posted
Being the long-time dork that I am, and having a fascination with spacecraft - fictional and factual - for as long as I remember knowing what a spaceship was, I'm always interested in seeing how far away we are technologically from the cool stuff we see on sci-fi.
A quick rundown of current deployed space technologies reveals a depressingly unexciting level of advancement. However, upon closer examination, we can see several advancements on the horizon, with some even closer than that. I'll outline some for you, approaching the numerous problems with long-term deep space exploration.
#1. The large distances between interplanetary bodies
This problem is most easily rectified by increasing the speed at which our spacecraft move. At present, the fastest human spacecraft is moving at a speed of 150 km/sec. At this speed, a spacecraft could travel from Earth to Mars in 6 months. Boooooooooooooooring. There are several drive systems in development which could make that time laughable, in just a matter of decades. One of them is the ICAN II, a propulsion system which uses a matter-antimatter reaction to produce a top speed of 600 km/sec, reducing Earth-Mars trip time to 1.5 months. Faster still is the Beam Core drive, a particle accelerator which - mounted as a pair of nacelles - would allow top speeds of 40 % lightspeed. The VASIMR drive is a more conservative option (300 km/sec), but which has the added advantage of throttleability. It is a more efficient, elegant solution, which may ultimately be the way we go with the proposed Bush CEV project.
#2. Radiation and particle protection during high-speed travel
Protection from random space particles during high-speed flight is crucial, not a sci-fi luxury. A solution to this problem is possibly via a side-effect of a propulsion system called the M2P2, developed by a Dr. Winglee. It is, in effect, a solar sail without the physical sail. The system generates a large magnetic field quite like that of the earth, that can be projected out in front of the ship to deflect particles in the craft's travel path. A targeting system that could evolve into one fast enough to counter all incoming particles may already be seen in the MTAS (Multiple target acquisition system) found in the Apache Longbow. The current MTAS allows the Longbow to acquire and fire upon 8 targets simultaneously, deploying a varying number of munitions to the targets. It is not inconceivable, that given the advancement in computing speeds, an MTAS capable of acquiring and engaging hundreds of targets per clock cycle could be developed. This should be sufficient for applications in all but the fastest speeds.
#3. The long-term detrimental effects of zero-gravity
This problem has vexed us for as long as we've been thinking about it. Rotational artificial gravity has its own health problems (chiefly the gradient from head to foot and slightly off-plumb effects on the human body), so the problem needs to be solved in another way. The Podkletnov device, first observed in 1992, has been shown by NASA scientists to be unreliable in a vacuum. This does not preclude its use in spacecraft, however. The Podkletnov device can be developed into one system which both provides smooth, strong artificial gravity field, as well as an inertial-dampening field to counter the effects of rapid acceleration and deceleration in space AND aircraft.
#4. Those damn solar panels!!
This is a power problem. Relying on solar power for space travel is like relying on wind power to ply modern sea trade routes. By simply switching to a nuclear isotope power system, we not only lose those damn ugly solar panels, we increase available power onboard ship by orders of magnitude. Whereas now files transmitted from the Mars Lander are transmitted in a rate measured in kilobytes/sec, an isotope power supply would allow transfer speeds of megabytes/sec. A fission reactor would increase available power by more orders of magnitude, allowing for longer and more rapid communications. Of course, work on fusion and matter-antimatter reactors is being done, and may yield more dramatic results by century's end.
#5. Hull or component damage from large bodies or large energy applications
This calls for highly-powerful shielding systems. The answer has been in front of us all this time. We can direct the travel paths of high-energy, relativistic particles - even antimatter - through the effective use of magnetic field interaction. In fact, the basic theory of the Penning Trap allows us to store antimatter in bottles using these fields. We have even considered using it to direct higher-energy drive exhaust away from the metal surface of an Orion spacecraft, thus elimintating the need to replace erosive plating.By applying this theory to the protection of the outer hull of a ship, we can administer a localized, powerful magnetic field to the area which needs protection, which would redirect a particle on a collision course harmlessly away. This administration, on a larger shipwide scale, could protect from the results of nearby explosions or energy applications.
Of course, for those of us for whom only the fastest will do:
There is the Alcubierre-Loup Warp Drive. Fernando Loup thinks he has resolved the immense power requirements of the Miguel Alcubierre Warp Drive of the mid-90s, and has come to America to cooperate with physicists on creating applications and technologies to his theories. He is quite confident in his interpretation of hyperspace as a 3-brane in nature.
-------------------- This is just fun...it's not life...keep this in mind and we'll all enjoy it much more
Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I have a feeling I would find this article fascinating, if I had any idea what it was referring to at various points. Hyperlinks are your friend -- use them.
(Sorry, but without anything more than a rough description and your say-so, this just looks like more fictitious technobabble to me.)
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Clearly I've not researched this to any degree, really, but are the physiological effects of rotational artificial gravity really so bad? I mean obviously it's not a perfect solution, but is running on a treadmill with two bungee cords holding you down that much better? I mean if I'm wrong then someone please point me to an article telling me so, but I've always considered rotational gravity to be a fairly simple and elegant solution for dealing with the problems of long-term zero-gravity.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
"Faster still is the Beam Core drive, a particle accelerator which - mounted as a pair of nacelles - would allow top speeds of 40 % lightspeed."
I'm not sure something that goes at 0.4c would be useful for transporting people over anything but a very long distance. I mean, how far would you have to have travelled before you had even accelerated to that speed?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: I'm not certain this thread is Starships & Technology material, being, as it seems, mostly unfictional.
Certainly more fitting than the "Spot the MACO" thread in here.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Since Irishman didn't see fit to lost references or give any context to the stuff he posted, here are links and descriptions of some of the technologies mentioned in his "cut and haste" job.
#1. The large distances between interplanetary bodies
"The Antimatter Space Propulsion team at Pennsylvania State University (PSU) have developed ICAN-II. This utilises a combination of antimatter and nuclear fission, using the antimatter to induce fission by allowing the antiprotons to penetrate the fissionable nuclei where they will annihilate with protons. This release of energy causes the nucleus to split, with the result of a greater release of energy than with standard fission. It is estimated that only 140 ng of antimatter will be required for a 30-day trip to Mars, which is significantly less than a beam core antimatter rocket."
I dunno to what was being referred to here, as all the references to Podkletnov I can find refer to a debunked antigravity machine, not any method of artifical gravity.
#4. Those damn solar panels!!
Sure, fission reactors and the like are way more powerful, but given the number of failed (kaBOOM!)launches I can understand why a lot of people are nervous about putting nuclear payloads in current lifting vehicles.
And a general reference to the real-world issues of interstellar travel on the Warp Drive When page.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
Seriously, nuclear payloads are *not* too dangerous -if launched from isolated areas. And in smallish quantities: launching agiant reactor is ahuge leap from a small muclear powered rover. Really, why not make the reactor modular so that when it lands it'll be able to be used by astronauts? We could (concievably) chop the weight of a manned spacecraft by sending most of their needed equipment in advance and the monk...er...astronauts last.
Launching nuclear powered stuff from the Florida coast is a cluster fuck waiting to happen though. Think New Mexico or someplace that radiation wouldnt affect too much....like Cleavland.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I'm not sure something that goes at 0.4c would be useful for transporting people over anything but a very long distance. I mean, how far would you have to have travelled before you had even accelerated to that speed?
posted
At that speed and acceleration, you'd need one of those (still untested) "deflector shields" to prevent your ship from being destroyed by impacts. From things as small as a pea.
I cant imagine any of these creative ideas being tested on the same mission: too many variables. That means that even if all of these ideas somehow bear fruit, we wont see them in use together for many decades.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
That antimatter propulsion link might be cool, if we could, oh, maybe find a way to separate antimatter from matter in the first place. That alone is probably going to take a couple of decades -- right now, the only reason we know antimatter exists is because we can detect the little BOOM it makes when it collides with the surrounding matter environment a micromicrosecond after it's created.
I do like the idea of using an electromagnetic field for a sort of primitive deflector shield to protect against miniscule space debris -- that's actually a very logical and IMO realistic possibility, assuming we can generate a magnetic field of that scale and power while at the same time pushing the whole dang ship at an appreciable speed...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually we've been making antimatter and collecting it in the aforementioned Penning Trap for going on 25 years. The CERN and Fermilab particle colliders have been manufacturing small amounts of antiprotons, more recently whole atoms of antihydrogen, which is easier to store. Not enough ot use on an interplanetary trip, but we're getting there.
-------------------- This is just fun...it's not life...keep this in mind and we'll all enjoy it much more
Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Also, while I'm at it, the Podkletnov device was debunked, but never disproven. What scientists disagreed on was the nature of the effect. Podkletnov argues to this day that it is a gravity-neutralizing effect that was observed, while more conventional scientists claim that it was the long-known "Ion wind" effect, chiefly because it doesn't work in a total vacuum. Podkletnov's experiments extrapolated that its effects were felt by non-metallic objects, over long distances.
-------------------- This is just fun...it's not life...keep this in mind and we'll all enjoy it much more
Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Irishman: Actually we've been making antimatter and collecting it in the aforementioned Penning Trap for going on 25 years. The CERN and Fermilab particle colliders have been manufacturing small amounts of antiprotons, more recently whole atoms of antihydrogen, which is easier to store. Not enough ot use on an interplanetary trip, but we're getting there.
Trapping a handful of antimatter atoms inside a magnetic field in a compartment that's built into a massive, kilometers-long particle accelerator is a very, very far cry from putting those atoms in transportable containers that can be launched in rockets with little chance of letting said antimatter get out and blow everything up.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
True, but we do store them in transportable containers. That is what the Penning Trap was made for. Assuming we got government go-aheads, we could transport a Penning Trap full of antimatter to orbit to waiting ship via Shuttle tomorrow. Plus, we can store antihydrogen much more densely than individual atoms of antiprotons, with a far lower expenditure of energy applied to magnetic containment.
-------------------- This is just fun...it's not life...keep this in mind and we'll all enjoy it much more
Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
