Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments
1–10 of 75 posts
Re: Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments
#2Re: Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments
#3Why not use the speeding hydrogen in a nuclear reaction that fuels the ship, thereby killing 2 atoms with one stone? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
Re: Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments
#4Why not use the speeding hydrogen in a nuclear reaction that fuels the ship, thereby killing 2 atoms with one stone? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
Re: Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments
#5Why not use the speeding hydrogen in a nuclear reaction that fuels the ship, thereby killing 2 atoms with one stone? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
And assuming that you can divert the protons, ironically enough, you'd have a serious problem cooling them down sufficiently to achieve fusion (because if you don't, the plasma will not be sufficiently dense to cause a high probability of fusion events, despite the high temperature); and slowing their passage through the ship so they stick around long enough to fuse would create significant drag. And after you have solved the problems of collecting, matching velocity with, and cooling/compressing the plasma, a Bussard Ramjet is only worthwhile if you have an extremely efficient system for capturing all of the waste heat from those processes and injecting it back into the exhaust. Otherwise, at any speed above about .12c, you lose more energy to drag while collecting protons than you gain back from fusing them.
Now, there's no particular physical reason why all of those problems couldn't be solved. But if you've already got some way of accelerating to >.5c, and you just need to worry about radiation shielding, building a whole Bussard Ramjet rather than just trying to push protons out of the way with minimal effort or absorb them in some very massive physical shield, is not the way to go.
Re: Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments
#6Why not use the speeding hydrogen in a nuclear reaction that fuels the ship, thereby killing 2 atoms with one stone? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
Because, if I am reading the article correctly, some hydrogen (which has become radiation) will go through you anyway. This kills you. Somehow gathering up all of the radiation and trying to use it to fuel a ramjet is the same thing as trying to make some sort of shield, which the article says would be very difficult.
Re: Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments
#7Remember per special relativity mass increases as we approach C. Also I think there will be other physiological problems while accelerating to C. It would take like 34 days at 10g acceleration to get to C. I wonder how our bodies would handle 34 days at that kind of g limits. At 2g it will take like 173 days to reach C.
Lastly, we don't really have a good physical understanding of matter at near C speed limits. With mass increasing as we approach C, I don't know we can assume the same physical properties of any material in classical models.
Re: Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments
#8Re: Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments
#9Re: Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments
#10Another point for using warp drive (=