Acceleration, page 1


Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 13-6-2004 @ 03:19 AM by amantine
That is quite difficult, because special relativity and accelerated observers requires a lot of math to solve. This site (Baez' site is really great!) has an explanation which contains this formula:

t = c/a arccos ( a*d/c^2 + 1)

where c is the speed of light, a the acceleration, d the distance in the earth frame and t the time of those inside the spaceship.

Because we accelerate half the way, for us the formula becomes:

t = 2*c/a arccos ( a*1/2*d/c^2 + 1)

t = 2*300*10^5 arccos( 10*1/2*40,5*10^15/ (300*10^6)^2 + 1)

This gives you a time of 110834765 seconds or 1282,8 days or 3,51 years.

[edit on 13-6-2004 by amantine]



reply posted on 13-6-2004 @ 04:08 AM by PurdueNuc
The folks from the Advanced Propulsion Technology Group at JPL have put together a great site discussing the many forms of propulsion: www.islandone.org...

As Amantine said, ion engines are very promising. However, scaling them up is proving rather difficult. Fusion and antimatter is probably the most promising. A friend of mine just did his master's thesis on using Antimatter-Catalyzed Micro-Fission/Fusion (ACMF) for a manned mission to mars. Fuel is typically the limiting factor for deep-space missions (theoretical, of course), but the mass of the pellets used for ACMF is negligible, meaning you're now limited by human factors, the most prominent being radiation.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Hubble\'s Hidden Treasures - Incredible views of the Universe
  Posted 17 days ago with 40 member flags
Mars curiosity Sol2 Anomalies
  Posted 11 days ago with 22 member flags
Curiosity Just Went Through Mud?
  Posted 0 days ago with 22 member flags
Mars: Fears Curiosity Will Contaminate Planet
  Posted 1 days ago with 21 member flags
Milky Way in detail.
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags
Went to the moon, we never went, was scared off, still going!?
  Posted 15 days ago with 11 member flags