Laser propulsion

[wikkid1show]

It's an avenue that hasn't gained any substantial attention . I watched Liek Myrabo's Lightcraft and figured out how to do this correctly. It was by being a DJ that gave me an opportunity to turn this into something.
His setup for Lightcraft is like looking back at a historic moment of flight. The Wright Brothers version had a propeller driven version and Liek Myrabo's had the same , so to speak.
Today we have Jets and that's where I changed his configuration .
This is just the beginning and will provide drawings and schematics on the next installment

 

[billslugg]

Light propulsion does not give much thrust for the energy input. The formula is:.
F=P/c
F is the force in newtons
P is the power of the light beam in watts
c is the speed of light in meters per second

If you had a laser with 299,792,458 watts it would give a propulsion force of one newton. A newton is the amount of force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram by one meter per second per second. This is equal to about 100 grams.

To equal the Falcon Heavy thrust of 5.13 million pounds you would need a source of power equal to 7x10^15 watts. This is about 1400 times the currently installed electrical generating capacity of the world.

 

[Catastrophe]

I agree with billslugg.

Probably the most practical and informative approach you can find is in the book "Extraterrestrial" by Avi Loeb, John Murray (Publishers), 2021. Author is Chair of Harvard's Astronomy Department, and all the rest - one of the world's top astrophysicists.

He was approached by a billionaire (as happens a lot at the moment) over a special project. This guy wanted to fund a mission to the Centauri system, to arrive there during his lifetime - unmanned of course. Conventional chemical propulsion would require over 100,000 years. Avi came up with the idea of using a light sail. However, this is totally impracticable for anything over a few grams. They only wanted to take pictures and similar as they passed by. Obviously it would take too long to stop.

The system uses a 100 gigawatt laser beam. It is stated that everything they propose be within existing technological bounds. This is no joke. It is a serious mission. To avoid burning the sails, they had to absorb less than 1/ 100,000 of the (laser) light striking them.

There is an article published in Astrophysical Journal, October 2015, by Avi and James Guillochon on lightsails. It was decided to announce the Starshot Initiative, as they call it, on April 12 2016, On the stage were included Stephen Hawking, Freeman Dyson and Yuri Milner.



Cat

 

[wikkid1show]

Light propulsion does not give much thrust for the energy input. The formula is:.
F=P/c
F is the force in newtons
P is the power of the light beam in watts
c is the speed of light in meters per second

If you had a laser with 299,792,458 watts it would give a propulsion force of one newton. A newton is the amount of force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram by one meter per second per second. This is equal to about 100 grams.

To equal the Falcon Heavy thrust of 5.13 million pounds you would need a source of power equal to 7x10^15 watts. This is about 1400 times the currently installed electrical generating capacity of the world.

This isn't accomplished from liftoff with my engine parameters . The engine has multiple disks and lasers and is tuned like a engine spec of a car . Just a heads up. It is setup like a reactor and it's displacement is way beyond any standard rocket. Which can achieve greater thrust and beyond 200hrs using H3 helium. Will add to the thrust properties...
It's a different approach than Liek Myrabo's Lightcraft

 

[Pogo]

But, will a spacecraft massing a few grams have the transmitting power to return any data that we can receive even with our deep space network?

 

[wikkid1show]

But, will a spacecraft massing a few grams have the transmitting power to return any data that we can receive even with our deep space network?

First of all, the size of this craft is approximately the size of a C130 transport. It's a Spaceplane with a few different types of engines, to begin with. This craft will be giving reactor type power . Also important would be maneuverability.
My engine is just for forward momentum. Jets are used at takeoff like any commercial airline , and yeah , Rockets but the fun factor if you watched Liek Myrabo's Lightcraft , you would see he spins his disk with an air gun . My setup has it horizontally and uses maglev for a frictionless rotation, a setup I learned from being a DJ and on technics turntables . I simply cut off the aero top cone and added this feature. The more powerful magnetic field will hold due to forces of magnetism . So airflow isn't a problem. The trick part is the switch on the fly ..look at Radians Spaceplane and I will tell you later on what they are missing...lots to go here

 

[COLGeek]

First of all, the size of this craft is approximately the size of a C130 transport. It's a Spaceplane with a few different types of engines, to begin with. This craft will be giving reactor type power . Also important would be maneuverability.
My engine is just for forward momentum. Jets are used at takeoff like any commercial airline , and yeah , Rockets but the fun factor if you watched Liek Myrabo's Lightcraft , you would see he spins his disk with an air gun . My setup has it horizontally and uses maglev for a frictionless rotation, a setup I learned from being a DJ and on technics turntables . I simply cut off the aero top cone and added this feature. The more powerful magnetic field will hold due to forces of magnetism . So airflow isn't a problem. The trick part is the switch on the fly ..look at Radians Spaceplane and I will tell you later on what they are missing...lots to go here

Assuming bill's math is correct (I agree, by the way), you are orders of magnitude away from such capacity.

I look forward to the drawings, experiments, etc demonstrating your ideas.

 

[wikkid1show]

Assuming bill's math is correct (I agree, by the way), you are orders of magnitude away from such capacity.

I look forward to the drawings, experiments, etc demonstrating your ideas.

Quote on quote, I did mention a reactor. If you follow current events , a video by BBC news released earlier today. Everyone including a reactor is China , each looking for having a Sun . The funny thing is that with Liek Myrabo's Lightcraft , he to mention a Sun a few decades ago on his little disk
I plan to use many Lasers and disks with H3 helium . The energy that is released isn't for turning turbines that give our infrastructure electricity but will be used for thrust ..figured it out yet ? Btw my disks and lasers will be bigger and used more efficiently because it's not bombs bursting in air but in a controlled environment like that of your combustion engine. In this fact it's a rotary engine and everything is going directly to exhaust. A direct drive system like a Tesla. Direct is the ultimate goal with fast as the equation

 

[billslugg]

If your goal is interstellar travel and return within a human lifetime, neither
chemical energy, fission nor fusion will do the job. Here are the numbers:
Distance to nearest star (Proxima Centauri) is 4.27 light years.
This is 4x10^16 meters.
If your one way trip took 50 years you must travel at 25,600,000 meters per second.
You need to accelerate to that speed then deccelerate to get there, accelerate and deccelerate to get home.
A one kilogram mass, at that speed, has an energy of 3.3x10^14 joules.
Four times that is 1.3x10^15 joules.
A kilogram of mass converted to energy equals 9x10^16 joules.
Every kilogram of the space ship must use the energy from 1.4% of its own mass.
Chemical energy gives about .000001% of its mass.
Fission gives about 0.1% of its mass.
Fusion of tritium and deuterium gives about 0.7% of its mass.
Fusion of the products of that going all the way up to iron gives about 1%.
Can't do it. Need to make it a one way trip or invent human hibernation.

 

[Atlan0001]

"25,600,000 meters per second" has value regarding a dead slow inertial (closed systemic relative) universe and no value whatsoever regarding a lightning fast and faster inertialess (open systemic quanta) universe. The plane (singular) of the Earth and the surface of the Earth represents the first universe. The stepped planes of interplanetary, interstellar, intergalactic and beyond space and time represent the second universe. The multiplicity of textures -- of the "fabrics" -- of the environmental planes have meaning of their own as to whether a universe is closed systemically slow to dead slow or open systemically fast to lightning fast and faster.

"4.27 light years" is fixed relative to light and not necessarily inelastic inflexible otherwise. "4x10^16 meters" is measure fixed relative to the surface of a closed systemic Earth, and it's like, and distances and wheels turning upon the surface of the Earth, and not necessarily real otherwise.

Like elastic bubble universes illustrated so often, there are dead slow and slower inertial closed systems housed, at float (surfing) and/or traveling powered, within lightning fast and faster inertialess open systemic universes.