Jump to content

The Void UPDATE I'm done with this 1/4/17

Spaceception

By Spaceception
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

fredinno

fredinno

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

Put me in for a gas giant habitable moon. You gain the benifits of a supermassive magnetic field from the giant, and stave off small-star tidal locking by locking to the giant instead.

You also need to deal with the lovely wonders of the gas giant's own radiation belts though- always fun! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fredinno

fredinno

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Spaceception said:

It's a 33-37 year trip.

It's supposed to be a colony ship.

I'll mess with inclinations, also, day/night cycles can be on habitable planets around red dwarfs,

Luck?

It'll be something like Skylon.

1-2 g continued acceleration.

I won't be able to reply to much in a while, my mom needs my computer :)

then you need a bigger ship. Probably like an O'Neil Cylinder if you want to make a 33y duration colony ship.I though it was for 4 people.You need a LOT more stuff on the non-business end, TBH.

Orbital Resonanaces are a great tool when trying to squish planets/moons together. Gas giants do it all the time.

Make sure your "Skylon" can take off and land veritically (adding a whole lot more complexity) as you will not likelybeable to find a good runway! :D

11 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

This thread title reminds me of the Larry Niven story ("Flatlander") where Beowulf Shaeffer encounters an entire solar system that is made out of antimatter rather than regular matter.

"Hey, this Solar system is made of anti-" BOOM! :P

5 hours ago, magnemoe said:

For the planet it will be tidal locked, it might still have an wobble like moon have, making it an moon or have an double planet will give you an day night cycle. 

For the lander, you have fusion, you use an thermal turbojet in the atmosphere fusion then outside, might add some reaction mass if your pure fusion TWR is too low, also for final decent on bodies without air.
If you can build an starship, vtol orbital crafts are old and boring technology. 
Make it like DC-X, but with jets along the rim, you might also want an plane with the same technology for trips, it also need to have vtol functionality think F35, it will however have far lower payload capacity than the dropship. 

 

I don't get how wobbles can make a day-night cycle. It's not likely to be cycular in the way days are, and a orbital resonace doing this every n orbits would still make the planet pretty much tidally lockedmost of the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceception

Spaceception

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, fredinno said:

then you need a bigger ship. Probably like an O'Neil Cylinder if you want to make a 33y duration colony ship.I though it was for 4 people.You need a LOT more stuff on the non-business end, TBH.

Make sure your "Skylon" can take off and land veritically (adding a whole lot more complexity) as you will not likelybeable to find a good runway! :D

The Starship is being designed/built during an apocalypse, so an O'Neil cylinder won't be vital, instead, I'm thinking of a roomier submarine type spacecraft (Yes, for 33 years, I'm not crazy, read Ark)

It'll be a lifting body aircraft and use retrorockets to slow down and skids to land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PB666

PB666

Posted
Posted
On 2/4/2016 at 9:36 AM, Spaceception said:

I need help with the propulsion system I'm using in a book idea I have:

How much Antimatter will I need to get to 17% the speed of light (And have enough to slow down) for a manned 7500 tonne (Dry mass) mission to a star about 8 light years away?

There is no such thing as a pure matter/antimatter propulsion system, unless you are proposing using the Cannae drive or a photon drive. You need a reaction mass to create thrust. Any system that does not include this is a non-starter. The photon drive is 1N per 300 MW of power, you would lose the lions share of energy if you chose a photon drive.

You need an antimatter plasma containment field, it requires you to split the antimatter into positrons and antiprotons, then spin them real fast and keep them from touching anything. The toroidal fission reactors appear to be able to do this and should work for antiprotons. How you store positrons is your guess.

.17 would be theoretically 216.75 tonnes of antimatter however we are not considering the weight of ejected material, so called reaction mass. To gain momentum you are going to eject something really fast and dP1 = dP2   so if you eject that mass at 0.5c (say 1 tonne) not factoring the dilation effects, 0.5 x 1 = 7500 x 6.6E-5 . . . . . . . won't work. One thousand tonne 0.5 x 1000 = 7500 x 0.067, that gets you to almost 30% of your goal, so lets say 1250 tonnes of antimatter and 4000 tonnes of accelerant, for a total ship weight of 12750 tonnes. 

In addition, you have no way to block he destructive effects of space dust at this speed, or too stop when you get to your destination, now we are talking about 20000 tonnes or more . How about the energy required to store antimatter for the years of space travel.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikegarrison

mikegarrison

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, fredinno said:

"Hey, this Solar system is made of anti-" BOOM! :P

More like:

BOOM! "Hey, what happened to the hull of the ship? Let's turn back." "No, let's keep going." "I'm turning back." "You coward." ... Later ... "Ooooh. So that was it? Um, sorry about that coward bit -- you were right."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fredinno

fredinno

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Spaceception said:

The Starship is being designed/built during an apocalypse, so an O'Neil cylinder won't be vital, instead, I'm thinking of a roomier submarine type spacecraft (Yes, for 33 years, I'm not crazy, read Ark)

It'll be a lifting body aircraft and use retrorockets to slow down and skids to land.

A colony ship still needs a of of space. How many people are you carrying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceception

Spaceception

Posted
  • Author
Posted
11 hours ago, PB666 said:

There is no such thing as a pure matter/antimatter propulsion system, unless you are proposing using the Cannae drive or a photon drive. You need a reaction mass to create thrust. Any system that does not include this is a non-starter. The photon drive is 1N per 300 MW of power, you would lose the lions share of energy if you chose a photon drive.

You need an antimatter plasma containment field, it requires you to split the antimatter into positrons and antiprotons, then spin them real fast and keep them from touching anything. The toroidal fission reactors appear to be able to do this and should work for antiprotons. How you store positrons is your guess.

.17 would be theoretically 216.75 tonnes of antimatter however we are not considering the weight of ejected material, so called reaction mass. To gain momentum you are going to eject something really fast and dP1 = dP2   so if you eject that mass at 0.5c (say 1 tonne) not factoring the dilation effects, 0.5 x 1 = 7500 x 6.6E-5 . . . . . . . won't work. One thousand tonne 0.5 x 1000 = 7500 x 0.067, that gets you to almost 30% of your goal, so lets say 1250 tonnes of antimatter and 4000 tonnes of accelerant, for a total ship weight of 12750 tonnes. 

In addition, you have no way to block he destructive effects of space dust at this speed, or too stop when you get to your destination, now we are talking about 20000 tonnes or more . How about the energy required to store antimatter for the years of space travel.

 

I'm okay with it being less efficient, as long as it gets to its target speed and is capable of slowing down.

So 25000 tonnes to be safe, but that's just the antimatter needed, the spacecraft is 7500 tonnes, so roughly 32500 tonnes. So would a Photonic rocket get to the target speed? And how long would it take to collect the Anti-Matter from Jupiter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PB666

PB666

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Spaceception said:

I'm okay with it being less efficient, as long as it gets to its target speed and is capable of slowing down.

So 25000 tonnes to be safe, but that's just the antimatter needed, the spacecraft is 7500 tonnes, so roughly 32500 tonnes. So would a Photonic rocket get to the target speed? And how long would it take to collect the Anti-Matter from Jupiter?

Photonic rocket would not, remember the equations 300MW per newton. You would blow most of your energy in the waveform of the photon. You need reaction mass.

It takes a year at 1g, (thats 9.8 meters of acc) to get close to c, So if your ship weight 32500 tonnes to get to 0.17c in a year, bad news that is 54,150,000 N/s x 300 MW = 16 terawatts of power, all of which would have to be processed into light. You want to accelerate a mass, the more mass you accelerate the better, unfortunately you have to carry it with you.

Simply stated by current laws of physics, carrying warm bodies around at 0.17 is not possible. I think interstellar travel, if it ever happens is going to occur either as probes or as large biospheres that can afford the long transit times. Either that or humans live long enough as a species that we catch a ride on close passing stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bill Phil

Bill Phil

Posted
Posted

Would it be more desirable to use a bussard ramjet, even though it does have a max speed? Perhaps you could use cryostasis, with nanotechnology to help, or just nanotech stasis, if you want your crew to be the original crew, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceception

Spaceception

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, fredinno said:

Damn, what's the diameter? 30m?

Diameter 45m

Length 100m

7 hours ago, PB666 said:

Photonic rocket would not, remember the equations 300MW per newton. You would blow most of your energy in the waveform of the photon. You need reaction mass.

It takes a year at 1g, (thats 9.8 meters of acc) to get close to c, So if your ship weight 32500 tonnes to get to 0.17c in a year, bad news that is 54,150,000 N/s x 300 MW = 16 terawatts of power, all of which would have to be processed into light. You want to accelerate a mass, the more mass you accelerate the better, unfortunately you have to carry it with you.

Simply stated by current laws of physics, carrying warm bodies around at 0.17 is not possible. I think interstellar travel, if it ever happens is going to occur either as probes or as large biospheres that can afford the long transit times. Either that or humans live long enough as a species that we catch a ride on close passing stars.

Oh:/ sigh I guess Anti-Matter won't work very well, back to the Medusa I guess.

Edited by Spaceception
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceception

Spaceception

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Would it be more desirable to use a bussard ramjet, even though it does have a max speed? Perhaps you could use cryostasis, with nanotechnology to help, or just nanotech stasis, if you want your crew to be the original crew, that is.

1 The Bussard ramjet would have to be MASSIVE, also, due to 'drag' from hydrogen particles it wouldn't be able to get to those 99% c speeds.

2 Cryostasis doesn't work for me because I want the crew to be awake, meaning it's likely going to be a generation ship

Edited by Spaceception
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Spaceception

Spaceception

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Okay, sorry everyone who's helping me with the propulsion system, I know I switched it around, but this time it's a Medusa sail for sure, as stated in the edited OP, I need to get to 8% the speed of light (And slow down) to Barnard's Star, 5,9 ly away on a manned ship with 250 people total (I know 10,000 should be the minimum for a genetically diverse colony, but studies in the past said 100 people should be just fine, so I'm sticking to those older ones) the trip time is about 70 years. It will use low-medium yield bombs similar to the one that went to Hiroshima (Only retrofitted for the Medusa) that will go off every three seconds.

And yes, the original system was Wolf 359, but Barnard's Star is 2.1 ly closer, so that shortens the trip time by more than a decade.

Also, when I begin writing, I'll post the first 2-3 chapters here. :)

EDIT: Hmmm, maybe @RoverDude could help?

Edited by Spaceception
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceception

Spaceception

Posted
  • Author
Posted

What do you guys think?

Two planets, Earth 2 is 1.2x the mass of Earth 5-6 c warmer than Earth and is mostly land, with one small ocean, has a 64 hour day/night cycle, and a 12 day orbit, planet c is .9x the mass of Earth, (I don't know what to call it) is 35 c colder than Earth, and and an atmosphere about as thin as Earths, with a 30 something day orbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fredinno

fredinno

Posted
Posted
On 2/19/2016 at 11:51 AM, Spaceception said:

What do you guys think?

Two planets, Earth 2 is 1.2x the mass of Earth 5-6 c warmer than Earth and is mostly land, with one small ocean, has a 64 hour day/night cycle, and a 12 day orbit, planet c is .9x the mass of Earth, (I don't know what to call it) is 35 c colder than Earth, and and an atmosphere about as thin as Earths, with a 30 something day orbit.

35 C colder than Earth is -19 C.

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard%27s_Star

Barnard's Star has only 30% of the Sun's Mettalicity, so any planets would be small, and would be more concentrated in things like water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...