advanced CO2 scrubber/ fuel generator/life support/power source?https://news.uic.edu/breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-co2-and-sunlight-produces-burnable-fuel
Quote from: Stormbringer on 07/31/2016 11:58 pmadvanced CO2 scrubber/ fuel generator/life support/power source?https://news.uic.edu/breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-co2-and-sunlight-produces-burnable-fuelMeh, at 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere, you need to move one ton of air (or more than 800 m3) for 400 grams of CO2. So you are unlikely to get any relevant amount of fuel out of this unless you move tonnes of air around. Seems to me like there could be much better ways to use that solar energy than for that.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 08/01/2016 12:24 amQuote from: Stormbringer on 07/31/2016 11:58 pmadvanced CO2 scrubber/ fuel generator/life support/power source?https://news.uic.edu/breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-co2-and-sunlight-produces-burnable-fuelMeh, at 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere, you need to move one ton of air (or more than 800 m3) for 400 grams of CO2. So you are unlikely to get any relevant amount of fuel out of this unless you move tonnes of air around. Seems to me like there could be much better ways to use that solar energy than for that.A motor vehicle that uses burnable fuel can be refuelled much faster than a battery powered vehicle can be recharged. Energy can be stored for longer as well.In the case of Mars rockets have to be used to flights to and from orbit since propellers do not work in a vacuum.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 08/01/2016 05:55 amQuote from: Elmar Moelzer on 08/01/2016 12:24 amQuote from: Stormbringer on 07/31/2016 11:58 pmadvanced CO2 scrubber/ fuel generator/life support/power source?https://news.uic.edu/breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-co2-and-sunlight-produces-burnable-fuelMeh, at 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere, you need to move one ton of air (or more than 800 m3) for 400 grams of CO2. So you are unlikely to get any relevant amount of fuel out of this unless you move tonnes of air around. Seems to me like there could be much better ways to use that solar energy than for that.A motor vehicle that uses burnable fuel can be refuelled much faster than a battery powered vehicle can be recharged. Energy can be stored for longer as well.In the case of Mars rockets have to be used to flights to and from orbit since propellers do not work in a vacuum.It still does not make sense. Just moving the huge volume of air towards those things would take a lot of energy for what little you get out of it in fuel. Maybe for ISRU on mars, if there are no better options. But totally pointless on earth.
Meh, at 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere, you need to move one ton of air (or more than 800 m3) for 400 grams of CO2. So you are unlikely to get any relevant amount of fuel out of this unless you move tonnes of air around. Seems to me like there could be much better ways to use that solar energy than for that.
See if you agree with the space related entries chosen by Aviation Week in this round up.http://m.aviationweek.com/technology/technologies-will-shape-future#slide-0-field_images-1491461
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 08/01/2016 12:24 amMeh, at 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere, you need to move one ton of air (or more than 800 m3) for 400 grams of CO2. So you are unlikely to get any relevant amount of fuel out of this unless you move tonnes of air around. Seems to me like there could be much better ways to use that solar energy than for that.All Horticulture relies on making money off this principle though. ...
All Horticulture relies on making money off this principle though.
I assume to be interesting it is claiming to outperform biofuels etc, which seem a lot less fiddly to do the same thing.
You are probably right about energy but there are also plastics and other things that use hydrocarbons.
New Shapes: Well the whole reason for developing 'podded' aircraft engines rather than ones buried in the wings was to facilitate maintenance and accessibility, but I suppose this will vindicate the designers of the V-Bombers
....That'll save a lot of money and people won't get caught out on the surface during solar storms and cosmic ray bursts.
Quote from: RanulfC on 08/01/2016 02:22 pmNew Shapes: Well the whole reason for developing 'podded' aircraft engines rather than ones buried in the wings was to facilitate maintenance and accessibility, but I suppose this will vindicate the designers of the V-Bombers Maintenance was not the initial reason as pods cause drag and currently restrict the bypass ratio in larger aircraft--a main driver in fuel burn reduction.
The de Havilland DH 106 Comet was the world's first production commercial jetliner. It featured buried engines in the wings and the aircraft would change aviation. The Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8, would differ by employing podded engines held on pylons beneath the wings.
Boeing stated that podded engines were selected for their passenger airliners because buried engines carried a higher risk of catastrophic wing failure in the event of engine fire.
Circumstances and the situation has changed and the concept is making a comeback.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 08/01/2016 02:01 pmAll Horticulture relies on making money off this principle though. Does not change a thing.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 08/01/2016 02:01 pmI assume to be interesting it is claiming to outperform biofuels etc, which seem a lot less fiddly to do the same thing. Biofuels are not exactly efficient either.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 08/01/2016 02:01 pmYou are probably right about energy but there are also plastics and other things that use hydrocarbons.Makes even less sense for plastics. Less than 1% of the oil is used for plastic. The rest is transportation.I stay with my original statement, would be better to just use regular solar panels and use those to directly power all those things that burned the fossil fuels to produce the CO2 in the first place.
A side note on historical podded engine choices.Bill Gunston in one of his books said De Havilland went with the buried approach because someone in the British aircraft industry (either they or RAE Farmborough as it was at the time) mis-calculated the drag levels of podded versus buried engines. A mis-calculation which had major repercussions for the British industry and the V bomber designs, although I have to admit the Vulcan and Victor looked good.
I'll note that things like accessability and maintainability is all in the details. The ability to alter them when a problem is found (before mfg) is where modern CAD based mfg really shines. So a modern design of buried engine could have it's own structural framework which locks into the aircraft structure (precisely aligning with the inlet and exhaust systems) with all connectors brought out on a few (ideally one) panels. At this point the engine is either lifted or dropped out. In the case of the B2 lifted would give a smoth undersurface with no openings to preserve stealth. Commercial aircraft would probably drop them out.
There are a multitude of ways to deal with the accessibility/maintainability issue and aircraft designers now have decades of experience with what works and what doesn't. Probably the most ingenious I've seen is engine removal on the Sabre jet: the entire tail section comes off.
EDIT: It's important to also note that even with podded engines on (sub-sonic) commercial airliners and bombers, they don't take the entire 'pod' off to change out the engine. The engine 'pod' is used for reasons other than pure maintenance.
It shows that low carbon content of the atmosphere is not an insurmountable barrier, the trick is to use a foliated high surface absorption membrane and rely on ambient air movement rather then large air handlers using fans, that is basically what plant leaves are.
Wrong, do some research next time, 4 percent of oil is turned into plastics, specifically liquids associated with natural gasses are very popular for plastics, and plastic consumption is huge and continues to rise even as the transport fuel uses for oil are starting to level off and be supplanted by electrification. If fossil fuel usage is to cease we would certainly need a replacement for plastics as well as the wider petrol-chemical industries feed-stocks.
Quote from: Impaler on 08/24/2016 03:12 amWrong, do some research next time, 4 percent of oil is turned into plastics, specifically liquids associated with natural gasses are very popular for plastics, and plastic consumption is huge and continues to rise even as the transport fuel uses for oil are starting to level off and be supplanted by electrification. If fossil fuel usage is to cease we would certainly need a replacement for plastics as well as the wider petrol-chemical industries feed-stocks.I did and I cant remember where I got the 1% figure from. Yours appears to be more correct. Either way, it is not a major problem compared to just burning hydrocarbons.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 08/26/2016 03:08 amQuote from: Impaler on 08/24/2016 03:12 amWrong, do some research next time, 4 percent of oil is turned into plastics, specifically liquids associated with natural gasses are very popular for plastics, and plastic consumption is huge and continues to rise even as the transport fuel uses for oil are starting to level off and be supplanted by electrification. If fossil fuel usage is to cease we would certainly need a replacement for plastics as well as the wider petrol-chemical industries feed-stocks.I did and I cant remember where I got the 1% figure from. Yours appears to be more correct. Either way, it is not a major problem compared to just burning hydrocarbons.Given the preponderance of plastic world-wide, it'd be interesting to know if it's possible to convert CO2 (or 'greenhouse gases' generally) directly into acrylates, styrenes or other raw materials for plastics production. I imagine anyone who came up with that tech would make a lot of money!!
Quote from: KelvinZero on 08/01/2016 02:01 pmQuote from: Elmar Moelzer on 08/01/2016 12:24 amMeh, at 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere, you need to move one ton of air (or more than 800 m3) for 400 grams of CO2. So you are unlikely to get any relevant amount of fuel out of this unless you move tonnes of air around. Seems to me like there could be much better ways to use that solar energy than for that.All Horticulture relies on making money off this principle though. ...This.
For aviation, the single new technology that will shape the future of aviation is improved lithium batteries.Particularly lithium-air, which (along with electricity's high efficiency and other things) can allow electric flight for just as long as current jet liners. And at the same speeds. And potentially /faster/ speeds than current airliners.Nearer term, really good lithium-ion and lithium-sulfur.
NASA just awarded SBIRs for converting ISRU products (oxygen, methane, hydrogen, water, CO2, etc) into plastics. And since plastics contain carbon, that means from CO2 on Mars.Here are two of them:http://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/16/sbir/phase1/SBIR-16-1-H1.01-8453.htmlPROPOSAL TITLE: ISP3: In-Situ Printing Plastic Production System for Space Additive Manufacturingandhttp://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/16/sbir/phase1/SBIR-16-1-H1.01-8191.htmlPROPOSAL TITLE: Compact In-Situ Polyethylene Production from Carbon Dioxide
I agree with you on that one. Better batteries would be an enabling technology for many things related to aerospace. Depending on energy and power density, it might affect the way we do spaceflight too.
I'd like to agree with you on that one - but unfortunately, I don't. There's more to an electric propulsion system than just batteries: There's the advanced ultra-light-weight non-existent high-temperature superconductors you need to supply the battery power to the engines and then there's the engines themselves. As complex as it is, unless the entire propulsion system is as good or better than current highly-efficient, highly-advanced, extremely-bloody-clever, jet engine/pneumatics technologies, it simply isn't going to fly.. (pun intended).
Civil aviation might be able to benefit from hybrid electric technology on certain classes of aircraft.
Quote from: CameronD on 08/28/2016 10:46 pmI'd like to agree with you on that one - but unfortunately, I don't. There's more to an electric propulsion system than just batteries: There's the advanced ultra-light-weight non-existent high-temperature superconductors you need to supply the battery power to the engines and then there's the engines themselves. As complex as it is, unless the entire propulsion system is as good or better than current highly-efficient, highly-advanced, extremely-bloody-clever, jet engine/pneumatics technologies, it simply isn't going to fly.. (pun intended). Agreed battery powered airliners are not going to happen anytime soon if ever.We might be see hypersonic transport long before we see a fully electric airliner.Civil aviation might be able to benefit from hybrid electric technology on certain classes of aircraft.I also consider fully electric long haul trucks impractical as well though these can benefit from series hybrid technology like what's found on the Chevy Volt.
Quote from: Patchouli on 08/28/2016 11:02 pmQuote from: CameronD on 08/28/2016 10:46 pmI'd like to agree with you on that one - but unfortunately, I don't. There's more to an electric propulsion system than just batteries: There's the advanced ultra-light-weight non-existent high-temperature superconductors you need to supply the battery power to the engines and then there's the engines themselves. As complex as it is, unless the entire propulsion system is as good or better than current highly-efficient, highly-advanced, extremely-bloody-clever, jet engine/pneumatics technologies, it simply isn't going to fly.. (pun intended). Agreed battery powered airliners are not going to happen anytime soon if ever.We might be see hypersonic transport long before we see a fully electric airliner.Civil aviation might be able to benefit from hybrid electric technology on certain classes of aircraft.I also consider fully electric long haul trucks impractical as well though these can benefit from series hybrid technology like what's found on the Chevy Volt.Fully electric airliners are way easier than hypersonic transport.Fully electric long haul trucks are being designed and built by Tesla right now. Provided you can have a big enough battery and have good enough charging infrastructure, there's absolutely no reason fully electric long-haul trucks would be impractical. In fact, due to their being driven a lot more than commuter vehicles, the potential for cost reduction is greater.
Battery technology is already much more advanced that most people in this realm realize. Batteries are still considered second-class.Which is why the electric airliner will catch those folk (who should know better) by surprise. Again. That's why I think even better batteries will dramatically shape the future of aviation.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/26/2016 02:24 pmNASA just awarded SBIRs for converting ISRU products (oxygen, methane, hydrogen, water, CO2, etc) into plastics. And since plastics contain carbon, that means from CO2 on Mars.Here are two of them:http://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/16/sbir/phase1/SBIR-16-1-H1.01-8453.htmlPROPOSAL TITLE: ISP3: In-Situ Printing Plastic Production System for Space Additive Manufacturingandhttp://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/16/sbir/phase1/SBIR-16-1-H1.01-8191.htmlPROPOSAL TITLE: Compact In-Situ Polyethylene Production from Carbon DioxideMars is of course a different matter all together. There is no other source of hydrocarbons there (other than some methane). Bringing it over would cost too much. So of course you need to produce it there. There is no alternative. It will take a long time though to get relatively moderate amounts of plastic that way. But then all metrics are somehow different anyway when it comes to mars.Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/26/2016 02:24 pmFor aviation, the single new technology that will shape the future of aviation is improved lithium batteries.Particularly lithium-air, which (along with electricity's high efficiency and other things) can allow electric flight for just as long as current jet liners. And at the same speeds. And potentially /faster/ speeds than current airliners.Nearer term, really good lithium-ion and lithium-sulfur.I agree with you on that one. Better batteries would be an enabling technology for many things related to aerospace. Depending on energy and power density, it might affect the way we do spaceflight too.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/30/2016 12:10 amBattery technology is already much more advanced that most people in this realm realize. Batteries are still considered second-class.Which is why the electric airliner will catch those folk (who should know better) by surprise. Again. That's why I think even better batteries will dramatically shape the future of aviation.Keeping this discussion on-topic.. Whilst I've no doubt battery technology is already well advanced, as I people ointed out earlier, the real issue for aviation applications is getting the power (especially megawatts of take-off power!) out of the battery to somewhere it can be useful without losing most of it in the process. ..and ISTM they have yet to work that problem out...and until they get a good deal lighter, yes, batteries will always be considered second-class.
Quote from: CameronD on 08/30/2016 04:24 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 08/30/2016 12:10 amBattery technology is already much more advanced that most people in this realm realize. Batteries are still considered second-class.Which is why the electric airliner will catch those folk (who should know better) by surprise. Again. That's why I think even better batteries will dramatically shape the future of aviation.Keeping this discussion on-topic.. Whilst I've no doubt battery technology is already well advanced, as I people ointed out earlier, the real issue for aviation applications is getting the power (especially megawatts of take-off power!) out of the battery to somewhere it can be useful without losing most of it in the process. ..and ISTM they have yet to work that problem out...and until they get a good deal lighter, yes, batteries will always be considered second-class.Where did you get the idea that batteries are low power? Megawatts isn't hard when you have enough battery capacity for long duration flight, and good induction motors are competitive with jet turbines for specific power.If anything, batteries give you MORE power for takeoff. The few electric aircraft available boast about high power for takeoff vs their conventional cousins.That's why the long-range Tesla Model S P100D crushes every other production car on the road. It can harness a good half a Megawatt all by itself. And an electric airliner will have roughly two dozen times as much capacity. Megawatts is no problem. The problem remains capacity, and so initial electric airliners will be used for short-haul as we develop the higher capacity lithium-air batteries.
There are alternatives out there with better power/weight, and without the dangers of fire of lithium batteries.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/30/2016 02:16 pmQuote from: CameronD on 08/30/2016 04:24 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 08/30/2016 12:10 amBattery technology is already much more advanced that most people in this realm realize. Batteries are still considered second-class.Which is why the electric airliner will catch those folk (who should know better) by surprise. Again. That's why I think even better batteries will dramatically shape the future of aviation.Keeping this discussion on-topic.. Whilst I've no doubt battery technology is already well advanced, as I people ointed out earlier, the real issue for aviation applications is getting the power (especially megawatts of take-off power!) out of the battery to somewhere it can be useful without losing most of it in the process. ..and ISTM they have yet to work that problem out...and until they get a good deal lighter, yes, batteries will always be considered second-class.Where did you get the idea that batteries are low power? Megawatts isn't hard when you have enough battery capacity for long duration flight, and good induction motors are competitive with jet turbines for specific power.If anything, batteries give you MORE power for takeoff. The few electric aircraft available boast about high power for takeoff vs their conventional cousins.That's why the long-range Tesla Model S P100D crushes every other production car on the road. It can harness a good half a Megawatt all by itself. And an electric airliner will have roughly two dozen times as much capacity. Megawatts is no problem. The problem remains capacity, and so initial electric airliners will be used for short-haul as we develop the higher capacity lithium-air batteries.There are alternatives out there with better power/weight, and without the dangers of fire of lithium batteries.
Quote from: CameronD on 08/30/2016 04:24 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 08/30/2016 12:10 amBattery technology is already much more advanced that most people in this realm realize. Batteries are still considered second-class.Which is why the electric airliner will catch those folk (who should know better) by surprise. Again. That's why I think even better batteries will dramatically shape the future of aviation.Keeping this discussion on-topic.. Whilst I've no doubt battery technology is already well advanced, as I pointed out earlier, the real issue for aviation applications is getting the power (especially megawatts of take-off power!) out of the battery to somewhere it can be useful without losing most of it in the process. ..and ISTM they have yet to work that problem out...and until they get a good deal lighter, yes, batteries will always be considered second-class.Where did you get the idea that batteries are low power? Megawatts isn't hard when you have enough battery capacity for long duration flight, and good induction motors are competitive with jet turbines for specific power.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/30/2016 12:10 amBattery technology is already much more advanced that most people in this realm realize. Batteries are still considered second-class.Which is why the electric airliner will catch those folk (who should know better) by surprise. Again. That's why I think even better batteries will dramatically shape the future of aviation.Keeping this discussion on-topic.. Whilst I've no doubt battery technology is already well advanced, as I pointed out earlier, the real issue for aviation applications is getting the power (especially megawatts of take-off power!) out of the battery to somewhere it can be useful without losing most of it in the process. ..and ISTM they have yet to work that problem out...and until they get a good deal lighter, yes, batteries will always be considered second-class.
Bus bar?? No, you'd use high voltage aluminum wire. A very small fraction of the weight you're imagining. You simply design the system to have high enough voltage so the weight of the wiring isn't a major drawback. And doesn't have to be long, either, the batteries can be fairly near the motors, whether in the wings or fuselage.High frequency plasma? Why. You're overthinking this.
Where did you get the idea that batteries are low power? Megawatts isn't hard when you have enough battery capacity for long duration flight, and good induction motors are competitive with jet turbines for specific power.If anything, batteries give you MORE power for takeoff. The few electric aircraft available boast about high power for takeoff vs their conventional cousins.That's why the long-range Tesla Model S P100D crushes every other production car on the road. It can harness a good half a Megawatt all by itself. And an electric airliner will have roughly two dozen times as much capacity. Megawatts is no problem. The problem remains capacity, and so initial electric airliners will be used for short-haul as we develop the higher capacity lithium-air batteries.
The battery will be installed in one large building at the Alamitos Power Center in Long Beach, Calif
Zahurancik confirmed that, to the company's knowledge, this is the largest grid-scale electrochemical battery in development. DOE energy storage archives confirm this as well.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/30/2016 02:16 pmWhere did you get the idea that batteries are low power? Megawatts isn't hard when you have enough battery capacity for long duration flight, and good induction motors are competitive with jet turbines for specific power.If anything, batteries give you MORE power for takeoff. The few electric aircraft available boast about high power for takeoff vs their conventional cousins.That's why the long-range Tesla Model S P100D crushes every other production car on the road. It can harness a good half a Megawatt all by itself. And an electric airliner will have roughly two dozen times as much capacity. Megawatts is no problem. The problem remains capacity, and so initial electric airliners will be used for short-haul as we develop the higher capacity lithium-air batteries.Just came across this article on a 100MW lithium battery (roughly enough for an average twin-jet) to be built in SoCal. Of note is: QuoteThe battery will be installed in one large building at the Alamitos Power Center in Long Beach, CalifQuoteZahurancik confirmed that, to the company's knowledge, this is the largest grid-scale electrochemical battery in development. DOE energy storage archives confirm this as well. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/The-Worlds-Biggest-Battery-is-Being-Built-in-Southern-CaliforniaSomehow I don't think that's going in a plane anytime soon!
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/31/2016 12:11 amBus bar?? No, you'd use high voltage aluminum wire. A very small fraction of the weight you're imagining. You simply design the system to have high enough voltage so the weight of the wiring isn't a major drawback. And doesn't have to be long, either, the batteries can be fairly near the motors, whether in the wings or fuselage.High frequency plasma? Why. You're overthinking this.Maybe I am.. but I'm still curious to know how high a voltage you're thinking of.I haven't got the time to run the numbers properly now, but for a quick BOTE calculation for 50MW (the approx. generation capacity of a GE CF-6 at take-off power) could mean 50kV DC @ 1000 Amps - and 1000 Amps worth of aluminium wire is still a hunking great chunk of metal. I'm also not sure (a) whether you could string enough fancy Lithium batteries together to generate 50kV @ 1000 Amps and still fit it on an airplane (and that's only one engine worth, remember) and (b) whether the high-voltage motor control systems required are possible at >50kVDC with even near-future technology. Still, even if incredibly inefficient and impractical, it's an interesting concept... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
It's also possible to liquid-cool the wires, which greatly enhances the power carrying capacity and reduces the wiring mass.
It should be noted that Supercharging operates at over 300 Amps over a single cable. An electric aircraft is likely to have several motors (perhaps even a dozen, if distributed propulsion takes off. heh.).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/31/2016 02:33 pmIt should be noted that Supercharging operates at over 300 Amps over a single cable. An electric aircraft is likely to have several motors (perhaps even a dozen, if distributed propulsion takes off. heh.).It's amazing how quickly these technologies take wings.. (pun intended)http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasas-x-57-electric-research-plane
It's amazing how quickly these technologies take wings.. (pun intended)http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasas-x-57-electric-research-plane
Quote from: CameronD on 09/08/2016 08:02 amIt's amazing how quickly these technologies take wings.. (pun intended)http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasas-x-57-electric-research-planeIt mentions a "five time reduction in energy requirements".. thats pretty incredible.. maybe they will produce a pedal powered version
Quote from: KelvinZero on 09/15/2016 10:15 amQuote from: CameronD on 09/08/2016 08:02 amIt's amazing how quickly these technologies take wings.. (pun intended)http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasas-x-57-electric-research-planeIt mentions a "five time reduction in energy requirements".. thats pretty incredible.. maybe they will produce a pedal powered version Heh. Sounds more like someone in NASA's PAO got a little bit over-excited..
A protein unique to a miniscule creature called a water bear, reputedly the most indestructible animal on Earth, protects human DNA from X-ray damage, stunned researchers reported Tuesday.Human cells cultivated with the newly-discovered protein, dubbed "Dsup" for "damage suppressor", experienced half as much decay as normal cells when blasted with radiation."We were really surprised," said lead author Takuma Hashimoto, a biologist at the University of Tokyo who designed the experiments.Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-protein-shields-human-dna-x-rays.html#jCp
Water bear derived anti radiation pills/ IV infusions?http://phys.org/news/2016-09-protein-shields-human-dna-x-rays.htmlthe little critters resist radiation thanks to a protein they make. QuoteA protein unique to a miniscule creature called a water bear, reputedly the most indestructible animal on Earth, protects human DNA from X-ray damage, stunned researchers reported Tuesday.Human cells cultivated with the newly-discovered protein, dubbed "Dsup" for "damage suppressor", experienced half as much decay as normal cells when blasted with radiation."We were really surprised," said lead author Takuma Hashimoto, a biologist at the University of Tokyo who designed the experiments.Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-protein-shields-human-dna-x-rays.html#jCp
Yeah, biotech will be transformative to spaceflight.Radiation mitigation via a pill. Microgravity mitigation, too. Torpor. Even longer term hibernation. Life extension. Humans are actually pretty compact for the capability they bring, provided you could keep them on ice most of the trip and safe during the rest.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/27/2016 01:24 amYeah, biotech will be transformative to spaceflight.Radiation mitigation via a pill. Microgravity mitigation, too. Torpor. Even longer term hibernation. Life extension. Humans are actually pretty compact for the capability they bring, provided you could keep them on ice most of the trip and safe during the rest.I just wanted to quickly ask - if humans are kept "on ice" during space travel, whether in a slow-metabolic hibernation, or even literally frozen cryogenically - then how would it affect their radiation resistance/tolerance? Sure, your regular active metabolism can cause cancer to grow, but it also fights cancer and radiation damage - so would slowing it down or even stopping it completely then improve or impair your ability to withstand the damaging effects of radiation?For instance, I could imagine some cryogenically frozen astronaut waking up after a century of space travel, only to find that he's accumulated a century's worth of radiation damage in space, so that his cells quickly start malfunctioning from the cumulative damage after he's thawed out.Likewise, I can similarly imagine an astronaut waking up after a decade of metabolically-slowed hibernation in space, finding out that he's got lots of tumors growing within him, because his previously slowed immune system wasn't able to repair radiation damage or fight off cancerous growths fast enough.What's going to prevent scenarios like that?
Composite structures. Before today I honestly can say it would never have occurred to me (especially after venture star) to try and build an entire vehicle out of carbon composites for the primary structures.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 09/28/2016 12:52 amComposite structures. Before today I honestly can say it would never have occurred to me (especially after venture star) to try and build an entire vehicle out of carbon composites for the primary structures.Huh? You'll find composites used at least somewhere on any modern aeroplane you care to fly on - if not for the entire thing.Composite structures are old tech now... very 20th century.
Quote from: CameronD on 09/28/2016 11:54 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 09/28/2016 12:52 amComposite structures. Before today I honestly can say it would never have occurred to me (especially after venture star) to try and build an entire vehicle out of carbon composites for the primary structures.Huh? You'll find composites used at least somewhere on any modern aeroplane you care to fly on - if not for the entire thing.Composite structures are old tech now... very 20th century.It is about large composite structures that can withstand relatively high pressures and cryogenic fuels.
Unitam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Despite their low-power, relative to current battery technologies, the life-time of these diamond batteries could revolutionise the powering of devices over long timescales. Using carbon-14 the battery would take 5,730 years to reach 50 per cent power, which is about as long as human civilization has existed.Professor Scott added: "We envision these batteries to be used in situations where it is not feasible to charge or replace conventional batteries. Obvious applications would be in low-power electrical devices where long life of the energy source is needed, such as pacemakers, satellites, high-altitude drones or even spacecraft.Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-11-diamond-age-power-nuclear-batteries.html#jCp
I'm no believer in global warming
yeah about that. we were "recently" in an ice age. just entering an interglacial period. so yeah the globe will warm and it does not matter one darn what we humans do it will still warm and warm and warm until it cools and we enter another period of glaciation. no amount of paying people to pretend to plant trees or how we tax the stuffings out of people or corps, sign away national sovereignty to a bloated evil oppressive multinational organization or even if we switch our entire energy sector to wind solar geothermal and tidal power the planet will still go on warming. It has been warmer in the past it is cooler now and actually life on earth does better when it is warmer.
Well there are already cow suits...
I just wanted to quickly ask - if humans are kept "on ice" during space travel, whether in a slow-metabolic hibernation, or even literally frozen cryogenically - then how would it affect their radiation resistance/tolerance? Sure, your regular active metabolism can cause cancer to grow, but it also fights cancer and radiation damage - so would slowing it down or even stopping it completely then improve or impair your ability to withstand the damaging effects of radiation?For instance, I could imagine some cryogenically frozen astronaut waking up after a century of space travel, only to find that he's accumulated a century's worth of radiation damage in space, so that his cells quickly start malfunctioning from the cumulative damage after he's thawed out.Likewise, I can similarly imagine an astronaut waking up after a decade of metabolically-slowed hibernation in space, finding out that he's got lots of tumors growing within him, because his previously slowed immune system wasn't able to repair radiation damage or fight off cancerous growths fast enough.What's going to prevent scenarios like that?
oh hey- I found a thing:https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116040-future-air-conditioning-could-work-by-beaming-heat-into-space/a new(?) Heat Rejection idea?
Quote from: Stormbringer on 12/13/2016 08:27 pmoh hey- I found a thing:https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116040-future-air-conditioning-could-work-by-beaming-heat-into-space/a new(?) Heat Rejection idea?This is quite astonishing. The nearest I recall for this was an EE Smith story about thermopiles on 2 different planets. I've always wondered if you could enhance surface emission by making pits sized to the radiation to be emitted as a sort of resonance effect. This is clearly a "high tech" solution, starting with the 10^-6 Torr vacuum in the chamber to the ZnSe window and the sub micrometre thick layers of the Al/Si/SiN sandwich. Interesting points are that this being in the near IR a cheaper window material could be used that was not even transparent to visible light. That still leaves the high quality vacuum and the emitter technology.
Thermal dumping in space is hard, because you generally only have radiative.These atmospheric IR window targeting narrow band emitters are simply exploiting a convenient hole in the blanket that is our atmosphere. If you are in space, as long as your primary radiator surface isn't facing the sun and the earth, you can radiate in a much wider band generally towards deep space, so no need for these frequency converting narrowband tricks.
Use of selective surfaces to modify radiative properties might be used to keep things like LOX storage tanks in space below 90K by purely passive means. Here is a presentation from a year ago modeling such surfaces - predicting potential cooling to 47K in the presence of illumination by the sun.
Quote from: sanman on 09/27/2016 06:43 amI just wanted to quickly ask - if humans are kept "on ice" during space travel, whether in a slow-metabolic hibernation, or even literally frozen cryogenically - then how would it affect their radiation resistance/tolerance? Sure, your regular active metabolism can cause cancer to grow, but it also fights cancer and radiation damage - so would slowing it down or even stopping it completely then improve or impair your ability to withstand the damaging effects of radiation?For instance, I could imagine some cryogenically frozen astronaut waking up after a century of space travel, only to find that he's accumulated a century's worth of radiation damage in space, so that his cells quickly start malfunctioning from the cumulative damage after he's thawed out.Likewise, I can similarly imagine an astronaut waking up after a decade of metabolically-slowed hibernation in space, finding out that he's got lots of tumors growing within him, because his previously slowed immune system wasn't able to repair radiation damage or fight off cancerous growths fast enough.What's going to prevent scenarios like that?If they're sedated, they only need about 0.1 m3 of pressurized volume each for the trip. It's much cheaper to put an arbitrarily large amount of radiation shielding around a smaller volume than a large one. I imagine that, if hibernation ever does become a useful technology for human space travel, the humans would be stored in tiny drawers between the propellant tanks, with a heavy layer of radiation shielding around the entire unit.
10 *meters?* anyway I'd prefer not to have a consumable used as a shield particularly if there is a leak or a micrometeorid or something like that.so 10 meters of water is equivalent to a little over three inches of lead? cause if i remember my old days (30+ years ago now) of reading about fall out shelters a yard of water was equal to an inch of lead for radiation shielding or was that a yard of earth equal one inch of lead?
Quote from: Stormbringer on 12/14/2016 06:50 pm10 *meters?* anyway I'd prefer not to have a consumable used as a shield particularly if there is a leak or a micrometeorid or something like that.so 10 meters of water is equivalent to a little over three inches of lead? cause if i remember my old days (30+ years ago now) of reading about fall out shelters a yard of water was equal to an inch of lead for radiation shielding or was that a yard of earth equal one inch of lead?Not to mention it takes a big rocket to take that into orbit in the first place.Are you beginning to see why asteroid redirect is potentially a major game changer for exploration?
Quote from: john smith 19 on 12/13/2016 09:22 pmQuote from: Stormbringer on 12/13/2016 08:27 pmoh hey- I found a thing:https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116040-future-air-conditioning-could-work-by-beaming-heat-into-space/a new(?) Heat Rejection idea?This is quite astonishing. The nearest I recall for this was an EE Smith story about thermopiles on 2 different planets. I've always wondered if you could enhance surface emission by making pits sized to the radiation to be emitted as a sort of resonance effect. This is clearly a "high tech" solution, starting with the 10^-6 Torr vacuum in the chamber to the ZnSe window and the sub micrometre thick layers of the Al/Si/SiN sandwich. Interesting points are that this being in the near IR a cheaper window material could be used that was not even transparent to visible light. That still leaves the high quality vacuum and the emitter technology.i was wondering if it could be used to get rid of thermal waste heat in space?
But convective cooling only works at room temperature, obviously.
the Japanese seem to have found a room temperature up to the temperature of molten tin superconductor. Not a creepy disjunction filled microscopic here or there useless bits and pieces superconductor in name only but a real let's make a damned conductor out of it super conductor out it already superconductor.
Not according to the (badly worded) article you linked to above.. instead, they've discovered a promising line of research. Most research folks need to do that to keep their funding.
Quote from: CameronD on 12/22/2016 01:02 amNot according to the (badly worded) article you linked to above.. instead, they've discovered a promising line of research. Most research folks need to do that to keep their funding.Yes, it's suggestive something is going on but nowhere near an actual product. A perennial problem with superconductors is the materials tend to be brittle and this one looks to be no different. The REBCO tape materials that MIT is planning to use for their compact fusion reactor seem to avoid this problem, although they are looking to operate around LH2 temperatures (27K?)TBH I'm not sure how much benefit space exploration will see from fusion. The standard tokomak design has even more severe scale down problems than LH2 turbopumps. I'd say you'd need SLS to put a fusion reactor into space assuming the MIT team can get funding to demonstrate the ARC reactor plan. That said if they could get it to work ARC can deliver a large amount of low radiation energy from a very abundant source indefinitely provided you can live with the (by space standards) very large minimum mass requirement and radiator size.
There are other promising fusion reactor designs that would be even more compact than ARC.
Quote from: lamontagne on 12/21/2016 03:11 amBut convective cooling only works at room temperature, obviously. Convective cooling only operates in an atmosphere.This coating (assuming it can be scaled up) stops heat being absorbed by the tank above that temperature, allowing the tank itself to continue emitting until it gets closer to the ambient temperature, in this case 3K.One joker in this pack for SX is that the question "At what temperature does a composite tanks start to develop brittleness issues " AIUI SX want to run LO2 close to its melting point, which is well below that of Methane. 47K should be OK but I don't think anyone really knows.
I see, I got it completely wrong :-) As a very reflective coating, it does a lot of work with a single layer. I wonder if you can combine this with multilayer insulation to reduce heat gain further?
How did this relatively mundane technology of a reflective coating come to dominate this thread? It deserves its own thread.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-03-scientists-unveil-giant-anti-aging.htmlwell that's that then.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 03/24/2017 04:13 amhttps://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-03-scientists-unveil-giant-anti-aging.htmlwell that's that then. It's certainly intriguing, and the possibility of near term human trials is encouraging."radio protectant" drugs are one of those logical ideas that NASA never seems to have funded at all. Which is odd because if you're not going to seriously reduce travel times between Earth and anywhere else, or do so inside something with the shielding level of an asteroid, it's your only real way to avoid a massively increased radiation dose, given that the usual NASA Aluminum can offers < 5% of the Earths atmosphere.
The entire set-up was taken specifically, directly, and consciously from the Directrix. In your story, you reached the situation the Navy was in—more communication channels than integration techniques to handle it. You proposed such an integrating technique and proved how advantageous it could be. You, sir, were 100% right. As the Japanese Navy—not the hypothetical Boskonian fleet—learned at an appalling cost.
The bridge of the classic Star Trek Enterprise was designed by Matt Jeffries. In a second stunning example of science fiction innovation it influenced the design of the U.S. Navy master communications center at NAS San Diego. On US naval vessels, their bridge design does not look anything like the bridge of the Starship Enterprise, but the Combat Information Center in a navy vessel does have some resemblances (mostly the Captain's chair in the center of the room). Again, refer to The Great Heinlein Mystery: Science Fiction, Innovation and Naval Technology by Edward M. Wysocki Jr.
i am no fan of suspended animation ( ahem "vegging out") at all for solving transit problems for solar system missions but here is something that may help that particular line of exploration:
True. However ARC is attractive because it leverages the architecture most fusion physicists have worked on for the last half century but applies some clever materials and some reverse thinking (essentially making the inside the vacuum chamber inside everything else and making it replaceable).
Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/23/2017 12:17 ami am no fan of suspended animation ( ahem "vegging out") at all for solving transit problems for solar system missions but here is something that may help that particular line of exploration:I have been in a medically induced torpor before. Waking up from it was neither pleasant nor quick. Though I have to admit that I do not know how much was the torpor and how much of it was the underlying condition. It is a good idea but I am not sure it is the right solution.
In my continuing unbridled and probably unfounded optimism for the future syndrome department:https://phys.org/news/2017-04-iceball-planet-microlensing.htmlHere is a "planet Earth on ice" that we will one day "tractor beam" into orbit between Earth and Mars around Sol or Alpha Centauri A or B.All we gotta do is invent fast interstellar travel and all ancillary technologies followed by planetary scale tractor beam technology. Easy!EDIT: Who named our solar system stuff anyway? why do we have to have a sun named Sol? why not something cool like Antares or Iridani? Why is our planet named dirt? it wasn't arrogant xenophobic aliens that named our stuff trying to insult us; it was us! I guess at least Terra sounds a little better... but do we use that? Nooooooooo! we're on a planet named after dirt. And it's not even the case that our planet is ugly or poor or anything. No, the planet is beautiful, rich in resources and life but had dippy parents that named it an awful name thats going to ruin it's whole life because they didn't know any better.
It is a good functional name. Earth has a monopoly on dirt.
OK here is another one i am not fond of but some people propose to grow humans and other things at the end of a centuries or milenia long journey across space. To do that you'd need a full artificial womb. So here is a fair start towards that:https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-unique-womb-like-device-mortality-disability.htmli have read about unrelated but similar experiments through the last decade as well.
Since we're off topic anyway: is there a language where Earth (the planet) is not a homonym to dirt? In the few Western/Northern European languages that I know somehow, they are.
Actually not. It's very much designed to preserve life at (or just before) the 24 week termination limit.
Hey "Tellus" was considered and used in some sci-fi in place of both Earth and Terra... 'course that could easily have led to calling ourselves Tellosians or Tellerites so...
Quote from: RanulfC on 04/28/2017 04:41 pmHey "Tellus" was considered and used in some sci-fi in place of both Earth and Terra... 'course that could easily have led to calling ourselves Tellosians or Tellerites so.....so, instead, we're left with "Earthlings"?!? As in "ducklings", only bigger?!???"Cute widdle Earthlings.."Go figure. If there IS anything else out there, we'd be the laughing-stock of the galaxy.
exercise in a pill: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170502142024.htmThis alone would have direct long term space travel applications but another thing exercise does is apply stress to bones tendons and ligaments which results in maintaining and improving bone tendon and ligament strength. If this "exercise in a pill" discovery does not include the skeletal system then there would naturally be an analogous pill for that because the stresses on that system also have to have a signalling protein etc.
ARC is designed for 1 GW. I think VASIMR have shown that 100 MW version of their engine can get u to Mars in about 40 days. Tokamak energy have a plan for such a reactor and it would fit in a couple of rooms.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 05/06/2017 12:31 pmexercise in a pill: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170502142024.htmThis alone would have direct long term space travel applications but another thing exercise does is apply stress to bones tendons and ligaments which results in maintaining and improving bone tendon and ligament strength. If this "exercise in a pill" discovery does not include the skeletal system then there would naturally be an analogous pill for that because the stresses on that system also have to have a signalling protein etc.GW1516 comes with nasty side effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW501516
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/04/transparent-spinel-aluminum-for.htmlSo the new dimensional limit for this stuff is 30 inch panels. Later maybe conformal panels as wide as a chamber on a space station or space shipcould be fabricated. Multiple layers of the stuff with a vacuum/nitrogen cell between or lead quartz glass sandwiched in there or clear heavily hydrogenated polymers.
This is, essentially, a high-performance glass: most glasses are oxides, and they range from cheaper, "ordinary", not particularly tough, not particularly precisely formulated ones we have in ordinary windows, to pure SiO2 (tough, refractory, low thermal expansion), to precisely measured pure SiO2/TiO2 mixtures with precisely zero thermal expansion, to many other special glasses, ceramics, oxides, nitrides, carbides...The glass in the article is MgAl2O4. Essentially, they found a way how to form this glass into large, homogeneous sheets, lenses and blocks. With homogeneity and transparency good enough even for optical applications.Which is an important advance (I guess, I'm not a specialist in this field) for this particular material, which is good, but this is hardly a "transparent aluminum". With a strong impact, it will not bend, it will crack like a glass or ceramic. Neither it is a never-before-seen ultra-tough glass - the well-known material, aluminum oxide (aka sapphire aka corundum) is probably tougher.
Who needs LCARS displays? My star cruiser will use these:https://themerkle.com/scientists-create-a-nano-hologram-visible-to-the-naked-eye/
Consumer devices could one day generate holograms
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431264-500-plasma-jet-engines-that-could-take-you-from-the-ground-to-space/ground to orbit plasma engine. A few enabling techs need to some work; but the engine works at appropriate thrust levels even at one atmosphere of ambient air pressure to be able to do it already.
https://www.nature.com/articles/n-12310766It's still pretty cool (and developed here in my home town).. but is a long way from what you might think it is.
"A few enabling techs" basically sums up to "light-weight, high-volume energy generation and storage", if I'm not mistaken. Which seems to be the same problem we have with all these other awesome engines. Very frustrating.
Quote from: Ithirahad on 05/31/2017 11:11 pm"A few enabling techs" basically sums up to "light-weight, high-volume energy generation and storage", if I'm not mistaken. Which seems to be the same problem we have with all these other awesome engines. Very frustrating.My kingdom for a battery with the energy density of gasoline... heck, I'd take a battery with the energy density of sugar.
Volts don't really tell you much, just how many cells are used. Can get arbitrarily high voltage by using a bunch of teeny tiny cells in series. It's watt-hours we care about.
heck, I'd take a battery with the energy density of sugar.
hmmmm. maybe this is the hull plating for mah star cruiser? https://phys.org/news/2017-06-carbon-harder-diamond-flexible-rubber.htmlbendy and stretchy as rubber but harder than diamond?
Quote from: Stormbringer on 06/27/2017 08:12 amhmmmm. maybe this is the hull plating for mah star cruiser? https://phys.org/news/2017-06-carbon-harder-diamond-flexible-rubber.htmlbendy and stretchy as rubber but harder than diamond?Hardness is good against abrasion, but not as useful as structural strength.
Generally- flour particle sized or below rocky or metallic grains with a incident rate of one impact per square meter of frontal cross section per day. Possible sand grain sized and (barely possible) larger than sand grain sized at a much reduced frequency. However, in the event of even larger impactors, the shielding should be capable or reducing or eliminating penetration to the habitable portions of the ship or the vitals of an unmanned probe.A probe or ship that must spend years or centuries at relativistic speeds will encounter thousands and thousands of particles of grit. Rather like being sand blasted or being caressed by a power grinder.Anywhere in the local bubble within ten or 20 light years or so. (Outer Spaaaaaaaaaaaace)
Quote from: Stormbringer on 06/28/2017 09:23 amGenerally- flour particle sized or below rocky or metallic grains with a incident rate of one impact per square meter of frontal cross section per day. Possible sand grain sized and (barely possible) larger than sand grain sized at a much reduced frequency. However, in the event of even larger impactors, the shielding should be capable or reducing or eliminating penetration to the habitable portions of the ship or the vitals of an unmanned probe.A probe or ship that must spend years or centuries at relativistic speeds will encounter thousands and thousands of particles of grit. Rather like being sand blasted or being caressed by a power grinder.Anywhere in the local bubble within ten or 20 light years or so. (Outer Spaaaaaaaaaaaace)The energies involved in orbital velocity collisions are several orders of magnitude higher than sandblasting or grinding. Not sure that hardness is really what you want.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/07/nasa-will-test-simple-nuclear-power-system-which-will-be-in-the-1-to-10-kilowatt-power-range.htmlwell that's that then.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 07/05/2017 04:09 amhttps://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/07/nasa-will-test-simple-nuclear-power-system-which-will-be-in-the-1-to-10-kilowatt-power-range.htmlwell that's that then. That's what? Looks like JARP (Just Another Research Project) to me.. with zero application to the future of aviation and very little for space exploration anytime soon.
there's no chance a self-driving surface probe could effectively navigate Earth's frontiers, much less another Planet's.
how to see stuff really really well.https://phys.org/news/2017-12-breakthrough-sensor-photography-life-sciences.htmlprobably just totally buffed all telescopes so they can see exoplanets
Quote from: Stormbringer on 12/18/2017 02:54 pmhow to see stuff really really well.https://phys.org/news/2017-12-breakthrough-sensor-photography-life-sciences.htmlprobably just totally buffed all telescopes so they can see exoplanets I think you'll find that level of capability has existed for large telescopes for decades.Orbiting telescopes and ground instruments often have specialized imaging devices made by people like E2V and their counterparts around the world. Mult megapixel and quantum level imaging IE sensitivity in multiple photons, have been SOP for quite some time in Astronomy.