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.

 

Space Navy?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vekar. On the whole battles would take place closer than most would think because of the TIME it takes a shot to REACH that target miles away... If your 100 miles away you have TIME to move around and dodge,


Light moves at 186,000 miles per second. I don't think you'rer gonna be dodging very far in 1/1860th of a second.


Originally posted by Vekar As far as humans, you would HAVE to have humans INSIDE the ship...It is better to have someone ONBOARD and SITTING there with a joystick acting ON THE SPOT


Things are going to be much too fast for humans to be able to deal with them. It will all be automated.


Originally posted by Vekar
Hit 25x the speed of light and we might actually make it to Alpha Centari before hitting 50,000 years of age.


You can't go faster than light as far as anyone knows. Alpha Centauri is only about 4 light years away, but there doesn't seem to be anything interesting there anyway.




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Wembley you missed my point, we do not have light speed weapons, since when have we had them? Also I tought you just said we cannot as far as anyone knows... hmmm you just contradicted yourself. Also, I have a feeling from your statements you are not an adventerous person, I am. Frankly I would have my own reaction over a machine ANYDAY ANYTIME ANYWHERE. Trying to replace humans with machines will only harm our society in this way, besides to send people into space and go places is to increase their minds and to create realization of just how puny you are in the infinate vaccume of space.
As for dodging, since we do not have light speed weapons, from 100's of miles you COULD dodge a shot. Besides our ships are not hulking behemoths, they are itty bitty gnats in space.
I would like to see alpha centauri, why? Because it is there, I like to see places I have never seen before, and when it comes to space, I would rather be looking out a window of a spaceship and back on earth looking at a picture.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   
The wormhole would be a good system, but I heard that a wormhole is too dangerous because it can destroy the universe.

My source of where I got that information was not a very good one, but it wasn't the internet.

[edit on 3-3-2007 by wildcat]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat
The wormhole would be a good system, but I heard that a wormhole is too dangerous because it can destroy the universe.

My source of where I got that information was not a very good one, but it wasn't the internet.

[edit on 3-3-2007 by wildcat]

I'm curious as to how one comes to this conclusion.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Actually the possibilities once we are in space and on the moon and gain more hints too the universe workings are endless. It may be impossible for us to travel beyond light speed at this time unless dampening shield technology is around. I hear that when slowing from light to suborbital speeds there is an astronomical decrease in speed and forces and would destroy anything loosely constructed ie Humans. But who knows as weve never come close yet.
If for anything esle we could use a space Navy of some type for repairs and support of sattelites,space station and also for the supply and support of the envisioned NASA moon base. And it'd be great to have something to divert or destroy those pesky asteroids that get ever so close to immenent impact.
What good is everything on earth weapons wise when a 1/2 mile diameter asteroid could level almost all of human society and then some?
Weve needed a space Navy for one thing or another since we first went up and even more so now.
Great discussion.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RazorFang
hi people these ideas that might be created in the future or maybe not] GRAVITY TANKS space marines space ships Around earth for protection Laser cannons space stations Drop pods maybe a new secret goverment that protects earth and makes new Technology


Looks like someone has been playing too much Halo


But anyways, I think all that would be needed for Spaceships if they ever were to become great "Ships" of space, would be some Highpower Penetrating Rocket or Projectile, such a Magneticly Propelled Projectile (Ie: Rail gun). Basically, something that could peirce the hull and create a big enough hole, would cause an explosive decompression, and voilla, you have your ship killer. Extremlly Over-simplified.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I thin we're literally getting 'ahead of ourselves' here..

Light speed?
Not for another 100 years thankyou..

The boundaries of this conjecture are purely limited to the Sol System.
Infact I'd say limited to the Asteroid belt and within



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Lets take this one step by step. But before lets assume this Space Navy has the budget of a United Earth behind it and this is set say 20 years from now...so no Warp Engines, no faster than light capability, no Quantum Torpedoes etc...

1) Space NAVY: meaning first of all these will be military craft with defense as the priority rather than simply speculating about cool ships

2) Correct me if I'm wrong but out in space with no atmosphere or medium to have to push through, then conventional aerodynamic shapes are no longer relevant. Therefore creating much more freedom in the platform design.

3) Its a lot easier to launch from space than from earth (no need for in-atmosphere capability lessens energy, design and propulsion needs). So we would need launch platforms and bases
3a: Orbital Launch Platforms (akin to Carriers but without being mobile itself)
3b: The Orbital Platforms would need defense capability-rather than putting the defenses on the platform itself i think having a system of smaller orbiting platforms surrounding the launch platform dedicated to weapons would work best, creating a sort of shield of intercepting weapons (kinetic kill weapons probably like the tungsten rod launchers being talked about now).
3c: Some sort of tesla based weapons also seems feasible.
3d: A floating mine field. Hopefully with some sort of stealth of cloak tech

4) The ships or fighters themselves would have to have a propulsion system and powerplant much better than current for them to even be useful.
4b: I truly believe that on top of promising tech that we hear about that we have advanced tech for a long time already including some sort of electro-gravitic drive system and either we perfect helium 3 fusion technology for power or we have something more exotic.
4b: the ships weapons would include kinetic kill projectiles (perhaps fired with rail gun tech) because it doesnt take huge power like energy based weapons and hardened rounds like tungsten "rods from god" have enormous power at high speeds without needing any explosive effect. And if we have perfected tesla death ray tech or more efficient lasers than of course those too.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Or_Die_Trying
lets assume this Space Navy has the budget of a United Earth behind it


When we have a united earth, we will no longer need navies or any other armed forces.



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   
SPACE NAVY ??? SPACE FLEET ????

CHECK OUT THE SOVIET SPACE FLEET OF 2300 A.D MAN




From Largest to smallest - D-1283 (The Admiral Pedorin), P-319 (The New-Omsk), D-4327 (The Admiral Igor), and P-233 (The Severodinsk). The vessels are depicted near a newly discovered comet close to KBO object Pluto; upon matching velocity, the ships manuever to avoid the dangerous "Coma", or "Tail" of the Comet.

---


[edit on 24-4-2007 by vK_man]



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   
ANOTHER ONE:





An Soviet Akula-Class starship of the Diemos fleet, Prowling the outer systems in search of prey
---


A fearsome battlefleet of Soviet starships and fighters departs Phobos spaceport on a mission to strike deep into Allied Territory

[edit on 24-4-2007 by vK_man]

[edit on 24-4-2007 by vK_man]

[edit on 24-4-2007 by vK_man]



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   
I support the idea of focusing on the next 20 years. We need reasonable projects which can be built with forseeable technology.
I think we need a few different classes of ships.
-Freighters: For transpoertation of Helium-3 or resources from Mars or Ganymede... .
-Mining Ships: For building resource mines on moons and planets (for now on Mars, later the "second earth system recently discovered should offer virtually infinite resources).
-Destroyers: Small, fast ships that can be built realtively cheap.
-Battleships and/or carriers.
-Cruisers
-...?
The biggest problem for now is to bring the materials for shipbuilding into space. Rockets are too expensive, maybe huge Railguns fueled by fusion reactors?



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaSeitz
I support the idea of focusing on the next 20 years. We need reasonable projects which can be built with forseeable technology.
I think we need a few different classes of ships.
-Freighters: For transpoertation of Helium-3 or resources from Mars or Ganymede... .
-Mining Ships: For building resource mines on moons and planets (for now on Mars, later the "second earth system recently discovered should offer virtually infinite resources).
-Destroyers: Small, fast ships that can be built realtively cheap.
-Battleships and/or carriers.
-Cruisers
-...?
The biggest problem for now is to bring the materials for shipbuilding into space. Rockets are too expensive, maybe huge Railguns fueled by fusion reactors?




The biggest problem for now is to bring the materials for shipbuilding into space. Rockets are too expensive, maybe huge Railguns fueled by fusion reactors?

a much larger version of AYAKS aeropace vessel type vehicle would reduce the costs of transporating helium -3 from the moon ...

ayaks is capable of carrying 7 ton payload from what i know , and if it is provided ion thrusters , it will be useful and cost effective in interplanetary mode... it has a nuclear MHD propulsion, that is tis powered by reactor, capable of powering a medium sized city , according to colonel Ivan krutov



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I am a bit sceptical about Interrupts (Krutovs) claims. The problem of cooling a nuclear reactor in space is huge and as long as no one presents me a detailed study on the technical foundation of reactor cooling in space I have a hard time beliefing these features of AYAKS. 7 tons payload sound reasonable but is too small in relation to the weight of the vessel. I doubt it is cost effective for larger projects in space. Energiia announced they are working on a system for Helium-3 mining on the moon a while ago, but that won't make the transportation of starship parts (into space) cheaper.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by DaSeitz]



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaSeitz
I am a bit sceptical about Interrupts (Krutovs) claims. The problem of cooling a nuclear reactor in space is huge and as long as no one presents me a detailed study on the technical foundation of reactor cooling in space I have a hard time beliefing these features of AYAKS. 7 tons payload sound reasonable but is too small in relation to the weight of the vessel. I doubt it is cost effective for larger projects in space. Energiia announced they are working on a system for Helium-3 mining on the moon a while ago, but that won't make the transportation of starship parts (into space) cheaper.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by DaSeitz]





I am a bit sceptical about Interrupts (Krutovs) claims. The problem of cooling a nuclear reactor in space is huge and as long as no one presents me a detailed study on the technical foundation of reactor cooling in space


well, i am not sceptical , because soviets did use low power fission reactors in space , like topaz reactor



Between 1967 and 1988 the former Soviet Union launched 31 low-powered fission reactors in Radar Ocean Reconnaissance Satellites (RORSATs) on Cosmos missions. They utilised thermoelectric converters to produce electricity, as with the RTGs. Romashka reactors were their initial nuclear power source, a fast spectrum graphite reactor with 90%-enriched uranium carbide fuel operating at high temperature. Then the Bouk fast reactor produced 3 kW for up to 4 months. Later reactors, such as on Cosmos-954 which re-entered over Canada in 1978, had U-Mo fuel rods and a layout similar to the US heatpipe reactors described below.

These were followed by the Topaz reactors with thermionic conversion systems, generating about 5 kWe of electricity for on-board uses. This was a US idea developed during the 1960s in Russia. In Topaz-2 each fuel pin (96% enriched UO2) sheathed in an emitter is surrounded by a collector and these form the 37 fuel elements which penetrate the cylindrical ZrH moderator. This in turn is surrounded by a beryllium neutron reflector with 12 rotating control drums in it. NaK coolant surrounds each fuel element.
www.uic.com.au...





In 1987 two experimental Plazma-A satellites (Cosmos 1818 and 1867) were launched with new-generation Topaz reactors. The spacecraft used the US-A first generation bus but tested new on-board systems being developed for the US-AM. These included new elements of the orientation system, and ion engines.
Use of a new high radiation-safety orbit was also demonstrated. The Topaz used a new thermo-emission conversion method to convert heat to electricity. This would also power a range of new systems including electrostatic manoeuvring engines, ion orientation/stabilisation engines, solar sensors, magnetic momentum compensators, multi-channel wave devices, and special plasma weapons to provide a defence against anti-satellite weapons. The Plazma-A satellites carried instruments to map the magnetic field of the earth, with an eye toward developing a magnetic navigation system. Topaz provided over 10 kW of power and had long endurance and storage in a radiation-safe orbit. A follow-on Plazma-2 would have been equipped with the even safer Topaz-2. The spacecraft would be orbited by a Tsyklon 2 booster and have a mass of 3550 kg. Despite these encouraging tests, the US-AM nuclear-powered component of the Pirs system was abandoned on the instructions of Gorbachev in 1988 due to continued reliability problems and international incidents when the reactor cores of the satellites crashed to the earth.
www.astronautix.com...





. 7 tons payload sound reasonable but is too small in relation to the weight of the vessel. I doubt it is cost effective for larger projects in space. Energiia announced they are working on a system for Helium-3 mining on the moon a while ago, but that won't make the transportation of starship parts (into space) cheaper.


i said a larger version of ayaks capable of carrying a larger payload not 7 ton prototype

[edit on 28-4-2007 by vK_man]



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
continued...




DoE staff also participated in an interagency technical working group on space reactor systems sponsored by the Defense Nuclear Agency to review its Topaz International Program. This program is centered on a thermionic space power system developed in the former Soviet Union, called the Topaz II. Unlike RTG's, the Topaz reactor has moving parts like a ground nuclear powerplant. At the component level, under the DoE-managed 40-kilowatt (of electric power) thermionic space reactor program, technicians completed the initial evaluation of a single-cell thermionic fuel element that is to double the power of past designs. At the basic research level, work continued on the cesium effects on bulk and surface conductivity of seal insulators and collector sheath insulators and the cesium plasma erosion of interelectrode gap ceramic spacers.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
continued...




DoE staff also participated in an interagency technical working group on space reactor systems sponsored by the Defense Nuclear Agency to review its Topaz International Program. This program is centered on a thermionic space power system developed in the former Soviet Union, called the Topaz II. Unlike RTG's, the Topaz reactor has moving parts like a ground nuclear powerplant. At the component level, under the DoE-managed 40-kilowatt (of electric power) thermionic space reactor program, technicians completed the initial evaluation of a single-cell thermionic fuel element that is to double the power of past designs. At the basic research level, work continued on the cesium effects on bulk and surface conductivity of seal insulators and collector sheath insulators and the cesium plasma erosion of interelectrode gap ceramic spacers.
www.hq.nasa.gov...


usa also purchased topaz reactor in 1991:



US buys Soviet 'hot metal' reactor
19 January 1991


The US government is planning to buy a small Soviet nuclear reactor that was built to power satellites in space. Scientists from four laboratories near Albuquerque, New Mexico, will test the reactor, which is known as Topaz II.

The US has been trying to build its own space reactor, called the SP-100, which would be much more powerful than the Topaz reactor. But the SP-100's 'great disadvantage is that it doesn't exist', says Steve Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists.

The US has no plans to use a small nuclear reactor in space, but scientists want to study the reactor's construction. Last May, American scientists visited the laboratories in the Soviet Union where the Topaz II was designed. They reported that Soviet scientists had made remarkable progress in constructing materials that are capable of withstanding the extreme temperatures inside the reactor. 'It is clear that the Soviets are far ahead of us in the space nuclear power technical area,' said one of the visiting Americans.

The Soviet reactor turns its heat into electricity using a 'thermionic' process. In this process, an extremely hot metal surface is held close to a much colder one, and electrons effectively boil off the hot surface onto the cold one. This design involves subjecting metals to temperatures of up to 1800 kelvin.

www.newscientist.com...


[edit on 28-4-2007 by vK_man]

[edit on 28-4-2007 by vK_man]



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
As I understand this the Topaz "reactor" is no reactor but a radioisotope system which uses a peltier element to transform heat into energy?



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaSeitz
As I understand this the Topaz "reactor" is no reactor but a radioisotope system which uses a peltier element to transform heat into energy?


no , topaz is a lightweight low fission nuke reACTOR that uses a thermonic system ,
(not a radioisotope system)
pls read :
en.wikipedia.org...




Topaz Nuclear Reactor, a series of lightweight nuclear reactors flown in space by the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. Used to power radar transmitters on the Rorsat series of reconnaissance satellites[1].
en.wikipedia.org...

RTG list:
en.wikipedia.org...
and topaz is not a RTG ,its a low fision reactor,



Unlike RTG's, the Topaz reactor has moving parts like a ground nuclear powerplant. At the component level, under the DoE-managed 40-kilowatt (of electric power) thermionic space reactor program
www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
But still, this type of reactor would be suitable only for propulsion in space, not for lifting things into orbit?
Would you agree that Railguns/mass drivers are the best method to transport static things into space? (Humans would not survive the acceleration)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join