Rather than rely on a rinky-dink sling-shot from Jupiter and a 140 year time-frame, why not re-inforce it with a dispensable heat shield, sling it around the sun like the Parker probe and give it a 350,000mph speed?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59725597
Rather than rely on a rinky-dink sling-shot from Jupiter and a 140 year time-frame, why not re-inforce it with a dispensable heat shield, sling it around the sun like the Parker probe and give it a 350,000mph speed?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59725597
Rather than rely on a rinky-dink sling-shot from Jupiter and a 140 year time-frame, why not re-inforce it with a dispensable heat shield, sling it around the sun like the Parker probe and give it a 350,000mph speed?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59725597
On 21/12/2021 10:04, RichA wrote:
Rather than rely on a rinky-dink sling-shot from Jupiter and a 140 year time-frame, why not re-inforce it with a dispensable heat shield, sling it around the sun like the Parker probe and give it a 350,000mph speed?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59725597It speeds up as it falls toward the sun well enough but then it slows
down again as it climbs back out of the gravitational potential.
There is no free lunch! You have to chase a gas giant in *orbit* around
the sun to get a slingshot acceleration. The probe steals a small amount
of momentum and energy off the moving planetary target as it goes past.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 15:41:53 UTC-5, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 21/12/2021 10:04, RichA wrote:
Rather than rely on a rinky-dink sling-shot from Jupiter andIt speeds up as it falls toward the sun well enough but then it
a 140 year time-frame, why not re-inforce it with a
dispensable heat shield, sling it around the sun like the
Parker probe and give it a 350,000mph speed?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59725597
slows down again as it climbs back out of the gravitational
potential.
There is no free lunch! You have to chase a gas giant in
*orbit* around the sun to get a slingshot acceleration. The
probe steals a small amount of momentum and energy off the
moving planetary target as it goes past.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
That's too bad. I figured if it used Jupiter, it could have
used the Sun to the same effect.
On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 15:41:53 UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/12/2021 10:04, RichA wrote:
Rather than rely on a rinky-dink sling-shot from Jupiter and a 140 year time-frame, why not re-inforce it with a dispensable heat shield, sling it around the sun like the Parker probe and give it a 350,000mph speed?It speeds up as it falls toward the sun well enough but then it slows
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59725597
down again as it climbs back out of the gravitational potential.
There is no free lunch! You have to chase a gas giant in *orbit* around
the sun to get a slingshot acceleration. The probe steals a small amount
of momentum and energy off the moving planetary target as it goes past.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
That's too bad. I figured if it used Jupiter, it could have used the Sun to the same effect.
It's a different effect. It's why no body in orbit around the Sun can
be ejected from the Solar System, no matter how close to the Sun it
gets in its orbit, or how fast it is going at perihelion.
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 14:47:15 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 15:41:53 UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/12/2021 10:04, RichA wrote:
Rather than rely on a rinky-dink sling-shot from Jupiter and a 140 year time-frame, why not re-inforce it with a dispensable heat shield, sling it around the sun like the Parker probe and give it a 350,000mph speed?It speeds up as it falls toward the sun well enough but then it slows
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59725597
down again as it climbs back out of the gravitational potential.
There is no free lunch! You have to chase a gas giant in *orbit* around
the sun to get a slingshot acceleration. The probe steals a small amount >> of momentum and energy off the moving planetary target as it goes past.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
That's too bad. I figured if it used Jupiter, it could have used the Sun to the same effect.It's a different effect. It's why no body in orbit around the Sun can
be ejected from the Solar System, no matter how close to the Sun it
gets in its orbit, or how fast it is going at perihelion.
On Wednesday, 22 December 2021 at 09:14:16 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 14:47:15 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 15:41:53 UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:It's a different effect. It's why no body in orbit around the Sun can
On 21/12/2021 10:04, RichA wrote:
Rather than rely on a rinky-dink sling-shot from Jupiter and a 140 year time-frame, why not re-inforce it with a dispensable heat shield, sling it around the sun like the Parker probe and give it a 350,000mph speed?It speeds up as it falls toward the sun well enough but then it slows
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59725597
down again as it climbs back out of the gravitational potential.
There is no free lunch! You have to chase a gas giant in *orbit* around >> >> the sun to get a slingshot acceleration. The probe steals a small amount >> >> of momentum and energy off the moving planetary target as it goes past. >> >>
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
That's too bad. I figured if it used Jupiter, it could have used the Sun to the same effect.
be ejected from the Solar System, no matter how close to the Sun it
gets in its orbit, or how fast it is going at perihelion.
So how much engine power would a probe like Parker need to simply break solar orbit when it had reached a speed of 430,000mph?
On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 09:40:48 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 December 2021 at 09:14:16 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 14:47:15 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 15:41:53 UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:It's a different effect. It's why no body in orbit around the Sun can
On 21/12/2021 10:04, RichA wrote:
Rather than rely on a rinky-dink sling-shot from Jupiter and a 140 year time-frame, why not re-inforce it with a dispensable heat shield, sling it around the sun like the Parker probe and give it a 350,000mph speed?It speeds up as it falls toward the sun well enough but then it slows >> >> down again as it climbs back out of the gravitational potential.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59725597
There is no free lunch! You have to chase a gas giant in *orbit* around >> >> the sun to get a slingshot acceleration. The probe steals a small amount
of momentum and energy off the moving planetary target as it goes past. >> >>
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
That's too bad. I figured if it used Jupiter, it could have used the Sun to the same effect.
be ejected from the Solar System, no matter how close to the Sun it
gets in its orbit, or how fast it is going at perihelion.
So how much engine power would a probe like Parker need to simply break solar orbit when it had reached a speed of 430,000mph?A lot. Escape velocity near the Sun's surface is about 600 km/s. The
probe only got up to about 200 km/s. So to escape from the Solar
System would require a delta-V of 400 km/s. How much energy that
requires depends on the mass of the probe.
On Wednesday, 22 December 2021 at 19:50:44 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 09:40:48 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 December 2021 at 09:14:16 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 14:47:15 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>A lot. Escape velocity near the Sun's surface is about 600 km/s. The
wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 15:41:53 UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:It's a different effect. It's why no body in orbit around the Sun can
On 21/12/2021 10:04, RichA wrote:
Rather than rely on a rinky-dink sling-shot from Jupiter and a 140 year time-frame, why not re-inforce it with a dispensable heat shield, sling it around the sun like the Parker probe and give it a 350,000mph speed?It speeds up as it falls toward the sun well enough but then it slows >> >> >> down again as it climbs back out of the gravitational potential.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59725597
There is no free lunch! You have to chase a gas giant in *orbit* around
the sun to get a slingshot acceleration. The probe steals a small amount
of momentum and energy off the moving planetary target as it goes past.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
That's too bad. I figured if it used Jupiter, it could have used the Sun to the same effect.
be ejected from the Solar System, no matter how close to the Sun it
gets in its orbit, or how fast it is going at perihelion.
So how much engine power would a probe like Parker need to simply break solar orbit when it had reached a speed of 430,000mph?
probe only got up to about 200 km/s. So to escape from the Solar
System would require a delta-V of 400 km/s. How much energy that
requires depends on the mass of the probe.
We are definitely stuck in neutral with limitations of chemical rockets.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 19:03:28 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
We are definitely stuck in neutral with limitations of chemical rockets.
The only viable candidate is some kind of ion drive. But you're still
talking hundreds or thousands of years for interstellar trips. And
massive technological advances and social changes.
On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 7:17:58 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 19:03:28 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The only viable candidate is some kind of ion drive. But you're still
We are definitely stuck in neutral with limitations of chemical rockets. >>
talking hundreds or thousands of years for interstellar trips. And
massive technological advances and social changes.
Yes, indeed. But even if we could harness a photon drive, going really fast >is very dangerous what with all the junk in the Oort cloud. At > 0.3c or so, >I don't think it would be possible to avoid an errant rock that just happened >to be in the ship's trajectory. And at 0.99c+, every splinter becomes an >effective asteroid.
I think the only way for effective interstellar travel is some new technology. >I'm not even sure Alcubierre or Natario warp drives would provide safety
from space junk. It may require some technology even beyond that.
There has been a proposal to send out thousands of gram-size probes and
power them with earth-based (or orbital) lasers. Then it wouldn't matter if >a large percentage didn't make it. Problematic for larger ships, but it may be
a way to get rid of useless humans, like telephone sanitizers :-)
But
interplanetary and interstellar dust is something we have no idea how
to protect a spacecraft from when traveling at some fraction of c.
On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 05:14:35 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 7:17:58 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 19:03:28 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
We are definitely stuck in neutral with limitations of chemical rockets.
The only viable candidate is some kind of ion drive. But you're still talking hundreds or thousands of years for interstellar trips. And massive technological advances and social changes.
Yes, indeed. But even if we could harness a photon drive, going really fast
is very dangerous what with all the junk in the Oort cloud. At > 0.3c or so,
I don't think it would be possible to avoid an errant rock that just happened
to be in the ship's trajectory. And at 0.99c+, every splinter becomes an effective asteroid.
I think the only way for effective interstellar travel is some new technology.
I'm not even sure Alcubierre or Natario warp drives would provide safety from space junk. It may require some technology even beyond that.
There has been a proposal to send out thousands of gram-size probes and power them with earth-based (or orbital) lasers. Then it wouldn't matter if
a large percentage didn't make it. Problematic for larger ships, but it may be
a way to get rid of useless humans, like telephone sanitizers :-)
I don't think the Oort cloud is necessarily the problem- large
material there is still separated by millions of kilometers.
But interplanetary and interstellar dust is something we have no idea how
to protect a spacecraft from when traveling at some fraction of c. We
also don't know how to make a complex machine that can run for a
century or several.
Some variation of sending out a swarm of lightweight, simple probes is interesting. That's also a potential option for exploring bodies
inside our own Solar System.
On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 7:39:04 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
ButI remember at one time reading that 0.01c would be doable with foreseeable
interplanetary and interstellar dust is something we have no idea how
to protect a spacecraft from when traveling at some fraction of c.
technology, but at 0.1c dust and the like becomes a problem we have no
idea of how to deal with.
0.01c isn't great, but it could still be sufficient.
John Savard
On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 7:39:04 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 05:14:35 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 7:17:58 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 19:03:28 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
We are definitely stuck in neutral with limitations of chemical rockets.
The only viable candidate is some kind of ion drive. But you're still
talking hundreds or thousands of years for interstellar trips. And
massive technological advances and social changes.
Yes, indeed. But even if we could harness a photon drive, going really fast
is very dangerous what with all the junk in the Oort cloud. At > 0.3c or so,
I don't think it would be possible to avoid an errant rock that just happened
to be in the ship's trajectory. And at 0.99c+, every splinter becomes an >> > effective asteroid.
I think the only way for effective interstellar travel is some new technology.
I'm not even sure Alcubierre or Natario warp drives would provide safety >> > from space junk. It may require some technology even beyond that.
There has been a proposal to send out thousands of gram-size probes and
power them with earth-based (or orbital) lasers. Then it wouldn't matter if
a large percentage didn't make it. Problematic for larger ships, but it may be
a way to get rid of useless humans, like telephone sanitizers :-)
I don't think the Oort cloud is necessarily the problem- large
material there is still separated by millions of kilometers.
Yes, that's large objects like icy cometary material, but don't you think there are
smaller objects, too? And they might make up most of the mass out there. >NASA thinks the Oort cloud extends from 2000 to 5000 AU, but others think it >might extend halfway to Alpha Centauri (which means it's ALL the way there):
But interplanetary and interstellar dust is something we have no idea how
to protect a spacecraft from when traveling at some fraction of c. We
also don't know how to make a complex machine that can run for a
century or several.
Solid state components, of course. Might need advances in other semiconductor >materials, like silicon carbide.
Some variation of sending out a swarm of lightweight, simple probes is
interesting. That's also a potential option for exploring bodies
inside our own Solar System.
We can wait a few years to get probes to the planets, so it doesn't seem >necessary to do swarms for that. They would be useful in finding out the >Oort cloud density, though. Maybe put some wings on them to increase
their cross-section for particle detection.
More than that, we need a whole different concept of reliability. We
probably need materials that can "heal" and systems that can repair themselves. Even build new copies of themselves. Nothing to extreme
about those concepts, but a long ways away technologically...
especially given that we have little need for them elsewhere, and
therefore little motivation to develop such technology.
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 7:29:36 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
More than that, we need a whole different concept of reliability. We
probably need materials that can "heal" and systems that can repair
themselves. Even build new copies of themselves. Nothing to extreme
about those concepts, but a long ways away technologically...
especially given that we have little need for them elsewhere, and
therefore little motivation to develop such technology.
I'm not entirely sure about that last bit.
After all, the attributes you are describing are characteristic of
biological systems. As there is considerable motivation to
engage in research with medical applications, it's possible something >applicable might come from that direction.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 39:38:39 |
| Calls: | 6,648 |
| Files: | 12,193 |
| Messages: | 5,329,319 |