Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Ruminations On Propulsion
Lumenlab > Community Interests > Mad Science
weldonjb
Kind of a two parter here.

First, I am somewhat melancholy that after years of review of materials related to Asymmetical Capacitor Thrust (ala T Townsend Brown), that NASA's research into that subject utilizing a vacuum eliminates any use of it as a space thrust mechanism. Weak atmospheric uses, but won't work without ions to toss around.

Second, I just had a odd thought. Practicality aside, let us take a mental exercise walk. What would happen if one attached an amazingly long hig-tensile strength to basically a hook, and shot it at the moon with precision to catch on a receiver socket. With precise timing, we attach a payload to the far end (orbit?), and allow it to climb "up" with ratchets all the way to the moon. Delta V would be transferred along the cable to the moon as a mass sink. Of course, I can't imagine on how to calculate the force applied by the changing vectors (orbit of the payload, orbit of the moon around the earth, etc.)

It would likely be a one use thing from each direction, but by placing the propulsion (launcher) off the vehicle, reuse and payload both go up. Course, it would only work with a nearby mass to "pull" up on, and you would eventually deflect the moon's orbit with enough payloads of size.

I love this kind of stuff. smile.gif
Durachko
You on the arocket list?
weldonjb
QUOTE (Durachko @ Jan 16 2007, 08:53 AM) *
You on the arocket list?


*blink* Not even sure what that is. Sounds like the thing that sends enlargement notices to my mail box. hehe laugh.gif
Durachko
Heh! Private email list dealing with rocketry.
ShiNoKaze
Well the moon varies in distance to the earth right? So if you could hook on to it, just hook on when closest and stay hooked on till at the farthest. Odd's are the distance difference is enough to get out of Earth's atmosphere/gravitational pull. Though I have no idea.
arcadefreaque
I don't think that you even need to attach to the moon. Any object far enough outside the earth's atmosphere (in orbit) would provide sufficient means to pull a mass outside of the earth's atmosphere. There have, for years, been discussions regarding "elevators" to do this. I believe there are at least 1 or 2 ongoing projects working with nano materials in order to develop a strong enough - yet light enough material to use for such a venture.
ShiNoKaze
Yeah I always kinda dug the Space Elevator stuff. I think the way to go is a bigass coilgun and shoot stuff up there with energy stored up with wind and sun. That's how I'll make my space station anyhow. biggrin.gif Cuz I'm a cheapskate.
Lola T70 MkIII
I reckon 'Space elevator' would be the most practical way to go, as the materials won't be unviable for ever. From geosync it's just a matter of flinging your cargo anywhere in the solar system.

But to really move people around the solarsystem we need Orion. Nothing on the horizon will out perform it or be more economical. But it would need to fired by aneutreonic atomics. I reckon that if NASA looked at Orion again and there were a few of the expected leaps in fusion, we could be pogoing our way across the solar system within 50 years. Huge cargo masses and very cheap. The Space Elevator could haul stuff up to Orion (although earth launches would be possible but not great for slowing climate change) but with mineral development of the asteroid belt cargo would be pouring down the other way soon. A new golden age cool.gif

Grandiose oversimplifications and sweeping generalisations above? Sure. But check Orion out. There is plenty on the www, and a fantastic book by George Dyson, son of famous physicist Freeman, who worked on the original project when they has US govt funding for research into atomic spacecraft.
ShiNoKaze
Whatever happened to the electromagnetic propulsion where they vibrate superconducting magnets one way or something? It wouldn't have as high a specific impulse but the top speed was close to light i think. For any kind of long trip you could do that and use some low top speed high specific impulse stuff to slow down.
Heck if you're gonna use nuclear reactions as your thrust, engineer some of those crazy high temperatue hydrogen fission or fusion (i forget) reactors. They're supposed to be less radioactive or some such.

EDIT: Link to what the heck I was talking about.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.