12-09-2023, 03:06 AM | #701 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 7,884
Thanks: 5,668
Thanked 5,806 Times in 3,300 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Yes, we have plenty of fuel here, but we need it up there, so we can go to Mars and back easier. The Starship is 90% fuel with 4600 T of propellant, but only has a payload of 100-250 T depending on whether the rocket will be reused or not. That is because, as you put it, we live in this [large] gravity sink, and most of that propellant is used to escape earth's gravity. The energy needed to escape the moon's gravity is far less, so suddenly that payload gets much larger, or refueling Starship means there is a lot of unspent fuel that can be used on a mission to mars. Let's put it this way: Say you want to drive around the equator at 25,000 miles, but you couldn't refuel; at 25 mpg, that is about 1000 gallons or having a fuel tank that weighs 8,000 pounds; probably need a bigger vehicle, and now it probably doesn't get 25 mpg; wouldn't it be easier to refuel along the way instead? Option A) we can build an even bigger rocket than Starship to have enough fuel to escape earth's gravity, that can accelerate in space to mars, can decelerate to land on mars and then launch to escape Mar's velocity and have enough fuel to accelerate to earth and decelerate to land, but we must remember that 90% of the rocket is already propellant, so how big would this rocket be? Option B) we can launch a bunch of payloads of fuel to orbit, launch a final large rocket to space and refuel before going to mars and back. Option C) we can launch less payloads of fuel to orbit, launch a final rocket into space that doesn't need to be as big, refuel before going to mars, and then refuel on mars before heading back to earth. Option D) we could refuel in space, go to the moon, refuel before going to mars, refuel on mars then head back to the moon and go back to earth. Say we could do Option D): would we have enough fuel to reach higher velocities, so we could cut the time to mars shorter? Probably. It is the best chance to get there faster, if the procession of the planets allow a faster route, but going back to what I was saying before, we don't have a ship large enough that holds enough fuel such that we could flat out accelerate half the distance to mars and decelerate the second half of the distance. Our best scenario is refueling on the moon or in orbit around the moon, so Starship is full when it leaves the moons gravity, and then it will burn the rockets to about 50% fuel (minus burnoff), and then it will coast for weeks to months before igniting the burners to slow the rocket before landing on Mars, where it will then refuel, launch into space with refueling payloads, return to refuel, and then leave from space refueled. Is refueling in space and the back and forth costing more time than saving time with a slower straight shot? Probably not. Average velocity would go up and trip time would decrease going faster. This is like doing a cannonball run from NY to LA and saying, 'wouldn't it be better traveling 65 mph and stopping less to refuel because you get better gas mileage than traveling at 110 mph and needing to refuel more often?" For a trip from NY to LA, that speed differential is a difference of saving 12 hours, but the refueling time is not 12 hours, so the extra few stops is entirely worth it.
__________________
My Build | K24 Turbo Swap | *K24T BRZ SOLD*
|
|
12-09-2023, 04:10 AM | #702 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 7,884
Thanks: 5,668
Thanked 5,806 Times in 3,300 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Obviously we can't reach the speed of light, but I get what you mean. My point isn't a practical one; it was more of a theoretical one that the fastest a rocket with unlimited potential to accelerate would necessarily have to spend half its time decelerating too. Such a hypothetical "fastest trip" would be miserable, accelerating at levels of G that would crush a human. As you pointed out, even at 1G the ship would accelerate to the speed of light in a year. As it stands, we don't have the ship size with enough thrust power and energy to go at or beyond G for very long, so this isn't an issue. We are talking second/minutes, not hours or days or weeks. At best we can hope to reach a faster coasting velocity that could shorten the trip considerably, but I don't know the math on what we could do with rockets at the thrust and scale of the ones we have with the need to decelerate and land at the end of a long trip when we have burnoff too. Where is Bob Lazar with a gravity machine?
__________________
My Build | K24 Turbo Swap | *K24T BRZ SOLD*
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Irace86.2.0 For This Useful Post: | Dadhawk (12-09-2023) |
12-09-2023, 11:23 AM | #703 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2018
Drives: Crapcan
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,255
Thanks: 18,351
Thanked 16,453 Times in 7,446 Posts
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
As Dadhawk already said, I always thought the idea behind the 1g acceleration/deceleration was for gravity simulation
__________________
"Experience is the hardest kind of teacher. It gives you the test first and the lesson afterward." -Oscar Wilde.
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NoHaveMSG For This Useful Post: |
12-09-2023, 12:05 PM | #704 | |
1st86 Driver!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Drives: '13 FR-S (#3 of 1st 86)
Location: Powder Springs, GA
Posts: 19,887
Thanks: 39,032
Thanked 25,091 Times in 11,446 Posts
Mentioned: 182 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
The situation I'm talking about is not the emergency situation but the ascent from the Moon. Maybe Starship's size is what requires more standard liquid fuels, but it does introduce an ignition risk.
__________________
Olivia 05/03/2012 - 01/06/2024. 231,146 glorious miles.
Visit my Owner's Journal where I wax philosophic on all things FR-S Post your 86 or see others in front of a(n) (in)famous landmark. What fits in your 86? Show us the "Junk In Your Trunk". |
|
12-09-2023, 03:21 PM | #705 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 7,884
Thanks: 5,668
Thanked 5,806 Times in 3,300 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
__________________
My Build | K24 Turbo Swap | *K24T BRZ SOLD*
|
|
12-09-2023, 03:47 PM | #706 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2018
Drives: Crapcan
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,255
Thanks: 18,351
Thanked 16,453 Times in 7,446 Posts
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
I wasn't talking about practicality, I just explained my understanding of what I thought the primary reason for the accel/decel idea behind long distance space travel was. There are quite a few obstacles to it, I thought it was neat as opposed to just rotating the craft.
__________________
"Experience is the hardest kind of teacher. It gives you the test first and the lesson afterward." -Oscar Wilde.
|
12-09-2023, 04:28 PM | #707 | |
Geo Tyrebighter Esq
Join Date: Mar 2013
Drives: '13 scion fr-s
Location: pnw
Posts: 4,240
Thanks: 6,460
Thanked 5,091 Times in 2,234 Posts
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
What's so hard to comprehend? Why concentrate solely on planetary destinations when planning the entire world wide space exploration agenda? Too limited. I propose that more good will accrue by spending at least a fraction of the attention on manufacturing stuff (42 [HHGTTG]) in space. Working out how to set up solar powered fractional distillation from random things already outside planetary reference frames would be preferable in my estimation.
__________________
--
"I gotta rock." -- Charley Brown Last edited by bcj; 12-09-2023 at 04:53 PM. Reason: planets are dumb |
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bcj For This Useful Post: |
12-09-2023, 04:40 PM | #708 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 7,884
Thanks: 5,668
Thanked 5,806 Times in 3,300 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
__________________
My Build | K24 Turbo Swap | *K24T BRZ SOLD*
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Irace86.2.0 For This Useful Post: | NoHaveMSG (12-09-2023) |
12-09-2023, 04:41 PM | #709 |
extra what?
Join Date: Sep 2014
Drives: a 13 e8h frs
Location: vantucky, wa
Posts: 32,085
Thanks: 52,528
Thanked 36,809 Times in 19,084 Posts
Mentioned: 1111 Post(s)
Tagged: 9 Thread(s)
|
With enough fuel, anything is possible.
__________________
|
12-09-2023, 04:51 PM | #710 |
extra what?
Join Date: Sep 2014
Drives: a 13 e8h frs
Location: vantucky, wa
Posts: 32,085
Thanks: 52,528
Thanked 36,809 Times in 19,084 Posts
Mentioned: 1111 Post(s)
Tagged: 9 Thread(s)
|
He don't know you like I knows you.
__________________
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Ultramaroon For This Useful Post: | Spuds (12-09-2023) |
12-09-2023, 05:20 PM | #711 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 7,884
Thanks: 5,668
Thanked 5,806 Times in 3,300 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
I reread your former posts, and I get now what you were referencing, and I get your confusion or reason for your response. I distinctly said G's and not a G. Experiencing G's of acceleration, even two or more G's would instantly double your weight like going from 150lbs to 300lbs. Max G on a rocket is around 3G's, but in my hypothetical "fastest reasonable trip", maybe we would do more. Feeling higher levels of G's would be problematic, and then fatal, and then higher still, would leave our bodies putty like a jellyfish out of water. On your second point, I don't know if this was directed at me and something I said, or if it is a general talking point you just wanted to mention because you don't seem to be referencing something I said directly or your last quote that I was responding to in an effort to now clarify your prior statements, but to respond, I don't think anyone is ONLY trying to go to other planetary bodies, and I don't know that any one company or government is planning "the entire world wide space exploration agenda," so I'm confused by that statement. You even post a link and address the fact that there are other space projects in the works. The current plans by NASA using US space contractors are intentionally designed to do more than just get us to the moon and back. They are designed to be cheaper, faster and capable of more than a single purpose. This is like building a more complex and expensive building like a hospital (I'm a nurse, so I'm using a personal reference) that is future proof because it is modular and can be expanded upon; it doesn't have to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch when they need to expand its capabilities or size. Similarly, this will be an architecture that is necessary to save money and time, and it will allow NASA and partners to reach Mars and beyond in far more feasible ways under a smaller budget. If someone figures out a better means then I'm sure a company or government will do that.
__________________
My Build | K24 Turbo Swap | *K24T BRZ SOLD*
|
|
12-09-2023, 05:24 PM | #712 |
The Dictater
Join Date: Apr 2017
Drives: '13 Red Scion FRS
Location: MD, USA
Posts: 9,509
Thanks: 26,347
Thanked 12,529 Times in 6,205 Posts
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Actually 1g (or that of whatever planet you are going to) flat rate burn mixed with periods of higher g burns is a better architecture for deep space human exploration than single long burn up front and at the end. It takes longer, but you can always plan to resupply mid journey with high speed cargo flights. Cargo doesn't really care what acceleration you are pulling for long periods of time.
Anything is possible, nothing is easy.
__________________
If a picture is worth a thousand words, a model is worth ten thousand pictures.
Also: "Build Thread" |
The Following User Says Thank You to Spuds For This Useful Post: | Ultramaroon (12-09-2023) |
12-09-2023, 05:55 PM | #713 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 7,884
Thanks: 5,668
Thanked 5,806 Times in 3,300 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
We can make a ship modular to make it huge, but this is like stacking more trollies to a train. As you do that, the force needed to reach 1G of thrust is higher (F=ma). Okay, so you get bigger engines, but they also require more fuel, so you add more trollies.
A Bugatti will pull over 1G at times trying to get to 200mph. At its top speed fighting gravity it is barely accelerating, but if it didn't have air resistance or rolling resistance then it would be continuing to accelerate, and it would deplete its fuel in twelve minutes operating its engines at peak levels. Rockets deplete their engines in minutes, and they are 90% fuel. How large of rocket would you need, and how large of a rocket engine/s would you need to create the thrust to move that gargantuan mass at 1G through space? If it is even theoretically possible, it would surely be unrealistic for humans to produce using propellant based propulsion.
__________________
My Build | K24 Turbo Swap | *K24T BRZ SOLD*
|
12-09-2023, 07:22 PM | #714 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '23 BRZ
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 4,612
Thanks: 1,395
Thanked 3,930 Times in 2,052 Posts
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, colonizing mars is an idiotic idea with 21st century tech. But he wants it so bad he just dismisses some of the major health concerns and says "radiation isn't that big a deal". He's smart enough to make non-science non-engineers *think* he's smart. But he does not have any kind of grasp on science or engineering. |
||
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ZDan For This Useful Post: |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Which Space Saver will fit? | Andrew666 | AUSTRALIA | 25 | 06-18-2020 09:07 AM |
Cockpit Space | Chad86 | Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 GT86 General Forum | 7 | 03-15-2014 03:24 PM |
First run 86's (Space Saver question) | DriftEightSix | AUSTRALIA | 11 | 01-10-2013 07:25 AM |
FR-S space saver | sierra | Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 GT86 General Forum | 2 | 11-29-2012 12:18 AM |
Trunk space? | tranzformer | Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 GT86 General Forum | 34 | 04-13-2011 12:29 PM |