Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RadtheCad]

On a side note, I've always found our current methods of traversing space rather depressing.  They're very clever, and orbital maneuvers have a beautiful elegance to them, but the rocket equation...  That thing is always what gets me.  The fact that we have no quick way of propelling ourselves in a vacuum that doesn't rely on chemical fuel seems so limiting.

Oh, well.  I guess we all need to try and do our bit for science (and !!SCIENCE!!) to help develop better ways of getting around.

[10ebbor10]

Heavy water is not the limiting reagent for fusion energy though. Both tritium and He-3 are far rarer.

[LordBaal]

On a side note, I've always found our current methods of traversing space rather depressing.  They're very clever, and orbital maneuvers have a beautiful elegance to them, but the rocket equation...  That thing is always what gets me.  The fact that we have no quick way of propelling ourselves in a vacuum that doesn't rely on chemical fuel seems so limiting.

Oh, well.  I guess we all need to try and do our bit for science (and !!SCIENCE!!) to help develop better ways of getting around.

This gets on my nerves too. Sadly our current technology doesn't really offer more options. Space elevators won't be a thing here unless a huge breakthrough is made on material technology. The only really other option is nuclear propulsion and the UN and a bunch of smelly grass-smoking hippies took care we didn't take that way. Beyond the clear danger of radioactive showers if the ship exploded at the right altitude, there's no thing as "contaminate the space" which seems a far too recurrent and ignorant phrase spewed by after mentioned, waste of organic matter, stinky tree huggers.

[MonkeyHead]

So, can anyone else think of a good reason as to why we could not or should not "cheat" by letting craft "surf" along with comets to get things to the outer solar system? Yeah it may take a while, but there would be a lot less in terms of fuel requirements...

Ideas? Discuss...

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Would that mess up the comets path?
Adding an extra weight to it, or would it just slow it down but not mess with it too much?

[10ebbor10]

Pretty sure that letting crafts surf around with comets just doesn't work. I mean, in order to catch the comet you have to match speed and velocity, so the existence of the comet has no relevance whatsoever.

Sure, you can try gravity assists, but those work better with significant forces of gravity, ak planets, not comets. Chances are you're going to waste more fuel getting into the right position than you could ever hope to save.

Would that mess up the comets path?
Adding an extra weight to it, or would it just slow it down but not mess with it too much?

Depends on the relative mass of the comet and the probe.

[mainiac]

However the question is, what could be imported from there?

Food probably.  Sounds a bit daft to fly all the way to Mars to grow rice but Mars would be useful to export to places that aren't Earth.  You have the CO2 and H2O that are the bulk of the atomic mass of what you need there.  The Thing atmosphere, lighter gravity and greater distance from the sun means that it's less work to deliver a payload to somewhere in the solar system.  So if there is some viable industry in space in the future like space based solar power systems getting built with non-earth materials you could use mars to supply that industry with food.

[PTTG??]

The really disappointing thing about space travel is that if we'd had pursued it as aggressively as the Europeans pursued the new world, we'd already have massive, slave-filled sugar plantations on the moon by now.

[LordBaal]

Nah, it seems it's much more vital to the survival of mankind to keep making reality tv and killing each other over such important things as fucking drawings or papers with numbers on them.

[nogoodnames]

So, can anyone else think of a good reason as to why we could not or should not "cheat" by letting craft "surf" along with comets to get things to the outer solar system? Yeah it may take a while, but there would be a lot less in terms of fuel requirements...

As others have said, that wouldn't work because you still need to provide all the energy required to put you on the same orbit as the comet. You wouldn't gain anything unless you were to mine the comet en-route. But I have heard of a rather brilliant idea similar to this. Essentially, you would send up a habitation module with all the bulky life support, radiation shielding, etc. needed for interplanetary travel and put it into an orbit that crosses between Earth and wherever you want to go. Then you just need a craft that can carry crew to rendezvous with the habitat and break away and get into orbit at their destination. By reusing the habitat, successive missions would cost only a fraction of more "conventional" manned interplanetary missions. It has a few drawbacks of course, but there aren't many more efficient methods we can feasibly use in the near future.

[WillowLuman]

On a side note, I've always found our current methods of traversing space rather depressing.  They're very clever, and orbital maneuvers have a beautiful elegance to them, but the rocket equation...  That thing is always what gets me.  The fact that we have no quick way of propelling ourselves in a vacuum that doesn't rely on chemical fuel seems so limiting.

Oh, well.  I guess we all need to try and do our bit for science (and !!SCIENCE!!) to help develop better ways of getting around.

This gets on my nerves too. Sadly our current technology doesn't really offer more options. Space elevators won't be a thing here unless a huge breakthrough is made on material technology. The only really other option is nuclear propulsion and the UN and a bunch of smelly grass-smoking hippies took care we didn't take that way. Beyond the clear danger of radioactive showers if the ship exploded at the right altitude, there's no thing as "contaminate the space" which seems a far too recurrent and ignorant phrase spewed by after mentioned, waste of organic matter, stinky tree huggers.

Radioactive showers are a big problem if you launch on or near the planet. The ship doesn't need to structurally fail to produce the consequences of explosions, because said explosions are its means of propulsion. The vast amount of nuclear detonations would still produce all the ionizing radiation and irradiated gas that nuclear bombs normally produce, not to mention constant EMPs. Your best bet would be getting craploads of nukes into space and then assembling the thing in lunar orbit or further, which isn't going to happen until people can trust each other not to throw said nukes back at Earth.

However the question is, what could be imported from there?

Food probably.  Sounds a bit daft to fly all the way to Mars to grow rice but Mars would be useful to export to places that aren't Earth.  You have the CO2 and H2O that are the bulk of the atomic mass of what you need there.  The Thing atmosphere, lighter gravity and greater distance from the sun means that it's less work to deliver a payload to somewhere in the solar system.  So if there is some viable industry in space in the future like space based solar power systems getting built with non-earth materials you could use mars to supply that industry with food.

No colony can last if it relies on food shipped from interplanetary distances. We need to learn to grow food in space, in which case the chemicals needed to set up a farm ecosystem would be good exports.

[MonkeyHead]

So, can anyone else think of a good reason as to why we could not or should not "cheat" by letting craft "surf" along with comets to get things to the outer solar system? Yeah it may take a while, but there would be a lot less in terms of fuel requirements...

As others have said, that wouldn't work because you still need to provide all the energy required to put you on the same orbit as the comet. You wouldn't gain anything unless you were to mine the comet en-route. But I have heard of a rather brilliant idea similar to this. Essentially, you would send up a habitation module with all the bulky life support, radiation shielding, etc. needed for interplanetary travel and put it into an orbit that crosses between Earth and wherever you want to go. Then you just need a craft that can carry crew to rendezvous with the habitat and break away and get into orbit at their destination. By reusing the habitat, successive missions would cost only a fraction of more "conventional" manned interplanetary missions. It has a few drawbacks of course, but there aren't many more efficient methods we can feasibly use in the near future.

I had imagined a process more to be like a probe having enough fuel to land on a comet Philae style, and then ride the comet further out before disengaging later, and not really "orbiting" it while getting where you wanted to go - though, as said, this would still require speed matching with the comet to achieve anything resembling a practial landing, meaning you could use that velocity to go where you wanted anyway.

[10ebbor10]

On a side note, I've always found our current methods of traversing space rather depressing.  They're very clever, and orbital maneuvers have a beautiful elegance to them, but the rocket equation...  That thing is always what gets me.  The fact that we have no quick way of propelling ourselves in a vacuum that doesn't rely on chemical fuel seems so limiting.

Oh, well.  I guess we all need to try and do our bit for science (and !!SCIENCE!!) to help develop better ways of getting around.

This gets on my nerves too. Sadly our current technology doesn't really offer more options. Space elevators won't be a thing here unless a huge breakthrough is made on material technology. The only really other option is nuclear propulsion and the UN and a bunch of smelly grass-smoking hippies took care we didn't take that way. Beyond the clear danger of radioactive showers if the ship exploded at the right altitude, there's no thing as "contaminate the space" which seems a far too recurrent and ignorant phrase spewed by after mentioned, waste of organic matter, stinky tree huggers.

Radioactive showers are a big problem if you launch on or near the planet. The ship doesn't need to structurally fail to produce the consequences of explosions, because said explosions are its means of propulsion. The vast amount of nuclear detonations would still produce all the ionizing radiation and irradiated gas that nuclear bombs normally produce, not to mention constant EMPs. Your best bet would be getting craploads of nukes into space and then assembling the thing in lunar orbit or further, which isn't going to happen until people can trust each other not to throw said nukes back at Earth.

Pretty sure he wasn't talking about Orion drives, but a nuclear thermal engine.

[monkey]

Food probably.  Sounds a bit daft to fly all the way to Mars to grow rice but Mars would be useful to export to places that aren't Earth.  You have the CO2 and H2O that are the bulk of the atomic mass of what you need there.  The Thing atmosphere, lighter gravity and greater distance from the sun means that it's less work to deliver a payload to somewhere in the solar system.  So if there is some viable industry in space in the future like space based solar power systems getting built with non-earth materials you could use mars to supply that industry with food.

Problem with Mars is that it has no nitrogen, even if someone activates the ancient alien pyramid and made the pure oxygen atmosphere from all the ice (and it didnt spontaneously combust), we wont be able to grow any plants. On Earth we have almost 1 bar of N and still most of the fertilizers that we put in the soil are there just to add more nitrogen.

I think that Venus should be easier, if in the next couple of centuries someone were to invent a grey goo that transform all the CO2 into a solid, we would have a 3bar atmosphere of pure nitrogen and the heat would dissipate with the CO2. Problem with Venus is that it has no water/hydrogen, so it should have to be renamed as Arrakis.

[LordBaal]

Specifically I was thinking on the Minerva project.