info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Can cosmic rays be used for interstellar propulsion?
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Jan Panteltje
Dec 3, 2011, 2:27:10 PM12/3/11
to
Can cosmic rays be used for interstellar propulsion?
I have read in wikipedia that cosmic rays are 90% protons,
so positive charged, with appreciable mass.
These could be deflected by a magnetic field, in a specific direction.
This would then both give protection to hardware and people in a spacecraft,
as well as a provide a force without needing a reaction mass.
As these protons seem to randomly come from all directions,
one could then use the magnetic field to steer in any direction.
Seems much easier than solar sail, as that has a preferred direction.
Has this been investigated?
I have read in wikipedia that cosmic rays are 90% protons,
so positive charged, with appreciable mass.
These could be deflected by a magnetic field, in a specific direction.
This would then both give protection to hardware and people in a spacecraft,
as well as a provide a force without needing a reaction mass.
As these protons seem to randomly come from all directions,
one could then use the magnetic field to steer in any direction.
Seems much easier than solar sail, as that has a preferred direction.
Has this been investigated?
dlzc
Dec 4, 2011, 1:06:03 AM12/4/11
to
Dear Jan Panteltje:
On Dec 3, 12:27 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can cosmic rays be used for interstellar propulsion?
>
> I have read in wikipedia that cosmic rays are 90% protons,
> so positive charged, with appreciable mass. These could
> be deflected by a magnetic field, in a specific direction.
Bussard ram scoop.
> This would then both give protection to hardware and people
> in a spacecraft,
No, it wouldn't. Wouldn't touch neutral atoms, and only collect some
percentage of cosmic rays with finite power to the magnetic field.
> as well as a provide a force without needing a
... onboard supply of ...
falls of faster than 1/r^2, so you have very high accelerations, and
accelerating charges "away form you" bathes you in Bremstralung
radiation (without luck / great care).
Still need a magic power source.
David A. Smith
On Dec 3, 12:27 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can cosmic rays be used for interstellar propulsion?
>
> I have read in wikipedia that cosmic rays are 90% protons,
> so positive charged, with appreciable mass. These could
> be deflected by a magnetic field, in a specific direction.
> This would then both give protection to hardware and people
> in a spacecraft,
percentage of cosmic rays with finite power to the magnetic field.
> as well as a provide a force without needing a
> reaction mass. As these protons seem to randomly come
> from all directions, one could then use the magnetic field to
> steer in any direction. Seems much easier than solar sail,
> as that has a preferred direction.
> Has this been investigated?
Powering the magnetics becomes problematic. Magnetic field strength
> from all directions, one could then use the magnetic field to
> steer in any direction. Seems much easier than solar sail,
> as that has a preferred direction.
> Has this been investigated?
falls of faster than 1/r^2, so you have very high accelerations, and
accelerating charges "away form you" bathes you in Bremstralung
radiation (without luck / great care).
Still need a magic power source.
David A. Smith
Jan Panteltje
Dec 4, 2011, 5:16:42 AM12/4/11
to
On a sunny day (Sat, 3 Dec 2011 22:06:03 -0800 (PST)) it happened dlzc
<dl...@cox.net> wrote in
<a112200f-7c45-43c3...@20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
>Dear Jan Panteltje:
>
>On Dec 3, 12:27 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Can cosmic rays be used for interstellar propulsion?
>>
>> I have read in wikipedia that cosmic rays are 90% protons,
>> so positive charged, with appreciable mass. These could
>> be deflected by a magnetic field, in a specific direction.
>
>Bussard ram scoop.
Looked it up on wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
This seems to use *fusion*, and uses mostly neutral matter.
>> This would then both give protection to hardware and people
>> in a spacecraft,
>
>No, it wouldn't. Wouldn't touch neutral atoms, and only collect some
>percentage of cosmic rays with finite power to the magnetic field.
The idea I have is not to use the neutral atoms, but
only the positively charged protons.
You can do that magnetically, but also, maybe simpler to visualise, electrostatic.
Imagine a huge electron gun (like in a CRT), now you shoot protons.
Sort of a particle accelerator.
This should create a directional force.
Or maybe magnetic and electrostatic can be combined, as it has been done in CRTs.
It is true heading very fast into neutrons or neutral matter is not healthy either,
but that could be shielded against with some material.
>> as well as a provide a force without needing a
>
>... onboard supply of ...
>> reaction mass. As these protons seem to randomly come
>> from all directions, one could then use the magnetic field to
>> steer in any direction. Seems much easier than solar sail,
>> as that has a preferred direction.
>> Has this been investigated?
>
>Powering the magnetics becomes problematic. Magnetic field strength
>falls of faster than 1/r^2, so you have very high accelerations, and
>accelerating charges "away form you" bathes you in Bremstralung
>radiation (without luck / great care).
X rays and similar radiation is easily shielded against with some thin layer of metal.
>Still need a magic power source.
Of course, green paranoia politics aside, nuclear power, a nuclear reactor
in space could work for more than 30 years, depends on how much fuel you bring,
life support needs that power too, long enough to make a space trip...
>David A. Smith
<dl...@cox.net> wrote in
<a112200f-7c45-43c3...@20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
>Dear Jan Panteltje:
>
>On Dec 3, 12:27 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Can cosmic rays be used for interstellar propulsion?
>>
>> I have read in wikipedia that cosmic rays are 90% protons,
>> so positive charged, with appreciable mass. These could
>> be deflected by a magnetic field, in a specific direction.
>
>Bussard ram scoop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
This seems to use *fusion*, and uses mostly neutral matter.
>> This would then both give protection to hardware and people
>> in a spacecraft,
>
>No, it wouldn't. Wouldn't touch neutral atoms, and only collect some
>percentage of cosmic rays with finite power to the magnetic field.
only the positively charged protons.
You can do that magnetically, but also, maybe simpler to visualise, electrostatic.
Imagine a huge electron gun (like in a CRT), now you shoot protons.
Sort of a particle accelerator.
This should create a directional force.
Or maybe magnetic and electrostatic can be combined, as it has been done in CRTs.
It is true heading very fast into neutrons or neutral matter is not healthy either,
but that could be shielded against with some material.
>> as well as a provide a force without needing a
>
>... onboard supply of ...
>> reaction mass. As these protons seem to randomly come
>> from all directions, one could then use the magnetic field to
>> steer in any direction. Seems much easier than solar sail,
>> as that has a preferred direction.
>> Has this been investigated?
>
>Powering the magnetics becomes problematic. Magnetic field strength
>falls of faster than 1/r^2, so you have very high accelerations, and
>accelerating charges "away form you" bathes you in Bremstralung
>radiation (without luck / great care).
>Still need a magic power source.
in space could work for more than 30 years, depends on how much fuel you bring,
life support needs that power too, long enough to make a space trip...
>David A. Smith
dlzc
Dec 4, 2011, 3:40:21 PM12/4/11
to
Dear Jan Panteltje:
On Dec 4, 3:16 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On a sunny day (Sat, 3 Dec 2011 22:06:03 -0800 (PST)) it happened dlzc
> <dl...@cox.net> wrote in
> <a112200f-7c45-43c3-936c-ede664435...@20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
> >> This would then both give protection to hardware and
> >> people in a spacecraft,
>
> >No, it wouldn't. Wouldn't touch neutral atoms, and only
> >collect some percentage of cosmic rays with finite power
> >to the magnetic field.
>
> The idea I have is not to use the neutral atoms, but
> only the positively charged protons.
But you'll be crashing into neutral atoms.
> You can do that magnetically, but also, maybe simpler
> to visualise, electrostatic. Imagine a huge electron gun
> (like in a CRT), now you shoot protons. Sort of a particle
> accelerator. This should create a directional force.
I got it, three times over now. Still need a power source.
> Or maybe magnetic and electrostatic can be combined,
> as it has been done in CRTs.
>
> It is true heading very fast into neutrons or neutral matter
> is not healthy either, but that could be shielded against
> with some material.
... material that gets progressively "hotter" with each day. I was
thinking a "linebacker" of an asteroid, but that in itself is a
problem.
> >> as well as a provide a force without needing a
>
> >... onboard supply of ...
> >> reaction mass. As these protons seem to randomly come
> >> from all directions, one could then use the magnetic field to
> >> steer in any direction. Seems much easier than solar sail,
> >> as that has a preferred direction.
> >> Has this been investigated?
>
> >Powering the magnetics becomes problematic. Magnetic
> >field strength falls of faster than 1/r^2, so you have very high
> >accelerations, and accelerating charges "away form you"
> >bathes you in Bremstralung radiation (without luck / great care).
>
> X rays and similar radiation is easily shielded against with
> some thin layer of metal.
... or just accelerate the stuff far from populated areas, aimed away
form populated areas.
> >Still need a magic power source.
>
> Of course, green paranoia politics aside, nuclear power, a
> nuclear reactor in space could work for more than 30 years,
> depends on how much fuel you bring, life support needs
> that power too, long enough to make a space trip...
As long as we don't lift form to orbit using Orion, leaving
radioactive materials to rain down everywhere on Earth for months, I
don't have an issue with nukes in space. Those that worry about
nuclear weapons from space platforms also have a valid point, but even
inert rocks from space can be as bad at point of impact.
But I think it would be smarter to have a reasonable low speed drive,
and what keeps spacetime from allowing point-to-point teleportation
(except as default), would be much more fruitful research.
David A. Smith
On Dec 4, 3:16 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On a sunny day (Sat, 3 Dec 2011 22:06:03 -0800 (PST)) it happened dlzc
> <dl...@cox.net> wrote in
> >On Dec 3, 12:27 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Can cosmic rays be used for interstellar propulsion?
>
> >> I have read in wikipedia that cosmic rays are 90% protons,
> >> so positive charged, with appreciable mass. These could
> >> be deflected by a magnetic field, in a specific direction.
>
> >Bussard ram scoop.
>
> Looked it up on wikipedia,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
> This seems to use *fusion*, and uses mostly neutral matter.
The ram scoop only works on ionized matter.
> >> Can cosmic rays be used for interstellar propulsion?
>
> >> I have read in wikipedia that cosmic rays are 90% protons,
> >> so positive charged, with appreciable mass. These could
> >> be deflected by a magnetic field, in a specific direction.
>
> >Bussard ram scoop.
>
> Looked it up on wikipedia,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
> This seems to use *fusion*, and uses mostly neutral matter.
> >> This would then both give protection to hardware and
> >> people in a spacecraft,
>
> >No, it wouldn't. Wouldn't touch neutral atoms, and only
> >collect some percentage of cosmic rays with finite power
> >to the magnetic field.
>
> The idea I have is not to use the neutral atoms, but
> only the positively charged protons.
> You can do that magnetically, but also, maybe simpler
> to visualise, electrostatic. Imagine a huge electron gun
> (like in a CRT), now you shoot protons. Sort of a particle
> accelerator. This should create a directional force.
> Or maybe magnetic and electrostatic can be combined,
> as it has been done in CRTs.
>
> It is true heading very fast into neutrons or neutral matter
> is not healthy either, but that could be shielded against
> with some material.
thinking a "linebacker" of an asteroid, but that in itself is a
problem.
> >> as well as a provide a force without needing a
>
> >... onboard supply of ...
> >> reaction mass. As these protons seem to randomly come
> >> from all directions, one could then use the magnetic field to
> >> steer in any direction. Seems much easier than solar sail,
> >> as that has a preferred direction.
> >> Has this been investigated?
>
> >Powering the magnetics becomes problematic. Magnetic
> >field strength falls of faster than 1/r^2, so you have very high
> >accelerations, and accelerating charges "away form you"
> >bathes you in Bremstralung radiation (without luck / great care).
>
> X rays and similar radiation is easily shielded against with
> some thin layer of metal.
form populated areas.
> >Still need a magic power source.
>
> Of course, green paranoia politics aside, nuclear power, a
> nuclear reactor in space could work for more than 30 years,
> depends on how much fuel you bring, life support needs
> that power too, long enough to make a space trip...
radioactive materials to rain down everywhere on Earth for months, I
don't have an issue with nukes in space. Those that worry about
nuclear weapons from space platforms also have a valid point, but even
inert rocks from space can be as bad at point of impact.
But I think it would be smarter to have a reasonable low speed drive,
and what keeps spacetime from allowing point-to-point teleportation
(except as default), would be much more fruitful research.
David A. Smith
Yousuf Khan
Dec 4, 2011, 4:34:33 PM12/4/11
to
any effective propulsion from a magnetic field deflecting off of cosmic
rays. The problem is getting up to those speeds in the first place.
Yousuf Khan
Jan Panteltje
Dec 4, 2011, 4:47:47 PM12/4/11
to
On a sunny day (Sun, 4 Dec 2011 12:40:21 -0800 (PST)) it happened dlzc
<dl...@cox.net> wrote in
<6e283c89-70d8-4c3a...@d17g2000yql.googlegroups.com>:
Yes, good points.
What I totally do not understand is that now they have put the International Spacejunk Station (ISS)
in orbit, and it seems to be 'ready' or 'finished',
and now it should be safely crashed on humanity,
For the same money they could have build a nice inter planetary spacecraft in orbit
that could be flown to mars, drop a lander, return if needed, without
the danger of things having to burn up in the atmosphere.
They could have brought the nuclear reactor piece by piece to it with each shuttle launch.
Project Orion is a bit too much in my view, but there is also this other
thing in the making with ionised gas, cannot remember what it was called.
<dl...@cox.net> wrote in
<6e283c89-70d8-4c3a...@d17g2000yql.googlegroups.com>:
What I totally do not understand is that now they have put the International Spacejunk Station (ISS)
in orbit, and it seems to be 'ready' or 'finished',
and now it should be safely crashed on humanity,
For the same money they could have build a nice inter planetary spacecraft in orbit
that could be flown to mars, drop a lander, return if needed, without
the danger of things having to burn up in the atmosphere.
They could have brought the nuclear reactor piece by piece to it with each shuttle launch.
Project Orion is a bit too much in my view, but there is also this other
thing in the making with ionised gas, cannot remember what it was called.
Jan Panteltje
Dec 4, 2011, 4:52:44 PM12/4/11
to
On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:34:33 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4edbe76d$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
What do you base that assumption on?
Makes no sense to me.
Have you ever played with ions and magnetic and electric fields?
Have you ever build a cosmic ray detector?
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4edbe76d$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
Makes no sense to me.
Have you ever played with ions and magnetic and electric fields?
Have you ever build a cosmic ray detector?
dlzc
Dec 5, 2011, 9:24:35 AM12/5/11
to
Dear
On Dec 4, 2:47 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> For the same money they could have build a nice inter
> planetary spacecraft in orbit that could be flown to mars,
> drop a lander, return if needed, without the danger of
> things having to burn up in the atmosphere.
Still would, just might drop some of it on the Moon, Mars, or planets
further in.
> They could have brought the nuclear reactor piece by
> piece to it with each shuttle launch.
It is against international treaty to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#Key_points
... since one man's nuclear weapon for propulsion, is another man's
nuclear weapon for a power grab.
> Project Orion is a bit too much in my view, but there is also this other
> thing in the making with ionised gas, cannot remember what it was called.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
... maybe.
David A. Smith
On Dec 4, 2:47 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> What I totally do not understand is that now they have put
> the International Spacejunk Station (ISS) in orbit, and it
> seems to be 'ready' or 'finished', and now it should be
> safely crashed on humanity,
Who else so clearly deserves it?
> the International Spacejunk Station (ISS) in orbit, and it
> seems to be 'ready' or 'finished', and now it should be
> safely crashed on humanity,
> For the same money they could have build a nice inter
> planetary spacecraft in orbit that could be flown to mars,
> drop a lander, return if needed, without the danger of
> things having to burn up in the atmosphere.
further in.
> They could have brought the nuclear reactor piece by
> piece to it with each shuttle launch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#Key_points
... since one man's nuclear weapon for propulsion, is another man's
nuclear weapon for a power grab.
> Project Orion is a bit too much in my view, but there is also this other
> thing in the making with ionised gas, cannot remember what it was called.
... maybe.
David A. Smith
Jan Panteltje
Dec 5, 2011, 3:11:29 PM12/5/11
to
On a sunny day (Mon, 5 Dec 2011 06:24:35 -0800 (PST)) it happened dlzc
<dl...@cox.net> wrote in
<4eaa518d-0ffc-41c6...@v29g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>:
>Dear
>
>On Dec 4, 2:47 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...
>> What I totally do not understand is that now they have put
>> the International Spacejunk Station (ISS) in orbit, and it
>> seems to be 'ready' or 'finished', and now it should be
>> safely crashed on humanity,
>
>Who else so clearly deserves it?
Ahum.
>
>> For the same money they could have build a nice inter
>> planetary spacecraft in orbit that could be flown to mars,
>> drop a lander, return if needed, without the danger of
>> things having to burn up in the atmosphere.
>
>Still would, just might drop some of it on the Moon, Mars, or planets
>further in.
No, I mean the whole spacecraft, it could be left in mars or earth orbit,
more useful there as in-between station.
The [a] sample return package could be parachuted down to earth as has been
done in some other project.
>> They could have brought the nuclear reactor piece by
>> piece to it with each shuttle launch.
>
>It is against international treaty to do so.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#Key_points
>... since one man's nuclear weapon for propulsion, is another man's
>nuclear weapon for a power grab.
I think in an *international* cooperation this should have been, or be, possible,
as everybody would be there to check on each other.
It is in my view silly to forbid all nuclear devices, that is a stop on science.
And of course I am sure there are already plenty up there, secretly.
>> Project Orion is a bit too much in my view, but there is also this other
>> thing in the making with ionised gas, cannot remember what it was called.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
>... maybe.
Yes, I mean that thing .. Ah, Vasimir, see link at bottom of that page.
IIRC NASA was going to test it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR
Seems indeed they will in 2014?
My whole interest in the cosmic rays comes from some measurements and experiments I am
doing with gamma detectors I am building.
I did put some stuff on the web, it is with a lot of other stuff,
but scroll to the bottom of the page,
as it is sorted on time, last on the bottom:
http://panteltje.com/pub/
These are fun:
http://panteltje.com/pub/geiger_versus_pmt_flashes_mvi_3119.avi
http://panteltje.com/pub/cosmic_rays_to_crystal_to_pmt_to_darlington_to_led_low_light_mvi_3120.avi
http://panteltje.com/pub/crystal_relatve_to_world_img_3123.jpg
http://panteltje.com/pub/PMT_FEU35_interface_mvi_3210.avi
It is actually all about electronics, that site...
I have taken some nice spectra, and these rays are so powerful that
they saturate the detector even if it is set to low sensitivity.
I had to add a provision in the software to ignore them...
so it does not mess up auto scaling.
It is a nice learning experience, but also I like to think of practical
ways to use what I find.
This is an objection I have to that Buzzard? ramjet that uses fusion.
We should use things we CAN make now.
Not that we cannot make fusion, (look up fusor), but not in the form he envisions.
I you think that way nothing gets ever done.
Anyways, going to the starts seems just an engineering problem, the political will is not there either,
except perhaps in China.
I hope they make it.
>David A. Smith
>
<dl...@cox.net> wrote in
<4eaa518d-0ffc-41c6...@v29g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>:
>Dear
>
>On Dec 4, 2:47 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...
>> What I totally do not understand is that now they have put
>> the International Spacejunk Station (ISS) in orbit, and it
>> seems to be 'ready' or 'finished', and now it should be
>> safely crashed on humanity,
>
>Who else so clearly deserves it?
>
>> For the same money they could have build a nice inter
>> planetary spacecraft in orbit that could be flown to mars,
>> drop a lander, return if needed, without the danger of
>> things having to burn up in the atmosphere.
>
>Still would, just might drop some of it on the Moon, Mars, or planets
>further in.
more useful there as in-between station.
The [a] sample return package could be parachuted down to earth as has been
done in some other project.
>> They could have brought the nuclear reactor piece by
>> piece to it with each shuttle launch.
>
>It is against international treaty to do so.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#Key_points
>... since one man's nuclear weapon for propulsion, is another man's
>nuclear weapon for a power grab.
as everybody would be there to check on each other.
It is in my view silly to forbid all nuclear devices, that is a stop on science.
And of course I am sure there are already plenty up there, secretly.
>> Project Orion is a bit too much in my view, but there is also this other
>> thing in the making with ionised gas, cannot remember what it was called.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
>... maybe.
IIRC NASA was going to test it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR
Seems indeed they will in 2014?
My whole interest in the cosmic rays comes from some measurements and experiments I am
doing with gamma detectors I am building.
I did put some stuff on the web, it is with a lot of other stuff,
but scroll to the bottom of the page,
as it is sorted on time, last on the bottom:
http://panteltje.com/pub/
These are fun:
http://panteltje.com/pub/geiger_versus_pmt_flashes_mvi_3119.avi
http://panteltje.com/pub/cosmic_rays_to_crystal_to_pmt_to_darlington_to_led_low_light_mvi_3120.avi
http://panteltje.com/pub/crystal_relatve_to_world_img_3123.jpg
http://panteltje.com/pub/PMT_FEU35_interface_mvi_3210.avi
It is actually all about electronics, that site...
I have taken some nice spectra, and these rays are so powerful that
they saturate the detector even if it is set to low sensitivity.
I had to add a provision in the software to ignore them...
so it does not mess up auto scaling.
It is a nice learning experience, but also I like to think of practical
ways to use what I find.
This is an objection I have to that Buzzard? ramjet that uses fusion.
We should use things we CAN make now.
Not that we cannot make fusion, (look up fusor), but not in the form he envisions.
I you think that way nothing gets ever done.
Anyways, going to the starts seems just an engineering problem, the political will is not there either,
except perhaps in China.
I hope they make it.
>David A. Smith
>
Steve Willner
Dec 5, 2011, 4:01:54 PM12/5/11
to
In article <jbdt6l$5r1$1...@news.albasani.net>,
non-starter.
Assume you could get hardware to work as described. Given the known
cosmic ray flux, how much propulsion would it provide? Is that a
useful amount?
I am also pretty sure that doing the deflection with static fields
violates thermodynamics. The outgoing proton stream has lower
entropy than the incoming flux, but static magnetic fields don't
change entropy. That doesn't rule out doing the job with changing
fields (and possibly electric fields as well), but those require an
energy source in the spacecraft.
The Bussard ramjet is a completely different idea. It has practical
difficulties (on several fronts, not least making controlled fusion
work at all) but should work in principle so far as I know.
On another question raised in this thread, I don't believe anything
in the Outer Space Treaty prevents using nuclear reactors in space.
RTGs and radioisotope heaters are, of course, used routinely.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> writes:
> I have read in wikipedia that cosmic rays are 90% protons,
> so positive charged, with appreciable mass.
> These could be deflected by a magnetic field, in a specific direction.
> This would ... provide a force without needing a reaction mass.
> I have read in wikipedia that cosmic rays are 90% protons,
> so positive charged, with appreciable mass.
> These could be deflected by a magnetic field, in a specific direction.
> As these protons seem to randomly come from all directions,
> one could then use the magnetic field to steer in any direction.
> Seems much easier than solar sail, as that has a preferred direction.
> Has this been investigated?
This is the first time I've seen such an idea, but I suspect it's a
> one could then use the magnetic field to steer in any direction.
> Seems much easier than solar sail, as that has a preferred direction.
> Has this been investigated?
non-starter.
Assume you could get hardware to work as described. Given the known
cosmic ray flux, how much propulsion would it provide? Is that a
useful amount?
I am also pretty sure that doing the deflection with static fields
violates thermodynamics. The outgoing proton stream has lower
entropy than the incoming flux, but static magnetic fields don't
change entropy. That doesn't rule out doing the job with changing
fields (and possibly electric fields as well), but those require an
energy source in the spacecraft.
The Bussard ramjet is a completely different idea. It has practical
difficulties (on several fronts, not least making controlled fusion
work at all) but should work in principle so far as I know.
On another question raised in this thread, I don't believe anything
in the Outer Space Treaty prevents using nuclear reactors in space.
RTGs and radioisotope heaters are, of course, used routinely.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Dr J R Stockton
Dec 5, 2011, 3:01:35 PM12/5/11
to
In sci.astro message <jbdt6l$5r1$1...@news.albasani.net>, Sat, 3 Dec 2011
19:27:10, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> posted:
You should also have read in Wikipedia that deep space cosmic ray energy
is about 1 eV/cm^3, similar to starlight Now 1 eV is about 1.6e-19
Joules. Since that energy travels at 3e10 cm/sec, one square centimetre
of collector might get five nanowatts of power.
That's not going to get you very fast very far.
--
(c) John Stockton, near London. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stockton@physics.org
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (RFC5536/7)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (RFC5536/7)
19:27:10, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> posted:
is about 1 eV/cm^3, similar to starlight Now 1 eV is about 1.6e-19
Joules. Since that energy travels at 3e10 cm/sec, one square centimetre
of collector might get five nanowatts of power.
That's not going to get you very fast very far.
--
(c) John Stockton, near London. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stockton@physics.org
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (RFC5536/7)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (RFC5536/7)
dlzc
Dec 6, 2011, 10:04:27 AM12/6/11
to
Dear Steve Willner:
On Dec 5, 2:01 pm, will...@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote:
...
nuclear weapons in space.
That would be a violation, and possibly one all signatory countries
would have to sign on to should we have to do any serious diversions
of solid NEOs.
David A. Smith
On Dec 5, 2:01 pm, will...@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote:
...
> On another question raised in this thread, I don't
> believe anything in the Outer Space Treaty prevents
> using nuclear reactors in space. RTGs and
> radioisotope heaters are, of course, used routinely.
The Orion drive used nuclear detonations, which arise from the use of
> believe anything in the Outer Space Treaty prevents
> using nuclear reactors in space. RTGs and
> radioisotope heaters are, of course, used routinely.
nuclear weapons in space.
That would be a violation, and possibly one all signatory countries
would have to sign on to should we have to do any serious diversions
of solid NEOs.
David A. Smith
dlzc
Dec 6, 2011, 10:21:15 AM12/6/11
to
Dear Jan Panteltje:
On Dec 5, 1:11 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On a sunny day (Mon, 5 Dec 2011 06:24:35 -0800 (PST)) it happeneddlzc
> <dl...@cox.net> wrote in
> <4eaa518d-0ffc-41c6-ae10-1ebdcbb6e...@v29g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>:
orbit. Unless we stop defunding space programs, they will run out of
"orbit correction fuel", and of course entropy hits them too.
> >> They could have brought the nuclear reactor piece by
> >> piece to it with each shuttle launch.
>
> >It is against international treaty to do so.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#Key_points
> >... since one man's nuclear weapon for propulsion, is
> >another man's nuclear weapon for a power grab.
>
> I think in an *international* cooperation this should have
> been, or be, possible, as everybody would be there to
> check on each other.
The ISS ostensibly was, since many countries contributed modules. Not
sure how many of the contributing countries are in the red with the
Euro Zone...
> It is in my view silly to forbid all nuclear devices, that
> is a stop on science. And of course I am sure there
> are already plenty up there, secretly.
Well, Steve Willner pointed out there are nuclear-decay-powered
devices on "every" current satellite / probe, and has been since we've
gone to deep space.
> >> Project Orion is a bit too much in my view, but
> >> there is also this other thing in the making with
> >> ionised gas, cannot remember what it was called.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
> >... maybe.
>
> Yes, I mean that thing .. Ah, Vasimir, see link at
> bottom of that page. IIRC NASA was going to test it.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR
> Seems indeed they will in 2014?
So far the design produces anemic thrust, and is less reliable than
chemical rockets, if you can believe that.
> My whole interest in the cosmic rays comes from
> some measurements and experiments I am doing
> with gamma detectors I am building.
You'll find more "gamma" in river deltas (heavy metals in the soil),
and high altitudes. Most commonly, granite is a strong radiation
source.
> I did put some stuff on the web, it is with a lot of
> other stuff, but scroll to the bottom of the page,
> as it is sorted on time, last on the bottom:
> http://panteltje.com/pub/
> These are fun:
> http://panteltje.com/pub/geiger_versus_pmt_flashes_mvi_3119.avi
> http://panteltje.com/pub/cosmic_rays_to_crystal_to_pmt_to_darlington_...
> ramjet that uses fusion. We should use things we
> CAN make now.
Those keep our butts on the planet.
> Not that we cannot make fusion, (look up fusor),
> but not in the form he envisions. [If] you think that
David A. Smith
On Dec 5, 1:11 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On a sunny day (Mon, 5 Dec 2011 06:24:35 -0800 (PST)) it happeneddlzc
> <dl...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> For the same money they could have build a nice inter
> >> planetary spacecraft in orbit that could be flown to mars,
> >> drop a lander, return if needed, without the danger of
> >> things having to burn up in the atmosphere.
>
> >Still would, just might drop some of it on the Moon, Mars,
> >or planets further in.
>
> No, I mean the whole spacecraft, it could be left in mars
> or earth orbit, more useful there as in-between station.
> The [a] sample return package could be parachuted down
> to earth as has been done in some other project.
The key is it will be coming down unless it is parked in a trojan
> >> planetary spacecraft in orbit that could be flown to mars,
> >> drop a lander, return if needed, without the danger of
> >> things having to burn up in the atmosphere.
>
> >Still would, just might drop some of it on the Moon, Mars,
> >or planets further in.
>
> No, I mean the whole spacecraft, it could be left in mars
> or earth orbit, more useful there as in-between station.
> The [a] sample return package could be parachuted down
> to earth as has been done in some other project.
orbit. Unless we stop defunding space programs, they will run out of
"orbit correction fuel", and of course entropy hits them too.
> >> They could have brought the nuclear reactor piece by
> >> piece to it with each shuttle launch.
>
> >It is against international treaty to do so.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#Key_points
> >... since one man's nuclear weapon for propulsion, is
> >another man's nuclear weapon for a power grab.
>
> I think in an *international* cooperation this should have
> been, or be, possible, as everybody would be there to
> check on each other.
sure how many of the contributing countries are in the red with the
Euro Zone...
> It is in my view silly to forbid all nuclear devices, that
> is a stop on science. And of course I am sure there
> are already plenty up there, secretly.
devices on "every" current satellite / probe, and has been since we've
gone to deep space.
> >> Project Orion is a bit too much in my view, but
> >> there is also this other thing in the making with
> >> ionised gas, cannot remember what it was called.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
> >... maybe.
>
> Yes, I mean that thing .. Ah, Vasimir, see link at
> bottom of that page. IIRC NASA was going to test it.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR
> Seems indeed they will in 2014?
chemical rockets, if you can believe that.
> My whole interest in the cosmic rays comes from
> some measurements and experiments I am doing
> with gamma detectors I am building.
and high altitudes. Most commonly, granite is a strong radiation
source.
> I did put some stuff on the web, it is with a lot of
> other stuff, but scroll to the bottom of the page,
> as it is sorted on time, last on the bottom:
> http://panteltje.com/pub/
> These are fun:
> http://panteltje.com/pub/geiger_versus_pmt_flashes_mvi_3119.avi
> http://panteltje.com/pub/crystal_relatve_to_world_img_3123.jpg
> http://panteltje.com/pub/PMT_FEU35_interface_mvi_3210.avi
> It is actually all about electronics, that site...
> I have taken some nice spectra, and these rays are
> so powerful that they saturate the detector even if it
> is set to low sensitivity.
> I had to add a provision in the software to ignore them...
> so it does not mess up auto scaling.
> It is a nice learning experience, but also I like to think
> of practical ways to use what I find.
> This is an objection I have to that Buzzard?
... close, Bussard ...
> http://panteltje.com/pub/PMT_FEU35_interface_mvi_3210.avi
> It is actually all about electronics, that site...
> I have taken some nice spectra, and these rays are
> so powerful that they saturate the detector even if it
> is set to low sensitivity.
> I had to add a provision in the software to ignore them...
> so it does not mess up auto scaling.
> It is a nice learning experience, but also I like to think
> of practical ways to use what I find.
> This is an objection I have to that Buzzard?
> ramjet that uses fusion. We should use things we
> CAN make now.
> Not that we cannot make fusion, (look up fusor),
> way nothing gets ever done. Anyways, going to the
> starts seems just an engineering problem, the
> political will is not there either, except perhaps in
> China.
> I hope they make it.
I hope their astronauts make it back.
> starts seems just an engineering problem, the
> political will is not there either, except perhaps in
> China.
> I hope they make it.
David A. Smith
Yousuf Khan
Dec 7, 2011, 1:12:40 AM12/7/11
to
On 04/12/2011 4:52 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:34:33 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
> <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in<4edbe76d$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
> On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:34:33 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
> <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in<4edbe76d$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
>> You'd need to already be pretty high up the speed-of-light scale to have
>> any effective propulsion from a magnetic field deflecting off of cosmic
>> rays. The problem is getting up to those speeds in the first place.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> What do you base that assumption on?
> Makes no sense to me.
> Have you ever played with ions and magnetic and electric fields?
> Have you ever build a cosmic ray detector?
High-speed cosmic ray particles are already travelling pretty close to
>> any effective propulsion from a magnetic field deflecting off of cosmic
>> rays. The problem is getting up to those speeds in the first place.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> What do you base that assumption on?
> Makes no sense to me.
> Have you ever played with ions and magnetic and electric fields?
> Have you ever build a cosmic ray detector?
the speed of light. Any magnetic field that would want a chance to
deflect such a particle would have to be either very strong if you're
travelling at slow speeds, or not so strong but travelling along close
to the speed of those particles too.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
Dec 7, 2011, 1:17:41 AM12/7/11
to
detonations must not happen within 1 million kilometers of Earth, or
something like that? So an Orion drive ship would have to get out to
that distance with standard chemical propulsion and at that point it
could switch to nuclear.
Yousuf Khan
Jan Panteltje
Dec 7, 2011, 4:10:19 AM12/7/11
to
On a sunny day (Wed, 07 Dec 2011 01:12:40 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4edf03dd$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
>On 04/12/2011 4:52 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:34:33 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
>> <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in<4edbe76d$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
>>> You'd need to already be pretty high up the speed-of-light scale to have
>>> any effective propulsion from a magnetic field deflecting off of cosmic
>>> rays. The problem is getting up to those speeds in the first place.
>>>
>>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>> What do you base that assumption on?
>> Makes no sense to me.
>> Have you ever played with ions and magnetic and electric fields?
------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Have you ever build a cosmic ray detector?
>
>High-speed cosmic ray particles are already travelling pretty close to
>the speed of light. Any magnetic field that would want a chance to
>deflect such a particle would have to be either very strong if you're
>travelling at slow speeds, or not so strong but travelling along close
>to the speed of those particles too.
>
> Yousuf Khan
http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/physics/relativitytelevision.htm
Magnetic deflection works very well in all cases.
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in <4edf03dd$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
>On 04/12/2011 4:52 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:34:33 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
>> <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in<4edbe76d$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>:
>>> You'd need to already be pretty high up the speed-of-light scale to have
>>> any effective propulsion from a magnetic field deflecting off of cosmic
>>> rays. The problem is getting up to those speeds in the first place.
>>>
>>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>> What do you base that assumption on?
>> Makes no sense to me.
>> Have you ever played with ions and magnetic and electric fields?
>> Have you ever build a cosmic ray detector?
>
>High-speed cosmic ray particles are already travelling pretty close to
>the speed of light. Any magnetic field that would want a chance to
>deflect such a particle would have to be either very strong if you're
>travelling at slow speeds, or not so strong but travelling along close
>to the speed of those particles too.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Magnetic deflection works very well in all cases.
0 new messages