Question regarding flight, atmosphere vs space

Discussion in 'Science' started by Robert E Allen, Oct 9, 2019.

  1. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not much of a science type.

    It seems to me that flying in an atmosphere is vastly different that "flying" in space.
    Flying in space would require no lift as there is no gravity to defeat..

    So imagine some time down the road we will need to travel both through space and in atmospheres.
    Given the energy requirements to escape atmospheres it seems likely that we will need different crafts.
    1. Crafts for entering and transporting cargo in and out of atmospheres ( shuttles and rockets)

    2. We will need conventional aircraft for moving around in the atmosphere.

    3. Crafts to transport all this stuff from world to world

    Is there any reason to think we will be able to have a propulsion system and energy source to make trans atmospheric travel easy as it is in movies such as star wars?

    Star wars space craft have little to no lift but operate in atmospheres easily, that would require massive amounts of thrust and vectored thrust at that.

    Is there any thing on the scientific horizon that would negate the need for the traditional lifting wing? Or any power source that would allow for simple trans atmospheric flight?
     
  2. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,700
    Likes Received:
    21,100
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Negative mass particles might be usable as 'anti-grav'. Some were made recently.

    The main limiter for 'trans-atmospheric' flight as I understand it is the Van-Allen rediation belt. Sheilding requirements make 'lift wing' craft very heavy. Additionally, wings suitable for atmospheric flight are vulnerable to space dust (like bullets at space speeds). Space-worthy crafts are too heavy to 'fly', and 'airplanes' aren't durable enough for space. Im sure crafts can be built that bridge the gap, but they don't have much utility as their cargo capacity is maxed by armor/sheilding/reinforcement.

    As in the limitations of our current (known) engineering capabilities. Who knows whats flying in black ops...
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2019
    WillReadmore and Robert E Allen like this.
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think there are issues more important than power sources when it comes to designing these craft.

    The issue with the James Webb telescope is that it had to be made to fit inside a specific diameter and weight constraint and then it had to be able to withstand the buffeting that occurs when one touches off a rocket of that stupendous size. So, the intricate folding of the telescope combined with shake tests had parts falling off!

    There are serious constraints for the different mediums. Why bother demanding that craft that will spend their time in space must also withstand issues of atmosphere?

    We're already seeing spacecraft designed to be manufactured in space. So, they can be built to be weirdly shaped, whatever size, etc. They can be designed and built to be exactly what you want in space!

    Eventually, maybe material from asteroids can be used to build stuff we want in space, so we don't have to blast everything off of some planet.

    Having some new gigantic power source would certainly be cool, but we can make a lot of progress without that. And, we're going to be stuck inside this solar system for a LONG time.
     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What would you like to do in space?

    Hubble is less than 8' in diameter. I'd like a telescope that's more like a mile in diameter - cooperating satellites maybe?

    Why don't we build a space manufacturing site that just sits there building more telescope power? Why keep trying to fold everything into some nose cone and then shaking the crap out of it on a super expensive journey to space somewhere?
     
  5. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Personally I would like to explore space but until major advances are made my kind of exploring isn't possible. I want to cover light years in days or weeks instead of years. And I want anyone left on Earth to age at the same rate as I do.
     
    Falena likes this.
  6. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Only thrust counteracts gravity in space.

    It's much cheaper to use primarily use lift with some thrust in an atmosphere which is dense enough that the mass of the aircraft can be overcome.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think we have a long way to go before telescopes and robots can't do the job of exploration.
     
  8. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was here when man walked on the moon. I guess that will have to do.
     
  9. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wings are useless in space. But do very well in an atmosphere.
     
  10. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well when you've got smarter than Einstein sitting here twiddling his thumbs in disbelief of why he is sitting here and not doing the important scientific research and discovery on a fundamental level of science. , what do you expect ?
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2019
  11. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Really?
     
  12. carlberky

    carlberky Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2019
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd like to drag out the following quote by Gavin Newsom and thrust it into the conversation.

    "The jobs in the greatest demand in the future don't yet exist and will require workers to use technologies that have not yet been invented to solve problems that we don't yet even know are problems."

    Gavin Newsom https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/gavin-newsom-quotes
     
    Robert E Allen likes this.
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. I hope he follows through on that when it comes to pushing for more higher education.

    As for space, I don't believe that's going to be a large employer for a long time. Today, everything in space is pretty small when it comes to employment.

    The first step in something of actual commercial value seems to be the large number of communications satellites being launched in order to sell world wide internet connectivity.
     
  14. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Based on the laws California passes i see no reason to believe Gavin Newsom has a brain.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have all the technology we need to create a gigantic telescope in space - composed of numerous small telescopes that work together. They don't even have to be attached to each other - or even in close proximity. Their light gathering can smply be added with a computer figuting it out.

    Such a telescope could be added to over time, giving it increasing resolution or increasing sensitivity in specific light frequencies.

    That means the problems of the James Webb telescope could be avoided. In fact, each "mini" telescope could be assembled in space. Or, they could be stacked inside of an existing rocket, since each component doesn't have to be large.

    Such a telescope could examine features of planets in distant solar systems, look FAR beyond what Hubble can see, etc.

    I'm one of those who wonders what the value is of having a man on the moon or mars when we can send robobts there - and to far more remote locations. And, with bigger and better telescopes we can look to far more distant horizons where human travel is pure science fiction - distances that not even Hubble can approach.

    Plus, surely a sample of the water geysers on Enceladus would be more interesting that having more footprints on the Moon - where 12 people have already left their footprints.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG] [​IMG][​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2019
    politicalcenter likes this.
  16. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have no choice but to settle until science catches up.with my imagination. A telescope looks backward in time and eventually you would see the beginning... if there is one. But I really would rather see those distant places in real time. Not something that happened a million or billion years ago. My imagination has been there.... and thought travels as fast as you like and as far. Wouldn't it be something? A way to the stars in man's mind.
     
    Falena and WillReadmore like this.
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Definitely cool ideas.

    While living with what we have today, perhaps there is some releif in figuring out what has actually changed over the last few billion years.

    And, of course there is the future, too. It certainly would be cool to be able to witness the merger of the Milkey Way and Andromeda galaxies - an unfortunately long wait that not even Earth will survive!
     
    politicalcenter likes this.
  18. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have always liked Einstein's ideas about thought experiments. Negative mass particles is really something to think about. And warped space.... How could it be done?
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  19. carlberky

    carlberky Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2019
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    A great idea, but until the limits of light years are solved, the money to be spent on such scientific curiosity would be better allocated on making this world a better place.
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed!

    What I'm suggesting can be done within our existing budget.

    Moonmen means we have to spend billions more.

    My reason for not seeing moonmen as a worthy investment is that we get pretty much zero science benefit, we always have to spend way more when the objective includes keeping humans alive, and we're getting hit with additional costs that come because of the demand to do this in a hurry.

    For example, NASA can progress in exploration of our cosmos and in doing the work it does in Earth sciences (used by agriculture, etc.) without the need for the stupendous rocket that is being demanded for going to the Moon. And, SpaceX and others are creating similar liftng power that just won't be ready in time.

    We could cut that whole stupendously huge and expensive rocket project if we decided to focus on science rather than on a man on the moon within this president's term. Besides, everything would have to go absolutely perfectly for that to be successful - all tests, etc. And, that's not a feature of our space program. During testing, some stuff does blow up, for example.
     
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The SLS for the moonmen was projected in 2011 to cost $35Billion. Of course, that's not the vehicle for getting to the moon and back and THAT vehicle isn't how moonmen would get to the surface and back. Also, it is thought that we should build a permanent spacestation as a staging area for arriving from earth and departing for the moon's surface.

    The entire budget for NASA (including all satellites, all analysis, of Earth and astronomy, all communication (of stuff such as weather data, etc.), education support, all military contribution is $25B this year.

    I doubt anyone knows what this one mission to the moon will end up costing, but it seems like it could eat the entire NASA budget for the time between now and the return of the moonmen. NASA is certainly saying that they will need a huge budget increase.

    I do not see any way to justify this project.
     
  22. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,311
    Likes Received:
    6,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The only propulsion systems remotely capable of duplicating the kinds of space flight we see in Star Wars would be a highly efficient fusion power plant or antimatter. That's because you have to expend energy to change velocity and once you've reached your destination to change velocity again (kill your earlier velocity). That means more fuel on either end of your trip. The more times you change your velocity during a trip your overall fuel requirements go up exponentially
     
  23. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is another option which is called a Space Elevator.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

    [​IMG]

    https://science.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator.htm

    Current technology is reasonably close to making something like this feasible.

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...ology-researchers-say-we-just-need-to-dangle/

    I am not an expert on the materials that would be needed but conceptually it solves a lot of problems but I am sure that it has it's own set of problems that will need to be overcome.
     
  24. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Rule 1 of space travel: the first 100km are worse than the next 100 billion.
     
  25. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But we will never reach light speed using the above technology. Probably not even close. And who wants to go on a trip and return after everyone you know is dead? How could you use information that will not be presented until years after you are gone?
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2019

Share This Page