• Launch Day is nearly upon us! Head over to this thread and share your thoughts before, during, and after Crew Dragon finally lifts off.

first interplanetary spaceships

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JasonChapman

Guest
Hello, I'm a new kid on the block. I very much like the look of this site, a busy forum.
So I'll dive right in.

I have often wondered, when we finally manage to start manned missions to the other planets in our solar system what our first interplanetary spaceship would look like. Given the size of our solar system would conventional rocket ships do the job? I have created this illustration of what we might design in the future.



I'm currently working on Santa Maria MKII Unlike the ship above the SM MKII will be capable of faster than light travel.
Thanks
Jason Chapman
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Welcome to Space.com

Unfortunately, according to Mr Einstein (whose ideas have been repeatedly proven with great precision), since it would take converting the entire mass of the entire Universe to energy (using the E=mc^2 formula) to accelerate any object with mass to even close to light speed, you might just want to skip that faster than light design :)

Wayne
 
J

JasonChapman

Guest
Hello, I have just read your reply, and everything you stated is correct, there is no arguing with Albert and e=MC2. But do you know what? I’m a bit of a dreamer, as are many scientists, once upon a time the concept of any kind of space travel would have been laughed off, let alone landing on the moon, but we have done it. So I’m not just ready to pack up and decide that we’ll never get anywhere.

Winners never quit, and quitters never win!
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
That's all fine, but Missions and Launches is for existing or planned missions, not flights of fancy that deny all existing physics. No problem, we'll find a home for it. However, if you intend to build faster than light spaceships, that new home will be The Unexplained. :)

Wayne
 
J

JasonChapman

Guest
Hmm.... ‘Flights of fancy’ you’re a tough old cookie aren’t you.
I apologise if I posted in the wrong place. But before you cast me down into the unexplained section, with Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and UFO’s answer me this question, why are you interested in Space? I’m willing to bet that when you look up on a clear night at the vastness of the universe your inner child wishes that we could go out and explore the galaxy, come on admit it, I bet you have. I’ve seen many interviews over the years with prominent scientists and astronauts who have all held that dream of being able to explore beyond our solar system. Flights of fancy eh?

If I may, can I suggest you create a Future science forum where people can discuss evolving technology, and the possibilities of what we may achieve in the future, wouldn’t the development of interplanetary spaceships be a good discussion for a future science forum. Isn’t part of what science is, about looking forward? :geek:
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Of course I look at the sky as a child does. As a meteor observer, I spend more time looking at the sky that 99.99999% of the human population.

However, if you are designing a faster than light spacecraft, then your proposal belongs in The Unexplained, since it is impossible. Nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light, and most certainly, nothing can travel faster.

If you can prove some new physics that allows that to exist, fine.

You can't, and that's just a hard reality check.

The future science forum that defies all current physics IS the Unexplained, and you are more than free to post your ideas there :)
 
O

Oldworlder

Guest
JasonChapman":35m1fvus said:
Hello, I have just read your reply, and everything you stated is correct, there is no arguing with Albert and e=MC2. But do you know what? I’m a bit of a dreamer, as are many scientists, once upon a time the concept of any kind of space travel would have been laughed off, let alone landing on the moon, but we have done it. So I’m not just ready to pack up and decide that we’ll never get anywhere.

Winners never quit, and quitters never win!
Jason,

are you referring to interplanetray flight or, in fact, interstellar flight?
As far as I know, manned mission to Mars, for example, is possible with
the current technology.

Also, a question for everybody: how long should it take, using known technology,
to reach other planets in our Solar System?
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Why so grumpy Wayne?

You are being unfair to the new poster. The OP is primarily about "interplanetary" not "interstellar" travel. Relativity does not come into it. the only reference to faster than light is in passing to a future artistic work.

It is a while since I ran the formula but I am fairly sure you are wrong about "it would take converting the entire mass of the entire Universe to energy (using the E=mc^2 formula) to accelerate any object with mass to even close to light speed".

Jon
 
Z

ZenGalacticore

Guest
Old- We already know the answer to how long it takes us to get to the other planets in our system. The fastest craft Man has launched is on its way to Pluto, travelling at 52,000 miles per/hr. It will take a total of nine years to get to Pluto. Launched in 2006, IIRC, it is almost one third of the way there. (But it's also a very light craft and it's not carrying a whole lot of freight or anything.)

Jason- You might want to stick with the more attainable goal of reaching 10% the speed of light. I'd be happy with 1%.
 
Z

ZenGalacticore

Guest
JasonChapman":2on6y6wo said:
Hello, I'm a new kid on the block. I very much like the look of this site, a busy forum.
So I'll dive right in.

I have often wondered, when we finally manage to start manned missions to the other planets in our solar system what our first interplanetary spaceship would look like. Given the size of our solar system would conventional rocket ships do the job? I have created this illustration of what we might design in the future.



I'm currently working on Santa Maria MKII Unlike the ship above the SM MKII will be capable of faster than light travel.
Thanks
Jason Chapman
Can you give us a blueprint for your design? What are those bulbous objects on the front sphere that are perpendicular to the sphere? What function do they serve? What are the smaller spheres extending outward from the rear main sphere? Engines?, I'm assuming.

What is the power source for your fanciful spacecraft? Fusion power? Antimatter?

I'm an artist as well, what software did you use to draw your picture? I often draw in photoshop. It's also fun to draw in very limited, but still cool, Windows Paint, and then augment and improve the drawing in Photoshop or Illustrator.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
JonClarke":34cf3ek9 said:
Why so grumpy Wayne?

You are being unfair to the new poster. The OP is primarily about "interplanetary" not "interstellar" travel. Relativity does not come into it. the only reference to faster than light is in passing to a future artistic work.

It is a while since I ran the formula but I am fairly sure you are wrong about "it would take converting the entire mass of the entire Universe to energy (using the E=mc^2 formula) to accelerate any object with mass to even close to light speed".

Jon
Jon, I am shocked you would disagree on this point.

What I am saying is that faster than light spaceships do not belong in Missions and Launches. That was his assertion about his next subject. All I said was that is not grounded in reality. Do you disagree?

Are you saying the subject of FTL spacecraft belongs in Missions and Launches? If so, I totally misunderstand the purpose of this forum.

I'm also shocked you would disagree with my point that no object with mass can be accelerated to light speed.

If you wish to argue with Einstein, of course I will listen to you, but I can't see any circumstances using current physics where that would be correct. Feel free to enlighten me as to how you disagree with relativity!!

Wayne
 
O

Oldworlder

Guest
I have a question: does anybody know if there presently is - at least "in theory" - a realistic method of propulsion that
would make an interplanetary flight faster (let's say, ten times faster than what is possible today), but without
involving anything sci-fiction/etc.-type?
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Dyson, et al, worked out nuclear impulse propulsion back in the early 60s.

Other than a UN treaty or 2, there is nothing technical at least, stopping those craft from opening up the solar system for us.

A somewhat politically more palatable propulsion system would be to miniaturize the modules, put them in clusters, and have them fuse H pellets (via laser ignition) instead of fissioning U or Pu in 20 kilogram increments. We aren't quite there yet, but maybe in 20 years or so . . .
 
J

JasonChapman

Guest
Hello,
Thanks for the comments, and support. I'll get back to you later and comment at what people have said. MeteorWayne don't put me in the Unexplained just yet, because I think we can reach a compromise.

Off to work now.
 
N

nimbus

Guest
MeteorWayne":1ro1h292 said:
That's all fine, but Missions and Launches is for existing or planned missions, not flights of fancy that deny all existing physics. No problem, we'll find a home for it. However, if you intend to build faster than light spaceships, that new home will be The Unexplained. :)

Wayne
Science Fiction would be much more fitting.
 
N

nimbus

Guest
vogon13":2r86trto said:
Dyson, et al, worked out nuclear impulse propulsion back in the early 60s.

Other than a UN treaty or 2, there is nothing technical at least, stopping those craft from opening up the solar system for us.

A somewhat politically more palatable propulsion system would be to miniaturize the modules, put them in clusters, and have them fuse H pellets (via laser ignition) instead of fissioning U or Pu in 20 kilogram increments. We aren't quite there yet, but maybe in 20 years or so . . .
Is there a speed limit on VASIMR?

Oldworlder":2r86trto said:
I have a question: does anybody know if there presently is - at least "in theory" - a realistic method of propulsion that
would make an interplanetary flight faster (let's say, ten times faster than what is possible today), but without
involving anything sci-fiction/etc.-type?
One of Bussard's own schemes ("IEC Fusion and Spaceflight" on this page), would get to Mars in about a month, and Saturn's system in about twice that. Not an order of magnitude at short ranges, but a significant improvement when you're going far enough.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
MeteorWayne":242mjifo said:
Jon, I am shocked you would disagree on this point.

What I am saying is that faster than light spaceships do not belong in Missions and Launches. That was his assertion about his next subject. All I said was that is not grounded in reality. Do you disagree?

Are you saying the subject of FTL spacecraft belongs in Missions and Launches? If so, I totally misunderstand the purpose of this forum.

I'm also shocked you would disagree with my point that no object with mass can be accelerated to light speed.

If you wish to argue with Einstein, of course I will listen to you, but I can't see any circumstances using current physics where that would be correct. Feel free to enlighten me as to how you disagree with relativity!!

Wayne
No more shocked than I was at your post. You said "it would take converting the entire mass of the entire Universe to energy... to accelerate any object with mass to even close to light speed". I know as well as you that you can't accellerate to light speed. But you can get very close to it. And does take the mass of the universe converted to energy to do it.

Faster than light travel is SF at present. But the OP simply mentioned FTL spacecraft in a passing comment. Hardly grounds to send him packing to the wilds of the Unexplained or Science Fiction!

Jon
 
S

supn

Guest
Modern space flight seems to have evolved behind closed curtains. Accounts about covert space programs reveal that technology to travel to other stars exist. With testimonies and documents considered, odds are that this technology is predominantly zero gravity-based.

Under the laws of physics, it actually is valid to consider that objects can be considered to experience a local loss of the gravitational field responsible for their general motion. Removal of inertia, or repellence of the gravitational field around you, would allow you to travel with theoretically endless speeds.

A power source strong enough for application of gravity repellence, or sometimes called local distortion of the gravity field, is close to what the OP is looking for.
 
T

tampaDreamer

Guest
Endless speeds? I don't think there are any scientific theories that support this. If there are, link?

Also, any links on the 'covert space programs' that do not lead to webpages with blinking text and pictures 'grey men'?
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
JonClarke":2dxaku3a said:
No more shocked than I was at your post. You said "it would take converting the entire mass of the entire Universe to energy... to accelerate any object with mass to even close to light speed". I know as well as you that you can't accellerate to light speed. But you can get very close to it. And does take the mass of the universe converted to energy to do it.

Faster than light travel is SF at present. But the OP simply mentioned FTL spacecraft in a passing comment. Hardly grounds to send him packing to the wilds of the Unexplained or Science Fiction!

Jon
On the other hand, the OP has nothing to do with any planned mission or launch, so it really does not seem to be a good fit for this forum. If he is speculating on designs for a future manned interplanetary spacecraft, or even an interstellar spacecraft, Space Science and Technology would seem to be a better match, or even Space Business and Technology. I agree with Wayne, it doesn't belong here.

By the way, it's a very nice piece of artwork, and I, too, would be interested in knowing details of how he came up with the design and if there is any engineering basis to his schematics.
 
S

supn

Guest
Disclosure project press conference with ex-military personnel on the retrieval, back-engineering and testing of extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Col. Philip Corso, Chief of the Pentagon's Foreign Technology desk in Army Research and Development (1951), testifies to have stewarded extraterrestrial artefacts.

And to underline that there must be something of a rather big cover up, in april 1950, President Truman was quoted saying, " I can assure you that flying saucers, given that they exist, are not constructed by any power on earth."
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Unfortunately, more evidence this thread does no belong in M&L
 
S

supn

Guest
Jason Chapman, what do you think is suitable technology for interplanetary travel ?
 
J

JasonChapman

Guest
Hello,
Yes I’m back, many thanks for the comments, I'm gald to see I have sparked an interesting debate. Before I begin on trying to explain a bit about the ship I’d like to ask Wayne another question.

If the year was really 1969 and we were all in a lecture hall and you were promoting James T Kirk’s Star Trek communicator as one of the most ingenious and revolutionary inventions ever, and I suddenly stuck up my hand and said actually the communicator is very primate by design, because all it is, is a two way radio. In 40 years we’ll have communicators with the processing power of every computer in NASA (1969 NASA) They’ll surpass Trek’s gadgets by decades. You’ll be able to call up maps to see where you are in the world, watch live video, take pictures, play music and lots of other things including being able to talk to whoever we wanted. And we will call these communicators ‘mobile phones’ Now back in 1969 wouldn’t you think I was a bit barmy for imagining all that? Perhaps a flight of fancy.

Okay now to the ship most of you have been asking about. Some of you asked if I have blueprints to it. If by blueprints you mean a detailed schematic right down to the last nut, bolt and mathematical equation er.. no I haven’t sorry.



I designed this ship several years ago now, it was the first bit of artwork I put on my website, and remains to this day my favourite ship design, despite the fact that I have done dozens of different Spaceship designs since. The reason I like this one so much, is because I think it’s a representation of what we could achieve within the next 50 to 75 years. Ok I’ll admit I have got the scale a bit wrong, but being a big scifi fan, big spaceships are a part of that genre. I would guess a ship one quarter of the size of this ship is a plausible possibility given on our technology is progressing.

The range of this ship would be limited, perhaps only being able to travel out to Uranus or perhaps close enough to have good look at Neptune.

To explore the solar system this ship would utilize a number of methods to get around. One of these methods would be to use the gravity of some of the gas giants, a sling shot manoeuvre just like the NASA new horizons mission to study Pluto. Secondly it would make use of the ion propulsion rockets, fuelled by the fission reactor at the rear. Fission reactors have been designed on earth, as well as proposed Ideas for ion rockets. I believe space.com has mentioned the use of ion rockets.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/s ... 00816.html

And you will find information on Fission here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor#Fission


The front cone section can break away, powered by remote, it could be used to chart a course through the asteroid belt, it is equipped with a radio telescope to analyze background radiation in the far reaches of our solar system. One possible mission is for the main ship to orbit Uranus, while the probe could be launched to study Neptune. Another mission for the remote probe it to collect gaseous materials from Jupiter and Saturn, which would be stored in the capsules attached to the side of the ship.
One of the ships power supplies would come from the solar panels attached on the side, perhaps drawing a little power from the fission reactor. There are two radio telescopes attached to the top of the ship, which will be used to peer deeper than ever into the cosmos. Another use for these is to see how strong telecommunication signals from earth are and to study how much these signals have degraded since leaving earth, thus giving us an accurate representation of how far signals from earth reach before they are lost as background radiation.
Behind the front cone section is the main habitat module it does have windows or view ports, but because the scale that I have built this model to its too big to see. At the rear of the habitat module is the service module, where oxygen is recycled, and also laboratories where material from outside are studied. Obviously science would have evolved in the next 50 to 75 years that food can be artificially grown, I have seen news stories about experiments being conducted involving growing food in habitats designed for a future mission to mars.
That’s about it in a nutshell, I could probably go on and on about other features. I am laying out a timeline that hopefully look realistic. I’ll keep you posted on that.

One final word to Wayne, yesterday when you first responded to my post, I have to admit I felt totally defeated. I read what you said about Einstein’s theory of relativity and thought, he absolutely right, that’s poured cold water on my ‘flight of fancy’ as you called it. But here’s the thing, in my explanation of how this ship works I haven’t mentioned one single warp drive, hyperdrive or improbability drive, which is what I would call ‘Unexplained science’ If you’re going to demote me at least give me a little dignity and put me in the science fiction section, after all how much science fiction has now become science fact?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts