Live data from Hacker News

Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments

scirp.org

1–10 of 75 posts

Re: Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments

#3
post #2

Why 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

#4
post #2

Why 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

The article points out some reasons why it might be difficult (not impossible!) to construct the electromagnetic field required for such a ramjet, but yes this point seems to be completely lost on the author. A Bussard ramjet specifically exploits the presence of interstellar hydrogen as a valuable energy resource.

Re: Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments

#5
post #2

Why 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 nobody knows how to make a Bussard Ramjet actually work. From the abstract: "Stopping or diverting this flux, either with material or electromagnetic shields, is a daunting problem."

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

#6
post #2

Why 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.

I think the idea is that it doesn't ever touch your ship--you just funnel it into your reactor directly. (You have to ionize it somehow...) So it's not equivalent to shielding--it's designed to avoid shielding.

Re: Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments

#7
I think once we are advanced enough to figure out how to propel anything that fast or able to pack the needed energy, this part might be easy to solve.

Remember 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.

Post reply on HN