Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Technology => Topic started by: bearnard1212 on 29/12/2020 13:35:58
-
What is the most advanced space technology you ever heard about? Today, when we are close to the crewed journey to Mars it`s rather interesting to know, what was for you the real breakthrough in the space tech world?
-
There seems to be no single technological breakthrough that move the state of the art forward from its otherwise steady pace of small, careful increments.
The largest breakthrough I've seen is probably privatization of the industry. An environment where the space group (NASA say) is not using its own money just doesn't have as much drive to find more efficient ways of doing things.
-
There seems to be no single technological breakthrough that move the state of the art forward from its otherwise steady pace of small, careful increments.
The largest breakthrough I've seen is probably privatization of the industry. An environment where the space group (NASA say) is not using its own money just doesn't have as much drive to find more efficient ways of doing things.
How it`s useful for space explorations? I only see the benefit for NASA. Do you think that it influences on the development of particular space missions?
-
What is the most advanced space technology you ever heard about? Today, when we are close to the crewed journey to Mars it`s rather interesting to know, what was for you the real breakthrough in the space tech world?
Surely it has to be: "Project Orion", in the 1960s. Orion space-vehicles were to be propelled by nuclear energy, generated by many hundreds of small fission-bombs. These would be detonated in sequence, at intervals of a few seconds, under the base of the vehicle. The base would be protected from blast-erosion by films of oil.
The result would be a really gargantuan spacecraft, weighing thousands of tons and the size of an old ocean-liner, capable of travelling to Mars in a few weeks or months . And to the outer planets within a similarly short time.
The motto of the Orion ship designers was "Saturn by 1970!"
Why it never came to fruition, is something of a mystery. You can read about it on Google.
-
Why it never came to fruition, is something of a mystery.
It would, no doubt, have been extraordinarily expensive. Then there is the issue of people worrying about a nuclear-powered spacecraft crashing during lift-off. Those two challenges would have been formidable to overcome.
-
Why it never came to fruition, is something of a mystery.
It would, no doubt, have been extraordinarily expensive. Then there is the issue of people worrying about a nuclear-powered spacecraft crashing during lift-off. Those two challenges would have been formidable to overcome.
As for the expense, it wouldn't have been more than building 1,000 Minuteman ICBM's each equipped with nuclear warheads. The US government did that in the 1960s, when "Orion" was being considered.
As for the worry about the radioactive consequences of "Orion" crashing during lift-off, the US government used to conduct tests of nuclear weapons, in the megaton range, on its own territory, in Nevada..
That didn't seem to cause any worry, except to Howard Hughes.
So I think there must be another reason for the termination of the revolutionary "Project Orion". What that is, you guess.
-
Taxpayers / voters may have been more concerned about a Russian invasion than about not getting to Saturn.
-
US taxpayers seem more concerned about chewing gum, the right to buy AK-47s in Walmart, and electing Presidents like Trump.
So their views on the peaceful exploration of the Solar System by atomic spaceships such as "Orion", may I think, be disregarded.
-
It seems that, by the simple trick of owning the media, you can get the US population to vote for damned near anything. (Or anyone)
-
It seems that, by the simple trick of owning the media, you can get the US population to vote for damned near anything. (Or anyone)
Are there any limits - you thinking of running?
-
It seems that, by the simple trick of owning the media, you can get the US population to vote for damned near anything. (Or anyone)
Are there any limits - you thinking of running?
I'm not American.
I'm also not nearly rich enough.
-
I think the most significant technical advance was implementing the decision to use liquid hydrogen fuel.
Rocket science is very simple Newtonian physics and elementary chemistry. Rocket engineering is a whole lot more complicated.
-
Voyager 1 is the space technology that has advanced furthest from earth so far.
-
What advances? We've been in space for decades now, and still at the same velocities. With those pitiful velocities, we have to have a gravity craft(spinning) and a whole lot of shielding......before we go anywhere. The idea of Mars now.......is foolish. A station or base on the far side of moon is much more valuable. We need to learn how to move, before we go anywhere.
-
What's so interesting about the far side of the moon?
-
It's a black-out area for measurement. Much blacker area than the black-out area around Green Bank. And it will allow reception of all frequencies. No atmospheric filter. 10,000 Hz to 100 MHz or so might be very interesting. 1 to 30 MHz would interest me. And without that filter, THz would be of great interest to many. With all the chatter from earth, and earth orbits, blocked out. We could use almost the whole dark side as a giant ear/eye for unexplored spectrums. And solar flux studies as well.
-
(The far side of the Moon is) a black-out area for measurement
I'm afraid that as soon as we go someplace, we take sources of interference with us.
The Chinese have a rover on the far side of the Moon. So they have a relay satellite orbiting the Lunar L2 point (but with a radius big enough so that it can always be seen from Earth, around the sides of the Moon).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_objects_at_Lagrange_points#Earth%E2%80%93Moon_Lagrange_points
-
I think the most significant technical advance was implementing the decision to use liquid hydrogen fuel.
Rocket science is very simple Newtonian physics and elementary chemistry. Rocket engineering is a whole lot more complicated.
Yes. If rockets are going to be propelled by chemical energy, the liquid hydrogen/ liquid oxygen mix generates the most thrust. (Except if fluorine was used, but that element is so reactive it eats away its own metal fuel-pipes -unless the pipes were made of fluorite)
The use of liquid hydrogen in the first-stage of the US Saturn 5 booster, was possibly why it beat the Soviet rockets to the Moon. The Soviet boosters, I think, always used kerosene, or some other chemical compound less energy-productive than pure hydrogen. Also the Soviets were never able to engineer really big rocket-engines, so had to use complicated clusters of small ones. Over 40 in their N-1 equivalent of the Saturn-5. The N-1 was launched 4 times and blew up every time.
As you say, there's a big difference between Rocket Science and Rocket Engineering!
-
Except if fluorine was used, but that element is so reactive it eats away its own metal fuel-pipes -unless the pipes were made of fluorite
You can also make them out of Nickel. Fluorine reacts with Nickel to produce a protective layer.
For the pipes, start at 4:30.
Watch the lot for video of Fluorine reacting with various chemicals...
-
The big problem with fluorine is when it's hot (and a rocket implies that it will be).
The hot fluorine will make its way through the nickel fluoride layer. If you are unlucky, the metal pipe actually catches fire.
If you don't shut off the flow, the metal burns back until it reaches the cylinder.
This is not good news.
The problem is less likely if you use heavy wall pipes (because they can heat-sink the reaction.
Heavy isn't a thing that rocket makers usually like.
But they gave it a go...
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a307841.pdf
-
The military, would you believe it, are increasingly concerned about contaminating battlefields, whether with uranium oxide from DU shells, general fallout from tactical nuclear weapons, of toxic biological or chemical agents. Makes sense, really, because you win a fight by having your infantry occupy the enemy territory, and there's little to be be gained and much to be lost by occupying a sterile and toxic desert.
So imagine the fun you could have after launching a moon shot and covering Cape Canaveral with 2,000 tons of hydrofluoric acid!
-
International Space Station (ISS) the largest and most expensive technology which enables human to explore space and allows human with lot more benefits
-
I agree that the space industry has made huge breakthroughs over the past 50 years, Musk amazes me now with his new inventions, he seemed to burst into the life of cavemen who did not want to change anything in the space industry and turned the minds of many ;D
-
I think the most significant technical advance was implementing the decision to use liquid hydrogen fuel.
Rocket science is very simple Newtonian physics and elementary chemistry. Rocket engineering is a whole lot more complicated.
Some space companies already use such kind of fuel. However this kind of rocket is not used for long journeys. This rocket is called Spam and it`s been manufactured by private aerospace company (http://Spam)
Spam combines solid Hydroxyl Terminated Polybutadiene (HTPB) fuel and 90% Hydrogen Peroxide (H202) liquid oxidiser.
-
I think the most significant technical advance was implementing the decision to use liquid hydrogen fuel.
Rocket science is very simple Newtonian physics and elementary chemistry. Rocket engineering is a whole lot more complicated.
Some space companies already use such kind of fuel. However this kind of rocket is not used for long journeys. This rocket is called Spam and it`s been manufactured by private aerospace company (http://Spam)
Skyhy combines solid Hydroxyl Terminated Polybutadiene (HTPB) fuel and 90% Hydrogen Peroxide (H202) liquid oxidiser.
When you mention " solid" components of rocket fuel, this brings to mind military missiles such as the US "Minuteman" ICBMs. These use exclusively solid fuel to power their rocket motors, which are powerful enough to propel their nuclear payloads across intercontinental distances, 5,000 miles or more, from the USA to Russia..
Moreover, the Minuteman missiles are quite old. They first came into service in the 1960s. Even the final version, the Minuteman-3, dates back to the 1970s. Yet they're apparently still reliable, at least hopefully! As they still make up the entire basis of the US land-based deterrent force of 400 missiles. The earlier liquid-fuelled missiles, such as the 54 Titan-2s, were scrapped many years ago.
The point I'm wondering about, is why the technology incorporated in the Minuteman-3, can't simply be utilised in modern civilian rockets? Instead of trying to "re-invent" the wheel, so to speak, by inventing entirely new rockets such the BFR..
And leading on from this, why can't rockets such as the NASA Saturn-5 booster, which so successfully sent all the Apollo missions to the Moon, be re-manufactured, and used by the new commercial companies.
I suppose the blueprints for the Saturn-5 are still on file. Can't they be used, with updated electronics?
-
I think the most significant technical advance was implementing the decision to use liquid hydrogen fuel.
Rocket science is very simple Newtonian physics and elementary chemistry. Rocket engineering is a whole lot more complicated.
Some space companies already use such kind of fuel. However this kind of rocket is not used for long journeys. This rocket has been manufactured by private
Spammy combines solid Hydroxyl Terminated Polybutadiene (HTPB) fuel and 90% Hydrogen Peroxide (H202) liquid oxidiser.
(http://Spam [/url)
When you mention " solid" components of rocket fuel, this brings to mind military missiles such as the US "Minuteman" ICBMs. These use exclusively solid fuel to power their rocket motors, which are powerful enough to propel their nuclear payloads across intercontinental distances, 5,000 miles or more, from the USA to Russia..
Moreover, the Minuteman missiles are quite old. They first came into service in the 1960s. Even the final version, the Minuteman-3, dates back to the 1970s. Yet they're apparently still reliable, at least hopefully! As they still make up the entire basis of the US land-based deterrent force of 400 missiles. The earlier liquid-fuelled missiles, such as the 54 Titan-2s, were scrapped many years ago.
The point I'm wondering about, is why the technology incorporated in the Minuteman-3, can't simply be utilised in modern civilian rockets? Instead of trying to "re-invent" the wheel, so to speak, by inventing entirely new rockets such the BFR..
And leading on from this, why can't rockets such as the NASA Saturn-5 booster, which so successfully sent all the Apollo missions to the Moon, be re-manufactured, and used by the new commercial companies.
I suppose the blueprints for the Saturn-5 are still on file. Can't they be used, with updated electronics?
I guess that those kind of rocket as NASA Saturn-5 booster is a bit obsolete to be used now or to be converte into something which is used now for space traveling. Now as we can see the most advanced rocket engine is Raptor and it has a lot of differences with the engine of the rocket you`ve mentioned
-
why the (solid-fuel) technology incorporated in the Minuteman-3, can't simply be utilised in modern civilian rockets
The Minuteman rocket is disposable, one use only.
- That doesn't sit well with modern "green" credentials
- Nor does the final product of high levels of CO2 emitted from a burning city
- Or the globe-circling cloud of radioactive isotopes launched into the stratosphere by the nuclear warhead.
The space shuttle used solid-fuel booster rockets, which parachuted into the sea. They were recovered, refurbished and reused, providing a degree of reusability.
- The problem with them is that once you light them, they will burn until the fuel is exhausted. You can't throttle back to reduce aerodynamic loads, turn them off early, or relight them again later, which make them rather inflexible.
- If you are going to dump them in the sea, you don't want any fancy electronics, steering or other things that could be damaged
On the other hand, SpaceX requires rockets that can be shut down, relit, throttled and steered
- They can be more readily reused because they do a soft landing on a platform
-
Thanks Evan for your post#27.
As always, you make insightful points. I especially liked your comment about the CO2 emissions from the burning cities!
Although, taking a very long-term view, from a "Green" perspective, wouldn't the nuclear incineration of cities ultimately be beneficial. Once the smoke and dust had cleared away above the ruined cities, and the radioactivity had decayed over centuries and millennia.
And all the rubble, the broken stone, the rusting metal, had sunk into the ground, to be replaced by trees and forests?
Wouldn't that be a delight?
Personally, I don't think so. A city such as London or New York, is worth far more than thousands of ruddy forests.
-
taking a very long-term view
... we are all dead.A city such as London or New York, is worth far more than thousands of ruddy forests.
Yes, but it costs a million times more; so it is very poor value for money.