Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 22-26 August 2011 (1996-2000)
snubnose:
--- Quote from: Akima on 28 Aug 2011, 16:27 ---
--- Quote from: Boradis on 25 Aug 2011, 07:21 ---If that's what he said, he has a grossly oversimplified view of the difficulties of space travel. It's not that we lost interest it's that orbital velocity is incredibly hard and escape velocity is even harder. Until a breakthrough in propulsion or materials comes along we're going to be stuck on one planet.
--- End quote ---
I've been thinking about this since you posted it, and I'm not sure that I buy it. I know that climbing out of the gravity well is very difficult, but it hasn't become any more so since Apollo 17 brought crewed spaceflight beyond Earth's orbit to an end. In 1972. Nearly 40 years ago. Using technology developed back in the 1960's. I was thinking about this when the final Space Shuttle mission ended. The Space Shuttle first made an orbital flight more than thirty years ago. The Russian Proton rocket first flew in 1965. I don't doubt that Proton, like the Shuttle, has undergone development since its first flight (the latest model first flew a decade ago), but could we not do better today if we only wanted to? Compare the pace of progress in space-launch technology with that in areas we really do care about, like mobile phones and killing people.
I think there is something in Jeph's idea that we, or at least our rulers, just lost interest. The technical hurdle has not grown any higher, but we're achieving less in leaping it than we did in 1968. The political motivation for Apollo was primarily international dick-waving, and using space-flight for that just went out of fashion, until arguably my homeland started treading the same path.
--- End quote ---
I dont really get your posting.
Yes the technology to reach the moon is known now. Its chemistry. All our rockets use chemistry.
Chemistry has a simple property: the most powerful reaction of all chemistry is the one of hydrogen and oxygen.
So yes, our most efficient rocket designs use exactly that, hydrogen and oxygen.
So yes, there is no way to store more energy into a rocket. The Saturn V used it. The Space Shuttle used it. Neither are pure hydrogen / oxygen concepts, but the overall performance is close to maximal to what we could possibly do.
We cant go further than that because there is simply no technological way known to us, not even at the far horizont, that would allow us to pack more energy into a certain weight. Nuclear reactors are crazy complicated and super heavy machines. Solar energy is much too little at a time that you could get something into orbit with it. The space elevator is a nice idea but I doubt that it will ever work even if we find a material that could theoretically do it. Just realize this material will be bombarded with our own garbage in orbit.
So there has been no huge progress in this area simply because we have no real option there.
Once someone finds a way to create the "impulse drive" described in Star Trek, i.e. a drive that accellerates small amounts of matter to extreme speeds compareable to those in the large hadron collider, and another technology that is as efficient as nuclear power, but with much less radiation issues and thus can be created very lightweight, we can have something like a star trek shuttle and fly into orbit and beyond easily.
But there is no such option available to us right now.
Is it cold in here?:
Cesium and fluorine has way more energy content, but not on a per-mass basis, and hydrogen-fluorine produces highly toxic exhaust.
Chlorine trifluoride was investigated as an oxidizer, able to supply fluorine at high density without cryogenics. It has industrial uses, but it's hard to safely handle something that sets concrete on fire and explodes all but the cleanest and driest protective gear.
Mark7:
Britain's rocket research program (yes, we had one :P) used a kerosene/peroxide mix (yes, that's right, our rockets were powered by blonde).
From the Wikipedia article on the Bristol Siddeley Gamma
--- Quote ---Use of kerosene / hydrogen peroxide engines has been a particularly British trait in rocket development, there being few comparable engines (such as the LR-40) from the USA.[4]
The combustion of kerosene with hydrogen peroxide is given by the formula
CH2 + 3H2O2 → CO2 + 4H2O
where CH2 is the approximate formula of kerosene (see RP-1 for a discussion of kerosene rocket fuels). This compares with the combustion of kerosene and liquid oxygen (LOX)
CH2 + 1.5O2 → CO2 + H2O
showing that the exhaust from kerosene / peroxide is predominantly water. This results in a very clean exhaust (second only to cryogenic LO2/LH2) and a distinctive clear flame.[5] The low molecular mass of water also helps to increase rocket thrust performance.[6]
The oxidizer used with Gamma was 85% High Test Peroxide (HTP), H2O2. Gamma used a silver-plated on nickel-gauze catalyst to first decompose the peroxide.[7] For higher concentrations of H2O2 another catalyst would have been required, such as platinum. No ignition source was required since the very hot decomposed H2O2 is hypergolic (will spontaneously combust) with kerosene. Due to the high ratio (8:1) of the mass of H2O2 used compared to the kerosene, and also its superior heat characteristics, the H2O2 may also be used to regeneratively cool the engine nozzle before combustion. Any pre-combustion chamber used to power the pump turbines needs only to decompose H2O2 to provide the energy. This gives the efficiency advantages of closed cycle operation, without its usual major engineering problems.
All of these characteristics lead to kerosene / hydrogen peroxide engines being simpler and more reliable to construct than other liquid propellant chemistries. Gamma had a remarkably reliable service record for a rocket engine. Of the 22 Black Knight and 4 Black Arrow launchers, involving 128 Gamma engines, there were no engine failures.[6]
--- End quote ---
Probably the most famous British rocket
Mr_Rose:
--- Quote from: snubnose on 31 Aug 2011, 01:58 ---Chemistry has a simple property: the most powerful reaction of all chemistry is the one of hydrogen and oxygen.
--- End quote ---
Whilst it's adorable that you stated that like its a fact, please stop. :psyduck:
Carl-E:
--- Quote from: Mark7 on 31 Aug 2011, 02:56 ---Probably the most famous British rocket
--- End quote ---
I wish it had been called Black Adder instead of Black Arrow.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version