Author Topic: Research and Funding into Propulsion....  (Read 19326 times)

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #40 on: 02/22/2014 01:14 am »
You said "never".  Not merely "not in foreseeable future".  We're not nearly capable yet of foreseeing "forever".  It's not a meaningless distinction.

I realize I said never. That's simply because we pretty much have cracked all of the puzzles of fundamental physics, and any new "breakthroughs" will not at all yield any new insights that could lead to potentially revolutionary technologies. Unless everything we know about physics so far is wrong (a complete fantasy), then it's not at all unreasonable to conclude humans will never leave the solar system.

Scientists and engineers at a propulsion conference not too long ago also came to the same conclusion.
Their and your working assumption is that spaceflight and underlying physics/engineering operate in vacuum.

A quote from quite early on in the article:
"The calculations show that, even using the most theoretical of technologies, reaching the nearest star in a human lifetime is nearly impossible."
This is quite a reasonable statement, even given it is merely using the term human lifetime to represent a familiar period of time, say around 100 years.

I don't see how the article justifies this as a statement that humans will never reach the stars. They are very different claims.



Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 935
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #41 on: 02/22/2014 02:43 am »

The few gaping holes such as gravity (which has, in fact, already been established in the medium-energy limit) will never give way to anything practical, especially something that can be used for propulsion. Even our best accelerators in the distant future may turn up nothing when it comes to quantum gravity effects, so it would be laughable to even speculate of a propulsion mechanism that takes advantage of such practically non-existent effects.

I'm saving this quote in case Woodward & Fearn's work continues it's same steady progression it has for the last two years. It's getting close to the levels where it's hard to dispute and easier to replicate.

And let me point out, for the "science has answered all the major Physics questions" types, there is still no settled theory that explains the nature or behavior of inertia. Like gravity prior to Newton, it still seen as something intrinsic...
« Last Edit: 02/22/2014 02:47 am by cuddihy »

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #42 on: 02/22/2014 03:55 am »

The problem is that there is no guarantee whatsoever that better propulsion schemes are feasible or even actually exist, so putting money into it is quite a wager and would not be wise.
This is why I propose a "deliver first, then get paid"- kind of model. This could have several milestones along the way to ensure the people have something to work with. There is NIAC that goes a bit into that direction, but IMHO the funding is too limited for serious propulsion research efforts (which are bound to cost a lot more).

Quote from: KelvinZero
Advanced propulsion is one thing, but it will be at least a century before we will be thinking about other stars. Why are we not right now expanding out into our solar system, putting bases on asteroids and so on? You don't need advanced propulsion for that, just things like the ability to store fuel in tanks for a year or more and not have it all leak away, ie propellant depots, and life support that you can trust for missions that take you a year or more from earth.
I disagree. I think that none of the currently available propulsion systems is advanced enough to facilitate a larger scale exploration (and maybe colonization) of the solar system. Current systems would allow for single "event" missions (like Apollo), but even going back to the moon is too expensive and too complicated with todays technology to allow for a more permanent presence of humans. Mars is even worse, which is why I think that anybody who wants to do mars (exploration or even worse colonization like Musk), is solving the problem from the wrong end. We first absolutely need to make transport to LEO routine and extremely cheap. Even SpaceX is not going to lower the cost enough to achieve that (don't get me wrong, I love the guys and applaud their effort). This is why I wished SpaceX was investing more into propulsion research. Someone like Musk could easily finance a Propulsion Xprize of sorts.
VASIMIR, like all electric propulsion systems suffers from too little power. If we could solve the power supply problem, then a lot of high Isp propulsion systems could become a lot more useful. This is something else that such a prize could focus on (which some very earthly applications as well).
I wished NASA would make advancing the state of the art of space flight components a higher priority, a NIAC on steroids if you want.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #43 on: 02/22/2014 05:13 am »
Quote from: KelvinZero
Advanced propulsion is one thing, but it will be at least a century before we will be thinking about other stars. Why are we not right now expanding out into our solar system, putting bases on asteroids and so on? You don't need advanced propulsion for that, just things like the ability to store fuel in tanks for a year or more and not have it all leak away, ie propellant depots, and life support that you can trust for missions that take you a year or more from earth.
I disagree. I think that none of the currently available propulsion systems is advanced enough to facilitate a larger scale exploration (and maybe colonization) of the solar system. Current systems would allow for single "event" missions (like Apollo), but even going back to the moon is too expensive and too complicated with todays technology to allow for a more permanent presence of humans. Mars is even worse, which is why I think that anybody who wants to do mars (exploration or even worse colonization like Musk), is solving the problem from the wrong end. We first absolutely need to make transport to LEO routine and extremely cheap. Even SpaceX is not going to lower the cost enough to achieve that (don't get me wrong, I love the guys and applaud their effort). This is why I wished SpaceX was investing more into propulsion research. Someone like Musk could easily finance a Propulsion Xprize of sorts.
VASIMIR, like all electric propulsion systems suffers from too little power. If we could solve the power supply problem, then a lot of high Isp propulsion systems could become a lot more useful. This is something else that such a prize could focus on (which some very earthly applications as well).
I wished NASA would make advancing the state of the art of space flight components a higher priority, a NIAC on steroids if you want.
I disagree right back, but I think it would take things too far off topic to discuss what is needed for solar system colonization here. Suffice it to say that my friends can beat up your friends, or hire someone to beat them up, or possibly land a reusable rocket on their house.

The key on topic thing is that the advances you are discussing are what I would call moderate near term things that are quite reasonable to research. Im all for technology driven goals. They are not what I meant by advanced propulsion in the context of this thread, ie something to allow us to travel to other stars, which I assumed to mean things in the triangle between antimatter rockets, propellentless propulsion and warp-drive.

Offline ß-OriCinco

  • Member
  • Posts: 27
  • O•░░░o░░░º░░░░ ☼
  • | «─── 1 AU ───» |
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #44 on: 02/22/2014 05:50 am »
And let me point out, for the "science has answered all the major Physics questions" types, there is still no settled theory that explains the nature or behavior of inertia. Like gravity prior to Newton, it still seen as something intrinsic...
There were some experiments performed by DePalma in the 70's (20th century).  He found that spinning objects fall faster than non-spinning objects.  The question is if there is an interaction of gravity on the mass or the energy (which includes the mass of the object as well as rotational velocity).  The claim was that Newton and Einstein did not account for rotation in the gravitational theories.   On another note, it also seems that a few countries failed to get probes to arrive on the moon as well as Mars in the last century.

Some recent experiments have been performed on a 4 micron diameter sphere of calcium carbonate (chalk) and somehow suspended it on a laser while accelerating it to a very high rotational speed.  They achieved 600 million RPM and were attempting to determine if there was a presence of a quantum friction force.

If the apparent mass (w.r.t. gravity) of a spacecraft can be lost by slowing the rotation of a object... maybe there is a way to exploit it for propulsion??? 

Article is below (circa August 2013).  Experiment also talks about the Casimir effect to some extent. 

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130828/ncomms3374/pdf/ncomms3374.pdf
« Last Edit: 02/22/2014 06:05 am by ß-OriCinco »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #45 on: 02/22/2014 06:57 am »
On another note, it also seems that a few countries failed to get probes to arrive on the moon as well as Mars in the last century.

There's no reason to suppose that has anything to do with an incomplete understanding of physics, any more than the thermal ceiling reached in CPU design about a decade ago had anything to do with Landauer's Principle.
« Last Edit: 02/22/2014 06:57 am by 93143 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #46 on: 02/22/2014 06:33 pm »
This opens a can of worms that has been a big issue on this forum, and has derailed many threads. You are asking about why NASA is not putting a really big effort into advanced propulsion, but a bigger question is why NASA is not putting the effort it could into ANY technology development that would change the nature of HSF.
Probably not a good question to ask.....
Quote
Advanced propulsion is one thing, but it will be at least a century before we will be thinking about other stars. Why are we not right now expanding out into our solar system, putting bases on asteroids and so on?
Because it's not advanced propulsion systems that are needed, it's affordable propulsion (and launch) systems that are needed.
Quote
You don't need advanced propulsion for that, just things like the ability to store fuel in tanks for a year or more and not have it all leak away, ie propellant depots, and life support that you can trust for missions that take you a year or more from earth.
Actually so far no one has built a fully closed cycle life support system. Even a bad one.  :(  :(
Quote
Another obvious technology to advance is SEP (solar electric propulsion) for HSF, which could let us engage in much larger scale projects beyond earth orbit more cheaply. Probably the most important technology is ISRU, without which going anywhere has little point.
Probably right, especially if "ISRU" includes using asteroids already in space as space vehicles  :) .
SEP I'm less sure about.
Quote
If  you understand why NASA is not being allowed to put significant development into even solving these BASIC problems, you will have a good clue why even less money is making it to truly advanced propulsion. Explore all the other threads and you will probably soon figure it out, but this is not the thread to rehash all those unfortunate issues.
True.  :( :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline cordwainer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #47 on: 02/24/2014 05:58 am »
As to Nilof's comment on an Interstellar probe I think Laser Micro-Sail or Antimatter-Sails would make better candidates for a probe than FFRE's. FFRE's may have place in interplanetary travel as they maybe easier to manufacture than fusion propulsion systems and would make great power sources for fusion rockets if net fusion power proves too difficult.

If human's ever do colonize space it will be for more tangible reasons than some hypothetical threat of an apocalypse. There are plenty of resources in space and human's are naturally greedy. Europeans didn't leave Europe because it was overpopulated or lacking in resources, they left because the New World had resources that they were technologically capable of exploiting. The key to exploiting space resources is developing those technologies and the likelihood of people needing those resources in some resource exhausted future. While it is unlikely we will need those resources anytime soon it is a remote possibility we may need them centuries from now.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #48 on: 02/24/2014 09:40 am »
What good is it going to do us as a whole intelligence species knowing that a Earth like planet is 70 light years away with no way right now of even getting there? 

Well knowing there is a 2nd Earth out there would be a big motivation for developing advanced propulsions to get there...

As for the current state of advanced propulsion research, you can browse this forum, there're several ideas, but all in early stages, so their funding is small. I hope they can get more funding once they have some results to shown, as you know people don't usually throw big money at ideas with low chance of success. Exoplanet research went through the same routine, they only get the big bucks recently since early result is promising.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #49 on: 02/25/2014 04:04 pm »
wait until tomorrow. on wednesday (tomorrow) one of the planet finder teams is about to make an announcement tomorrow and one of the people involved is a SETi researcher.

it is possible that tomorrow they are going to announce an important nearby planetary find that for some reason they selected a SETI person to be part of the announcement team. 

and that ( the best case scenario for which such a team could be announcing) definitely would be a real motivation to develop advanced propulsion.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #50 on: 02/25/2014 04:13 pm »
it is highly unlikely humans will ever venture into the outer parts of the solar system. You can completely forget about humans ever leaving this solar system at all, as that is essentially fantasy that only resides in the realms of science-fiction. In the far future (1000+ years from now), we may have the ability to get a probe up to 10% the speed of light and send a few to the nearest stars for scientific investigation.
Supporting evidence?

Two words:

Space Launch System
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #51 on: 02/25/2014 04:22 pm »
I realize I said never. That's simply because we pretty much have cracked all of the puzzles of fundamental physics, and any new "breakthroughs" will not at all yield any new insights that could lead to potentially revolutionary technologies.

Conveniently dismissing the trivial problems:

That the known laws of physics break down the closer in time one gets to the Big Bang.

The nature of dark matter and energy.

The relationship of life, self consciousness, free will, and intelligence to inanimate matter.

Controlling wormholes so that "all you have to do" is travel from one side of the universe to another.

Stuff like that.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2014 04:23 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #52 on: 02/25/2014 04:27 pm »
The good it will do is answer a scientific question that has been bothering man since ancient times, and that question is: Are we alone?

it has been bothering man since ancient times? That´s quite a bold claim, considering ancient humans did not even know about other star systems and basically, didn´t know anything about our own either.

Conveniently dismissing the work of Babylonian "scientists" as both not all that ancient, and not providing any useful information about the motions of the planets and Luna for subsequent generations to utilize.

Also substituting your limited reading on the matter of the question "are we alone", with the actual age and quantity of reading on this question.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #53 on: 02/25/2014 04:40 pm »
Hello all, I am a avid space fanatic. I do not have any degrees nor am i a rocket scientist but I do read space news daily and I am always fascinated from documentary movies on TV. 
 
I have seen so much recent technology breakthroughs basically all aimed at new satellites which can track and detect new exoplanets and the habitat zone. But honestly...  1) What good is all that going to do? 2) Why is the main focus of the human space programs based on New faster and better propulsion engines and spacecraft? 
 
3) What good is it going to do us as a whole intelligence species knowing that a Earth like planet is 70 light years away with no way right now of even getting there? 
 
So basically my question is two parts... 1 . 4) Why as a whole intelligence species looking to advance our propulsion to achieve new speeds for inter-space travel and 5) 2. Are we not that advance as I think we are in respect to this question
on?

Well, to the OP:

1) It might garner popular support and result in greater funding.

2) Two words:  Politics.

3) Other than 1), not much.

4) See 2)

5) We can't even replicate Saturn V.

Try the red pill.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline grondilu

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
  • France
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #54 on: 02/25/2014 05:21 pm »
Maybe it's worth mentioning that the kind of theoretical breakthrough that would be required for advanced propulsion does not necessarily comes out of a big pile of money.

The theory of relativity for instance came out of an humble physicist who was working in a patent office in Switzerland.  Arguably, this is kind of a romantic view of physics that is not valid anymore, but still...

The risk to just waste this money in the benefit of state employees and to the detriment of tax payers is big.
 
« Last Edit: 02/25/2014 05:27 pm by grondilu »

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #55 on: 02/25/2014 05:32 pm »
Maybe it's worth mentioning that the kind of theoretical breakthrough that would be required for advanced propulsion does not necessarily comes out of a big pile of money.

The theory of relativity for instance came out of an humble physicist who was working in a patent office in Switzerland.  Arguably, this is kind of a romantic view of physics that is not valid anymore, but still...

The risk to just waste this money in the benefit of state employees and to the detriment of tax payers is big.
The basic research can be cheap, but at some point, you will have to invest more. This is why I am proposing a competition of sorts. People can submit their ideas and those that are selected get funded according to milestones. As milestones pass, the crowd gets thinner (fail to meet their milestones, fail to proof their concepts, drop out for other reasons) and more money goes to the remaining teams. I think a lot of things could be funded with comparably little money for the initial milestones, but at some point, the funding might have to go up.
Anyway at some stage, you will be able to tell which concepts lead somewhere and which don't. Then you make your final picks for full funding to completion and the contest starts over and asks for new entrants.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2014 05:33 pm by Elmar Moelzer »

Offline grondilu

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
  • France
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #56 on: 02/25/2014 05:45 pm »
The basic research can be cheap, but at some point, you will have to invest more. This is why I am proposing a competition of sorts. People can submit their ideas and those that are selected get funded according to milestones.

Well yeah, that would make some sense.  It's not obvious how you could come up with milestones with something like advanced propulsion, though.  I mean, isn't that kind of binary?  You either find something that works or you don't.

PS.  on second thought, I guess with fusion-powered propulsion for instance it should not be too difficult to imagine incremental steps.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2014 05:48 pm by grondilu »

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #57 on: 02/25/2014 06:23 pm »
Well yeah, that would make some sense.  It's not obvious how you could come up with milestones with something like advanced propulsion, though.  I mean, isn't that kind of binary?  You either find something that works or you don't.

PS.  on second thought, I guess with fusion-powered propulsion for instance it should not be too difficult to imagine incremental steps.
The milestones would be determined together with the entrants and payments would be set for the fulfillment of each milestone. A good example is the development of RELs SABRE engine. It had several milestones that have been successfully completed so far.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #58 on: 02/25/2014 11:56 pm »
The basic research can be cheap, but at some point, you will have to invest more. This is why I am proposing a competition of sorts. People can submit their ideas and those that are selected get funded according to milestones.

Well yeah, that would make some sense.  It's not obvious how you could come up with milestones with something like advanced propulsion, though.  I mean, isn't that kind of binary?  You either find something that works or you don't.

PS.  on second thought, I guess with fusion-powered propulsion for instance it should not be too difficult to imagine incremental steps.
indeed. the first fusion drives are potentially ready for assembly of the prototypes. but when they are first brought on line they will not be much better than ion propulsion of chemical engines with gravity assists. yet at the top end of their maturity they will be fast enough for interstellar flights to the 6 or so nearest stars.

the ones most likely to be the first fusion drives are projected to just be 3 or 4 times faster than voyager. there are at least two in this category that are ready for full prototyping should they find funding. these would allow fast travel anywhere inside the solar system to include really places just beyond the heliopause.

but fully mature fusion; engines whose reaction chamber sustains steady state fusion instead of brief episodic fusion have a current expected top end of about .35 percent C without adding any type of augmenting technology and augmenting technology is possible as are further revisions of the estimated top end.

antimatter just underwent such a revision. it actually doubled it's projected top end and the method/technology involved is also germaine to fusion engine efficiency. i already added that to my top end estimates for fusion as a matter of fact. without it the top end of fusion was 15 to 20 percent C.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: Research and Funding into Propulsion....
« Reply #59 on: 02/26/2014 01:08 am »
The basic research can be cheap, but at some point, you will have to invest more. This is why I am proposing a competition of sorts. People can submit their ideas and those that are selected get funded according to milestones.

Well yeah, that would make some sense.  It's not obvious how you could come up with milestones with something like advanced propulsion, though.  I mean, isn't that kind of binary?  You either find something that works or you don't.

PS.  on second thought, I guess with fusion-powered propulsion for instance it should not be too difficult to imagine incremental steps.
indeed. the first fusion drives are potentially ready for assembly of the prototypes. but when they are first brought on line they will not be much better than ion propulsion of chemical engines with gravity assists. yet at the top end of their maturity they will be fast enough for interstellar flights to the 6 or so nearest stars.

the ones most likely to be the first fusion drives are projected to just be 3 or 4 times faster than voyager. there are at least two in this category that are ready for full prototyping should they find funding. these would allow fast travel anywhere inside the solar system to include really places just beyond the heliopause.

but fully mature fusion; engines whose reaction chamber sustains steady state fusion instead of brief episodic fusion have a current expected top end of about .35 percent C without adding any type of augmenting technology and augmenting technology is possible as are further revisions of the estimated top end.

antimatter just underwent such a revision. it actually doubled it's projected top end and the method/technology involved is also germaine to fusion engine efficiency. i already added that to my top end estimates for fusion as a matter of fact. without it the top end of fusion was 15 to 20 percent C.
You should check out MSNWs fusion driven rocket concept. Their conservative estimate is mars in 90 days with propulsive breaking and a very compact spacecraft (compared to other nuclear propulsion concepts). Now their optimistic estimate is mars in 30 days ;)
This is pretty good for exploration/colonization of the solar system, maybe even for sending probes to nearby stars.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1