The Enterprise... Now?

[ydoaPs]

there is currently no way to get to alpha centuri in the next 1000 years. fission reactors would likely be overkill.

[ydoaPs]

how much power do u think it would need at once?

 

any ideas for propulsion or navigation?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Read the first three posts! It talks about propulsion...

Navigation is easy. Star tracking.

 

 

How is fission "overkill"? I mean, you need power to draw in hydrogen, heat it up to high temperatures, shoot it out the back, as well as for the computers, life support, etc. Submarines have one and that's not overkill.

[ydoaPs]

I already told u that the hydrogen thing wouldn't work. What are u gonna do, fly it into the sun?

 

Computers and life support wouldn't need that much energy. I would go with something that doesn't have a risk of meltdown. How would u evacuate, cram the whole crew into two or three shuttle pods?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The hydrogen thing WOULD work. Think about it. Space isn't a pure vacuum. There are atoms there (200 per cubic centimeter, I'm told) so you can suck them in and blast them out at high heat to get thrust.

 

But if you don't have a nuclear reactor, you can't go very far. Why do submarines have them? They need all of the energy, so that is not overkill! And only something like 5 nuclear reactors, of several hundred, have ever melted down. None has ever truly melted down and blown to smithereens (Chernobyl wasn't exactly a meltdown, I think, but even if it was, it was their crummy systems).

 

Even without a reactor you can still die in hundreds of ways. Loss of pressure, starvation, etc. etc.

[ydoaPs]

they have to turn a propeller in water. submarines have small reactors. so ur saying "there are other ways to die, so lets put in nuclear reactors."?

 

the loss of pressure was already delt with. for starvation, there could be a space station in orbit around venus and some sort of base on mars and the moon. each having food. anyway, the cruisers should have a hydroponics module.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Loss of pressure=instant death.

How was it dealt with?

Now that I've proven that the propulsion system will work, think for a moment about how much energy it takes to suck in a non-magnetic particle. It is possible (like levitating a non-magnetic frog) but it takes a HECK of a lot of energy. So nuclear reactors it is.

 

And what is your alternative that will power a ship over a long journey?

[Sayonara]

But if you don't have a nuclear reactor, you can't go very far. Why do submarines have them?

Because they don't want to have to keep surfacing and refuelling, particularly while in hostile waters?

 

I don't know why you two are arguing over fuel/engines seeing as nobody has said what this ship is actually for yet.

 

 

(Chernobyl wasn't exactly a meltdown, I think, but even if it was, it was their crummy systems).

I'm going to go ahead and bet that you know absolutely nothing about Chernobyl then.

[atinymonkey]

they have to turn a propeller in water. submarines have small reactors. so ur saying "there are other ways to die' date=' so lets put in nuclear reactors."?

 

the loss of pressure was already delt with. for starvation, there could be a space station in orbit around venus and some sort of base on mars and the moon. each having food. anyway, the cruisers should have a hydroponics module.[/quote']

 

Your being dismissive. Nuclear space travel is rather effective, it was almost completed in the 1950's.

 

http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html

http://www.unmuseum.org/orionproject.htm

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/ideaknow.htm

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Sorry. Temporary memory loss about chernobyl.

 

But do you want a spaceship designed to go on LONG RANGE missions constantly needing to refuel while in deep space? That's the same reason why you can't have to have a space station around Venus. You grow your own, and if it all dies, you're dead. I remember reading about how scientists took still-live muscle from a sheep or cow and grew it artificially, so you get meat by growing it too.

 

 

 

Ok, the ship would probably be for this type of mission: You fly out with a deep-space telescope or sensor, blast out of the solar system, and release it at a certain point. You can monitor it, get information from it, and repair it from the ship. You could also use on-board sensors to orbit a planet and do investigations not possible with probes, where you can't have the probe take pictures of the best stuff (astronauts can pick good shots better than satellites, in things like picking up atmospheric phenomena or lightning, while satellites are restricted to shooting at a certain interval, and are less likely to pick it up). Just an exploration/scout ship.

[TheProphet]

Was this tought experiemtn only ment to comply to already existing methods or are those in near future also thinkable?

 

but anyway due too the time this baby would take too build! Researchers on earth would have been able too complete Fusion and be in the way too antimatter-matter reactors =) Why not use a sun sail for propulsion? then a hydrogen plant of some sort onboard too cope with lifesuport and etc.! And in order too keep the wight down! Nano Carbon fibers and Fluffy steel might be suitable

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Your being dismissive. Nuclear space travel is rather effective' date=' it was almost completed in the 1950's.

 

http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html

http://www.unmuseum.org/orionproject.htm

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/ideaknow.htm[/quote']

Question about some of the links, the Bussard method mainly: Do you really have to fuse the protons, or can't you just blast them out the back at high speed? Doesn't that provide thrust too?

 

edit:

http://www.lascruces.com/~mrpbar/rocket.html

Now, the thing is, is there free hydrogen in space or just protons? Because this hinges on hydrogen.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

but anyway due too the time this baby would take too build! Researchers on earth would have been able too complete Fusion and be in the way too antimatter-matter reactors =) Why not use a sun sail for propulsion? then a hydrogen plant of some sort onboard too cope with lifesuport and etc.! And in order too keep the wight down! Nano Carbon fibers and Fluffy steel might be suitable

Why anti-matter/matter? Not necessary.

[ydoaPs]

a solar sail is less powerful than an ion engine. cap is talking about an ion engine which would be very inefficient on a cruiser of that size.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Ummm... no. Not ions. I'm talking about the one in the link I just edited into my post. Powerful. Just use 2 or 3 of them.

 

 

edit: I have to go for about half an hour, so I won't argue for a while.

[TheProphet]

Ummm... no. Not ions. I'm talking about the one in the link I just edited into my post. Powerful. Just use 2 or 3 of them.

 

 

edit: I have to go for about half an hour' date=' so I won't argue for a while.[/quote']

 

Hehe see you soon then! I belive they still are Ion engines though! The main problem is that their acceleration is veeery slow! And when i come to think of it solar sails would only work in Star to Star travel!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Ion engines with 900 seconds of thrust (not seconds of time)-no! Hold on-...

 

 

Let's compare ion engines to my suggested rocket. Click the links. They're different. So really, it's different. Read the WHOLE article, it gets better as it goes on.

[ydoaPs]

for some reason, my computer wont let me click on links at this time. can u put the address?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_engine

http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket

 

Copy those into your browser, without the space after http://

[ydoaPs]

thanx

[ydoaPs]

I'm not sure a bussard collector could get enough hydrogen to do that efficiently.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Nuclear reactor=gets lots and lots of power to collect hydrogen over a wider area.

Plus, when you're going fast, you go past more and more hydrogen faster and faster, so you get more the faster you go.

[ydoaPs]

that might be good for thrust, but what about maneuvering?

[atinymonkey]

Question about some of the links' date=' the Bussard method mainly: Do you really have to fuse the protons, or can't you just blast them out the back at high speed? Doesn't that provide thrust too?

 

[/quote']

 

About as much thrust as chucking sand over your shoulder. It's enough to get momentum, but to get sufficent momentum for manned transport you need an extra kick. Even in theory (and given a way to fuse protons) it would still take years to gain anything like sufficent momentum.

 

I'm not sure about the diffusion of free hydrogen in space. It's the most common substance in the universe, so I assume there is quite a bit kicking around. It's still a problem extracting sufficent momentum from the hydrogen tho.

 

I think on the whole it's a better technology for probes than for manned craft. Although, it could be used to maintain momentum once a sufficent speed is reached using conventinal methods.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You're confusing it with ion engines. The hydrogen nuclear engines have 50-400% more thrust than chemical engines. Use the hydrogen in space for fuel.

 

Maneuvering? Thrust vectoring! Swivel the nozzles.