How to go to the moon faster.

[barrykirk]

Well now its trivial.... You just change the gravitational constant of the universe....<br /><br />-Q Star Trek: TNG

 

[jatslo]

Okay, drwayne, maybe you would like to share why you think that a similar rocket built on the moon would not get us anywhere faster, because it seems to me that there is a gravity mission happening as we speak, and that gravity experiment is a big darn failure.<br /><br />Oh, it must be atmospheric pressure, of course. The less pressure there is the easier it is to push something. If I were standing in space I would have super human strength. I could move boulders with my index finger. I could pick you up by your shirt collar and hurl you across the room effortlessly.<br /><br />If you want to ignore me, then that is your right, but I got better things to do with my time than sit here in this point in space-time and talking with a textbook hugging /*ad hominem deleted*/.

 

[drwayne]

I thought by definition the wife was the master.<br /><br />OK, yes, I am in a silly mood...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Thank for responding, shuttle_guy - I have real reason to think that Newtonian Motion Physics break down in space, and I need a barometer in space, but the current barometers are not sensitive enough to pick up the anomalies that I suspect exist. The traditional mercury types barometers won’t work, so we need to use some other fluid like liquid ⁴He or liquid H or something like it.<br /><br />How come NASA has not done this yet? It seems obvious to me that these type of experiments are important to understanding gravity.

 

[barrykirk]

Well, she sure is in my house. I know that because she tells me that is the way it is.

 

[darkenfast]

Okay, I'm confused. What does the statement "...Newtonian Motion Physics break down in space" mean? The whole point of this thread was the idea that accelerating halfway and then decelerating halfway would get you to the moon faster. Absolutely true. But, you can't get something for nothing. Using a much more effecient type of propulsion such as ion (or whatever your flavor) will only work if you have a lot of time to build up velocity. That is the nature of these systems as of now: very low thrust spread over a long period as opposed to high thrust/short period (as with a rocket). The distance to the moon is too short to lend itself to that approach. Getting the amount of acceleration neccessary to ameliorate the effects of micro-gravity would require energy far beyond what we are capable of providing in the near future. <br />NASA does in fact work on high-energy propulsion systems. Last time I checked (some time ago), searching for "Robert L. Forward" found a survey of all the systems and the current state-of-play for each of them. I'm sure others here can point out some links.

 

[jatslo]

darkenfast said, <font color="yellow">Okay, I'm confused. What does the statement "...Newtonian Motion Physics break down in space" mean? The whole point of this thread was the idea that accelerating halfway and then decelerating halfway would get you to the moon faster.</font><br /><br />Hello darkenfast - Someone stated that to increased mass would require more energy, and is essentially basing their conclusion from a premise that may be false, so my argument is this: If gravity is nonexistent, or a fairy then the laws of motion would break down as we left Earth and move further, and further into space. If this is true, then less energy would be required to move mass. Gravity is not understood, and is a theory. I think Albert Einstein renamed something that he was trying to understand better, and that something is electromagnetism (EM). <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Absolutely true. But, you can't get something for nothing. Using a much more effecient type of propulsion such as ion (or whatever your flavor) will only work if you have a lot of time to build up velocity.</font><br /><br />Again, if the gravity is a imaginary fair-tale like fire breathing dragons, the laws of motion break down, and lesser energy requirements would get you there faster in less time. I am trying to present a new idea, because I am working on velocity affects: mass, time, and length; I am in this thread because I am working on mass at the moment (atm).<br /><br /><font color="yellow">That is the nature of these systems as of now: very low thrust spread over a long period as opposed to high thrust/short period (as with a rocket). The distance to the moon is too short to lend itself to that approach.</font><br /><br />I agree; these experiments are better suited to longer distances. I would to see the affects of something leaving our solar system; however, there is nothing out there that has a barometer that can measure the anomalies that I suspect are there

 

[shoogerbrugge]

To get back to the topic on Ion drives and travel to the moon. Yes it would be much slower, but I do hope people realise that not all cargo needs to get there quickly.<br /><br />Some components to a moon base or foodstuffs might be transported by low Isp Ion drives powered tugs. These cargo could be placed in much lower orbit and follow a slow trajectory of specific burns (ala SMART-1) to reach Lunar orbit. This would mean that of the payload placed in orbit more can be functuonal and less be used for propellant and engines needed to reach escape velocity.<br /><br />Only humans need to travel fast, most cargo is non urgent and can take the long way home.

 

[jatslo]

Not interested. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Again, if the gravity is a imaginary fair-tale like fire breathing dragons, the laws of motion break down, and lesser energy requirements would get you there faster in less time. I am trying to present a new idea, because I am working on velocity affects: mass, time, and length; I am in this thread because I am working on mass at the moment (atm). <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It is worth pointing out that you don't have to rely on speculation as to whether or not the laws of motion break down in outer space. You can actually observe what happens in space by watching planets, moons, spacecraft, and other stuff as it moves through space.<br /><br />If Newtonian physics did not work for most applications in outer space, not a single deep space mission would ever have been successful. Think about it. The mission planners and engineers based every calculation and all of their design work on the premise that Newton was right. The fact that these missions succeed so frequently is proof that Newton was not wrong -- at least, not at the scales at which these missions operate. Near an extremely very massive object, at extremely high speeds, or at very large scales, it doesn't work as well, because the warping of spacetime becomes significant.<br /><br />BTW, according to Einstein, gravity does exist but it's not a force (and it's not electromagnetic either). It's the warping of spacetime, which we perceive as if it were a force. For all practical purposes, it's fine to consider it a force, because it works out nicely that way for doing the math. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

…But CalliArcale, the laws of motion break down in quantum, and our spacecraft have maneuverability capabilities; plus, there is something wrong about the whole shebang. NASA often complains of unknowns affecting trajectory, and they compensate for it, do you deny this? You can call it gravity, but it is not; my mind is made up.<br /><br />F = strong force + weak force <--- this is where I am working ATM, I am being an ass. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />EM = strong force + weak force<br />G = strong force + weak force<br /><br />…And I am working on the math right now. Why can I see what I see?