ex nasa engineer suggests that there is a propulsion system that can do the distance of Earth to Mar

Simply accelerating at a rate of 9m/sec/sec(1 G) for a couple of months would result in a velocity of over 20 million miles/hour.

reply to post by markygee


Mostly it's due to keeping the public ignorant of the actual capabilities. If the public had access to the tech, it would not be possible for the governments to effectively control the populations. Give the public a dog and pony show and they are happy. Don't think for an instant that the tech isn't used, it is but just not in the publics eye. People see things that they think is from another planet, somethings are not as they appear to be.

This dude had promised the delivery few years ago. Not sure whats the status so far.

COSTA_RICAN_ASTRONAUT

WIKI_LINK

Simple fact of physics: you can't go faster in space than the speed of your exhaled medium - meaning, if the boosters of your solid-fuel-rocket are burning so hot that the particles are leaving your rocket-nozzle with 10.000 m/s, you could accelerate for months and won't be going faster than 10.000 m/s.

Therefore, you need some very fast propulsion medium. Ions, maybe.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
Simply accelerating at a rate of 9m/sec/sec(1 G) for a couple of months would result in a velocity of over 20 million miles/hour.

10 days, 13 hours

also coming from a non-sciency background, could the constant acceleration be used to overcome the detrimental effects weightlessness?

reply to post by Lizardbrain


Check out this handy PDF regardng constant acceleration. You could be at Mars in say 2-5 days depending on then actual distance you need to travel.

Or roughly using average distances:
Earth to Mercury in 70 hrs at 1g (2 days, 3 hours)
Earth to Venus in 73 hrs at 1g (3 days, 1 hour)
Earth to Luna in 3.5 hrs at 1g (3 hours, 29 Minutes)
Earth to Jupiter in 158 hrs at 1g (6 days, 14 hours)
Earth to Saturn in 213 hrs at 1g (8 days, 21 hours)
Earth to Uranus in 307 hrs at 1g (12 days, 19 hours)
Earth to Neptune in 376 hrs at 1g (15 days, 16 hours)
Earth to Pluto in 431 hrs at 1g (17 days, 23 hours)

As far as I know we don't know how to achieve this acceleration although there are glimmers and it does at least see possible for my money what we really lack is energy storage

reply to post by ManFromEurope


The speed of your exhaled medium relative to local space is added to your current velocity.

Application of a force to a mass will result in acceleration, no matter the apparent relative velocity.

reply to post by iforget


It's not just about velocity, it's about acceleration. In order to maintain similar gravity conditions as on earth, the acceleration should be 1g or roughly 33 ft/sec/sec. That will allow travelers to retain bone mass and have normal digestive/circulatory functions. One would accelerate at 1g to a midway point, reverse the ship and decelerate the remaining distance at 1g.

There is a small (2hp/1500w) multiphase inertial engine design that would accommodate a reasonable 3g acceleration rate, however, this obviously has to be scaled up for a larger ship and payload mass. I worked out the energy requirements back in 1997 for a university and it appeared we could get 3g in a two ton vehicle with a small reactor producing less than 100kw and travel time to mars was about 2 weeks using an acceleration/deceleration cycle. I used to love doing this work and the modelling of the physics and building the prototypes.

However, the greatest problem when traveling at the velocities produced by a constant 1g acceleration is that particles become like missiles. If you are traveling at 400kps (or any high velocity) and you contact dust and small particles in space, they will be hitting your vehicle at probably the speed you are traveling or greater. It would be like sandpaper in space for the smaller bits and bullets for the rest of the larger bits.

So to summarize, acceleration is not the problem and neither is velocity, it's all about the debris in our path on the way to where we are going. It wouldn't help at all if you got halfway there only to have crew or reactor or some other important part like the a hull breach, taken out by a micro-meteor traveling at 250,000 feet per second. If someone were to come up with a way to move particles out of the way at nearly the speed of light, I think you would see realistic space travel in six months to a year as the technology exists and is not that expensive apart from the reactor.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by pstrron
reply to post by markygee

 

Mostly it's due to keeping the public ignorant of the actual capabilities. If the public had access to the tech, it would not be possible for the governments to effectively control the populations. Give the public a dog and pony show and they are happy. Don't think for an instant that the tech isn't used, it is but just not in the publics eye. People see things that they think is from another planet, somethings are not as they appear to be.

Man I would love to see the gadgets and toys they are using behind the scenes. There must be a way of getting a snippet of info to look at? What about the small military shuttle vehicle that was in the mainstream media last year? For now is that as close as we get?

Originally posted by markygee

If in space they can travel at 25000 mph with no obvious physical effect on the human body then at what speed could they theoretically travel upto before there are physical implications on the human body?

The human body doesn't care what speed it is travelling at. Acceleration is where there are difficulties.

Originally posted by markygee
So why don't they stop messing with with the big fireworks and upgrade to new tech and set some new goals not keep chasing goals from the 1960's with 1960's rockets?

Because they have to keep perpetuating the lie that this is the best we have. NASA is what some consider the white face of the black world. What they do is in the public realm. Going fast requires a more efficient propulsion and energy system, and of course if you want to keep people under control you have to convince the world that there is nothing better. Advanced propulsion systems are reserved for the military, and are held under the highest of secrecy. Advanced energy systems could be used to solve the worlds energy needs, and you can't have that if you want to control and dominate them. Using canons for engines, and blowing the fuel out your tail pipe makes too much money.

As former director of lockheed, Ben Rich said, “We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects, and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do.”

As former director of lockheed, Ben Rich said, “We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects, and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do.”

I love this quote but isnt it only alleged that this was said?

maybe thats why they got shut down? useally happens when people in the complex are on a break through, then it goes all black project, may we will see it in 30-60 years

the problem really isn't a speed issue,its a g force issue.If you were strapped to a bullet,or a capsule that accelerated as fast as one,they'd have to clean up the goo of your body with a sponge off the back! You need a somewhat slow acceleration,then a slow deceleration so you won't fly by the planet.A g force of 2.0 would let you live,but not move too much.

Could they make a Fusion reactor like ITER that could supply power and provide thrust I wonder? It would have the magnetic shielding tech that could be expanded to produce a shield from external radiation too...

What ever happened to pursuing the NERVA program in the 50's and 60's. Surely this research was followed up it would have been to important to forget about, i know there were a lot of concerns about nuclear propulsion in space but surely it wasnt shelved just for that reason

en.wikipedia.org...

I would think the problem is if they do have high speed spacecraft engines available is how to protect the spacecraft and it's occupants against space junk. You could go a thousand or 2 thousand miles a second but the problem is if you just hit a speck of dust at that speed it's going to go through the spacecraft like a bullet through a tin can and leave a entrance and exit hole. And with the speed and distance involved you would probably have just wreckage at the end of the journey.

What you would need is either a Star Trek force field that would destroy or deflect the space junk as you traveled or a hyperspace system like in Star Wars where you actually slip into another dimension for the high speed travel.

Matrl to build ships: 2" Graphen sheets,
electrified to burn of micrometeors.

Black Projects you say?

www.info-quest.org...

I'm currently working with a couple of engineers building our own gravitor. After a few simple tests, we were able to make a 3lb device loose 1/2 half of it's weight using around 14 KV. After reversing polarity we also got 1 1/2 lbs of downward force. We where able to produce these results multiple times until we fried our power supply. Also had some arching issues so we have had to regroup. Our final device should come close to 15lbs, can't wait to see the results from that. This is in no way ionic wind. I wonder what one million KV would accomplish?

Pladuim