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.
Originally posted by fiftyfifty
Do we need to launch into space at high speed? how about using hydrogen as a light gas to reach the atmosphere, then burning the hydrogen in a controlled way to reach orbit. Im no astronaut but it sounds good to me! how much hydrogen would you need by the way? I know its dangerous but so is rocket fuel. Even if it took a day to reach orbit wouldnt the cost cutting make it worthwhile?
Or am i talking BS...
Originally posted by ArMaP
Originally posted by fiftyfifty
Do we need to launch into space at high speed? how about using hydrogen as a light gas to reach the atmosphere, then burning the hydrogen in a controlled way to reach orbit. Im no astronaut but it sounds good to me! how much hydrogen would you need by the way? I know its dangerous but so is rocket fuel. Even if it took a day to reach orbit wouldnt the cost cutting make it worthwhile?
Or am i talking BS...
We need to achieve "escape velocity", the velocity that an object needs to reach to escape a gravitational field.
At the Earth's surface this speed is 11.2 km/s, and even the rockets that are launched into space are unable to reach that velocity in the atmosphere.
So, they only reach escape velocity when already outside of the atmosphere, so they already do more or less what you talked about, the difference is that if they got out of the atmosphere at low velocity then they will need a stronger acceleration, so they probably are using already the most efficient method.
Originally posted by ArMaP
Originally posted by razor1000
We've been in space now for almost half a century and yet we are still using rockets WTF, when airplanes were invented they evolved overnight.
The first airplanes were made by private individuals making their own research. The making of an airplane was a task that was within the reach of the technology and funds those individuals could get.
The same thing happened with the rockets, the first experiments were made by some people trying something new, but the difference is that a rocket, to be able to transport anything useful, is too expensive to be built by some guy doing research.
Also, airplanes had a good reason to evolve, called World War I. At the time rockets were useless as a weapon, so they did not evolve.
In World War II they were used as a weapon, and todays rockets are just a step over those rockets. Even WWII rockets were too expensive, and they were only built because they could be used in the war.
Also, the Earth's gravity is too strong to use some of the other known propulsion methods.
Also, some of the methods that could be used are really useless because of the acceleration they provoke is too high, like in the Jules Verne story where they are shot from a canon.
Originally posted by razor1000
okay so what you're saying is that its going to take an invasion from outer space or a meateor heading for us to make our tech get a quantum leap
Originally posted by Bhadhidar
It would, in fact, be much more efficient, and desirable, to utilize your precious and limited fuel to achieve the required velocity once your were unencumbered by the viscous effects of the atmosphere; if you could somehow rise above the atmosphere without burning a large portion of your fuel to get there.
Originally posted by Bhadhidar
The "danger" posed by Hydrogen has been seriously over-hyped, in my opinion. Vaporized gasoline is every bit as potentially explosive as hydrogen, yet we depend on it to fuel our vehicles (it's gas vapor that gets injected into the cylinders of the engine, after-all!). Being lighter than air, after all, when ignited, hydrogen will naturally rise as it burns, up, and generally away from, anyone near the ignition point.
Originally posted by razor1000
...for one it would require so much energy to power it that today we dont have that kind of resource, second if they were and they had a runaway we'd all be royally screwed. please set a link to this i'd like to read more about it though.
Originally posted by razor1000
Please set a link to this i'd like to read more about it though.
You can gain kinetic energy through the Penrose process from a Kerr black hole. That would involve dropping to the black hole some ballast in such a way that the kinetic energy of the ballast would be negative. This condition can only be satisfied in the ergoregion and the result would be for the \"space ship\" to gain kinetic energy.
There is a constrain to this process and it has to do with the amount of energy you will try to extract. It shouldn\'t be so grate that would effect the properties of the black hole significantly. In other words the process works in an effectively unperturbed spacetime.
There is also a constrain on the total energy you can extract. You can\'t extract all the energy of the black hole in that process. There is a minimum mass that the black hole can have and that is the irreducible mass as introdused by Christodoulou.
Originally posted by porky1981
as I posted in another thread, I don't think it is wise to put a bunch of uranium/plutonium and other fission products up into space. A re-entry accident would send all of the nuclear material into the atmosphere....so the old saying goes 'don't sh*t in your own backyard..'.
Now, the real question should be...why do we still use cars!?? It has been a hundred years and we still rely on the combustion engine for transportation, etc.., it is pathetic. There are so many patents and ideas out there that are silenced so that outdated technology remains and the companies that rely on them swell with cash....
I can't wait until we get our jetsons cars...
Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Originally posted by razor1000
...for one it would require so much energy to power it that today we dont have that kind of resource, second if they were and they had a runaway we'd all be royally screwed. please set a link to this i'd like to read more about it though.
Hence why such a technology would be considered "still in development."
On top of that, I fail to see how we would be "royally screwed" by this technology if something goes wrong. Quantum black holes are just that, on the quantum level... Not some giant enveloping all matter that comes its way.
Originally posted by QuietSoul
Originally posted by razor1000
Please set a link to this i'd like to read more about it though.
Basic Physics of Black Holes
CERN plans to make Black Holes
More
This method is still very much in it's infancy.. but scienctists beleive they can harness the event horizen (Singularity Propulsion) of a black hole to form Kinetic Energy
I'm not too informed on this research, it's still in "theory".. so it's not even proven
You can gain kinetic energy through the Penrose process from a Kerr black hole. That would involve dropping to the black hole some ballast in such a way that the kinetic energy of the ballast would be negative. This condition can only be satisfied in the ergoregion and the result would be for the \"space ship\" to gain kinetic energy.
There is a constrain to this process and it has to do with the amount of energy you will try to extract. It shouldn\'t be so grate that would effect the properties of the black hole significantly. In other words the process works in an effectively unperturbed spacetime.
There is also a constrain on the total energy you can extract. You can\'t extract all the energy of the black hole in that process. There is a minimum mass that the black hole can have and that is the irreducible mass as introdused by Christodoulou.
www.advancedphysics.org...
Originally posted by Imzadi
What bothers me - 2 things.
1. If we (our government) really got space technology from crashed saucers, then WHY DO WE CONTINUE to send our astronauts in shuttles that are out-of-date?
2. If they really did get info from crashed saucers, then WHY didn't they improve the OUTSIDE COVERINGS of the shuttles? As an ET, the spaceships I have seen had biomechanical coverings. They were not patch jobs, held together with rivets, with problems of FOAM falling off!
Do the astronauts realize that they are being sent up in vehicles which are less safe, just so the public won't know that the government can do better?