It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If we could put CERN in space would it move?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
This is just a hypothetical question...

If somehow we could get CERN into space(it is not important how we did this for arguments sake) and instead direct the particles CERN accelerates and ran them straight out into space would that force propel CERN forward.

Since CERN accelerates particles what is the difference between that and a solar sail as far as propulsion goes?

Does NASA already have a particle accelerators as a means of propulsion if so what is it?




posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
By conservation of momentum, if a device emits a beam of particles, it will move in teh opposite direction. This is the principle on which the ion drive is based, and it has been successfully tested. I saw one and it's pretty small.

Instead of going to super high energy though, it's a lot more practical to simply emit more particles (ions). So you don't need CERN caliber accelerators, but having a very large battery would help


[edit on 9-5-2006 by Aelita]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
my understanding of ion drives is that they don't move too fast. Would you compare the acceleration of an ion drive to that of a solar sail, slow and steady, but longer distances winning the race i.e.. the tortoise and the hare. Is this correct?



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbitmy understanding of ion drives is that they don't move too fast.


It depends on the energy you expend over a period of time. In principle, the ion drive can be very fast, with it's speed limited by the speed of outgoing ions.


Would you compare the acceleration of an ion drive to that of a solar sail, slow and steady, but longer distances winning the race i.e.. the tortoise and the hare. Is this correct?


Acceleration will depend on a lot of factors including the vehicle's mass.
It's not the same as terminal velocity.

Purely theoretically, the solar sail could accelerate to a velocity very close to the speed of light and closer than the ion drive. But I think this comparison is entirely moot. Whether you are going 99% or 99.5% speed of light, doesn't really matter.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
sorry, but can you explain why a vehicles mass is important in space. Space to me seems frictionless and thus it shouldn't matter if I'm cruisn in my '87 cadi or my '94 civic?(not really my cars) I understand mass cannot travel at the speed of light so there is a problem but for interplanetary space flight say .4 light speed and under where is the harm?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
sorry, but can you explain why a vehicles mass is important in space.


I think you may be thinking that weight and mass are the same thing. If that's the case, maybe this will help...

Mass is the property of an object that defines how much matter and energy it contains. (A mass of 10 kg on Earth is still a mass of 10 kg in freefall)

Weight is the measurement of the heaviness of an object under gravity. (What weighs 10 kg on Earth would weigh 25.4 kg on Jupiter)

Does that help?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   
I understand objects can be weightless in space however objects always have mass(unless travelling faster than the speed of light)

What I don't understand is if there is no friction in space what does it matter how large something is(what the mass of an object is?)



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
What I don't understand is if there is no friction in space what does it matter how large something is(what the mass of an object is?)


with out forces from outsidea system always keeps it velocity. This is a nature law and is called conservation of Momentum.

Conservation of Momentum:
en.wikipedia.org...

You are right there is no friction in space and so there is no loose of momentum (speed) for a system and it doesnt matters the mass it has.

The mass of an onbject comes in play when you want to change it's velocity (or momentum) and is technical simple a proportinal constant that tells you how much force you have to aplay to increse or decrease its velocity to a specific amount in time.

This is the second law of newton. You will probabily know it as
F = m * a (for m = const)
where F: the force you need,
m: the inertia mass ('resistance' factor of velocity changeing).
a: acceleration or the change of velocity per time (dv/dt)

Basic Physic (Newton's Law):
en.wikibooks.org...(Physics_Study_Guide)
en.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion

Why 'objects' have mass at all is unknown and still a hot topic of sience.
The nature behaves like that. But why and why not completly different? No one knows...



To your question about cern in space. Basicly that's a rocked engine like the classic one or the ion engine.
They all have in common that the throw away mass form itself in order to accelerate the mass left (your spacecraft).

this is done because the Conservation of Momentum:

p total = m1 * v + m2 *v

whereas the v is velocity and has a direction.

lets say m1 is the spacecraft mass and m2 the stone (the particle) you want to throw away.

the momentum of your system (spacecraft AND stone) stays constant.
So before you throw you can write:

p total bevore = (m1+m2) * v0

where v0 is the initial speed of your system (spacecraft and rocked)

and after :
p total after = m1*v1 + m2*v2

but p total before must be equal P total after!
therefore:

!
(m1+m2)*v0 = m1*v1 + m2*v2

be aware that v1 and v2 are vectors! Now your velocity v1 of your spacecraft after the ejection of the stone dependents on how FAST (v2) you ejected the stone.
Example:

m1 =1000kg
m2 =1kg
v0 = 0

v2 = -1000 m/s
-> 0 = 1000kg * v1 + 1kg * -1000m/s
-> ->
your spacecraft end speed is v1 = 1m/s!

throw the stone faster!
v2 = -2000 m/s
-> 0 = 1000kg * v1 + 1kg * -2000m/s
-> ->
your spacecraft end speed is v1 = 2m/s!

so what does this tell us?

Because your spacecraft has a limited fuel storage capacity (m2 mass) it will gain more speeed as faster you eject the fuel mass. This is known as the rocked equation.
(Note that for creating this formula the exact second law of Newton has to be used because the mass changes! that means not
F=m*a but F = dp/dt = d(m*v)/dt )

rocked equation
en.wikipedia.org...

So a mini cern rocked engine would be a nice thing but only when you also have the energy from somewhere for that engine! the ion device you can see as such a mini cern rocked.

last point..what is about the solar propultion?
That is a different! engine. Here you do not carry feul with the spacecraft. And therefore the end velocity you can archive is not limited to the quantity of feul.
hte feul if you want so is the radiation of the sun. A pretty nice thing. You only need big 'sail' and a spacecraft with less mass (faster acceleration) and gain a lot of speed over time.

space propulsion
en.wikipedia.org...

so i hope i could help you a little with your question.



[edit on 10-5-2006 by g210]

[edit on 10-5-2006 by g210]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
good going g210, yes that answered all of my questions and then some!, however, you have given me a few more with this statement,

"Why 'objects' have mass at all is unknown and still a hot topic of sience.
The nature behaves like that. But why and why not completly different? No one knows...
"

Are you suggesting that if we really want to travel the universe we should work on other forms of space travel that are mass (morphing?) forms rather than the more traditional view of Rocket/Solar Sail Craft?

To me it sounds like each form of Space Propulsion has some advantages. Would a complicated Hybrid Space Shuttle be the best/quickest option for reaching Mars?

Im thinking conventional rockets to get it it out of Earth's orbit then have a combo of a few Ion Drives and a few solar sails to navigate it through space?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Are you suggesting that if we really want to travel the universe we should work on other forms of space travel that are mass (morphing?) forms rather than the more traditional view of Rocket/Solar Sail Craft?


If we really want to go to the stars once we will be in need of such a kind of mass 'changeing or morphing' technologie. Unfortunatly till today no one has a clue how you can 'alter' mass which would be a kind of altering it's reality.
(Theoretical you can convert mass into energy (einstein E=m*c^2) but practicly this equals a ireversible complet destroy for our object)

I have read into various UFO reports in the past and an interesting thing is that there are indeed reports that give a hint that UFO's seems to have a technic to 'alter' matter reality and with this most probabily the mass also. They were seen flying through solid mattter. It would make very much sense if extraterestrials visiting earth have such a technologie otherwise it's difficult to see how they could have travel such big distances.

Another possibility instead alreating the mass reality would be using antigravity.
But this is a topic where sience is stuck and declared an antigravity device as impossible (Einstein) . That's something fatal because like the mass the reality of the gravity is not discovered. Einstein states that gravity is simple space time curvariant. But that's a theoretical model, nothing more. Doing forever excluding conclusion from just a model is a fatal fault sientist unfortunatly often do. Forever excluding conclusion you need to know everything of the reality and not just take a model thatfits our actual knowledge.

But that aside Einstein was a genius dont want to smallen his work.



Originally posted by Low Orbit
To me it sounds like each form of Space Propulsion has some advantages. Would a complicated Hybrid Space Shuttle be the best/quickest option for reaching Mars?
Im thinking conventional rockets to get it it out of Earth's orbit then have a combo of a few Ion Drives and a few solar sails to navigate it through space?


Combination of the devices would make sense, yes. And I believe this is seriously considered by the space agencies. But a spacecraft travel to mars will probabily started from the orbit already so the calssic powerfull rocked but fuel vast can be spared except for the landing vehicle on mars.

The ion devices iis economic and predestinated for long space flights but still not that still not that powerfull. (the emittet particle are fast but the strem is small)

I am not sure wether they will go with a solar sail because such a spacecraft has a lot of mass. It's usually more considered for smaller objects like a sonde.

I think what they will trying to do is createing a powerful ion device.

There is another limit for classic space travel and this is the human itself. In best case you can create such a powerfull ion device that you can accelerate your ship with 1 g. (earth acceleration)
That's 9.81m/s. More acceleration is uncomfortable for human when applyed for a longer time.

For traveling to mars this might be ok. But for traveling to the next nighbour star (alpha centaury) somewhat 4 light years away this is a 'pain'.

You need a whole year acceleration with 1g to accelerate your spacecraft close to lightspeed. So a spacetrip to a nighbourstar without altering the mass reality (or using antigravity) will take at least 2 years! (1y acceleration, 1y deceleration).




[edit on 10-5-2006 by g210]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
A follow up question, could we set up CERN, so that when lightning hit it, CERN would store some of the electricity from it?

Is it possible to suspend electricity between magnets?



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Would it be possible, in theory, to have the earth's gravitational pull accelerate anything in an accelerator, if we theoretically build it around the earth in orbit? A bit like the moons slingshot effect?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join