PDA

View Full Version : When are we going to build a first 'real' spaceship?



Ivan Bilic
2014-May-26, 01:24 PM
Watching all we have done till now, from Vostok rocket, Apollo mission, space shuttle up to recent private space programs and chinese antiquity, we still do not have something we can call a real 'spaceship'. The most close thing we built was a space shuttle, which could lift with additional rockets, it had a shape of spaceship and could return to earth in one piece smoothly landing on runnaway. But, i wonder when are we going to build something more larger that could travel much far away, at least to Mars or even Venus, and return back to be reused. And how are we going to build it? Assemble it in space or launch it in one peace? Do we still miss technology for such spaceship?

DaveC426913
2014-May-26, 02:25 PM
I'm inferring that your definition of 'real' spaceship means A] carries people, and B] away from Earth orbit. That's reasonable.


But, i wonder when are we going to build something more larger that could travel much far away, at least to Mars or even Venus,
You've hit the nail on the head.

In all likelihood, a manned journey to Mars will be the first project that meets those requirements.


and return back to be reused.
There is very little practicality to reuse such a vehicle, for a host of reasons.

1] Much of the equipment is subjected to degradation because of the stresses it's under for the journey. Not only do you not want to risk the lives and mission of the next journey, but it's just as likely much of the tech will be obsolete after several years anyway.

2] Much of the equipment gets left behind on the journey. It's got to be this way due to fuel demands. Every ton of equipment you want to bring home requires many tonnes of fuel to get it home, and both the return equipment AND the return fuel require many MORE tonnes of fuel to carried carried as cargo on the outward trip.


Here is an example, pulling grossly rounded numbers out of the air.

A standard rocket (such as the Apollo missions) might have a fuel-to-payload ratio of about 1%. So, for every ton you want to lob into orbit, you need 100 tons of rocket.
So, for a moonshot (one week) with a craft of 40 tons, you'd need a rocket of 4,000 tons.
Now, a Mars journey (two years or more), your craft might need to be ten times the mass, or 400 tons.
You've got to get that 400 tons rocket off Mars. So applying the 100:1 ratio, your RETURN craft that's sitting on Mar's surface will be 100x that, or 40,000 tons.
That ENTIRE return craft, fuel and all, is dead weight that you will have to carry with you from Earth.
So, for the journey outward, we take that entire craft - fuel and all, as the payload, apply the 100:1 ratio AGAIN, to get the size of the rocket needed to get it to Mars.
i.e. To lift your 40,000 ton payload, you will need a rocket that masses 4,000,000 tons.
So, a Mars journey will require a rocket that is one thousand times larger than your original Saturn-sized 4,000 ton moon rocket.

I have greatly simplified this process. There are many ways of altering it, both up and down. But the principle is inescapable - due to fuel costs alone, no craft is worth bringing home. You do NOT want to be bringing home anything but the barest essentials to get the crew home alive.

The only thing that will change this (barring a breakthrough propulsion technology with a hundred-fold increase in efficiency) is an infrastructure that makes the various parts of the journey MUCH cheaper. Permanent stations in Earth and Mars orbit, regular transfer routes (look up Hohmann transfer orbits), fuel processing stations on Mars, etc. This all still costs, but the cost gets defrayed by the commercialism that exploits the real estate and resources.


In answer to your question: we will build a reusable spaceship after we have essentially industrialized the Earth-Mars corridor.



And how are we going to build it? Assemble it in space or launch it in one peace? Do we still miss technology for such spaceship?
Probably some of both. The pieces likely will be launched on several rockets, then strung together in orbit. We are a long way from constructing anything in orbit.

Noclevername
2014-May-26, 02:37 PM
We are a long way from constructing anything in orbit.

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

Ivan Bilic
2014-May-26, 02:52 PM
Yes, i meant precisely ship that carries people away from earth orbit. It doesn't necesserily mean that technology such ship carries will be obsolete after several years. We had space shuttle that was in service for 30 and some more years, and it's technology wasn't outdated in that period. I think we have all parts, we have better materials than 40 years ago, we have very strong computers missions like apollo didn't have. We just don't have new propulsion system. Rocket engines evolved, but they are still rocket engines. We just need new more powerfull propulsion system.

KaiYeves
2014-May-26, 03:04 PM
Watching all we have done till now, from Vostok rocket, Apollo mission, space shuttle up to recent private space programs and chinese antiquity...
While it's true that the ancient Chinese did invent rocketry, are you sure you meant to list this chronologically last and not first?

Nicolas
2014-May-26, 03:27 PM
For a reusable Earth-Mars spaceship, I think we'd see a fully reusable orbit-to-orbit craft (or swingby to swingby craft in a Mars-Earth orbit) way before we will see a surface-to-surface fully reusable craft. That way you don't have all the delta-v and stresses related to takeoff and landing on your main spaceship. You will need other craft for the surface-to-orbit part though.

Ivan Bilic
2014-May-26, 03:42 PM
While it's true that the ancient Chinese did invent rocketry, are you sure you meant to list this chronologically last and not first?

By chinese antiquity i was reffering to Shenzhou and Tiangong. Yes, they invented a rocket, but it was long time ago....

Ivan Bilic
2014-May-26, 03:52 PM
For a reusable Earth-Mars spaceship, I think we'd see a fully reusable orbit-to-orbit craft (or swingby to swingby craft in a Mars-Earth orbit) way before we will see a surface-to-surface fully reusable craft. That way you don't have all the delta-v and stresses related to takeoff and landing on your main spaceship. You will need other craft for the surface-to-orbit part though.

Yes, i was thinking orbit-to-orbit craft. It could carry small lander. But i was also thinking a lot about vehicle like space shuttle, which could take off from earth and land vertically on the moon(like F-35), then take off and return back to the earth. I think after all we done, it would't be a problem. It is just an inadequate propulsion that makes a propblem.

ravens_cry
2014-May-26, 06:57 PM
Even if we could do it, more specialized approaches would be easier still. Think on 2001, a fully reusable shuttle (hard, but we're getting there, see Skylon) takes the craft up into orbit, transfer to the interplanetary ship which can be as aerodynamic as a LM and is specifically designed for that. When she reaches her destination orbit, you transfer to a third craft specialized to that environment and land. You are avoiding a lot of engineering compromises by going for this approach in my opinion.

Nicolas
2014-May-26, 07:50 PM
As someone (was it Armstrong?) said: the LM was -and still is- the first real spaceship, in that it was designed to work outside of an atmosphere exclusively. The orbit-to-orbit approach using surface-to orbit craft on either planet and an interplanetary space-only spaceship in between is a very logical approach with our current level of technology. Massively better propulsion opens new possibilities, but until then orbit-to-orbit is the only realistic option imho.

When will we build it? When we need it. There simply isn't a lot of earth-mars demand at the moment to justify the huge investment. Because even if we assume this approach is within our current technological possibilities (and that's certainly not an outrageous thing to assume) it would require massive amounts of R&D.

ravens_cry
2014-May-26, 08:08 PM
And the LM was a thing of beauty, like a well made sword. It had all the important bits, with little it didn't need, and it did its job admirably.

Squink
2014-May-26, 08:14 PM
When will we build it? When we need it. With technology reaching a point where many satellite functions can be standardized, the next real spaceship may very well be a satellite resupply and repair ship, perhaps something like this (http://www.space.com/15681-satellite-repair-robot-spacecraft-technology.html). There's likely money to be saved (made) in refueling rather than relaunching GOES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_Operational_Environmental_Satellite) , communication satellites and even some science missions. Working out a practical propulsion scheme for such a machine can't help but have implications for travel to Mars or Venus.

KaiYeves
2014-May-26, 08:17 PM
By chinese antiquity i was reffering to Shenzhou and Tiangong. Yes, they invented a rocket, but it was long time ago....

I see, the use of the word "antiquity" was what confused me. It typically means "ancient times", so it seemed like a strange word to use in conjunction with such modern spacecraft.

selvaarchi
2014-May-26, 08:18 PM
As someone (was it Armstrong?) said: the LM was -and still is- the first real spaceship, in that it was designed to work outside of an atmosphere exclusively. The orbit-to-orbit approach using surface-to orbit craft on either planet and an interplanetary space-only spaceship in between is a very logical approach with our current level of technology. Massively better propulsion opens new possibilities, but until then orbit-to-orbit is the only realistic option imho.

When will we build it? When we need it. There simply isn't a lot of earth-mars demand at the moment to justify the huge investment. Because even if we assume this approach is within our current technological possibilities (and that's certainly not an outrageous thing to assume) it would require massive amounts of R&D.

China plans test a space tug towards the end of this year. I see such a rocket being the start of building a rocket capable of orbit-to-orbit operations. I see them using it 1st to build their space station and then for their moon plans.

DaveC426913
2014-May-27, 12:22 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station

Context is critical.

The OP's question was:

And how are we going to build it? Assemble it in space or launch it in one peace? Do we still miss technology for such spaceship?
My answer:


The pieces likely will be launched on several rockets, then strung together in orbit.

The ISS certainly was not launched in one piece. I would be interested to read about any appeciable in-orbit "construction" (as distinct from assembly).

DaveC426913
2014-May-27, 12:32 AM
It is just an inadequate propulsion that makes a propblem.

Well, that's a pretty big "just". :p

FarmMarsNow
2014-May-27, 01:59 AM
This one's already been discussed to death, but somebody was talking about building a mile long ship and calling it 'Enterprise'. http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/

We are talking crazy amounts of work in space. Workers would have to be ferried to Earth regularly, and you'd have to come up with an artificial gravity environment for the workers anyway. Plus you'd need to develop mining capabilities and manufacturing capabilities in space, new safety procedures, new navigational procedures, new communications standards, new organizational structures, new military command structures, medical solutions, payment solutions, political solutions. It would be cool.

Noclevername
2014-May-27, 02:24 AM
I would be interested to read about any appeciable in-orbit "construction" (as distinct from assembly).

And what is your definition of construction as opposed to assembly, and how would it apply to building the first "real" spaceship? IMO it's likely that assembled in orbit modules will be used for space vehicles and stations for many years before we actually start manufacturing things in space.

Noclevername
2014-May-27, 02:25 AM
This one's already been discussed to death, but somebody was talking about building a mile long ship and calling it 'Enterprise'. http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/

We are talking crazy amounts of work in space. Workers would have to be ferried to Earth regularly, and you'd have to come up with an artificial gravity environment for the workers anyway. Plus you'd need to develop mining capabilities and manufacturing capabilities in space, new safety procedures, new navigational procedures, new communications standards, new organizational structures, new military command structures, medical solutions, payment solutions, political solutions. It would be cool.

Yes, it would. It will also almost certainly not be the first real spaceship-- we'd need spaceships just to build the infrastructure to build it.

Jens
2014-May-27, 04:54 AM
Watching all we have done till now, from Vostok rocket, Apollo mission, space shuttle up to recent private space programs and chinese antiquity, we still do not have something we can call a real 'spaceship'.

I think one issue to consider is that there is a difference between the ideal "real spaceship" and the ideal "science fiction movie spaceship". I think that to some extent, your ideal of what a real spaceship should be like is based on science fiction images and may not be what is really ideal in the actual world. The USS Enterprise looks cool but it's not a practical model for a spaceship.

ravens_cry
2014-May-27, 06:41 AM
Heck, by the definition given for a 'real spaceship', the Enterprise's were not 'real spaceships' since they weren't designed to land on planets.

NEOWatcher
2014-May-27, 02:23 PM
Here is an example, pulling grossly rounded numbers out of the air.
"Grossly" as in way off, but your conclusion isn't too far off (actually conservative if you want to leave Mars)


A standard rocket (such as the Apollo missions) might have a fuel-to-payload ratio of about 1%. So, for every ton you want to lob into orbit, you need 100 tons of rocket.
The Saturn V was about 4.7% to orbit, and that's payload to total weight. Not just fuel.


So, a Mars journey will require a rocket that is one thousand times larger than your original Saturn-sized 4,000 ton moon rocket.
Curiosity was 900kg on a 540300kg rocket... about 600 times. That's without making off from Mars again.



The pieces likely will be launched on several rockets, then strung together in orbit.
Yes; that will have to be the most prudent thing to do.
From what I can tell from trying to search, NASA is thinking 4 (http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasas-human-path-to-mars/).

SpaceX thinks they can just lob a bunch of RedDragons up there until it's ready.


We are a long way from constructing anything in orbit.
We are a long way off from doing it, not from being able to do it.

I don't see a lot of construction. I'm thinking one major launch of the space habitat, and other launches for either re-fueling or attaching boosters, and maybe the landing craft along with the human crew on a SHLV.

NEOWatcher
2014-May-27, 02:29 PM
China plans test a space tug towards the end of this year. I see such a rocket being the start of building a rocket capable of orbit-to-orbit operations. I see them using it 1st to build their space station and then for their moon plans.
That's not what their space tug is. It's an upper stage designed to start and restart for placing multiple satellites.

For space station and BEO plans, you only need a single rendezvous. That can be built into the launch and payload designs.

Noclevername
2014-May-27, 02:30 PM
We are a long way off from doing it, not from being able to do it.


A fair point. Just because something isn't being done, doesn't mean it can't be, especially when there are political motives and large costs involved.

docmordrid
2014-May-28, 01:13 AM
SpaceX's Mars Colonial Transporter should start making an appearance in the early 2020's. That train's leaving the station.

Sent from my LG-E980 using Tapatalk

DaveC426913
2014-May-28, 03:19 AM
We are a long way off from doing it, not from being able to do it.
From construction in orbit? There is a vast gulf between a couple of astronauts in the ISS, and a factory that can produce whole spaceships.




I don't see a lot of construction. I'm thinking one major launch of the space habitat, and other launches for either re-fueling or attaching boosters, and maybe the landing craft along with the human crew on a SHLV.
The Mars mission would require multiple launches, not including the fuel/boosters. The trip is YEARS. You can't just stick em in an Apollo-sized module, and feed em from cupboards within reach of their seats...

Noclevername
2014-May-28, 06:18 AM
From construction in orbit? There is a vast gulf between a couple of astronauts in the ISS, and a factory that can produce whole spaceships.


You didn't really make it clear that this was what you meant by "construction.". No, whole space factories to produce every single part needed for a spaceship, without resorting to significant parts from Earth, is probably a good century or more away.


The Mars mission would require multiple launches, not including the fuel/boosters. The trip is YEARS. You can't just stick em in an Apollo-sized module, and feed em from cupboards within reach of their seats...

An inflatable Transhab module needs only one launch.

NEOWatcher
2014-May-28, 12:27 PM
The Mars mission would require multiple launches, not including the fuel/boosters.
I said that. Let me parse my sentence. Habitat(1) + Other(2 or more) + landingcraft/human(2 maybe 1). That's already 5 or more.
I ddn't say anything close to sticking them in an apollo sized module. Far from it, I did mention habitat. I may have been underestimating it but I didn't say that.

Nasa has a pretty picture out there that shows 4 SLSs. But; since that's only a depiction, I don't rely on that. That might be 4 for mission after supplies are sent.

Long ago, before SLS and Ares, they were talking about 12 (http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_lib/NASA-SP6107.Mars_DRM.pdf) with a 110t class ship.

NEOWatcher
2014-May-28, 12:30 PM
From construction in orbit? There is a vast gulf between a couple of astronauts in the ISS, and a factory that can produce whole spaceships.
Where did you mention that?
You came into this thread with the only reference of "I'm inferring that your definition of 'real' spaceship means A] carries people, and B] away from Earth orbit. That's reasonable."

Garrison
2014-May-28, 08:43 PM
China plans test a space tug towards the end of this year. I see such a rocket being the start of building a rocket capable of orbit-to-orbit operations. I see them using it 1st to build their space station and then for their moon plans.

Yes we know; you see a lot of things in vague, badly translated articles that somehow eludes others...

DaveC426913
2014-May-29, 02:00 PM
And what is your definition of construction as opposed to assembly, and how would it apply to building the first "real" spaceship? IMO it's likely that assembled in orbit modules will be used for space vehicles and stations for many years before we actually start manufacturing things in space.
Agreed.


"Grossly" as in way off, but your conclusion isn't too far off (actually conservative if you want to leave Mars)
Yes. I deliberately rounded to easy numbers to illustrate the principle. Accuracy in numbers would muddle the concept.


The Saturn V was about 4.7% to orbit, and that's payload to total weight. Not just fuel.
Yup. I deliberately used the numbers for TLI (which is about 1/3 of LEO), as it more closely resembles the hypothetical Mars mission we're discussing.


You didn't really make it clear that this was what you meant by "construction.". No, whole space factories to produce every single part needed for a spaceship, without resorting to significant parts from Earth, is probably a good century or more away.
I'm trying to answer the question without elaborating about construction. That's a ball of wax beyond the scope of this thread. I'm simply making a distinction between 'prefab from Earth, assembly in orbit' and 'making significant portions of the ship in orbit'. 'significant' in this case could still be a very low number (like 10% of the ship's parts/materials) while still being several decades away.

Of course, 'Whole space factories' is at the other end of the scale, and not something I seriously felt applied to this convo.



An inflatable Transhab module needs only one launch.
I don't think that one module is enough. We talked about boosters and fuel already, but there's also crew, supplies, possibly a hydroponics lab (remember this mission is years in duration), return engine (separate from fuel) and - depending on what the OP considers a Mars mission - a landing-and-return-to-orbit vehicle.

Since the OP is asking "when are we going to do this", and not "when could we do this" I think it warrants us examining a realistic mission - one that would actually be given the green light. I doubt we would send a mission to Mars just to hang out in orbit and return, so a realistic mission would likely include a landing component.



From construction in orbit?Where did you mention that?
You came into this thread with ...
I began addressing the issue of construction at the very bottom of post #2, in direct reponse to the OP's question of how this spaceship will be built.


Assemble it in space or launch it in one peace? Do we still miss technology for such spaceship?
Probably some of both. The pieces likely will be launched on several rockets, then strung together in orbit. We are a long way from constructing anything in orbit.

NEOWatcher
2014-May-29, 03:06 PM
Yup. I deliberately used the numbers for TLI (which is about 1/3 of LEO), as it more closely resembles the hypothetical Mars mission we're discussing.
Then use words that mean what you are saying.
You specifically said: "standard rocket might have a fuel-to-payload ratio of about 1%"
That does not apply because "to orbit" is inferred because many do not leave orbit.

And, you said: " every ton you want to lob into orbit, you need 100 tons of rocket."
That is specifically "orbit". that has nothing to do with TLI.


I see now that you interpreted the OP as a landing to landing craft. Since the OP has come back and clarified "orbit to orbit", then we are back to the Cycler idea with seperate landing craft.


I'm trying to answer the question without elaborating about construction. That's a ball of wax beyond the scope of this thread. I'm simply making a distinction between 'prefab from Earth, assembly in orbit' and 'making significant portions of the ship in orbit'. 'significant' in this case could still be a very low number (like 10% of the ship's parts/materials) while still being several decades away.
What do you mean by "making"?



I don't think that one module is enough. We talked about boosters and fuel already, but there's also crew, supplies, possibly a hydroponics lab (remember this mission is years in duration), return engine (separate from fuel) and - depending on what the OP considers a Mars mission - a landing-and-return-to-orbit vehicle.
The statement was about the habitat, not the consumables.
Even without a hydroponics lab, they can get by on 3.3kg per person per day (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/lifesupport.php) of consumables.
That's less than 8mT for a crew of 3 for 2 years.
The BA330 is 20mT.
The Orion command and service module is 21mT
The Apollo lander was 14mT (fueled).
Total: 63 metric tons.
That's only half the payload of SLS to orbit. That leaves a lot more payload capacity for lots of other stuff like making a bigger lander, including more equipment, adding contingency supplies, etc.

Fuel is always the problem. Once all that equipment is up there, then it's a matter of getting the thing moving.

selvaarchi
2014-May-29, 03:07 PM
Yes we know; you see a lot of things in vague, badly translated articles that somehow eludes others...

Or it could be I look out for information from my neighborhood more then some from the west.:D

NEOWatcher
2014-May-29, 05:25 PM
Or it could be I look out for information from my neighborhood more then some from the west.:D
That's not mutually exclusive of badly translated vague articles.

I'm sure I can find badly translated vague Western articles too.

Noclevername
2014-May-29, 05:34 PM
Agreed.


Yes. I deliberately rounded to easy numbers to illustrate the principle. Accuracy in numbers would muddle the concept.


Yup. I deliberately used the numbers for TLI (which is about 1/3 of LEO), as it more closely resembles the hypothetical Mars mission we're discussing.


I'm trying to answer the question without elaborating about construction. That's a ball of wax beyond the scope of this thread. I'm simply making a distinction between 'prefab from Earth, assembly in orbit' and 'making significant portions of the ship in orbit'. 'significant' in this case could still be a very low number (like 10% of the ship's parts/materials) while still being several decades away.

Of course, 'Whole space factories' is at the other end of the scale, and not something I seriously felt applied to this convo.



I don't think that one module is enough. We talked about boosters and fuel already, but there's also crew, supplies, possibly a hydroponics lab (remember this mission is years in duration), return engine (separate from fuel) and - depending on what the OP considers a Mars mission - a landing-and-return-to-orbit vehicle.

Since the OP is asking "when are we going to do this", and not "when could we do this" I think it warrants us examining a realistic mission - one that would actually be given the green light. I doubt we would send a mission to Mars just to hang out in orbit and return, so a realistic mission would likely include a landing component.


I began addressing the issue of construction at the very bottom of post #2, in direct reponse to the OP's question of how this spaceship will be built.

DaveC426913, you attributed most of the above quotes to me, when all but the first was actually from a post by NEOwatcher.

NEOWatcher
2014-May-29, 05:41 PM
I knew that... that's why I responded instead of letting you respond. ;)
It did make it hard to find the relevent posts though. I should have also mentioned it.

Garrison
2014-May-29, 09:08 PM
Or it could be I look out for information from my neighborhood more then some from the west.:D

Shame you so seldom find any and instead just post your guesses about the meaning of the aforementioned badly translated articles. Let's remember you first thought this 'space tug' was a Chinese space shuttle and that you still call it a space tug when its been pointed out its more likely just an upper stage that can relight its engine to place payloads in different orbits, which is not what is generally meant by a space tug.

DaveC426913
2014-May-30, 03:05 AM
DaveC426913, you attributed most of the above quotes to me, when all but the first was actually from a post by NEOwatcher.
Fixed.


Then use words that mean what you are saying.
Must this get dragged from a conversation into an argument?

selvaarchi
2014-May-30, 06:18 AM
Shame you so seldom find any and instead just post your guesses about the meaning of the aforementioned badly translated articles. Let's remember you first thought this 'space tug' was a Chinese space shuttle and that you still call it a space tug when its been pointed out its more likely just an upper stage that can relight its engine to place payloads in different orbits, which is not what is generally meant by a space tug.

It is an engine that will place payloads in different orbits. The misunderstanding comes from thinking it takes the satellites into space and then places it into different orbits. It does not. It picks up satellites that are placed in LEO, say by another rocket, and moves it to another orbit like GEO.

My reason for linking it to building a space station was, if it can pickup a satellite, then it could also pick up a space station component placed in orbit and move it to where the construction is taking place.

Wikipedia definition -


A space tug or upper stage is a space vehicle (manned or unmanned) used to transfer payloads (such as geosynchronous satellites or manned spacecraft) between low and high Earth orbits, or between Earth orbit and lunar orbit.

And read what China will be launching end of the year

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eastern-arsenal/little-space-tug-can


The Advanced Upper Stage differs from previous Chinese upper stages in that it can maneuver to place multiple satellites from the same mission into significantly separate orbits.

NEOWatcher
2014-May-30, 12:03 PM
Must this get dragged from a conversation into an argument?
I don't want to drag any conversation into an argument. I'm pointing out why I couldn't follow the post.

Do you have any comments about my habitat analysis?

NEOWatcher
2014-May-30, 12:07 PM
It is an engine that will place payloads in different orbits. The misunderstanding comes from thinking it takes the satellites into space and then places it into different orbits. It does not. It picks up satellites that are placed in LEO, say by another rocket, and moves it to another orbit like GEO.
Tell me where it says that.

All I have read about the tug, and the statement you quoted in particular show that it is not for satellites from other missions.

The Advanced Upper Stage differs from previous Chinese upper stages in that it can maneuver to place multiple satellites from the same mission into significantly separate orbits.

I explained this to you before.


Wikipedia definition -
Since when does propoganda follow wikipedia definitions?

Garrison
2014-May-30, 11:40 PM
Tell me where it says that.

All I have read about the tug, and the statement you quoted in particular show that it is not for satellites from other missions.

I explained this to you before.




And he still persistently misrepresents it. This doesn't seem to be any different from say the upper stage of a Falcon 9 that can reignite its engine.

selvaarchi
2014-May-31, 08:27 AM
Tell me where it says that.

All I have read about the tug, and the statement you quoted in particular show that it is not for satellites from other missions.

I explained this to you before.

Please read what "spacedaily" says about it. If it able to operate for six and half hours in space, it is not only to launch satellites it is carrying. If it can be used in space debris clearing then it can also pickup objects and move them to other orbits.

Also China has launched multiple satellites on one rocket many times. So this a new capability they are referring to.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/China_to_launch_first_space_shuttle_bus_this_year_ 999.html


Yuanzheng-1, which uses liquid propellant, can fulfill several missions while in space and operate as long as 6.5 hours in orbit,


Since when does propoganda follow wikipedia definitions?

Whose propoganda are you referring to. If you have read the wikipedia it does not refer to China but both space tugs mentioned are American designs.

Garrison
2014-May-31, 05:34 PM
Please read what "spacedaily" says about it. If it able to operate for six and half hours in space, it is not only to launch satellites it is carrying. If it can be used in space debris clearing then it can also pickup objects and move them to other orbits.

Also China has launched multiple satellites on one rocket many times. So this a new capability they are referring to.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/China_to_launch_first_space_shuttle_bus_this_year_ 999.html



Yes that they can reignite the engine to put them in different orbits, as in not a space tug.






Whose propoganda are you referring to. If you have read the wikipedia it does not refer to China but both space tugs mentioned are American designs.

Well your's primarily; your tendency to take every badly translated, lacking in citations article you come across and spinning it as some massive leap forward.

Squink
2014-May-31, 06:06 PM
A possible engine: Dual-Stage 4-Grid (DS4G) is an electrostatic ion thruster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-Stage_4-Grid)
The specific impulse (a measure of fuel efficiency), could reach 19,300 s at an exhaust velocity of 210 km/s if xenon propellant were used.[1] The potentially attainable power and thrust densities would substantially extend the power absorption of current ion thrusters to far more than 100 kW. Still needs a nice little reliable fission plant to power the thing.

publiusr
2014-May-31, 08:05 PM
Where did you mention that?
You came into this thread with the only reference of "I'm inferring that your definition of 'real' spaceship means A] carries people, and B] away from Earth orbit. That's reasonable."

Now in terms of size, shuttle orbiter counts as a spaceship at 122 feet--the size of sailing vessels we would call ships. But it never left orbit.

A true space vessel intended to operate away from Earth, that is not only the LEM, but the current SEV, that doesn't get enough press: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/technology/space_exploration_vehicle/index.html

That is still on the smallish size.

This is what I would call the smallest "true" spaceship:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Z51.jpg

A solar electric craft is the mothership, with an Orion and SEV that docks with it. The main vessel counts as a true spaceship in that it is large, and BEO bound.

Nuclear Thermal spaceships Terra Nova and Copernicus
http://racetomars.ca/mars/article_timeline.jsp
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/brucedorminey/files/2012/04/Copernicus_NTR_LEO.2k.jpg

Nuclear Electric--the Bekuo
https://twitter.com/FranklinChangD/status/449172999854641152/photo/1
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=220069

Solar Electric, again--Big PDF:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604311main_5-GER_WS_Asteroid-SEP_Elsperman.pdf
http://www.space.com/11230-water-powered-spaceship-mars-solar-system.html

These are all spaceships in every sense of the word--as is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAUTILUS-X

MCT may be chemical only?

PuFF fusion spacecraft here http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/05/niac-fostering-tomorrows-exploration-technology/

Anti-matter
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/antimatter_spaceship.html
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Scott%20Kircher/fissionfusion.html

2001 books
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=24832
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=24574
Models http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=24758

selvaarchi
2014-May-31, 09:46 PM
Yes that they can reignite the engine to put them in different orbits, as in not a space tug.


Well your's primarily; your tendency to take every badly translated, lacking in citations article you come across and spinning it as some massive leap forward.

Well there is only 7 months to the end of the year as we should know one way or another.

You just can not take it that China might beat the US in building the 1st space tug. Please open your eyes and see how the east has come up in the last 50 years. The next 50 will be when they will really start to accelerate their growth. You will be reading a lot more of what China and India will be doing in space.

Squink
2014-May-31, 10:30 PM
By your definition, a space tug is just a MIRV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle) device without the re-entry part. US has had MIRVs since 1970. Launches including multiple satellites destined for different orbits (http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1556/how-does-a-single-rocket-place-multiple-satellites-into-orbit) have been done for some time as well.
From what I can decipher of these stories from China, they're now thinking of building something like a multi satellite launch vehicle, with an incremental improvement in last stage mobility, hardly a 'real space ship', or even a space tug.

Garrison
2014-May-31, 10:37 PM
Well there is only 7 months to the end of the year as we should know one way or another.

You just can not take it that China might beat the US in building the 1st space tug. Please open your eyes and see how the east has come up in the last 50 years. The next 50 will be when they will really start to accelerate their growth. You will be reading a lot more of what China and India will be doing in space.

I frankly could care less about who builds the first space tug; the simple fact is this isn't one. And I cannot offer an opinion on the rest of your comment without straying beyond the bounds of this forum.

selvaarchi
2014-May-31, 10:39 PM
We have gone way off topic so I am going to drop it for now.

Garrison
2014-May-31, 10:40 PM
By your definition, a space tug is just a MIRV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle) device without the re-entry part. US has had MIRVs since 1970. Launches including multiple satellites destined for different orbits (http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1556/how-does-a-single-rocket-place-multiple-satellites-into-orbit) have been done for some time as well.
From what I can decipher of these stories from China, they're now thinking of building something like a multi satellite launch vehicle, with an incremental improvement in last stage mobility, hardly a 'real space ship', or even a space tug.

frankly I think SpaceX unveiled the closest thing we have to a real spaceship yesterday, and it's still a long way short of what the OP had in mind, which would be more like the NAUTILUS-X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X) proposal.

Squink
2014-May-31, 11:26 PM
more like the NAUTILUS-X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X) proposal.I'd go for a ride in that spaceship.

Thomas Hulon Jackson
2014-Jun-01, 06:05 PM
Yes, i meant precisely ship that carries people away from earth orbit. It doesn't necesserily mean that technology such ship carries will be obsolete after several years. We had space shuttle that was in service for 30 and some more years, and it's technology wasn't outdated in that period. I think we have all parts, we have better materials than 40 years ago, we have very strong computers missions like apollo didn't have. We just don't have new propulsion system. Rocket engines evolved, but they are still rocket engines. We just need new more powerfull propulsion system.

I know of only two powerful propulsion systems being funded today.

"The Mstislav Keldysh Research Center in Moscow, has
been working on developing a nuclear rockets propulsion system...First tests are
planned for 2018."
http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/07-05-2013/124500-nuclear_rocket-0/
Round Trip to Mars = two to four months. Working prototype.

Third Place -John Slough's Fusion Driven Rocket
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/11/john-slough-personally-explains-his.ht
ml
Round Trip = 6 months minimum estimate. No working prototype
(experimental study stage).

NEOWatcher
2014-Jun-02, 01:20 PM
Please read what "spacedaily" says about it.
It calls it an upper stage and says specifically "can carry aircraft using its own power system after reaching an initial orbit".


If it can be used in space debris clearing then it can also pickup objects and move them to other orbits.
Where did it ever say it could do something like that?
I asked you that already and you didn't answer.


Also China has launched multiple satellites on one rocket many times. So this a new capability they are referring to.
No, the new thing is that it's liquid instead of solid.


Whose propoganda are you referring to.
The articles saying it's a tug, and even worse, the spacedaily article calling it a bus.

selvaarchi
2014-Jun-02, 01:30 PM
Where did it ever say it could do something like that?
I asked you that already and you didn't answer.

In the article -
Yuanzheng-1 will play an important role in future moon and Mars exploration as well as orbital transfer and space debris clearing, he said.

NEOWatcher
2014-Jun-02, 02:29 PM
In the article -
"Play an important role", and "can do it" are subtle, yet important distinctions. My statements have been made from the point of view of it having that capability as it stands. It will probably be the upper stage for other technologies yet to be developed. It's basically a modular maneuvering unit to attach to other craft.

cjameshuff
2014-Jun-03, 11:51 PM
Please read what "spacedaily" says about it. If it able to operate for six and half hours in space, it is not only to launch satellites it is carrying.

Ordinary upper stage operations to deliver payloads to various orbits can easily take 6.5 hours. The fastest orbits have a period of 1.5 hours, and geosynchronous orbits have periods of 24 hours. In fact, it takes about 5 hours to reach the first apogee in an insertion into geosynchronous orbit, so a 6.5 hour endurance very likely means it is barely able to directly deliver payloads into geosynchronous orbit, and nothing more. Other craft regularly do the same, the Proton can do maneuvers 15 hours after launch.

6.5 hours is actually a very limited operation time for rendezvous, let alone actually securing a target for transport to another orbit or reentry. Unworkably short, I'd say. It's just a multi-payload, multi-burn-capable upper stage. Not a tug.

Noclevername
2014-Jun-03, 11:56 PM
IMO, if it can't be refueled and re-used, it doesn't fit in the loose "real spaceship" definition. Some sense of at least semi-permanence seems to be implied by the term; A single-use craft just doesn't seem worthy of that title.

selvaarchi
2014-Jun-04, 12:02 AM
Let us wait till it is launched and we discover it's capabilities. Unless we can read Chinese it is not possible to get much info on what the Chinese are doing.

NEOWatcher
2014-Jun-04, 12:48 PM
Let us wait till it is launched and we discover it's capabilities.
I won't hold my breath. Most stories about technology, the rhetoric usually sounds better than the actual capabilities.


Unless we can read Chinese it is not possible to get much info on what the Chinese are doing.
Obviously somebody had to translate it. What they need to do is ask pointed questions. Unfortunately; that seems to be lacking in modern reporting unless it's a big story.

Garrison
2014-Jun-04, 09:09 PM
I won't hold my breath. Most stories about technology, the rhetoric usually sounds better than the actual capabilities.


Obviously somebody had to translate it. What they need to do is ask pointed questions. Unfortunately; that seems to be lacking in modern reporting unless it's a big story.

And I think it would be fair to say that you don't ask the Chinese authorities pointed questions if you want to carry on being a journalist in China.

Ivan Bilic
2014-Jun-04, 11:25 PM
What i was initialy thinking, all we have up till now is actually Verner von Braun spaceship. No metter Chinese "space tug?", russian Soyuz or U.S. Space Shuttle, the concept is the same and is seventy years old. All essential technical solutions are the same age and made by von Braun. New Dragon capsule and SLS are the same thing. They all are essentialy von Braun's Aggregate-12 rocket (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/a9a11a12.htm). We improved it, tested it, putted lot of electronics and computers in it, but basically we didn't go much far. Maybe solution for new ship we should search in ISS. If we reequip it, attach some additional modules on it, put some trusters, we could send it on Mars trajectory. Or new solutions we could search in merging technology from new SLS/Orion vehicle with suborbital and orbital shuttles such are Virgin Galactic's Space Ship One and Boeing's X-37?

NEOWatcher
2014-Jun-05, 11:56 AM
What i was initialy thinking, all we have up till now is actually Verner von Braun spaceship. No metter Chinese "space tug?", russian Soyuz or U.S. Space Shuttle, the concept is the same and is seventy years old. All essential technical solutions are the same age and made by von Braun. New Dragon capsule and SLS are the same thing. They all are essentialy von Braun's Aggregate-12 rocket (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/a9a11a12.htm). We improved it, tested it, putted lot of electronics and computers in it, but basically we didn't go much far.
There's really not a lot of choices to get from the surface when you are restricted in the physics (and nuclear politics).


Maybe solution for new ship we should search in ISS. If we reequip it, attach some additional modules on it, put some trusters, we could send it on Mars trajectory.
That's been discussed several times on this board. The ISS can not do it. The biggest problems are that the module connections would not handle the strain of large thrust, the shielding is insufficient for deep space, and the thermal properties are balanced for LEO.


Or new solutions we could search in merging technology from new SLS/Orion vehicle with suborbital and orbital shuttles such are Virgin Galactic's Space Ship One and Boeing's X-37?
Forget SS1. It's technology does not bring anything to the table when it comes to orbital space.

What we need is a cycler habitat for interplanetary missions, and some other technologies for surface travel. Skylon is a good start, but that's designed for Earth's atmosphere. Without long term planning for mulitple missions, none of that is going to happen and we will be stuck with LEO stations and special purpose BEO for a long time to come.

Thomas Hulon Jackson
2014-Jun-08, 05:24 PM
What i was initialy thinking, all we have up till now is actually Verner von Braun spaceship. No metter Chinese "space tug?", russian Soyuz or U.S. Space Shuttle, the concept is the same and is seventy years old. All essential technical solutions are the same age and made by von Braun. New Dragon capsule and SLS are the same thing. They all are essentialy von Braun's Aggregate-12 rocket (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/a9a11a12.htm). We improved it, tested it, putted lot of electronics and computers in it, but basically we didn't go much far. Maybe solution for new ship we should search in ISS. If we reequip it, attach some additional modules on it, put some trusters, we could send it on Mars trajectory. Or new solutions we could search in merging technology from new SLS/Orion vehicle with suborbital and orbital shuttles such are Virgin Galactic's Space Ship One and Boeing's X-37?

As NEOWatcher points out
"There's really not a lot of choices to get from the surface when you are restricted in the physics (and nuclear politics)."

We have gone about as far as we can go with chemical rockets, which is a far ways from true spacecraft allowing interplantary manned ships. Chemical rocket's physics are severly limited in power. It seems clear and not speculation to me, that current atomic propulsion is the only buildable solution available today. Nuclear politics and other politics, dictate motivation and momentum in that direction. Russia has solved the chemical rocket limitation and nuclear politics problem.. Just today Russia has banned U.S from the international space station.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/07/russia-bans-us-from-international-space-station-ho.aspx

America seems best at playing catch up, and being second place is good motivation to run faster. Russia solved the nuclear politics .
http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/07-05-2013/124500-nuclear_rocket-0/
""The issue is that chemical engines that are used today in the space industry have limitations in terms of specific impulse and, as a consequence, speed. It is simply impossible to accelerate above third gear space (equivalent to 16.6 km / s). With a nuclear rocket, it is possible to achieve much higher values ​​of momentum," says Keldysh center director, Anatoly Koroteiev.

The first nuclear engines for spaceships were developed in the Soviet Union and the United States in the 50s of the last century" (see link for complete text). .........."turned out to be inefficient and both countries stopped the development of their projects.

Currently, the Keldysh center offers a completely different approach. To explain this evolution, just make an analogy between a hybrid engine of a car and a common motor. A typical car engine turns the wheels, while the engine of a hybrid car generates electricity and this turns the wheels. That is, it creates a kind of intermediate power station.

The new space reactor works on the same principle. It does not heat the expelled jet stream from the engine, but generates electricity. The hot reactor gas rotates a turbine which in turn drives an electrical generator and a compressor by ensuring the flow of the propellant in a closed circuit.

The testing of the new engine will be made in relatively small Russians polygons, and thanks to this, there is no need to rent the bases of other governments, which always involve protracted negotiations over the use of nuclear power in a foreign territory."

Estimating a round trip time to Mars at two to four months testing is set to begin in 2018, Can America catch up and get to man to Mars sooner. Of course they can with two faster atomic rockets on the drawing boards, but will they? That is the question I ask myself. If not India, China, Iran or another country will take first or second place. Not opinion or speculation, just a fact.

Daggerstab
2014-Jun-08, 07:08 PM
Just today Russia has banned U.S from the international space station.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/07/russia-bans-us-from-international-space-station-ho.aspx

Did you read beyond the headline? The title of that blog post is hyperbole. The referenced event is actually a possible lack of another extension of the life of the ISS. 2020 has been its projected end-of-life for quite some time now. Since there's quite some time until then, it's possible that heads will cool down and the Russian will reconsider. Even if they don't, this is in no way "banning the US from the ISS".


America seems best at playing catch up, and being second place is good motivation to run faster. Russia solved the nuclear politics .
http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/07-05-2013/124500-nuclear_rocket-0/

Pravda.ru is an extremely unreliable website. The idea is not original, what the article describes is known as nuclear-electric propulsion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electric_rocket).


Estimating a round trip time to Mars at two to four months testing is set to begin in 2018, Can America catch up and get to man to Mars sooner. Of course they can with two faster atomic rockets on the drawing boards, but will they? That is the question I ask myself. If not India, China, Iran or another country will take first or second place. Not opinion or speculation, just a fact.

I doubt that travel time. And there's a large difference between starting ground testing of a system and crewed flights to Mars.

Garrison
2014-Jun-08, 07:14 PM
As NEOWatcher points out
"There's really not a lot of choices to get from the surface when you are restricted in the physics (and nuclear politics)."

We have gone about as far as we can go with chemical rockets, which is a far ways from true spacecraft allowing interplantary manned ships. Chemical rocket's physics are severly limited in power. It seems clear and not speculation to me, that current atomic propulsion is the only buildable solution available today. Nuclear politics and other politics, dictate motivation and momentum in that direction. Russia has solved the chemical rocket limitation and nuclear politics problem.. Just today Russia has banned U.S from the international space station.


Shame that the Russian space agency didn't get that memo last week:

U.S.-German-Russian crew arrives at space station (http://spaceflightnow.com/station/exp40/140528docking/#.U5SyuCgzT2U). what you actually mean is they've threatened to withdraw from the ISS after 2020; quite a different matter.


America seems best at playing catch up, and being second place is good motivation to run faster. Russia solved the nuclear politics .
http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/07-05-2013/124500-nuclear_rocket-0/
""The issue is that chemical engines that are used today in the space industry have limitations in terms of specific impulse and, as a consequence, speed. It is simply impossible to accelerate above third gear space (equivalent to 16.6 km / s). With a nuclear rocket, it is possible to achieve much higher values ​​of momentum," says Keldysh center director, Anatoly Koroteiev.

The first nuclear engines for spaceships were developed in the Soviet Union and the United States in the 50s of the last century" (see link for complete text). .........."turned out to be inefficient and both countries stopped the development of their projects.

Currently, the Keldysh center offers a completely different approach. To explain this evolution, just make an analogy between a hybrid engine of a car and a common motor. A typical car engine turns the wheels, while the engine of a hybrid car generates electricity and this turns the wheels. That is, it creates a kind of intermediate power station.

The new space reactor works on the same principle. It does not heat the expelled jet stream from the engine, but generates electricity. The hot reactor gas rotates a turbine which in turn drives an electrical generator and a compressor by ensuring the flow of the propellant in a closed circuit.

Assuming the propellant is actually doing its job how is that a closed circuit? And using a reactor to generate electricity in an engine is hardly novel; its been proposed for use with ion drives and would this proposal actually be more efficient than an ion drive?


The testing of the new engine will be made in relatively small Russians polygons, and thanks to this, there is no need to rent the bases of other governments, which always involve protracted negotiations over the use of nuclear power in a foreign territory."

Estimating a round trip time to Mars at two to four months testing is set to begin in 2018, Can America catch up and get to man to Mars sooner. Of course they can with two faster atomic rockets on the drawing boards, but will they? That is the question I ask myself. If not India, China, Iran or another country will take first or second place. Not opinion or speculation, just a fact.

I assume that they mean they will be testing an engine in 2018 and frankly the propulsion isn't the hard part of the Mars mission; its robust lifesupport systems that can function for months on end with out being able to ferry parts from Earth on a regular basis; something they haven't managed with the ISS so far.

Thomas Hulon Jackson
2014-Jun-08, 11:54 PM
Shame that the Russian space agency didn't get that memo last week:

U.S.-German-Russian crew arrives at space station (http://spaceflightnow.com/station/exp40/140528docking/#.U5SyuCgzT2U). what you actually mean is they've threatened to withdraw from the ISS after 2020; quite a different matter.

Not really. The engine is their invention's and they have a right to say who makes uses and operates it. The are bound under international law to honor previous contrac licensing it's use. When those expire they are not required to grant future license.


Assuming the propellant is actually doing its job how is that a closed circuit? And using a reactor to generate electricity in an engine is hardly novel; its been proposed for use with ion drives and would this proposal actually be more efficient than an ion drive?.

The details in the link are all the information I have. It is enough for a reverse engineering black box analysis of their engine based stricly on stated input and output parameters. As all reactors convert mass to energy and both fission and fusion reactions occur releasing energy. In reactors only a small fraction of the radioactive metal mass is converted to energy as the amount depends of the melting point of the components used. U.S. reactors typically melt at 3000 degrees. Just as Russia's heavy lift chemical rockets withstood temperatures and chamber pressures previously though impossible by NASA. I suspect their new reactor operates in the 4000 to 5000 degree range possibly doubling the effeciency. The closed cicuit is the superheated gas from reactor heat that drives the turbines to generate the electricity. The electric plasma (4th state of matter) can then be used to superheat a liquid such as water propellant after it cools the generator gas. Converted to steam the propellant is then ejected out he exhaust port providing propulsion . Based on -Gary Gochnour's Tubular Shaped Interstellar Space Craft operating at 50% efficiency and is twenty times faster than the Russian engine, it would place the engine in the 2 to 3 % efficiency range which some consider the minimum requiremnt for atomic rockets of good design. Previous rockets such as ion, pulse, or reactor drives from the 50's and 60's are in the below 0.00001 % efficiency converting mass to energy for various reasons.



I assume that they mean they will be testing an engine in 2018 and frankly the propulsion isn't the hard part of the Mars mission; its robust lifesupport systems that can function for months on end with out being able to ferry parts from Earth on a regular basis; something they haven't managed with the ISS so far.

The working prototype exists or they would not have the given specifications. The tests are normal engineering tests to determine the failure limiits of the components to later construct the actual Mars craft to within those specifications. The tests are not experiments to see if it works. They know it works. Propulsion system is the key to manned exploration of space. As the power ratio of chemical versus atomic rockets per unit of mass is 1 to 10 to the seventh power, previous chemical rockets had to rely on light weight technologies from the aircraft industry. With atomic rockets ship building based on known water ships is best as their is more than ample power for supplies and shielding for up the 4 year round trip missions.

pzkpfw
2014-Jun-09, 01:13 AM
My bold:


...
The details in the link are all the information I have. It is enough for a reverse engineering black box analysis of their engine based stricly on stated input and output parameters. As all reactors convert mass to energy and both fission and fusion reactions occur releasing energy. In reactors only a small fraction of the radioactive metal mass is converted to energy as the amount depends of the melting point of the components used. U.S. reactors typically melt at 3000 degrees. Just as Russia's heavy lift chemical rockets withstood temperatures and chamber pressures previously though impossible by NASA. I suspect their new reactor operates in the 4000 to 5000 degree range possibly doubling the effeciency. The closed cicuit is the superheated gas from reactor heat that drives the turbines to generate the electricity. The electric plasma (4th state of matter) can then be used to superheat a liquid such as water propellant after it cools the generator gas. Converted to steam the propellant is then ejected out he exhaust port providing propulsion . Based on -Gary Gochnour's Tubular Shaped Interstellar Space Craft operating at 50% efficiency and is twenty times faster than the Russian engine, it would place the engine in the 2 to 3 % efficiency range which some consider the minimum requiremnt for atomic rockets of good design. Previous rockets such as ion, pulse, or reactor drives from the 50's and 60's are in the below 0.00001 % efficiency converting mass to energy for various reasons.
...

That does not match:


... ensuring the flow of the propellant in a closed circuit. ...

Thomas Hulon Jackson
2014-Jun-09, 01:19 AM
Did you read beyond the headline? The title of that blog post is hyperbole. The referenced event is actually a possible lack of another extension of the life of the ISS. 2020 has been its projected end-of-life for quite some time now. Since there's quite some time until then, it's possible that heads will cool down and the Russian will reconsider. Even if they don't, this is in no way "banning the US from the ISS"..

Time will tell. Cool heads are not common in politics or international relations, Look at the sanctions the USA placed on Russia :)


Pravda.ru is an extremely unreliable website. The idea is not original, what the article describes is known as nuclear-electric propulsion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electric_rocket)..

Pravada maybe unreliable but the quotes from the builders are reliable. Nope what your link describes has nothing to do with Russia's new reactor engine as the wikipedia list cannot even beat chemical rockets. Vasimir has only obtained thruster status. Ion drves are very low power as the rest of the rockets mentioned and none exceed chemical powered rockets in performance. Calling those nuclear powered rockets is like calling my car an atomic powered car just cause it has a atomic powered battery under the hood. Unless your rockets provide at least a million times the power per equal unit of chemical fuel the name "nuclear powered" misleads.


I doubt that travel time. And there's a large difference between starting ground testing of a system and crewed flights to Mars.

I have no doubt of the trip time having done the math. Not much difference in time as one will lead to another.

Thomas Hulon Jackson
2014-Jun-09, 01:41 AM
I could not find where I said " ... ensuring the flow of the propellant in a closed circuit. ..." you claim . In any case to clarify I was pointing out the reactor producing electricity is a closed circuit. The reactor heat is then transfered to a gas powering an electric generator turbine in the same closed circuit . As the turbine powered generator y work at typically 63 % efficiency it leaves approx. 37% as waste heat that must be removed. This waste heat is used by preheating the propellant before it is super heated turning the liqid propellant to steam by the electric plasma
(plasma defined in physics as 4th state of matter; ie fire, spark) and the superheated propellant is ejected out a reduction nozzle for the reaction engine..

Daggerstab
2014-Jun-09, 08:55 AM
For the benefit of any readers who may try to make sense of the discussion:

The article in Pravda.ru is a very bad translation. The description of the engine, down to the analogy with a hybrid car, seems to be based on this interview from 2010 (http://www.federalspace.ru/8996/). Here's the "closed circuit" part:


Горячий газ от реактора крутит турбину, турбина крутит электрогенератор и компрессор, который обеспечивает циркуляцию рабочего тела по замкнутому контуру. Генератор же вырабатывает электричество для плазменного двигателя с удельной тягой в 20 раз выше, чем у химических двигателей.


Hot gas from the reactor turns a turbine, the turbine turns an electric generator and a compressor that provides the circulation of the working fluid in a closed loop. The generator generates electricity for a plasma engine with [some kind of] thrust 20 times more than that of chemical rockets.

I'm afraid that the interviewed person doesn't seem to distinguish between specific impulse and thrust, so it's unclear what the last sentence meant. Perhaps he was dumbing it down for the journalist.

And yes, the described engine is nuclear-electric.

Garrison
2014-Jun-09, 05:33 PM
Not really. The engine is their invention's and they have a right to say who makes uses and operates it. The are bound under international law to honor previous contrac licensing it's use. When those expire they are not required to grant future license.



Which has precisely nothing to do with access to the ISS does it?


The working prototype exists or they would not have the given specifications.

Sorry but that doesn't follow either; plenty of proposed hardware has detailed specs. its whether they can turn the numbers into reality.

Thomas Hulon Jackson
2014-Jun-09, 05:38 PM
For the benefit of any readers who may try to make sense of the discussion:

The article in Pravda.ru is a very bad translation. The description of the engine, down to the analogy with a hybrid car, seems to be based on this interview from 2010 (http://www.federalspace.ru/8996/). Here's the "closed circuit" part:

I'm afraid that the interviewed person doesn't seem to distinguish between specific impulse and thrust, so it's unclear what the last sentence meant. Perhaps he was dumbing it down for the journalist.

And yes, the described engine is nuclear-electric.

Thanks for the link it translated well with bing.

It serves me no purpose to categorize engines like nuclear electric as the previous engines are not reduced to practice (made practical). I just use the inventors title and specification given. The invention described in my black box analysis is closer to a "atomic powered steam whisle" converted to a space craft propulsion system and patented with working prototype. With a small fraction of the power of Russian rocket, that can be improved with higher temperature reactors developed by Russia and improved plasma chamber Developed by Einstien. None of your nuclear-electric classified inventions have any anticipated or obvious improvements capable of performance like the Russian rocket My reverse enginneering back box analysis analysis are often wrong, but I stick with them until I know otherwise or receive new information.

As for specific impulse it is directly proportional to thrust so fair comparisons can be made
(eq.7) Thrust =Mass of rocket * delta Velocity of rocket /delta Time = -Velocity of Rocket * delta Mass of exhaust/delta time
(eq. specifc impules(Isp) = Thrust /mass flow rate times g or = Mass
flow rate* Velocity of exhaust; or
Isp = Velocity of exhaust / g with g = force of gravity on earth.

Thomas Hulon Jackson
2014-Jun-09, 05:43 PM
Which has precisely nothing to do with access to the ISS does it?.

I expect Putin to use sanctions including acess to ISS to counter the very hurtful sanctions USA has opposed on him.



Sorry but that doesn't follow either; plenty of proposed hardware has detailed specs. its whether they can turn the numbers into reality.

I have every confidience that the Russians can and will build the Mars craft.

Garrison
2014-Jun-09, 08:56 PM
I expect Putin to use sanctions including acess to ISS to counter the very hurtful sanctions USA has opposed on him.

Well since the Russians don't own the ISS and can't operate it without the co-operation of the other partners and they will have the ability to get there without the Russians in say 2 years(less if they really push) that would be very stupid of Putin but of course stupidity has never stopped him before.


I have every confidience that the Russians can and will build the Mars craft.

And since they haven't successfully sent a probe to Mars in decades, and have never sent a human beyond LEO what do you base that confidence on?

Thomas Hulon Jackson
2014-Jun-09, 11:54 PM
Well since the Russians don't own the ISS and can't operate it without the co-operation of the other partners and they will have the ability to get there without the Russians in say 2 years(less if they really push) that would be very stupid of Putin but of course stupidity has never stopped him before.

This is the last political statement I will respond to lest I get a rule infraction. Near death Einstein was so disgusted with the USA's censorship of his work he regreted not going to Russia instead of the USA to escape Germany. A sad end to his life and work. After the war Russia got German Engineerers and Technicians, and the USA got Von Braun. Russia had the best of that deal.


And since they haven't successfully sent a probe to Mars in decades, and have never sent a human beyond LEO what do you base that confidence on?

I have never sent a probe to Mars or myself to LEO and I can easily get men to Mars and back: therefore the simplicity of their atomic propulsion system is a piece of cake for their rocket scientists much smarter than myself. :)

Daggerstab
2014-Jun-10, 06:21 AM
Near death Einstein was so disgusted with the USA's censorship of his work he regreted not going to Russia instead of the USA to escape Germany.

[citation needed], as they say on Wikipedia. When and were he expressed regret and what kind of work was he talking about?


After the war Russia got German Engineerers and Technicians, and the USA got Von Braun. Russia had the best of that deal.

No, they didn't.

Von Braun wasn't the only German rocket scientist that the USA "got", there was a whole group of them.

The group that the Soviets assembled was ghettoed in a secret facility because of security concerns (being fresh former enemies after all). They were isolated from the major rocket development and later most of them were returned to Germany. They had almost no contribution to the Russian space program. According to Boris Chertok's memoirs, there was some regret that they couldn't get von Braun. (Paraphrase: "But again, if we had got him, we would have tried him as a war criminal.")

tusenfem
2014-Jun-10, 10:02 AM
Okay peeps, quit the political discussion!

Garrison
2014-Jun-10, 05:39 PM
I have never sent a probe to Mars or myself to LEO and I can easily get men to Mars and back: therefore the simplicity of their atomic propulsion system is a piece of cake for their rocket scientists much smarter than myself. :)

The bolded is a mind boggling statement and frankly makes me conclude you aren't remotely serious about this discussion.

Ivan Bilic
2014-Jun-10, 06:03 PM
Ok, while we have lot of difficulties to define what real space ship should be and look like, whether it should be launched in one or in more peaces, should it be attached or fully built in orbit, etc. there is one aditional question about this. Most of people agree on that such ship should not be able nor needed to land back. It should be just orbit-to-orbit craft. So, question is what to do with it while not on mission? As it does not land back on earth, it should remain in orbit permanently, lifetime? Do we need some additional facility in orbit to service such ship?

Ivan Bilic
2014-Jun-10, 06:20 PM
One idea is to use Moon for permanent base for such ship. It was during constellation programe that president Bush jr. said that U.S. will use Moon as first step to Mars path. He meant that ship aimed to Mars would be launched from Moon. Now, he didn't come up with that by himself. He was adviced by NASA. Then lot of people stud up against it saying that it is not logical sending ship in gravitational hole of Moon, then pull up it from there before sending it to Mars. Because it is waste of fuel. On the other hand Moon gravitation is not too big to present much of obstacle. And people who adviced him, they know what are they doing. So, would it be good idea to use Moon for such task?

NEOWatcher
2014-Jun-10, 06:38 PM
One idea is to use Moon for permanent base for such ship. It was during constellation programe that president Bush jr. said that U.S. will use Moon as first step to Mars path. He meant that ship aimed to Mars would be launched from Moon. Now, he didn't come up with that by himself. He was adviced by NASA.
That is not what he said or meant.
Here's what he said (http://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm):

With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond.
It's a technological step, not a mission step.


So, would it be good idea to use Moon for such task?
Someday when we have a full space infrastructure and moon bases, but just to send a few missions beyond Earth, it's not worth it.

Thomas Hulon Jackson
2014-Jun-10, 08:22 PM
The bolded is a mind boggling statement and frankly makes me conclude you aren't remotely serious about this discussion.

I am quite serious about this discussion. If this fellow below logged in and made the same statement I did would you take him serious?

Gary Gochnour's Tubular Shaped Interstellar
Space Craft Patent No: U.S. 8,109,471 B2 Issued Feb 7, 2012
http://www.spacepatents.com/patented_inventions/pat8109471.pdf
contact
http://www.spacepatents.com/aerospace_patents/index.html?patent=8
109471
Round trip = 5.3 days (plus 1 day minus 3 days) depending on where
Mars is at launch time using line of sight navigation.
Working prototype plus accelerates at 1 g with respect to Earth for 10
months nearing light speed.

Garrison
2014-Jun-10, 11:52 PM
I am quite serious about this discussion. If this fellow below logged in and made the same statement I did would you take him serious?

Gary Gochnour's Tubular Shaped Interstellar
Space Craft Patent No: U.S. 8,109,471 B2 Issued Feb 7, 2012
http://www.spacepatents.com/patented_inventions/pat8109471.pdf
contact
http://www.spacepatents.com/aerospace_patents/index.html?patent=8
109471
Round trip = 5.3 days (plus 1 day minus 3 days) depending on where
Mars is at launch time using line of sight navigation.
Working prototype plus accelerates at 1 g with respect to Earth for 10
months nearing light speed.

Since patents are easy to get; no I wouldn't unless he can demonstrate working hardware. I've read any number of beautifully described sci-fi propulsion systems but just because they are well worked out doesn't mean they are real.

Elukka
2014-Jun-11, 01:20 AM
One idea is to use Moon for permanent base for such ship. It was during constellation programe that president Bush jr. said that U.S. will use Moon as first step to Mars path. He meant that ship aimed to Mars would be launched from Moon. Now, he didn't come up with that by himself. He was adviced by NASA. Then lot of people stud up against it saying that it is not logical sending ship in gravitational hole of Moon, then pull up it from there before sending it to Mars. Because it is waste of fuel. On the other hand Moon gravitation is not too big to present much of obstacle. And people who adviced him, they know what are they doing. So, would it be good idea to use Moon for such task?
Not really. You say the reason yourself, there's no reason to spend the fuel to go to the Moon and back. The ship could simply be parked on Earth orbit the same way the ISS is and maintained and refueled there.

Thomas Hulon Jackson
2014-Jun-12, 04:44 AM
Easy to get patents you say Garrison.it is clear you have no patents or read Gary's. Your many beautifully described sci-fi propulsion systems are not real and not patentable as they do not work and are not build ble requiring stuff like unobtainum. An invention does not even get to the examiner unless the inventor declares under oath his invention is real. made and works and is so fully described in text and/or drawing others trained in the art of construction can build it. The penalty for false statements(perjury) in the declaration is in fine and/or imprisonment. In a rare case an unworking invention get by this process and get to the examiner, He is trained in patent law and the prior art of the machines class (In Gary's patent trained in the prior art of atomic powered propulsion). If he suspects there is no working prototype for any reason he can and will request a demonstration of working hardware. To get my patent claims one to seven in a condition for issuance, I spent many months in a patent case law library . My patent file wrapper of communication papers twixt examiner and myself is 2 inches thick, 11.5 inches tall and 8 and 1/2 inches wide, which is typical size of patent file wrappers. The patent examiner is banned by law from requesting a demonstration of working hardware for frivolous reasons such as yours. Patents are real machines and the inventors on a daily basis bring to earth new knowledge never before seen on the face of the this earth. Their patents must be read in that light. Your lack of respect for inventors, patents, patent law and real technology (Over 8 million U.S. Patented inventions since 1776) make me ask why are you in this thread" I read Gary's patent and I can build his engine invention in a few years and easly get men to mars and back within a week from launch, just using his engine, an existing well supplied minisub as crew capsule and radiation shield consisting of a few inches of rapidly circulating water twixt it's double wall of metal skinned armor containing the sub, supplies, propellant and engine. Ivan Bilic askes when are we going to build the first real space ship. I gave a serious answer to Ivan's serious question. When?, hopefullly before Gary's patent expires so he can get paid for his real and fine machine and good work..

Ivan Bilic
2014-Jun-12, 04:18 PM
Here is some fresh news from CNN -http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/tech/innovation/warp-speed-spaceship/index.html?hpt=hp_c5

NEOWatcher
2014-Jun-12, 04:30 PM
Here is some fresh news from CNN -http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/tech/innovation/warp-speed-spaceship/index.html?hpt=hp_c5
In the future, please let us know what the news is about... for example... Harry White's Warp drive.

This is not fresh news, it's old news with a new artist's conception of what it would look like. The article even says that.

Garrison
2014-Jun-12, 04:30 PM
Easy to get patents you say Garrison.it is clear you have no patents or read Gary's. Your many beautifully described sci-fi propulsion systems are not real and not patentable as they do not work and are not build ble requiring stuff like unobtainum. An invention does not even get to the examiner unless the inventor declares under oath his invention is real. made and works and is so fully described in text and/or drawing others trained in the art of construction can build it. The penalty for false statements(perjury) in the declaration is in fine and/or imprisonment. In a rare case an unworking invention get by this process and get to the examiner, He is trained in patent law and the prior art of the machines class (In Gary's patent trained in the prior art of atomic powered propulsion). If he suspects there is no working prototype for any reason he can and will request a demonstration of working hardware. To get my patent claims one to seven in a condition for issuance, I spent many months in a patent case law library . My patent file wrapper of communication papers twixt examiner and myself is 2 inches thick, 11.5 inches tall and 8 and 1/2 inches wide, which is typical size of patent file wrappers. The patent examiner is banned by law from requesting a demonstration of working hardware for frivolous reasons such as yours. Patents are real machines and the inventors on a daily basis bring to earth new knowledge never before seen on the face of the this earth. Their patents must be read in that light. Your lack of respect for inventors, patents, patent law and real technology (Over 8 million U.S. Patented inventions since 1776) make me ask why are you in this thread" I read Gary's patent and I can build his engine invention in a few years and easly get men to mars and back within a week from launch, just using his engine, an existing well supplied minisub as crew capsule and radiation shield consisting of a few inches of rapidly circulating water twixt it's double wall of metal skinned armor containing the sub, supplies, propellant and engine. Ivan Bilic askes when are we going to build the first real space ship. I gave a serious answer to Ivan's serious question. When?, hopefullly before Gary's patent expires so he can get paid for his real and fine machine and good work..

Very eloquent; completely wrong alas. As the Patents for Unworkable Devices (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/patents.htm) show a patent is no proof a device will work. Notably many of those in more recent times are for motors and engines. Oh and if that one site isn't enough:

Antigravity Machine Patent Draws Physicists' Ire (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1111_051111_junk_patent.html)

Current trends in perpetual motion patents reveal a boom in free energy technology (http://www.patex.ca/html/blog/?p=1)

Ivan Bilic
2014-Jun-12, 04:31 PM
\left[ \right]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/140611183527-01-warp-speed-spaceship-horizontal-gallery.jpg

It's just an artistic concept. But if you look at it carefully, you'll see that the concept is taken from Apollo. Command modulu attached to posterior service module with engines. Yes, i know, it doesn't look realistic. But for some reason for me it does.

Garrison
2014-Jun-12, 04:36 PM
\left[ \right]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/140611183527-01-warp-speed-spaceship-horizontal-gallery.jpg

It's just an artistic concept. But if you look at it carefully, you'll see that the concept is taken from Apollo. Command modulu attached to posterior service module with engines. Yes, i know, it doesn't look realistic. But for some reason for me it does.

Looks more like a shot from Interstellar. Check the trailer about two minutes in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LqzF5WauAw

NEOWatcher
2014-Jun-12, 04:38 PM
It's just an artistic concept. But if you look at it carefully, you'll see that the concept is taken from Apollo. Command modulu attached to posterior service module with engines. Yes, i know, it doesn't look realistic. But for some reason for me it does.
What's your fascination with comparing everything to Apollo?
Physics demands that you don't put your command module in the path of your thrust. Thus it's usually out front.
Other than the shuttle and buran, every human spacecraft has been this way.

Besides, the article clearly spelled out that the drawings were based on Star Trek designs.

Anyway. None of this really matters because the drive is only theoretical and only some small scale experimentation has been done. There's absolutely no way to translate that into what hardware is needed to operate the drive.

Ivan Bilic
2014-Jun-12, 05:19 PM
[qoute=NEOWatcher]What's your fascination with comparing everything to Apollo?[/quote]

That's the best we had besides Space Shuttle. I have to start from somewhere.


Physics demands that you don't put your command module in the path of your thrust. Thus it's usually out front.

Yes.


Anyway. None of this really matters because the drive is only theoretical and only some small scale experimentation has been done.

This is my sequence of thoughts: We never know at what point there will be some science breaktrough. Most probably in big hadron collider in CERN regardles physical particles. This breaktrough could bring us some new technologies as well. When will it happend and will it i don't know. But my logic is to be prepared. So, it would be good to have some ship designs ready. Maybe we could even build ship without propulsion, park it in orbit and wait for engines to become available. Maybe we could start building new ship in orbit, continue improving it and until engines become available using it as space station.

NEOWatcher
2014-Jun-12, 05:26 PM
But my logic is to be prepared. So, it would be good to have some ship designs ready. Maybe we could even build ship without propulsion, park it in orbit and wait for engines to become available. Maybe we could start building new ship in orbit, continue improving it and until engines become available using it as space station.
That's putting the cart before the horse... (or the booster before the capsule if you wish).

Do you think that anyone could have possibly predicted what a modern Nuclear power plant would look like let alone plan one out when Fermi first bombarded uranium in 1934?

Ivan Bilic
2014-Jun-12, 05:52 PM
That's putting the cart before the horse... (or the booster before the capsule if you wish).

Do you think that anyone could have possibly predicted what a modern Nuclear power plant would look like let alone plan one out when Fermi first bombarded uranium in 1934?

That's precisely why we invested practicaly whole second half of 20th century in computer and software research. We built powerfull simulation tools that help us to visualize and predict of processes and machines that still do not exist. We enter 21st century with ability to simulate. We could build parts of the ship upon our experience in Apollo and Shuttle programs. The rest that we don't know how it is supposed to function we could try to simulate in super-computers. This way we could have ship in orbit that we keep upgrading and meanwhile use it as space station.

NEOWatcher
2014-Jun-12, 06:02 PM
That's precisely why we invested practicaly whole second half of 20th century in computer and software research. We built powerfull simulation tools that help us to visualize and predict of processes and machines that still do not exist. We enter 21st century with ability to simulate.
Yes; we have the tools to do the steps, we do not have the tools to go straight from theory to practical application.

For example:
1) We model and forecast physics.
2) We model and design machines to test the physics.
3) We do the testing on the concepts.
4) We model and design what it would take to make those concepts into a practical device.
5) We model and design the actual practical device.
6) We design the applicable use of the device.
What you and they are doing is skipping steps 2 through 5. A lot can change in each of those steps. Doing step 6 when even 3 is incomplete is a waste of time.

Ivan Bilic
2014-Jun-12, 08:30 PM
Well, this is article on space capsule that was conceived in 1938, it was 4 years after Enrico Fermi bombarded uranium. Although people didn't have simulation tools they were able to do great and very precise design on Moon landing capsule. Does capsule depicted in article differes much from Dragon V2 in its basics?
http://astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm

http://astronautix.com/graphics/z/zbisldr1.jpg

Ivan Bilic
2014-Jun-12, 10:41 PM
This is one more artilce on this. Making design of new spaceship before existing propulsion technology:


The moonship was considerably updated after World War II to take advantage of the new post-war technologies available. The landing craft is virtually unchanged from its 1939 version, the most obvious difference being the conversion to liquid fuel. In place of the column of nearly 2,500 solid-fuel rockets is a single atomic-powered stage....
full article (http://io9.com/the-union-jack-on-the-moon-1262867212)

So, it makes it posible to design spaceship before propulsion. Take note that at that time space ships didn't exist at all. So, this guys were doing from the scratch.

Thomas Hulon Jackson
2014-Jun-13, 04:52 AM
Very eloquent; completely wrong alas. As the Patents for Unworkable Devices (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/patents.htm) show a patent is no proof a device will work. Notably many of those in more recent times are for motors and engines. Oh and if that one site isn't enough:

Antigravity Machine Patent Draws Physicists' Ire (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1111_051111_junk_patent.html)

Current trends in perpetual motion patents reveal a boom in free energy technology (http://www.patex.ca/html/blog/?p=1)

Eloquent? Had to look it up.
"el·o·quent [el-uh-kwuhnt] adjective
1. having or exercising the power of fluent, forceful, and appropriate speech: an eloquent orator.
2. characterized by forceful and appropriate expression: an eloquent speech.
3. movingly expressive: looks eloquent of disgust."

I agree.
Wrong?
No. I did not say or imply the patent process was perfect in eliminating unworking inventions. You point to a few hunered cases of unworking patents. Even did they number in the thousabds Out of over 8,000,000 U.S. patents since 1776 that is a very small percentage. Still most were discovered with the legal process as soliciting for monies for unworking inventions under false pretenses is fraud unless the inventor sincerily belived his invention worked. The burden of proof is on the defrauded to prove the deception was dilebert. There in no statutory bar in patent against the patent office accepting and granting patents on antigravity, perpetual motion or even faster than light machines. Example The space craft Voyager will contue in motion perepetually as it has exceeded the solar escape velocity and will stay n motion perpetually unless acted on by outside force such as the galaxies gravatation force or it hits an object stopping it. Can you calculate when Voyager will stop moving? I cannot. In many cultures a helium filled balloon is an anti gravity device as it falls upward instead of downwards.

I do not let a few bad apples give me an excuse not to take all inventors serious Nor do I let those who have defrauded me of monies give me an excuse not to give as I have to give as I have monies to give. Nor should you.

Garrison
2014-Jun-13, 09:54 AM
Eloquent? Had to look it up.
"el·o·quent [el-uh-kwuhnt] adjective
1. having or exercising the power of fluent, forceful, and appropriate speech: an eloquent orator.
2. characterized by forceful and appropriate expression: an eloquent speech.
3. movingly expressive: looks eloquent of disgust."

I agree.
Wrong?
No. I did not say or imply the patent process was perfect in eliminating unworking inventions. You point to a few hunered cases of unworking patents. Even did they number in the thousabds Out of over 8,000,000 U.S. patents since 1776 that is a very small percentage. Still most were discovered with the legal process as soliciting for monies for unworking inventions under false pretenses is fraud unless the inventor sincerily belived his invention worked. The burden of proof is on the defrauded to prove the deception was dilebert. There in no statutory bar in patent against the patent office accepting and granting patents on antigravity, perpetual motion or even faster than light machines. Example The space craft Voyager will contue in motion perepetually as it has exceeded the solar escape velocity and will stay n motion perpetually unless acted on by outside force such as the galaxies gravatation force or it hits an object stopping it. Can you calculate when Voyager will stop moving? I cannot. In many cultures a helium filled balloon is an anti gravity device as it falls upward instead of downwards.

I do not let a few bad apples give me an excuse not to take all inventors serious Nor do I let those who have defrauded me of monies give me an excuse not to give as I have to give as I have monies to give. Nor should you.

Perhaps not but the existence of such patents certainly proves your earlier statement:


Easy to get patents you say Garrison.it is clear you have no patents or read Gary's. Your many beautifully described sci-fi propulsion systems are not real and not patentable as they do not work and are not build ble requiring stuff like unobtainum.

Was completely wrong. Engines that do not work, and defy the laws of physics, have been patented. We have even seen people demonstrate hardware they claim works, see cold fusion, that proves impossible to replicate or where some error in the mathematics is discovered. If the inventors of this engine can demonstrate it works under controlled conditions or other can replicate it then that will be impressive until then it remains 'sci-fi'.

NEOWatcher
2014-Jun-13, 12:07 PM
This is one more artilce on this. Making design of new spaceship before existing propulsion technology:
So, it makes it posible to design spaceship before propulsion. Take note that at that time space ships didn't exist at all. So, this guys were doing from the scratch.
Really, did we use anything close to a 1 million pound vehicle?
Yes, it was A design. It was impractical and nothing close to what was needed.
Both designs are conceptual ideas.

Besides, this was not "before propulsion".
Propulsion technology was well known at the time to know approximately what it would take.
Goddard started practical (not just theoretical) experimentation and prototypes of rockets in 1915. He even tested ion drives. Liquid fueled rockets were actually flying in the 1920's.

All that was left was the actual engineering. How do you think the V2 was developed so fast?

What you linked to is based on just theoretical experimentation, not practical experimentation.

Garrison
2014-Jun-13, 12:49 PM
Really, did we use anything close to a 1 million pound vehicle?
Yes, it was A design. It was impractical and nothing close to what was needed.
Both designs are conceptual ideas.

Besides, this was not "before propulsion".
Propulsion technology was well known at the time to know approximately what it would take.
Goddard started practical (not just theoretical) experimentation and prototypes of rockets in 1915. He even tested ion drives. Liquid fueled rockets were actually flying in the 1920's.

All that was left was the actual engineering. How do you think the V2 was developed so fast?

What you linked to is based on just theoretical experimentation, not practical experimentation.

Interesting, I knew about Goddard's work with liquid fuelled rockets but not ion drives.

Van Rijn
2014-Jun-14, 09:30 AM
Round trip = 5.3 days (plus 1 day minus 3 days) depending on where
Mars is at launch time using line of sight navigation.
Working prototype plus accelerates at 1 g with respect to Earth for 10
months nearing light speed.

Well, cool. Let's see that working prototype, because if you can do that, you can produce all the energy the planet could use.

Failing an actual demonstration, it's just another extraordinary claim.

Van Rijn
2014-Jun-14, 09:44 AM
Easy to get patents you say Garrison.it is clear you have no patents or read Gary's.

I read it. It's so bad it's funny! Here's the beginning:



Tubular shaped interstellar space craft
US 20090127383 A1
Abstract
The invention relates to a plasma based aircraft possessing a magnetic field, and, a huge plasma vortex. Said craft is tubular in shape. Said craft has a vast array of capacitors. The craft has a proton accelerator, plasma guns, diversion devices. Said craft will approach the speed of light. Said craft obtains fuel direct from an atmosphere or a radiation produced atmosphere in space, at no cost. This craft can travel to a g k star for only the cost of construction of craft. This invention is comparable to the discovery of fire insofar as man's future is concerned, particularly in view of our climate change, and a recent near impact from an asteroid—which would have put us within an ice age. The craft has three on-board escape craft. The craft is capable of producing plasma vortices within an electromagnetic field approaching the speed of light. Said field is an inhomogeneous, diamagnetic, orbiting plasma field with a magnetohydrodynamic electrically conducting plasma current. Said craft possesses approximately seven uninsulated tungsten bands encircling craft. Said bands are comprised of tungsten wire wrapped to form cables.



:rofl:

publiusr
2014-Jun-14, 04:47 PM
I'll take the nuclear pulse orion over that feldergarb





It's just an artistic concept. But if you look at it carefully, you'll see that the concept is taken from Apollo. Command modulu attached to posterior service module with engines. Yes, i know, it doesn't look realistic. But for some reason for me it does.

More here
http://crowlspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IXS-Enterprise-2.jpg
http://crowlspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IXS-Enterprise-3.jpg

We are a long way off from that.

I think the first true spaceship will be solar electric--using lessons learned from ISS.

My druthers would be for Stan Borowski's NTR work.

selvaarchi
2014-Jun-15, 03:00 PM
Watching all we have done till now, from Vostok rocket, Apollo mission, space shuttle up to recent private space programs and chinese antiquity, we still do not have something we can call a real 'spaceship'. The most close thing we built was a space shuttle, which could lift with additional rockets, it had a shape of spaceship and could return to earth in one piece smoothly landing on runnaway. But, i wonder when are we going to build something more larger that could travel much far away, at least to Mars or even Venus, and return back to be reused. And how are we going to build it? Assemble it in space or launch it in one peace? Do we still miss technology for such spaceship?

NASA may just have the answer for you. Two weeks only to Alpha Centauri.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Space-ship-that-travels-faster-than-light/articleshow/36449131.cms


The concept of warp ship seeks to exploit a "loophole" in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity that allows travel faster than speed of light by expanding space-time behind the object and contracting space-time in front of it, the report said.

In a crux, the empty space behind a space ship would be made to expand rapidly, pushing the craft in a forward direction.

"Passengers would perceive it as movement despite the complete lack of acceleration," the report added.

Garrison
2014-Jun-15, 08:07 PM
NASA may just have the answer for you. Two weeks only to Alpha Centauri.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Space-ship-that-travels-faster-than-light/articleshow/36449131.cms

So you didn't read the last couple of pages of this thread where that exact thing has been discussed?

selvaarchi
2014-Jun-15, 08:39 PM
So you didn't read the last couple of pages of this thread where that exact thing has been discussed?

I have. Do not know how I missed that as I normally go to "view first unread". Unless I messed up between accessing the site through "Tapatalk" on the smart phone and my desk top. Being only using "Tapatalk" in the last two months and only sometimes.

Van Rijn
2014-Jun-15, 11:34 PM
Harold White has also been discussed a few other times on the board. If you do a google search on the site you'll probably find the discussions.

This fellow has been getting a lot of publicity for a while because of the warp drive angle, but he hasn't actually demonstrated anything. Unfortunately, that sort of thing comes up a lot. Until and unless some concept is demonstrated *and* widely verified by other researchers, I see no reason to take such a thing seriously.

Ivan Bilic
2014-Jun-16, 02:03 PM
Two weeks only to Alpha Centauri.

That would be just about fine. Suits me.;)

Jens
2014-Jun-16, 11:02 PM
NASA may just have the answer for you. Two weeks only to Alpha Centauri.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Space-ship-that-travels-faster-than-light/articleshow/36449131.cms

No, they don't have the answer, just the questions. "What do you need to make a warp drive?" The answer is that you need a way to bend the space around the craft, and since we have no way of doing that it's an interesting thought exercise but no more than that.

cjameshuff
2014-Jun-17, 02:28 AM
They've apparently got some moderately plausible ways you might produce a curvature of space measurable with sufficiently sensitive instrumentation, but it's at least a couple dozen orders of magnitude short of what you'd need for a useful warp drive, and there's still the question of curving the space in the desired way. And there's the whole causality breaking thing, if you're hoping for something that gets you past the speed of light.

selvaarchi
2014-Jun-17, 09:44 AM
I do not expect to see a solution in the next 50 years but if we do not work to understand and research the possibility we can never achieve it.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Jens
2014-Jun-17, 10:05 AM
I do not expect to see a solution in the next 50 years but if we do not work to understand and research the possibility we can never achieve it.


I think we very much are. We are developing increasingly sensitive detectors all the time, and if one of them detects an anomaly that could only be explained by a particle with negative mass, then we've got something to go on.

profloater
2014-Jun-17, 10:41 AM
Juat a thought, if you compress and expand space time like that, in front and behind your spacecraft, what happens to everything else that is not your ship? Presumably in deep space you don't care about accelerating a few particles. Otherwise there is a spacetime shock wave? How fast is a spacetime shock wave and is it to be avoided if you are not lucky enough to be inside the spacecraft?

NEOWatcher
2014-Jun-17, 12:11 PM
I do not expect to see a solution in the next 50 years but if we do not work to understand and research the possibility we can never achieve it.
That's exactly what it is... Research.
It's not research to solve a problem, it's research to understand the science.

What gets annoying is when they do valuable research and then give it some outlandish example to relate it to the common man without a clear statement of just how far off it possibly is, or people that don't reach the part of the story that says it might not be possible.

They don't even have conclusive evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer) they created one let alone one that can exceed the speed of light.