Jan 16, 17 / Aqu 16, 01 06:47 UTC
Propellant to: Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus. ¶
Reason: Edited to activate URL <>
Jan 16, 17 / Aqu 16, 01 06:47 UTC
Jan 16, 17 / Aqu 16, 01 14:11 UTC
Instead of 20,000 little nozzles, why not just use one big thruster? it's likely to use a lot less material having a lot less external surface area and therefore weigh a lot less, increasing the power to weight ratio - which is far more important than how slowly you can waste, I mean burn the fuel by spending longer on the "wrong" side of the accellerational curve.
Those figures you quote for arriving at, say Mars, in 15 days - Lets ignore the fact that this orbital trajectory wouldn't leave any possibility to hit the Earth if you miss Mars.... You've taken into account decelleration? By wasting 2/3'rds of the fuel burning it so slowly, it'll weigh a lot less by the time you have to think about slowing down - But you'll still need to be slowing down about or before the ½ way mark. Will you actually have enough fuel to be able to slow down?
If this was such a good idea - why couldn't we just print these nozzels ourselves?
Again, what we really need is propulsion technologies that don't use propellant. Propellant based tech has hardly improved really since the appolo missions, and the only thing being built to give out anywhere near as much thrust as the Saturn V5 being NASA's "new" SLS. Technologies like the EM-Drive - though in their infancy and thusly largely ineffective - could output more than 10 netwons of thrust with 10KW of electrical input. No propellant. It's quite simple to generate 10KW too. Don't need a fuel tank or several hundred thousand kilos of fuel, or have to try and fight gravity with them - and can thusly maintain a more constant power/weight ratio and further, constantly apply power opening up long distance and long duration missions.
Jan 17, 17 / Aqu 17, 01 01:17 UTC
I discovered that a larger propellant spatial wastes the fuel.
If we use a fuel tank of 1,500,000 One million five hundred thousand liters, in the space shuttle, it will only last 4 hours. Because it spends 2,000 two thousand liters every 20 seconds according to the internet.
And it only reaches 250,000 kilometers using the three engines of the space shuttle and 1,500,000 one million five hundred thousand liters of fuel, without return.
It doesn'' T work.
Jan 17, 17 / Aqu 17, 01 01:41 UTC
Well Victor, you know that the most important thing in physics are the equations, I don't see why 20k nozzles would be better than 1 large nozzle and you should give the formulas instead of so much words saying that you invented something crazy nobody realized at NASA or Roscosmos. Anyway, your plans to get to Mars in 15 days are ok, just let me do some math for you. Suppose we ignore every effect of gravity and getting out of the Earth atmosphere just like you did, you say you will get a constant acceleration of 0.097 m/s^2, if you apply that to a body during 15 days (1296000 seconds )it will get a speed of 125,712 m/s or 452,563 km/h so that would be like shooting a bullet against Mars destroying the ship (which I hope you don't pretend to do). If you want to get into Orbital Dynamics you should study beyond the elementary formulas of Newton (which are nice, but those didn't get Apollo 11 to the Moon).
Jan 17, 17 / Aqu 17, 01 03:22 UTC
I do not think the spacecraft will be destroyed at 450,000 km / h.
Where does he say that?
The spacecraft, I imagine it will begin to slow down in 7 days.
USING THE 3 SPACE SHUTTLE PROPULSORS
Liters: 1500000 liters
Liters per second: 100 liters per second
Weight: 2000000 kg
Mass = Weight / Gravity = 2000000 / 9.8 = 204082
t = 4 hours = 14400 seconds
F = m . a
a = F / m
a = 2000000/204082 = 9,799 m / s
d = (1/2) . (a). (t^2)
d = (0.5). (9,799). (207360000)
d = 10159603,2 Km (It does not reach the planet Mars)