Right... that's only about 170 Saturn V rockets.
Try again.
Try again.
Could we get this into space?
- Thread starter All Seeing Eye
- Start date
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
But it isn't though, it's not like you'd strap 170 Saturn Vs to it, any rocket built to have an equivalent amount of power to 170 Saturn Vs would NOT be equal in size to that many rockets.
It would have to be big enough to contain 1,000,000,000 pounds of fuel. That's around 500,000 tons of fuel. Your rocket would have to have a thrust equal to the weight of the vehicle or it would just sit on the launch pad burning up fuel until the mass decreased to equal the rocket thrust. So you would have to have enough thrust to lift 500,000 tons, more or less. It probably wouldn't take long for all that exhaust to melt the launch pad.
---------------
I think - basically - the answer to the OP's question is that with our current chemical rocket technology, there is no way in hell you could get something with the mass of a Nimitz into space.
Future technologies might have this ability (an anti-gravity drive for example) but right now it would be impossible.
One of the less plausible aspects of the jump in technology in the last few seasons of Stargate SG1 is how advanced the engines of the fighters and Prometheus are. I know they just reverse engineer them from the Goauld but its a BIG jump.
Future technologies might have this ability (an anti-gravity drive for example) but right now it would be impossible.
One of the less plausible aspects of the jump in technology in the last few seasons of Stargate SG1 is how advanced the engines of the fighters and Prometheus are. I know they just reverse engineer them from the Goauld but its a BIG jump.
Ummm... again, no. Unless you're coming up with a multidimensional pocket, bag of holding or something, you have to store the same amount of fuel as 170 Saturn Vs. Most of their volume is fuel tank Here, look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saturn_v_schematic.jpg
See those big empty spaces instde the frame? You guessed it, FUEL TANKS!
We haven't come up with vastly more energetic fuels since the Apollo days, so this volume requirement wouldn't change.
Therefore yeah, it would be pretty much like strappping 170-ish Saturn V rockets to whatever hunk of metal you're wanting to lob skyward. This doesn't even address giving the payload any manuvering ability of it's own, so I guess this is pretty much gonna kill the fantasy of a seafaring ship gone star-trekking.
So, to take USS KG5's lead, the short answer is:
No, we can't do that right now, and probably not for a long time.
IF, and ONLY IF you had sufficient duct tape and 2 Saturn V rockets, you might maybe could lift this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_class_hydrofoil
As luck would have it there are two Saturn V's left, and duct tape abounds, and the Pegasus class is decomissioned. All the parts are available, go to town!
I'll wait for the next bus.
Shawnster, the Orion ship built in Footfall was lots bigger then that! It had the 4 space shuttles attached, some battleship guns equipped with thrusters, and a huge brick at the front to protect the occupants from the weapons of the alien mothership and the octuples of digit ships being launched at them.
The Orion design depends on multiple nukes dropped out the rear and detonated in fairly rapid succession. It goes "putt-putt", but on a gianormus scale.
Note that's the original Orion design, not the new NASA one!
That being said, air detonation of a large number of nukes to lift a ship will probably invoke the ire of a large mob toting torches and pitchforks.
So... label Orion concept as that as "theoretically possible, but impractical save for the most dire of circumstances".
The Orion design depends on multiple nukes dropped out the rear and detonated in fairly rapid succession. It goes "putt-putt", but on a gianormus scale.
Note that's the original Orion design, not the new NASA one!
That being said, air detonation of a large number of nukes to lift a ship will probably invoke the ire of a large mob toting torches and pitchforks.
So... label Orion concept as that as "theoretically possible, but impractical save for the most dire of circumstances".
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Something that gets me is why don't they build a ship that's seriously top of the range that can just stay docked at the ISS? it can get refuelled and make trips to the moon and Mars? Surely the space agencies of NASA, ESA,RSA and others could combine their budgets and expertise to build an advanced space craft.
Maybe something like a shuttle craft on Star Trek like the Delta Flyer but with a bigger aft section, obviously proper engines and a design that allows atmospheric flight.
Something like this but better:
Maybe something like a shuttle craft on Star Trek like the Delta Flyer but with a bigger aft section, obviously proper engines and a design that allows atmospheric flight.
Something like this but better:
silly to think of getting that into space. Why? Much saner to launch a blimp to orbit affair and then use successive shuttle launches to foamcrete a hull onto the blimp.
Shaka, when the walls fell.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Do you REALLY need an answer to that question?
Something like this but better:
Why don't you build one Tachyon?
I mean it.
Just like Scrapheap Challenge, start out with an old van and some sheet metal scrap. I'm sure you could get the external frame to look like the Delta Flyer. Make sure it is vacuum proof and shock proof, and build in additional structural integrity by welding in some steel girders. http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/delta-size.htm
Then paint it.
When you've done that. Post photos up here and I'll tell you what to do next.
Actually I was gonna propose that the OP, upon completeing a full-scale Delta Flyer begin building a giant circular rail system in which this spacecraft could gradually accellerate to an incredible velocity.
Taccy, it's obvious that you don't understand that the Orion CEV currently in design phase by NASA *IS* "top of the range", as I believe you put it. We simply don't have the technology to build a craft like you outline. Hell, we can't even design a decent toilet for space yet.
The ISS has roughly the interior volume you're looking for, but it'll never leave orbit. Even with the advanced systems it has onboard, it needs constant resupply from Earth to maintain a crew of 3.
As a race, humanity simply can't build your dream right now. It's sad, but true. I really wish we could.
As a kid, I had the privelege of watching one Saturn V leave the launchpad with my own eyes. I heard the thunder, and felt it with my entire body. Three miles away, the ground shook beneath my feet.
While I firmly believe that the destiny of man includes black sky, I also know that we have lots of work to do before we can *really* set up housekeeping out there.
Here's a suggestion for you, Taccy. Take a look at http://astronautix.com/
It's a great web site that covers lots of stuff about the real space program. Everything is there, from concepts that never left paper to information about the moon landings to SpaceShip One.
On those pages, you may find understanding of what is and is not possible in space with our current technology.
I'm done here.
Geek, out.
Taccy, it's obvious that you don't understand that the Orion CEV currently in design phase by NASA *IS* "top of the range", as I believe you put it. We simply don't have the technology to build a craft like you outline. Hell, we can't even design a decent toilet for space yet.
The ISS has roughly the interior volume you're looking for, but it'll never leave orbit. Even with the advanced systems it has onboard, it needs constant resupply from Earth to maintain a crew of 3.
As a race, humanity simply can't build your dream right now. It's sad, but true. I really wish we could.
As a kid, I had the privelege of watching one Saturn V leave the launchpad with my own eyes. I heard the thunder, and felt it with my entire body. Three miles away, the ground shook beneath my feet.
While I firmly believe that the destiny of man includes black sky, I also know that we have lots of work to do before we can *really* set up housekeeping out there.
Here's a suggestion for you, Taccy. Take a look at http://astronautix.com/
It's a great web site that covers lots of stuff about the real space program. Everything is there, from concepts that never left paper to information about the moon landings to SpaceShip One.
On those pages, you may find understanding of what is and is not possible in space with our current technology.
I'm done here.
Geek, out.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Something like this but better:
Why don't you build one Tachyon?
I mean it.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/delta-size.htm
Then paint it.
When you've done that. Post photos up here and I'll tell you what to do next.
Ya know what, I could probably easy a pie build something like that but it's the electrical systems and sensor instruments etc that I wouldn't have a clue with.
I honestly can't fathom how they can build super dooper advanced cars, super dooper advanced combat aircraft but they can't build a proper spaceship.
I think there's three problems really.
(1) Life support.
Oxygen and food and water are an issue. You really need to be able to create oxygen from CO2, at the same rate as the crew use it. We can do this with certain grasses, exposed to bright light. You could grow these in the back room, or even in the cavity under the floor. That might be enough, I don't know how efficient they are.
(2) Propulsion.
Space is bigger than most people realise, and you need to accelerate harder and for longer to get anywhere in a reasonable time. This is kinetic energy, and we need a lot of it. This leads directly onto...
(3) Power Plant.
Batteries are unlikely to be enough (not enough kilojoules per kilo.)
Even chemical fuels like hydrogen/oxygen reaction, requires too much space to be practical, so the only option left is nuclear. And on such a small ship, the radiation would be fatal.
This is the biggest hurdle. If we had enough safe power for realistic propulsion, we could do (2), and could also afford to redirect a small amount to (1) to manufacture water and food and oxygen from our waste products, by all sorts of energy consuming chemical reactions.
After that...
The electronics and computer systems we could probably figure out between ourselves. For sensors, we'd need specialists in that area.
So design your power plant first.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
But it isn't going to be a small ship so nuclear is just fine.
But what is wrong with enormous Ion thrusters? or a huge nuclear electric propulsion system? combined of course with conventional chemical rockets.
The problem Tachyon is the energy:mass ratio of the power plant.
mass of ship : m
Kinetic energy of ship : E = 1/2 m v^2
Remember that the mass of the ship includes the mass of the power plant and fuel as cargo.
Ratio E/m (a constant for any particular kind of fuel) = (1/2) v^2
For the gas you get for your cooker, if you look on your energy bill, they call this figure "the calorific value", measured in kcals per kilogram, or something like that. Scientists would measure it in 'Joules per kilogram'.
This imposes a limit on the maximum velocity possible through free thrust of an engine, for any particular kind of fuel, independent of how big or lightweight the ship is.
Conventional fuels are just inadequate for the kind of space fairing vessel we want to build. You can accelerate them up to the high speeds needed for reasonable flight times, but that's all you can do. At that point you've spent most of your fuel.
Nuclear fuels have a much higher calorific value. Is it 1 kilogram of uranium is worth 100 tonnes of coal or something like that? Then its E/m is like 100,000 times that of coal.
Meaning your ship can find velocities sqrt[100,000] = 300 times greater than with conventional fuels, or equivalently can use it's engines with the same thrust but 100,000 times longer.
Ion thrusters are not really any more powerful. You still need the same energy source however it is ultimately converted into thrust.
IIRC, the whole point of ion thrusters was that they could provide very slow acceleration (firing for years and years) using solar power collected from massive collectors. Admittedly this is an unlimited, but your pilot would be old and gray before he's got to his destination. That's not what we want to build.
mass of ship : m
Kinetic energy of ship : E = 1/2 m v^2
Remember that the mass of the ship includes the mass of the power plant and fuel as cargo.
Ratio E/m (a constant for any particular kind of fuel) = (1/2) v^2
For the gas you get for your cooker, if you look on your energy bill, they call this figure "the calorific value", measured in kcals per kilogram, or something like that. Scientists would measure it in 'Joules per kilogram'.
This imposes a limit on the maximum velocity possible through free thrust of an engine, for any particular kind of fuel, independent of how big or lightweight the ship is.
Conventional fuels are just inadequate for the kind of space fairing vessel we want to build. You can accelerate them up to the high speeds needed for reasonable flight times, but that's all you can do. At that point you've spent most of your fuel.
Nuclear fuels have a much higher calorific value. Is it 1 kilogram of uranium is worth 100 tonnes of coal or something like that? Then its E/m is like 100,000 times that of coal.
Meaning your ship can find velocities sqrt[100,000] = 300 times greater than with conventional fuels, or equivalently can use it's engines with the same thrust but 100,000 times longer.
Ion thrusters are not really any more powerful. You still need the same energy source however it is ultimately converted into thrust.
IIRC, the whole point of ion thrusters was that they could provide very slow acceleration (firing for years and years) using solar power collected from massive collectors. Admittedly this is an unlimited, but your pilot would be old and gray before he's got to his destination. That's not what we want to build.
Last edited:
Similar threads
