equivalent of -10^64kg might be required to transport a small spaceship across the Milky Way galaxy. This is orders of magnitude greater than the estimated mass of the universe."
PW said:
Not the only problem - you create potentially unlimited energy bursts when you stop.
http://www.universetoday.com/93882/warp-drives-may...
Haha, it's like the ship powered by bad news in Hitch Hikers GTTG.http://www.universetoday.com/93882/warp-drives-may...
Here's the gravity concept video, for the spaceship
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...
...and it looks like DARPA are going to be funding a simular project
DARPA awarded US$500,000 in seed funding to the Dorothy Jemison Foundation for Excellence to form 100 Year Starship (100YSS), an independent, non-governmental initiative that will call on experts from a variety of fields, to develop the capabilities for human interstellar flight “as soon as possible, and definitely within the next 100 years.”
DARPA awarded US$500,000 in seed funding to the Dorothy Jemison Foundation for Excellence to form 100 Year Starship (100YSS), an independent, non-governmental initiative that will call on experts from a variety of fields, to develop the capabilities for human interstellar flight “as soon as possible, and definitely within the next 100 years.”
hairykrishna said:
annodomini2 said:
If you accelerate a mass to approaching the speed of light it's mass increases exponentially and it's resulting gravitational field increases.
This is well proven theory.
Yes. This is true. Now explain how this lets you build a 'gravity drive'. It is not the same thing as being able to turn gravity on and off at will. This is well proven theory.
You increase the speed of the cyclotrons to create significant gravitational field, once the ship approaches the gravity generator, slow them down to decrease the relativistic mass. Push the gravity generator out, repeat.
It works because of the varying mass.
You may also be able to do this on a smaller scale, but in reverse using the mass differential to create thrust in the push by the hydraulic cylinders.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff