Jump to content

List of new propulsion systems


bartekkru99
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Lewie said:

Well really...who cares about anti matter and if it works in gravity fields and whatever? It’s just a game. Chill.

Tbh while i find the discussion about that relatively pointless; KSP is a game based around working within physical laws. Demonstrating and learning Orbital Mechanics, Math (Delta-V, ISP, etc.) and even more complex topics without even realizing it.

There's a sizable chunk of people that would see KSP2's value compared to KSP diminished if it included purely fantasy (Not Proven or Unconfirmed) technologies like what he was describing. There's also a sizable chunk that have already had KSP2's value called into question because of the addition of engines using purple space magic when actually built and tested alternatives were available.

So there is a certain line that most people don't want to see crossed in the Stock game when it comes to realism (Do whatever the heck you want with mods), and some just happen to be......more passionate in their discourse because of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I for one would rather see a possible technology omitted, than an impossible technology included.

So even if there is a remote possibility that antimatter is repelled by gravity, I don't want to see a tech based on that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2020 at 10:35 PM, Stevex said:

An alternative method of propulsion that still has a possibility of working is the "Colbourne drive" where the spacecraft is made from anti-matter. The assumption is made that anti-matter would be repulsed by normal matter (Being tested by CERN at the moment).

An anti-matter  spaceraft launched from a matter planet would accelerate away  until close to another matter planet or star where it would slow down. Anti-matter is very hard to make but if a planet of anti-matter was found a manufacturing plant could be set up , making these spacecraft as cheaply as submarines. A trade could then take place between these two types of planets selling ships to each other. 

These ships are also good for travelling from star to to star or even galaxy to galaxy, as no fuel is used (except for manoevering) on either accelerating or deaccelerating. Getting close to powerful black holes will give a really powerful push to maybe faster than light speeds.

Ah, no. Perhaps you're thinking of negative mass? Negative mass-energy is an entirely hypothetical concept. As it's mass is negative, a force which pulls normal matter would push it, and a force which pushes normal matter would pull it. It would also generate antigravity. But antimatter has positive mass-energy. You can tell because it produces positive mass-energy (gamma ray photons) when it annihilates. It looks kind of like this: 

x+x=2x 

 Negative mass- energy would annihilate with any positive mass-energy (even normal antimatter) to produce...nothing. They would cancel perfectly. Like this: 

x+(-x)=0

And no. You cannot extract enough energy from any system to propel yourself faster than light and therefore, backwards in time. It requires an infinite amount of energy to do so. This would also cause the establishment of a preferred reference frame, thereby breaking special relativity. It would also overturn causality. That is a VERY big no no.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

fossil_fuelfree_jet_propulsion_with_air_fossil_fuelfree_jet_propulsion_with_air_Fossil fuel-free jet propulsion with air plasmas. Scientists have developed a prototype design of a plasma jet thruster can generate thrusting pressures on the same magnitude a commercial jet engine can, using only air and electricity

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/aiop-ffj050420.php

@Nertea scientist just discovered near future electric jet propulsion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

electric jet propulsion prototypes have been around a while... the question is how much power do they consume, how large is the generator, what does it generate the power from, and how do you fit that generator on the aircraft...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2020 at 2:54 PM, Bej Kerman said:

Which is why we care about antimatter and such.

Except that antimatter *does* exist (and was confirmed way back in the 1920s).  Things like metastable (that's the important part) metallic hydrogen, or even worse, magical resonators that violate the conservation of momentum don't.  I will admit that I've never even heard of a theorical way to generate anti-matter in useful amounts.

On 5/6/2020 at 10:26 AM, KerikBalm said:

electric jet propulsion prototypes have been around a while... the question is how much power do they consume, how large is the generator, what does it generate the power from, and how do you fit that generator on the aircraft...

There's some great commentary here : https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/microwave-thruster-makes-for-clean-burning-jet/

It claims that most earlier designs centered around spacecraft: presumably heating hydrogen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t get it. If y’all are gonna have a hissy fir over the new propulsion systems (which are gonna be awesome!) just don’t use them. It doesn’t effect you at all if you don’t decide to use it. I mean, we don’t have a real life application of the NERVA and pretty much everyone uses them. So quit complaining about the new engines, you don’t have to use them. And they are going to be awesome. And it’s not like they are like warp drive, they are some what realistic in the near future. So yea. Chillax

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lewie said:

I don’t get it. If y’all are gonna have a hissy fir over the new propulsion systems (which are gonna be awesome!) just don’t use them. It doesn’t effect you at all if you don’t decide to use it. I mean, we don’t have a real life application of the NERVA and pretty much everyone uses them. So quit complaining about the new engines, you don’t have to use them. And they are going to be awesome. And it’s not like they are like warp drive, they are some what realistic in the near future. So yea. Chillax

It's likely that there's not going to be much choice about using Metallic Hydrogen, in that it appears to be the late-game general-purpose fuel.  (I do agree that they're better than a warp drive.)

NERVA's had successful tests, it just hasn't been the right tool for the job for anything humanity has done - minimum size is to big for the probes we've been sending, really.  What it's needed for is big, long-distance rockets, and we just haven't built any of those yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opps, sorry about that. Should’ve read up more. But when you think about, a NERVA seems as realistic as a metallic hydrogen engine. Small amounts of metallic hydrogen have been made, so it could be a thing in the future.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lewie said:

Opps, sorry about that. Should’ve read up more. But when you think about, a NERVA seems as realistic as a metallic hydrogen engine. Small amounts of metallic hydrogen have been made, so it could be a thing in the future.

 

 

 

 

I am not sure what you mean because NASA has a stock of NERVAS that we’re planned for 70’s missions and the Copernicus mtv. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:
12 hours ago, Lewie said:

Opps, sorry about that. Should’ve read up more. But when you think about, a NERVA seems as realistic as a metallic hydrogen engine. Small amounts of metallic hydrogen have been made, so it could be a thing in the future.

 

 

 

 

I am not sure what you mean because NASA has a stock of NERVAS that we’re planned for 70’s missions and the Copernicus mtv. 

I don't see how this matters. We pretty much never use NERVAs. Btw, please fix your quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lewie said:

Opps, sorry about that. Should’ve read up more. But when you think about, a NERVA seems as realistic as a metallic hydrogen engine. Small amounts of metallic hydrogen have been made, so it could be a thing in the future.

The problem with metallic hydrogen engines is that yes, small amounts of it have been made - but they didn't actually find that it was metastable, which was the property that made it interesting as a rocket fuel.  So evidence suggests (given the small amount that's been made and tested, only strongly suggests at this point) that it won't work.

NERVA is basically a nuclear power plant using hydrogen instead of water.  Well-understood tech.  They ran a test engine for half an hour, certified it for human transport to Mars - and then never went to Mars.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True...but hey. Why not have near future/next gen rockets? We’ll still have our old trusty ones, but I mean, c’mon. Ksp2 and it’s interstellar features are gonna be awesome:cool:

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maxxor said:

the link i posted is atmosphere plasma jet its near future perfect for ssto using air and electric basicall free fuel

No it's not; unless you have a compact fusion reactor with magic radiators that don't get wrecked in the atmosphere to rid yourself of all the heat it would generate.  And then all of that equipment can't weigh so much that your TWR becomes so low you can't even get off the ground (Planes don't need a TWR >1, but there's still a consideration here). And that's all assuming this scales up, and even the author had doubts that would be plausible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/new-antimatter-gravity-experiments-begin-cern

https://home.cern/science/experiments/gbar

https://home.cern/news/news/physics/alpha-collaboration-cern-reports-first-measurements-certain-quantum-effects

https://home.cern/news/news/physics/searching-matter-antimatter-asymmetry-higgs-boson-top-quark-interaction

 

These are links to the Cern anti-matter  gravity experiments. There is still no definite answer over whether there  are particles repulsed by matter.

The idea I had was in KSP2 you could trade space ships with anti-matter planets, where a ship could easily be made but when used in a matter galaxy would be repulsed. Careful flight planning could allow great speeds to be achieved by getting close to a black hole or a massive  star, with the ability to slow down with no fuel use when you reach the next matter star. Some kind of repulsion shield would be required to protect the ship from particles it, would hit in flight.

I am not saying this would work practically in real life , but in the Kerbal universe it could be made to work if the programmers set the physics accordingly. 

Edited by Stevex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Stevex Your links do not support your earlier statements.

Your last link doesn't even relate to measuring gravity at all.

You said:

Quote

The assumption is made that anti-matter would be repulsed by normal matter

Your link says:

Quote

scientists are testing the so-called Equivalence Principle put forth by Albert Einstein, which states that the trajectory of a particle is independent of its composition and internal structure when it is only submitted to gravitational forces

Now, sure, if that is wrong, that would be interesting, but nowhere in there do they suppose or predict that antimatter would be repulsed by normal matter.

You even post a link with this:

Quote

CERN has reported the first measurements of certain quantum effects in the energy structure of antihydrogen, the antimatter counterpart of hydrogen. [...] The results, described in a paper published today in the journal Nature, show that these first measurements are consistent with theoretical predictions of the effects in “normal” hydrogen

So the preliminary results seem to suggest that antimatter and normal matter behave the same/very similar... although this one also is not measuring gravity either.

 

The closest your links come is saying:

Quote

Discovering any difference between the behaviour of antimatter and matter in connection with gravity could point to a quantum theory of gravity and perhaps cast light on why the universe seems to be made of matter rather than antimatter.

This still doesn't get to the supposition that antimatter and normal matter repel each other.

 

So, 2 out of 4 of your links don't relate to gravity, one is just a lay article describing the experiment in the other link.

That link has the assumption that gravity will affect matter and antimatter equally (although it would still be nice to say).

One of the linked papers in your links cites this:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2787

And the first line of the introduction is quite nice:

Quote

There are many compelling experimental and theoretical arguments1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 that suggest that the gravitational mass of antimatter cannot differ from the gravitational or inertial mass of normal matter, that is, that the weak equivalence principle holds.

Yea, that's a lot of citations already...

 

Anyway, you have failed to justify your earlier statements

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Stevex said:

 

 There is still no definite answer over whether there are particles repulsed by matter.

 

And that's why it won't be a thing in KSP2 unless someone mods it in, because until we know that Antimatter is repulsed by matter (Which would be extraordinary in itself). We shouldn't assume that it would act any differently, even though it would open up interesting things. That's just not how science and the process of discovery works.

Now if evidence mounted that it did act repulsively, and multiple independent and well controlled experiments showed it repeatedly then there would be a far better case for implementing such behavior in KSP2. Oh and it would also blow the doors off our current understanding of physics as we know it, and potentially lead to confirmation of some of the more interesting models. But until then; it's science-fantasy at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the folks above have pointed out, this would have serious ramifications on established scientific research, forcing us to throw out our working models. Generally, physics works by building on and tweaking existing explanations.

Aside from that, Kerbals, obviously, could not ride in such a ship. Also, due to the supposed, alleged, hypothetical repulsion mechanism for which evidence is sparse at best, these ships could never enter orbit of any body. This makes them generally useless for gameplay, making it *unlikely* they will be implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...