Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
Advanced Concepts / Re: Space Elevator Development
« Last post by meberbs on Today at 06:18 AM »
I figured out a indirect way to make a smaller space elevator, doesen't need to be 36000km, but a few hundreds, I am really happy to explain my method so others would develop it based on it, but I am afraid of plagiarism, so please tell me how to protect and publish my method.
Patents are designed for exactly this situation, though in theory you won't get one unless the idea actually could work and hasn't been thought of before.

If you just want attribution and aren't trying to make money off of it, then there is no need for a patent. Posting online creates an effectively permanent record, so depending on your preferences you can just post a paper, including just on this forum, with however much identifying information you want to share, at least your name, and maybe a picture or basic biographical information such as where you went to school. (Up to you to balance how much detail vs. your own privacy)

You most likely have not thought of a novel working idea here. Wikipedia has a summary of many of the alternative launch concepts that could theoretically work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch There are probably some others out there, but generally just variations on things from that article. If your idea is not already on that page, it is likely that your idea couldn't work and you are missing something.
2
SpaceX BFR - Earth to Deep Space / Re: Elon The Boring Company
« Last post by QuantumG on Today at 06:17 AM »
They're called "on ramps", but yeah making them go down instead of up seems like a good idea.
3
SpaceX Reusability / Re: What will the BFS tanker look like?
« Last post by hkultala on Today at 06:10 AM »
Quote

Moving them to the wings would mean they could not be used for landing.

So, makes no sense.
Why not? Center of thrust is still aligned with center of mass, it just needs the same pitch-up maneuver the regular BFR needs.

Aligning center of mass with thrust vector of wing mounted engines would mean that

1) the engines would be greatly canted outwards.

This would also mean that
1A) some considerable cosine losses would occur.
1B) single-engine failure would affect the direction of vector greatly and causing big problems.

2) the engines would be greatly canted downwards.

This would mean that the landing position would be far from vertical.


Practically: It does not work.
Single engine out is indeed a weakness.

I do not feel it would be instantly fatal. While a BFT is much larger than a Dragon II, they can handle engine out just fine with outboard engines.

Dragon II has EIGHT engines. It can survive engine-out by shutting the opposite side engines and it still has 75% of the original thrust.

The details are important, and in your proposition they are totally unworkable.

Quote

Also, I'm not sure I understand your 2). if the engines are firing vertically, why would the landing position NOT be vertical?

Landing pitch is what I mean.

In order to engines in wings to fire vertically through the center of mass, the craft has to be pitched considerably (~15 degrees?) away from "vertical attitude".

This would make the legs much more complex to be sure the craft does not tip over, and would mean that after landing, all the loads are in nontrivial directions.

4
Had a moment of confusion.  It isn't anti-matter in its real state I think that provides reverse time communication but rather anti-matter in the vacuum state.  The annihilated form of it.  I think it may provide the reverse time communication to collapse states.  I think its that reverse time that provides the bridge that links quantum states.

None of that makes a lick of sense.  Just forming sentences out of terms from physics in a different order than others isn't new physics.
5
SpaceX Reusability / Re: What will the BFS tanker look like?
« Last post by rakaydos on Today at 04:35 AM »
Quote

Moving them to the wings would mean they could not be used for landing.

So, makes no sense.
Why not? Center of thrust is still aligned with center of mass, it just needs the same pitch-up maneuver the regular BFR needs.

Aligning center of mass with thrust vector of wing mounted engines would mean that

1) the engines would be greatly canted outwards.

This would also mean that
1A) some considerable cosine losses would occur.
1B) single-engine failure would affect the direction of vector greatly and causing big problems.

2) the engines would be greatly canted downwards.

This would mean that the landing position would be far from vertical.


Practically: It does not work.
Single engine out is indeed a weakness. I do not feel it would be instantly fatal. While a BFT is much larger than a Dragon II, they can handle engine out just fine with outboard engines.

Also, I'm not sure I understand your 2). if the engines are firing vertically, why would the landing position NOT be vertical?
6
Had a moment of confusion.  It isn't anti-matter in its real state I think that provides reverse time communication but rather anti-matter in the vacuum state.  The annihilated form of it.  I think it may provide the reverse time communication to collapse states.  I think its that reverse time that provides the bridge that links quantum states. 

For instance light as a wave passes through two slits.  The wave pattern predicts the appearance of the photon but once the photon appears all the energy of the photon is concentrated at the point of absorption.  Its almost like the reverse time operator goes back in time and focuses the energy at that exact location. 

Creating electron-positron pairs in the vacuum in a quantum states of superposition.  Its like they were created out of the vacuum but the vacuum has not determined their exact orientation yet, upon interaction the vacuum uses the anti-matter in the vacuum state or the virtual stuff, to determine the final state of the other quantum entangled particle.  The wormhole bridge between the two. 

Tunneling for instance.  A particle bangs on a barrier and it has a vacuum wave associated with the particle so particle-wave hybrid.  Compound that the vacuum has inherent vacuum energy fluctuations if the particle's vacuum waves passes through the barrier then based on the quantum vacuum energy fluctuation there is a chance the far part of the wave will receive enough energy to re-create the particle on the other side of the barrier.  When the particle is created on the other side of the barrier it induces reverse time operators that annihilate the particles previous position via negative energy and the particle exists at its new position. 

I suspect that the nature of Quantum reality is fundamentally related to the vacuum and negative energy, reverse time operators.  Even Richard Feynman diagrams I have been told have reverse time operations. 

Causal pictures
The notion of going back in time is acausal, meaning it is excluded automatically in a Hamiltonian formulation. For this reason, it took a long time for this approach to be appreciated and accepted. Stueckelberg proposed this interpretation of antiparticles in the late 1930s, but Feynman's presentation made it stick.

In Feynman diagrams, the future is not determined from the past by stepping forward timestep by timestep, it is determined by tracing particle paths proper-time by proper-time. The diagram formalism therefore is philosophically very different from the Hamiltonian field theory formalism, so much so Feynman was somewhat disappointed that they were equivalent.

They are not as easily equivalent when you go to string theory, because string theory is an S-matrix theory formulated entirely in Feynman language, not in Hamiltonian language. The Hamiltonian formulation of strings requires a special slicing of space time, and even then, it is less clear and elegant than the Feynman formulation, which is just as acausal and strange. The strings backtrack in time just like particles do, since they reproduce point particles at infinite tension.

If you philosophically dislike acausal formalisms, you can say (in field theory) that the Hamiltonian formalism is fundamental, and that you believe in crossing and CPT, and then you don't have to talk about going back in time. Since crossing and CPT are the precise manifestations of the statement that antimatter is matter going back in time, you really aren't saying anything different, except philosophically. But the philosophy motivates crossing and CPT.

or

http://www.johnagowan.org/feynman.html

Another example is an electron in orbit around an atom.  As it falls in it encounters vacuum polarized electron positron pairs via the atoms electric field.  As it falls in it emits energy and it trapped around the atom in a wave state.  I think it exist mostly as a vacuum fluctuation.  The electron looks like a cloud because it is a cloud of vacuum fluctuation.  It isn't actually whizzing around the nucleus, but the vacuum wave is, so hence no radiation. 

Even radioactive decay.  If the distribution of proton and neutrons isn't right this may create points around the nucleus that have electric fields in excess increasing the chance via vacuum fluctuations of particle creation outside the nucleus?  Haven't really thought this last one through much but seems plausible. 

Continued:  Relativistic length contraction might be speculated to be a polarization wave in the vacuum where in front of a moving particle, negative energy particles that subtract time build up, while behind positive energy builds up adding time, causing relativistic time travel. 

General relativity might be speculated to be something similar, where matter polarizes the vacuum where negative energy reduces the local mass distributing it over space - a field.  the build up of negative energy near matter, causing lower altitude clocks to tick slower than those higher.  Possibly related to the nucleus of atoms polarizing the vacuum.
 


All:

You might be interested on Dr. Harold (Sonny) Whites and his Eagleworks team's thoughts on this subject especially about what actually is going on when an electron is in orbit around a nucleus.
7
SpaceX BFR - Earth to Deep Space / Re: Elon The Boring Company
« Last post by aero on Today at 03:51 AM »
The tunnel system is the most expensive part and the way they can save on tunnel is ludicrous acceleration for the Pods. Every departure a zero to 120 mph in 6 second launch. Slower acceleration means longer on-ramp tunnels.

No need to accelerate hard. Constant gentle accel for half of the trip, constant gentle deceleration for the other half.

Matthew

Can't do that with there being multiple cars/pods and multiple points of entry along the tunnel. Tunnel traffic needs to maintain constant and equal speed.

But it seems there might be a way to use gravity to aid acceleration. V=at, so a 6-second drop gives 60 meters/sec, or 134 mph, less friction losses. How deep is the tunnel? Looks like it would need to be 180 meters deep for this to work, so electric powered acceleration would also be necessary. Point is, gravity acceleration wouldn't have such a serious effect on the passengers excepting of course the case where the drop was truly vertical, then freefall could disrupt stomaches.
8
SpaceX BFR - Earth to Deep Space / Re: Elon The Boring Company
« Last post by matthewkantar on Today at 03:07 AM »
The tunnel system is the most expensive part and the way they can save on tunnel is ludicrous acceleration for the Pods. Every departure a zero to 120 mph in 6 second launch. Slower acceleration means longer on-ramp tunnels.

No need to accelerate hard. Constant gentle accel for half of the trip, constant gentle deceleration for the other half.

Matthew
9
The annual CASBAA satellite industry forum is today (should be starting now).  Looks like Caleb Henry is there, and PBdeS is moderating a panel so he'll probably have some tweets throughout the day too.
10
I agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson on something... now I have to carefully think about my position ;)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next