just a noob question: why transport all the fuel, and not start from a cannon/catapult, something that make you start with some speed? edit: it's not clear, I was talking about partially using a cannon, not about a complete ballistic launch.
If you were in a vacuum, that could be a wonderfully efficient way of converting mechanical movement into kinetic energy. We have to deal with atmospheric friction, though, and the places where the cannon would launch from (the surface) has the thickest part of the atmosphere, so the most friction.
The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation (2012)
61–70 of 163 posts
Re: The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation (2012)
#62Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
for the equation (ignoring gravity),
and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget
for a diagram of the consequences.
Re: The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation (2012)
#63Lest you despair of ever making space flight routine, a rocket is not the only way to get into orbit. Virtually all of the needed velocity is tangent to the surface, not away from it. So you can accelerate the vehicle along the ground at least part of the way, and only then turn heavenward and burn fuel to get into orbit. With this boost you significantly reduce the amount of fuel needed. There are many way of doing…
Given that earth is a ball, aren't you always pointed heavenward if you are between 0-180 degrees. So you might as well start of by pointing directly heavenward, i.e 90 degrees. Plus, turning requires acceleration you cannot just capitalise on the velocity you have built up otherwise you would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Re: The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation (2012)
#64Right. This has been known for a long time. It's why rockets aren't much better than they were 40 years ago. Chemical fuels are as good as they can get. Space travel with chemical fuels is just barely feasible. In the 1960s, it was assumed that nuclear power would be necessary for space flight. Everybody involved knew the rocket equation. The original plan for Apollo included a nuclear upper stage. The engine (NERVA)…
Re: The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation (2012)
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zero feelings involved, just analysis before numerical computation. The concepts need to make sense first.
@SamReidHughes > ... accelerate upward then turn 90 degrees and accelerate horizontally I am not for such a scenario at all. The point of the upward (upward only and not considering the atmosphere) acceleration to the desired location is to give the lower bound of the energy requirements. This is the baseline (baseline-1) and the rocket equation is as simple as possible. In reality with an atmosphere and to put the o…
What I was grappling with, is. I presumed @ars (parent) knew he was talking and in expressing my contention it would get addressed with a little bit more information in what I was missing. I now see some emphasis in his explanation and additional links.
The key is was that tangential acceleration opens up none fuel based acceleration mechanisms i.e change to the type of energy and the quantity (you accelerate less fuel to burn up the fuel).
Re: The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation (2012)
#66Right. This has been known for a long time. It's why rockets aren't much better than they were 40 years ago. Chemical fuels are as good as they can get. Space travel with chemical fuels is just barely feasible. In the 1960s, it was assumed that nuclear power would be necessary for space flight. Everybody involved knew the rocket equation. The original plan for Apollo included a nuclear upper stage. The engine (NERVA)…
I wouldn't dismiss the space elevator out of hand. It requires carbon nanotubes of a few meters length to achieve the required strength, and you wouldn't need to lift it pre-built - you could build it with a guideline and cable laying cars traveling up and down, adding to the cable, much like they do with suspension bridges. Long term, it seems like far and away the best approach if we can solve the materials science…
Re: The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation (2012)
#67"If our planet was 50% larger in diameter, we would not be able to venture into space, at least using rockets for transport." I thought this was quite though-provoking from a Drake Equation standpoint. From what I've gleaned, the earth-like planets we know of seem to be a big bigger than Earth. Perhaps if there's civilization out there, they are hampered by the misfortune of being on a planet that's practically impos…
degrees are overrated. does john carmack have a degree?
Re: The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation (2012)
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
When going tangentially, you'll maintain tangentiality until you're going so fast that gravity isn't pulling you down fast enough to keep you pressed against the track you're on (because the Earth's surface curves downwards like the widdle spheroid it is). At that point, you're in low earth orbit (though you might want to fire the rockets a little bit to give yourself an orbit that doesn't intersect the planet). The…
I see it this way. You have to accelerate the mass to the escape velocity. You also have to achieve a net effect of being in orbit (some distance x above surface of earth). The most direct vector to that distance is perpendicular. The two combined should give you the minimal energy requirement. Any engineering (and aerodynamics) creativity cannot give you anything better.
(well, any combination of speed, direction, and position will be an 'orbit' in some sense, in that there's a conic section you're on that you would follow if you were in freefall. But if you're sitting still over a planet then it's the degenerate ellipse that's a straight line down to the planet's core).
So in the absence of atmosphere the ideal ascent trajectory would look pretty much like a Hohmann transfer orbit: you'd accelerate horizontally until you were in orbit at surface level, and then you'd do the minimum energy transfer from that orbit to a higher orbit. In reality it's worth getting to altitude where the air is thinner before turning horizontal, but even so, the vast majority of a rocket's acceleration is horizontal, not vertical.
You can do the maths, but if you want to really understand these things, play Kerbal Space Program. Seriously.
Re: The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation (2012)
#69Right. This has been known for a long time. It's why rockets aren't much better than they were 40 years ago. Chemical fuels are as good as they can get. Space travel with chemical fuels is just barely feasible. In the 1960s, it was assumed that nuclear power would be necessary for space flight. Everybody involved knew the rocket equation. The original plan for Apollo included a nuclear upper stage. The engine (NERVA)…
I wouldn't dismiss the space elevator out of hand. It requires carbon nanotubes of a few meters length to achieve the required strength, and you wouldn't need to lift it pre-built - you could build it with a guideline and cable laying cars traveling up and down, adding to the cable, much like they do with suspension bridges. Long term, it seems like far and away the best approach if we can solve the materials science…
The Lofstrom Loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop) could be built with materials we have today, although it requires sufficient amounts of money and land that only large countries or multibillionaires could attempt it.
Re: The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation (2012)
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
degrees are overrated. does john carmack have a degree?
Does he build rockets?