AngelLestat

just one suggestion then... please try to avoid silly names as karbonite or kethane for resources. all elements or substances are the same no matter in what part of the universe we are. And it seems that kerbal language is translated to english anyway.. Also is more educative this way.

It seems that might take me like 1 year to learn that. Jokes aside.. I know that an spacecraft or maybe different planes may not be so easy, but if you are a pilot, you know this stuff because you see how is done all the time. but saying that.. I am agree from the develope and gameplay point of view. The fact that you need an enginner to do KAS actions seems ok.

Becouse is not their job does not mean they cant do it.. My job is not plumber, carpenter or work in a gasoline station, but I can do all and many more. Again, we are talking about refuelling... not building a whole craft or dealing with something really hard. But well, I understand that separate certain actions (scientist, pilots and enginner fit) from the develope point of view can be difficult.. So I am just pointing that your argument to defend this is not accurate. But from the coding or gameplay perspective maybe can be ignored.

? they do it all the time.. they are training for almost anything. We are not talking about repair a full ship. Just refuelling. I am glad the mod tries get close to reality (also the mod is great), but be sure that if the reality that you are looking for is in fact reality.

I wish you the best luck with this, I hate all mining or isru methods used in the game or other mods which seems more arcade than the mario bros. I am glad that some people is thinking serious in this.

Ok, it seems that those are the only ways. Is sad that we have an space program simulator but we cant try or get beneficts trying a reusable launcher..

What is this? zombie topic apocalypse? 3 resurrected threads or more just in the science section

2 cars in opposite directions crash, they both stop.. you mean that the energy of each car before the crash is gone now? That would violate the thermodynamics laws. Energy always transform in one way or another, so the opposite direction particles seems pointless.

I already explain in this topic how to do it and in this century. Is the only serious way. It has almost no flaws in comparison with the other methods. 2 post here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/122033-Interstellar-Travel/page9 Also, I dont know why you mention manned, if you are not even able to imagine and prove the feasibility of a probe ship.

I think this way too. If the topic said that the container can not let energy escape or in. So I can not imagine any other possibility able to change the temperature. The change of state of water is never accomplish (and it will take extra energy). slushy is not an accurate answer neither.. but well, I take it.

Is impossible to take this video seriosly with that "music", in fact it makes the video unwatchable.

Ah ok, Now I check again the Keane and Zhang analysis and it seems that I missunderstood some numbers. 0.6c sounds super good, even 0.25c is a lot higher than fussion, the only problem with low ISP in antimater propulsion that the ships requires more radiators to release the excess of heat. Yeah, does calculation was already done it by many researchers, like mattoff, zubrin, adam crowl, etc. Each one with different parameters on sail density and sun periapsys. http://crowlspace.com/?p=1882 http://crowlspace.com/?p=1585 http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/carbon-nanotube-sheets-for-solar-sails.html With CNT or graphene, temperature is not an issue no matter how close you want to be, first because graphene can stand 3000 degrees, at that temperature even if you absorb all the radiation (which you dont, because the surface is reflective), you will be able to release the same amount as heat. The things that limit how much you may close to the sun are: -if you are too low, you should dodge the magnetic fields (mainly black spots). -sun atmosphere, it will not decelerate, but the particles may damage the sail or instruments. -acceleration (g-force) This may be the main concern. Acceleration is a problem for humans because is not constant in each atom of our bodies (with the gravity field exception). A solar sail by other hand, as it can be visualize as a 2d structure, all atoms are under the same acceleration, so in theory should not be a problem. Adam crowl calculation with lower densities than mines using quarter wave CNT: At 0.0045 Au, the acceleration is 8000 G aprox, 0.11c max speed At 0.019 something as 1000 G aprox, 0.056c max speed. Lets imagine that one small part of the sail is 1% less reflective than the average. 95% to 94%. Density: 0.01g/m2 Periapsys: 0.007 au. Power by m2 at periapsys: 1360w * (1 / 0.007)2 = 27877551 w/m2 Force by m2: 2*27877551/c = 0.18 N (95% aprox) --> 94%? --> 0.18N - (0.49% because the force is absortion + reflection) = 0,179N Acceleration 95% reflection: 0.18N / 0.00001kg = 1800 G -->94%? --> 1790 G So we have 10G of difference between sail sections, So the real speed limit for a solar sail depends in how average is the reflectivity and the mass distribution. If we add the strenght of graphene plus my idea to active mass distribution and control with magnetic rails and superconductors may be possible. The superconductors will be in the sail shadow, and they will be reflective. Not sure how to get and keep the power needed to manage the magnetic rails. A different method to keep the acceleration constant for longer time once we gain distance: (the angles will be different of course in direction of our prograde at periapsys) You launch a heavy solar sail that goes to jupiter, use gravity assist and returns to the sun at high speed, that sail will reflect and bounce (for longer time because it has speed) the radiation that receive the sail probe multiplying the force depending the number of bounce you achieve, we can add extra solar sails at the side to increase the radiation over the probe. The first sails does not steal energy (shadow) to the sail probe because the sun is so big in comparison that it will not matter.

thanks for the video.

I study beam propulsion before, is a good way but the cost to launch just a few ships would be higher than fusion, it start to have sense if you want to launch ships very often. There are 3 main issues with beamed propulsion: beam focus, beam accuracy and power needed. Depending the method of choice, some would be hard to accomplish than others. To very long distances, accuracy becomes a nightmare, the focus problem is solveable but it rise the total cost by a huge factor, the power needed is also solveable with huge cost, unless we use the Jordin Kare's approach of micro-sail beam, but in that case the extra cost comes in all the micro-sails that you need. So I will said this rise the cost by a factor of +1000 against normal solar sails. So if you can launch 1000 interstellar probes for the cost of 1, being just half of fast is not a problem. Also how much payload you can carry in a solar sails and how fast it can go, it depends on how big you made the sail, so your average density is higher or lower than 0.01g/m2, about how much acceleration a sail can resist, meanwhile you keep the load and masses constant, there is not problem, in fact the jordin kare´s calculation show that it might be possible to accelerate micro sails (which work to push a magsail) from 0 to almost light speed in 1 second. Why you use /g as a unit of ISP? The unit from what I know is seconds. In the superconductor magnet approach, there is not chance to increase the efficiency with pair production? The energy would be so concentrated and energetic than 2 gammarays photons crashing between them will produce matter that can be redirected by the magnetic nozzle and increase the chance of pair production with different gammarays.

Exclipse: if you use my method, then you will not see nothing, it can not be detected, but you can explore all your 15 light years radius with tons of solar sails, and those solar sails can jump to other stars and keep exploring and sending data, all this without invest any fuel or energy, with printed craft that can be super cheaps once you build 4 or 6 of these. The solar sails can act as repeaters to amplify comunication of those which are at distant stars.

You can not use the magnetic sail as acceleration, the solar wind is 1000 times less stronger than photons bouncing on a solar sail. Besides your craft is in wet mode with several tons. Magnetic sails are good to brake as you said, but they are good to slow down from very fast speeds to lower speeds, is like a car and the air friction, at 500 km/h it will lose speed super fast, at 200km less, and at 10km/h (if we ignore wheel friction) it will keep moving a long time. Mag sails to brake from 95% light speed to 10% are very good, to brake those last 10% not so much, more taking into account that you need to save some fuel to brake the last km/s of deltav, so your craft still count as wet mass. Here you have an study taking into account with and without mag sails for Icarus: http://www.academia.edu/4133057/Braking_via_Magnetic_Sails_vs_Two_Stage_Fusion_Rockets They lower by a lot the intial wet mass of the ship with magnetic sails, but the travel time increase to 100 years to alpha centauri, that is how much takes to brake at that speed. About the solar sail erosion against the interstellar dust.. You have 0.1 atoms /cm3, the distance to alpha centauri is 9x1016cm, the graphene density is 3,8x1015 atoms/cm2, not all atoms will hit another atom in the sail, but we can said that it will need some kind of shielding for sure. So to avoid that, once the acceleration ends (leaving the solar system) the solar sail rotates to be parallel to the direction of motion. Then we use the external mag sail to shield against the interstellar dust without lose much speed. Like this graphic: The sail at launch will have an external layer to provide extra mass to achieve a good sun diving and extra thrust due evaporation when reach the sun periapsis. It will have magnetic rails, with superconductor tiny masses that will move as any maglev train. That would help to control the sail, you can change the speed of the sail spin which provide the centrifuged force, also it can shape and balance loads over the sail. It helps to rotate, shape or different movements that the sail may need. To allow extra control when we dont have solar pressure, we can have tiny lasers and mirrors, the light bounce 1000 times so ir provides a descent net force. So this sail would need just more advances in nanotechnology and 3d printing. I guess in 2055 it may be possible to start with the first launch test, and in 2970/80 start with the first mission.

But is a fly-by... 40 years traveling to stay only 1 day in that star system, that is just enoght to take 3 pictures of a single planet at a certain distance (which it will not be very close) Solar sails can decelerate and use infinite deltav to explore that solar system. They will cost many orders of magnitud less, they can act as huge parabolic dish to improve communication, what you will need to do the same with a fusion ship? Just gathering all the deuterium needed to the craft would be super hard to do. What if the interstellar dust just damage the craft enoght that you lose contact? All that huge investment for nothing? Once you have all to build a solar sail in space, you can launch them very often, so if someone fails for X reasons, you just have 10 more in travel to the same or different destinations. Also the solar sail reach 6% light speed in few days.

The only that I ask, that this mission needs to be enoght to gather all the data needed to plan an under ice mission.

The topic said interstellar travel in this century, it does not said that you need to reach a star before this century, just start the travel in a practical way. No, fusion has a lot of flaws, the ship even if you try to carry the most lightest instrument and things needed to complete the mission, due to the rocket equation, the ship ends being massive, bigger the ship its, more shielding do you need --> more mass. That ship would perform much worst than the solar sail approach, and it will be thousands of times more expensive. true Yeah, but we are very close. All the things that I ask, can be made in laboratory at low scale, CNT can achieve that density without the need of graphene, and we already begin with big scale production in CNT. To make it reflective we can make holes (which reduce the density) at the wavelenght scales, the perfect mirror was do it with this method. But not sure how good will be CNT in this matter, because you not add different wavelenghts. About being struck by a single micrometeroid.. there is nothing more safe and resistent than a solar sail of this characteristics, is so thin, that if a particle or any size body hit the sail, it will just made a tiny hole in the sail (this is not a glass mirror), the whole energy of the impact does not remain in the sail, because you dont decelerate the particle or micrometeoroid. All the fragments of the collision does not hit new particles of the sail, you can think in the sail as a 2d structure. There are papers explaining this in more detail. Solar Sail is the most cheap and effective method you can find.

yeah, I imagine they are also guilty for all oil spills in the world... keep reading fairies tales... Kyshtym disaster You are talking of the Yucca Mountain or the reactors? 1 km deep to install the reactors? is that mentioned in the video? If that is the case, then I dont see much problem with the safety, but not sure how they deal with the drill cost and heat transfer efficiency. You wanna bet? solar panels will keep loweing cost and become more clean with the time.. Carbon will remplace silicon in few years. More into the future you need storage which cost it will drop faster than solar. Today you can use the existing fossil plants to that purpose, which they on and off even without renewable energy sources, and the biggest cost of a thermal plant is the fuel.

what??? Are you high? if you are not able to follow a discussion, then dont. We know all the physsics involve. We have experiment knowledge about magnetic fields, antimatter, radiation, gamma rays, materials, heat, etc. Science and theories allow us to make predictions, as under certain speed and trajectory what path follow a body under the effects of gravity. In an antimatter nozzle complexity between different effects adds disparities against theory, but you can also measure how restricted will be your error. Is call pair production and it can be used to increase the efficiency, gamma rays can not be focus with a magnetic nozzle, so if it creates matter again, can be redirected. And try to avoid the sensationalism words, they had not effect here. Yeah, everyone here knows the difference between dry mass and wet, but not sure if you do...You quote me, but still I dont find any word yours that is a direct answer of what I am saying.. But from what I can interpret, you still thinking that you need to absorb +50% of the energy. You dont need to absorb the gamarays, you dont need lead. Meanwhile more lightweight is your craft, less gamma rays you will absorb (from those you cant not redirect with the magnetic nozzle, read about pions, neutral or charged, decaying, etc) To protect the crew if is manned, you just use the inverse square law in distance with radiation. Place your crew at 1 km from the engines, place your engines in front in angle to the sides. Also forget about the plasma, that is another method to inflate magnetic fields, it will just confuse you And remember, it all depends on your acceleration and colling system. bounce??? you mean annihilation? Also I am not talking of manned ships, but wherever.. space in the argument of interstellar travel?? what??? Ok, confirm, you are high. I never had that conversation with you, I dont defend warp drive, that is K2. I only focus in the current and upcomming technologies that might have real applications in the near term future. yes they mention it, the same as how hard is storing and creating antimatter, which if you remember, is what I said in my first answer to you.. I said: The difficult about antimatter is storing and production, that problem is out of this century, but not the engine. The engine is feasible with our current technology and knowledge. You are answering me? because not sure about what are you talking any more, I was discussing with you just the feasibility of antimatter engines.

This might be true only if we discover than the sun will explote and we found with huge huge telescope that there is (with 100% of certain) an habitable planet in one of our closest stars. To organize the construction of such ship, with all the caos it will be the earth knowing the news about the sun would not be easy. This ship would have a lot of chances to fail. So all this is highly unlikely to happen. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- My solution to interplanetary travel in this century: The mass of the craft when we talk about huge deltaV is essential, antimatter is out of this century, and even fusion is not enoght, that will increase the total mass and complexity (cost) of the craft by a lot. What if we can make our probes with few kg of material? We just need to master technologies as graphene, CNT and 3d printing. We can build these solar sails using 3d print spiders in space, with all instruments printed over the same sail. You can make a solar sail with a density close to 0.01g/m2, this mean that you can make a fly-by very close to the sun (heat is not a problem) which it will provide huge accelerations, this allow speeds close to 6% light speed without using propellent or earth energy. They can brake using the same technique in destination, and go everywhere you want in that solar system. The sail can change is shape to act as a huge parabolic mirror to alow interplanetary comunications with low energy requirements. You just detach the laser emissor/receptor to reach the focal point of the sail, then return the emissor to the craft after the comunication is done. I dint enter in details to not make a huge post, but I am confident that I can answer each criticism that you might found about this. As someone else mention, the speed in interstellar travel is an issue, because if you reach 0.05c in some moment, you will double that speed few decades later which it can surpass the older mission. In this case this is not a problem. Because we can launch several crafts, they are so light and they require so few materials that once you can make one in space, you can make many more with low cost. So you keep launching these sails to all stars, this allow a continuity flow of data from everywhere.

Yeah I dont like this idea. They might be more safe than big nuclear reactors, yes.. but you also need many of these to remplace one big. Big reactors are "safe", but still they have issues once over time. All the waste/fuel management is still a problem. They might be safe from direct attack or accidents in the surface, the radiation can not escape to the atmosphere.. But the water we drink or the one that we use for irrigation still comes from underground. This is not the energy solution for earth, because is still fission which it comes with many flaws, so they never will reach mass production, so the cost would not drop much. This is not like solar panels or wind turbines, where they are really made with mass production techniques, that is why they drop so much the cost and they keep doing it.

Isp is measure in seconds. So not sure your intention to add / gravity in the unit. All points that you only know one method to get propulsion with antimatter, which is absorbing the energy then release it in a collimated way. Even doing that there is not problem with heat, because it depends on how good are you redirecting that heat or how much acceleration you want. The engine of any car will also melt without a colling system. But then you have the magnetic nozzle method, which you only absorb a fraction of the energy release. Another method may be this mentioned by F. Winterberg http://vixra.org/pdf/1201.0026v1.pdf The nozzle is only magnetic, there is not solid material there. You can create a huge plasma-magnetic nozzle if you want that will cover very well the field generator. You based your conclusion in wrong methods and hypothesis.