Live data from Hacker News

Emergency braking in space

physicsforums.com

91–93 of 93 posts

Re: Emergency braking in space

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the mid-point is where the ship would be travelling at maximum velocity, so the course correction may not be as minimal depending on how slowly we're talking. It might be this would use more fuel/mass.

There's no such thing as maximum velocity. If constant 1g acceleration is available, there's not really a fuel concern. It will certainly use a little more fuel, but even just going to Mars would take a week, so half an hour's extra fuel usage works out to 0.3% extra fuel. For interstellar journeys, you're talking less than 0.001%. Also, the course correction can easily be part of the manoeuvre, if you're willing to…

Yeah, I could imagine some spiraling maneuver that would rotate 180° while maintaining constant acceleration. However, a flip and burn would certainly be more efficient (no cosine losses).

Re: Emergency braking in space

#92
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really surprised by this oversight as other things (magnetic boots) from The Expanse were explicitly mentioned. In The Expanse, this is exactly how ships are set up. The "floor" is towards the engine and the continuous 1g acceleration provides "gravity". When a ship starts decelerating there is a "flip and burn" where everyone straps in while the ship literally turns around and starts accelerating at 1g in the op…

Most ships in The Expanse travel under much lower (1/6-1/2 G) accelerations because they didn't magic away all fuel consumption just made the fusion drives fantastically efficient. As you get to poorer ships more time is spent "on the float" between target and destination. Even our main character's ship doesn't accelerate all the time while travelling.

From what I remember, not just more efficient but also a LOT more thrust than realistic.
Post reply on HN