Skip to comments.
NASA Successfully Tests Ion Engine
Spaceref ^
| 11/20/03
Posted on 11/20/2003 8:11:24 PM PST by Brett66
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-118 last
To: Frank_Discussion
or some form of faster then light technology i.e. B5 hyperpsace or Andromeda slipstream. I think in 60 years we will have some form FTL. I could be wrong.
101
posted on
11/22/2003 7:45:53 AM PST
by
KevinDavis
(Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
To: LasVegasMac
NASA seems to have been overcome by that age old nemisis of too many chiefs. I remember in '73 or '74 a NASA researcher gloomily observing that they had just passed the point of one administrator per researcher...
102
posted on
11/22/2003 12:55:23 PM PST
by
Eala
(FR Traditional Anglican Directory: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican)
To: Harlequin
and we need to get off this rock before something big hits it!!
103
posted on
11/22/2003 3:37:40 PM PST
by
Camel Joe
(Proud Uncle of a Fine Young Marine)
To: unix
>Deep Space1 put out 90 millinewtons of thrust, this is putting out around .9 Newtons of thrust with an ISP of >6000.
Could we get this past 10,000-20,000 ISP with around 100 Newtons of thrust? A technology definitely worth investigating.
What the hell did you just say?!
English Please?
OK.
ISP is specific thrust:
This is: thrust (pounds, for instance) for a time (seconds) per mass of propellant (kg, for instance).
So, Deep Space 1 has Isp of 3,100:
That's a thrust of about .1 newton (or .022 pounds) for 310,000 seconds for each kg of propellant.
Thus, (for instance - numbers not exact) the earlier Deep Space 1 100 kg of propellant will run for 30 million seconds
or more than a year with a thrust of less than an ounce.
It has run for at least 40 million seconds or used 127 kg of propellant.
Long-distance interplantary probes can use low thrust for long periods. They minimize the propellant mass (for efficiency) and maximize the acceleration of the propellant (no 'burning' reaction, only an electrostatic charge which accelerates an ion).
The ion engine is like the solar sail concept in that it uses low power over a long time. A spacecraft of small mass can accelerate over time.
For the example above, a 100 kg craft for 450 days would get to more than 90,000 miles per hour. (but would typically spend half the travel time decelerating).
To: billbears
Granted I think it's an interesting and cool idea, but is it something I want the government to take care of?The government has a legitimate role in the development of infrastructure. It's fine for them to develop (some of) the technology and run the space ports. There's no need for them to run all the shuttles, too.
105
posted on
11/22/2003 8:44:07 PM PST
by
irv
To: LasVegasMac
Oh yea, don't forget about that little "meter vs foot" thing this time, ok? Sheese.Really..they (from venus) have'nt stop bitching about that one.
106
posted on
11/22/2003 8:54:48 PM PST
by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because you're paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
To: Axenolith
Level flight low speed (100mph) test scheduled for spring :)
Moeller 4000 shall fly.
107
posted on
11/22/2003 8:57:42 PM PST
by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because you're paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
To: RightWhale
There are over 2 million words...create objective confusion.Good point.
108
posted on
11/22/2003 9:28:56 PM PST
by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because you're paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
To: edwin hubble
Restating the beginning of #104:
Specific Impulse (ISP) is also known as Specific Thrust:
To: fiscally_right
I'm working on something along those lines... sort-of
110
posted on
11/23/2003 9:34:45 AM PST
by
King Prout
(...he took a face from the ancient gallery, then he... walked on down the hall....)
To: irv
The government has a legitimate role in the development of infrastructure.Not always it hasn't. And that was not the intent under the Constitution. Granted I don't see how the infrastructure already in place could be privatized without a generational plan, but it does not condone further 'development of infrastructure', especially in a place there is no infrastructure, namely space
111
posted on
11/23/2003 9:35:32 AM PST
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: billbears
especially in a place there is no infrastructure, namely spaceSo, since there is little infrastructure (Cape Canaveral does count as infrastructure), that means we have no interest in building any?
You came out against the Louisiana Purchase, "Seward's Folly' (the purchase of Alaska for those of you from Rio Linda) and the Lewis and Clark expedition, didn't you?
112
posted on
11/23/2003 3:42:21 PM PST
by
irv
To: RadioAstronomer
Upward and onward!
To: Brett66
I like it as a backup technique, but I wouldn't want it ingrained as an architectural backbone to any system. No ship should be beholden to ground control and power.
114
posted on
11/24/2003 8:36:08 AM PST
by
Frank_Discussion
(May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
To: KevinDavis
But you could be right. The technology isn't there yet, but there is a LOT of theory being firmed up on how to pull a ship out of Einstein's clutches. Sixty years? Perhaps, maybe sooner. A century on the outside.
115
posted on
11/24/2003 8:38:12 AM PST
by
Frank_Discussion
(May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
To: Frank_Discussion
I read an article from Discover maganzine talking about this issue of having ships going ftl or close to ftl. One theroy caught my attention was the ramjet theory. What it was, it allowed a ship that would scoop up particles and have it processed as fuel. The only drawback was that the ship could go into an area with no particles and it could stop in space. I wish I still had that magazine.
116
posted on
11/24/2003 10:19:10 AM PST
by
KevinDavis
(Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
To: KevinDavis
Broussard Scoop, I think it's called. The idea's been around a while, and it's actually not bad, though running out of fuel is a true concern. I could see it as a good way to get around a solar sysem, though, solar wind and all being ever-present.
The FTL stuff I'm excited about is the possibility of really "warping" space. The surface of space and time (spacetime) can actually move faster than light, so the idea is that a ship creates a bubble of spacetime that is steerable from one point to another. The ship inside the bubble is non-moving while carried inside, so you don't have all of those pesky relativistic effects. The big drawback (and even that is shrinking) is the large amount of energy required, and it's type. Subsequent theories are finding ways to whittle down the energy problem.
117
posted on
11/24/2003 10:31:01 AM PST
by
Frank_Discussion
(May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
To: Frank_Discussion
I saw that idea on the Science channel before they stop showing human space flight programs. That would be good way going to Mars or Jupiter or whatever. However as for going to Alpha Centauri, no way.
As we find a way around the energy problem, look out it is either Alpha Centauri or bust!
118
posted on
11/24/2003 3:20:40 PM PST
by
KevinDavis
(Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-118 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson