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 earth2
Why couldnt we use a nuclear engine on a probe and send it to an interstellar earth like planet? I think if it had about 100,000 mph acceleration it would reach light speed in about a year or so. And would get faster and faster as long as it had fuel. Is that possible?
Maybe send all necesary supplies and instructions for return trip so the aliens can send a message back.
Originally posted by greatlakes
E=mc² is the limiter with your idea of a nuclear rocket, or any other fuel source that we now have knowledge of...As a craft approaches the speed of light, its mass and thus the amount of fuel it would take to increase its velocity, approaches infinity. Its like closing the distance between you and the other side of the street if you keep halving the distance with each step, the first step you take, you're half way there, then the next, 1/4 way to go...but as you halve the rest of the steps, it approaches infinity to reach the other side.
"The energy you get from the anti-particle particle annihilation is about ten billion times that of chemical combustion,"
Originally posted by earth2
I think if it had about 100,000 mph acceleration it would reach light speed in about a year or so. And would get faster and faster as long as it had fuel. Is that possible?
Originally posted by Now_Then
Originally posted by earth2
I think if it had about 100,000 mph acceleration it would reach light speed in about a year or so. And would get faster and faster as long as it had fuel. Is that possible?
According to Einstein there is not enough energy in the entire universe to propel a craft beyond the speed of light.
Let us say you have an object about the size of a space shuttle and you want to send it to Alpha Centauri at a rate of speed that it will arrive there in 900 years.
nuclear fission? Well, that might work, but you would need a fuel tank the size of one billion supertankers.
fusion, it provides more energy, right? Yes, it does, but you would still need a thousand supertanker sized fuel tanks to transport you there on time.
Ion engines? Those, too, would work, but you would still need ten railroad cars worth of fuel to get there.
To send a shuttle sized object on a 50 year, one-way trip to Alpha Centauri, it would take more than 7 x 1019 Joules of energy. This is approximately the same amount as if the space shuttle engines were to be run constantly for 50 years.
The main problem with current propulsion is the enormous amounts of energy needed to attain such high speeds, especially for long periods of travel time. If you were to convert energy directly into motion, it would still take tremendous amounts of energy to create the motion necessary for interstellar travel.
Originally posted by earth2
nowthen, I have a hard time figuring all that out but the way I think is if you are coasting through space at 100,000 mph and then turn on the rockets again wouldnt you start accelerating again as if you were standing still since space is a vacuum? Wouldnt you gain speed increasingly as long as you had fuel?
I dont understand the einstein theory in that area because using common sense it seems there would be no end to your speed as long as there is fuel.