"Voyage to the stars" by Leonard David
Brad Guth
but original.
"Voyage to the stars" by Leonard David,
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.philosophy.humanism/browse_frm/thread/2aa1dc4f5d3ab04b/b873b6cb7472d3ea?lnk=st&q=ion+thruster&rnum=8&hl=en#b873b6cb7472d3ea
That's not such a bad notion "To send a spacecraft where none has gone
before is a dream assignment
for any space scientist and engineer."
However, what's needed is a great deal of speed and thus a great deal
of applied thrust, at least until passing the nullification point of no
return, such as the mutual gravity-well that's situated between our
solar system and that of the Sirius star system might prove most
gravity attractive.
Perhaps here's another perfectly good reason as to first "go back to
the moon" for obtaining a large amount of Ra-226 so that a ion gas of
Rn-222 becomes the medium by which thrust is maximum/kj.
Ionized radon plasma could become our the next best form of powerful
ion thrusters.
Although the radon thrust itself could be invisible, it's greater
density as a gas, liquid or frozen substance seems rather interesting
since radon is something that's not exactly all that hard to come by,
yet as far as I can tell Earth could do without the likes of radon.
One method of artificially creating radon is with radium which isn't
exactly all that available upon Earth but, perhaps upon our moon could
represent megatonnes of radium (Ra-226). Thus the Rn-222/ion plasma
thrusters of what the moon based operations could represent could
become the very best alternative since solar/PV cell energy should be
more than adequate for ionizing radon into a substantial plasma flow.
Thus getting whatever back up into lunar orbit shouldn't be all that
testy, and of course easier yet with the LSE-CM/ISS accomplishing the
to/from task of getting whatever into the ME-L1/EM-L2 gravity free
trade zone.
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.
Brad Guth
posted: 06 July 2005 06:41 am ET
Voyage to the Stars: NASA Study Mulls Options
By Leonard David
To send a spacecraft where none has gone before is a dream assignment
for any space scientist and engineer.
The idea of dispatching a dedicated robotic probe on an interstellar
trek has been seriously advocated for nearly 30 years. A recently
finished appraisal of how to build such a craft shows that it is within
reach -- but nonetheless remains a challenging task.
A NASA-sponsored study team has blueprinted an Innovative Interstellar
Explorer (IIE).
Goal of the IIE would be to plunge outward some 200 Astronomical Units.
An astronomical unit (AU) is the mean distance between the center of
the
Earth and the center of the Sun - approximately 93 million miles (150
million kilometers).
Put that in your cosmic calculator and you'll get: 18,591,186,595 miles
(29,919,614,600 kilometers).
No matter how you figure it, that's a lot of infrequent flyer miles to
travel.
Pull out all the stops
"I think we're converging on something that's doable," said Ralph
McNutt, the principal investigator for the Innovative Interstellar
Explorer study. He is a space scientist at The Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, and also the
project scientist for APL's Messenger mission to Mercury.
If launched in 2014, the probe would arrive at the 200 AU distance in
about 2044.
Clearly, along with doses of technology and a requisite high velocity,
IIE demands a good deal of patience from awaiting scientists here on
Earth.
McNutt said the IIE concept has moved forward over the last several
years as a NASA Vision Mission project, through a Team X study group at
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and by way of NASA Institute for
Advanced Concepts study grants.
"There is always interest in keeping an interstellar probe going
through
various studies. But the problem that we've always run up against is
propulsion. That's because you're trying to pull out all the stops and
get out of the Solar System as fast as you can," McNutt told SPACE.com.
Continuous acceleration
In sketching out IIE, McNutt said the relatively small spacecraft would
use radioisotope power sources that energize small electric thrusters.
"You need to make a spacecraft that is Ômassless' as possible," he
said,
something akin to "unobtanium".
Still, in taking a hard look at conjuring up an interstellar probe --
and the kind of science that could be done by the craft -- things do
look promising.
"We can start building them tomorrow, if we had the money," McNutt
said.
Efficient, lightweight electric propulsion and power systems are part
of
the key.
The Innovative Interstellar Explorer would carry a compact science
payload weighing all of 66 pounds (30 kilograms). It would be boosted
from Earth atop a Delta 4 heavy launcher. A custom upper stage is also
required.
That initial launch energy in 2014 would push IIE to an arrival at
Jupiter two years later where the probe would acquire a gravity assist
from the massive planet. Long-term, low-thrust, continuous acceleration
of the probe would be provided by a kilowatt-class ion thruster running
off electricity provided by advanced Stirling radioisotope generators.
Burnout speed
The interstellar probe would cruise out of the solar system at about
7.8
AU per year. It would accelerate to a "burnout" speed of 9.5 AU per
year
at 103 AU in November 2029.
In contrast, Voyager 1 is speeding about 3.6 AU per year. Its twin,
Voyager 2, is a slow poke at about 3.3 AU per year.
"The IIE would end up being at 200 AU in about 2044," McNutt noted.
"Yes, I know that sounds like a long time from now. But you have to
keep
this into perspective. When we started out with the Voyagers, none
would
have believed they'd still be going," he said.
In fact, the dual Voyager spacecraft launched in 1977 are now dubbed
the
Voyager Interstellar Mission (VIM), investigating the outermost edge of
the Sun's domain ... and beyond. The Voyager probes are expected to go
dead around 2025 as their plutonium-fueled generators are fully
discharged.
Decades of lifetime
The 30-year mission by IIE to address fundamental scientific questions
about the interaction of the Sun with the interstellar medium, McNutt
said, can only be answered via on-the-spot measurements that such a
mission would provide.
"The idea here is to try to get as close to true interstellar space as
possible ... past the heliopause and past what we think is an external
bow shock," McNutt pointed out.
But traveling for three decades to do so is tough going.
"Designing something that's going to be good for 30 years ... that
scares the daylights out of people," McNutt admitted. "How to qualify
all the parts for decades of lifetime is a hard problem. But it's
something that we're going to eventually come to terms with. We'll
figure out how to deal with it."
Receiver farms
Pumping back science data from afar is also a challenge. And Earth will
also have to keep up its end of the bargain.
Already in the works is a hoped for upgrade of NASA's Deep Space
Network, turning huge antenna dish complexes into "receiver farms" --
that is, multiple numbers of smaller antennas. That could enable
reception of downlink signal from IIE of about five kilobytes per
second
out at 200 AU, McNutt said.
At some point, as IIE keeps moving onward and outward, it will
increasingly become more difficult for ground controllers on Earth to
reprogram the spacecraft's onboard data processing unit. "The probe
will
then have to decide for itself when to phone home. It's not going to be
you asking for the call," McNutt said.
Pulling the plug on the Voyagers
The recent chorus of disapproval about turning off the long-distance
Voyager craft may be a good sign of support for interstellar probe
development. The very idea of shutting down the venerable Voyager
probes
to save a few million dollars per year sparked public and Congressional
comment.
"I can't answer why there was an outcry," McNutt said, "but I'm
certainly glad there was one."
Indeed, Voyager 1 relayed in May evidence that it reached the
heliosheath - an area just where the solar wind crashes into the thin
interstellar gas of the galaxy.
In a House of Representatives hearing last month, Congressman Vernon
Ehlers of Michigan implored NASA chief, Michael Griffin, to keep a
scientific ear attuned to Voyager. "It seems foolish to wait all these
years to reach the heliosheath and then suddenly pull the plug," Ehlers
told Griffin.
"I assure you that I also think it's rather dumb to be turning off
Voyagers 1 and 2," Griffin responded. Nonetheless, a NASA assessment on
what spacecraft will be kept in operation and which ones will not is to
be wrapped up later this year, he added.
Step to the stars
While the Innovative Interstellar Explorer is a real study, not real
hardware, McNutt said the reviews are favorable for such a probe to be
lofted within a reasonable period of time.
"This would be a stepping stone. A lot of people resonate with the
science fiction side about taking the first step to the stars," McNutt
said.
Given a go-ahead, McNutt senses that the Innovative Interstellar
Explorer could be done for less than $2 billion. While some might
consider that inexpensive, there would also likely be a debate about
whether the first dedicated step to the stars is worth it, he said.
"Basically, it's kind of like throwing a note out in a bottle ...
throwing it out to sea and seeing what comes back," McNutt said. "If we
really want to understand the world around us, we ought to be out there
making those measurements."
Uncle Al
[snip]
> However, what's needed is a great deal of speed and thus a great deal
> of applied thrust, at least until passing the nullification point of no
> return, such as the mutual gravity-well that's situated between our
> solar system and that of the Sirius star system might prove most
> gravity attractive.
[snip]
Nonsense. If you had a stardrive that went backward in time as it
went forward in space you could go from any here to any there
instantly and need no more than the speed of a man a walking to do it.
> Ionized radon plasma could become our the next best form of powerful
> ion thrusters.
[snip crap]
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Brad Guth
Of going places far and wide via your "stardirve"; perhaps How Hot The
Moon may become somewhat related as to why it should also have more
than it's fair share of RADIUM(Ra-226) to spare.
It seems that our being topic/author bashed and/or banished by all the
pro-NASA/Apollo and thus anti-ET and therefore anti-God freaks has it's
silver lining, in that I don't have to deal so much with all of their
mainstream spermology flak simply because I'm sufficiently right and
they simply can't stand the thought.
This time it's become the notion of Radium-->Radon as utilized for ion
plasma thrusters that has raised the Guth bar of what's
taboo/nondisclosure another notch or two.
Take to mentioning the likes of our icy proto-moon along with whatever
terminology of RADIUM or even RADON is almost as mainstream flak worthy
of slamming doors as per discussing the topic of those horrific SODIUM
atmospheric storms that became a good portion of the 900,000 km comet
like trail having been CCD and narow spectrum optical filter enhanced
images of such being solar wind extracted away from the moon. Of
course, discussing anything that's photon or even physically related to
whatever's of secondary/recoil or vaporising of anything upon our moon
is entirely taboo/nondisclosure, just like the need-to-know natural
colors and otherwise deep albedo of our moon isn't to be taken into
topic consideration.
Silly me, and here I'd thought this next topic/story was actually going
to become another highly interesting notion of yet another perfectly
worthy concept that's anything but all that original. Though obviously
"Uncle Al's" superior stardrive beats my radium/radondrive via radon
plasma-ion thrusters all to hell, and then some.
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.philosophy.humanism/browse_frm/thread/a4740ef840094820/1191e16695fda8e8?hl=en#1191e16695fda8e8
"Voyage to the stars" by Leonard David,
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.philosophy.humanism/browse_frm/thread/2aa1dc4f5d3ab04b/b873b6cb7472d3ea?lnk=st&q=ion+thruster&rnum=8&hl=en#b873b6cb7472d3ea
Since we don't seem to have the latest do-everything stardrive from the
likes of wizard "Uncle Al" at our disposal but, we do seem to have ion
thrusters that need a viable resource of plasma gas, as such this is
certainly not by my way of village idiot thinking such an entirely bad
notion "To send a spacecraft where none has gone before is a dream
assignment for any space scientist and engineer", or at least to send
off a probe with a sufficient cash of our best digital smut as stowed
onboard in order to make those damn ETs take a closer look-see at what
in the Sam Hell went so terribly wrong back upon Earth, that's
otherwise been orbited and subsequently terraformed with salty ice and
the DNA/RNA within by such an icy proto-moon.
However, in order to accomplish this extended/everlasting task of
getting whatever craft or probe to the next available star system, I
believe of what's to be needed most of all is a great deal of speed and
thus a great deal of continuously applied thrust, along with obviously
the necessary element of fuel and capable plasma generating energy
that's required, at least until that probe is passing the nullification
point of no return, such as the mutual gravity-well that's situated
between our solar system and that of the Sirius star system at roughly
3.5 fold our solar system mass might prove most gravity attractive.
That's why I'd suggested, perhaps there's yet another perfectly good
reason as to first "go back to the moon", or at least get there for the
first time, as for obtaining a large amount of Radium(Ra-226) so that
subsequently a large ion worthy amount of Radon(Rn-222) gas becomes the
medium by which the plasma thrust delivers the maximum kinetic energy
and velocity/kj.
Ionized radon plasma could and perhaps should become our the next best
form of powerful ion thrusters.
Although the radon thrust itself should be WMD invisible, it's greater
density as a gas, liquid or possibly frozen substance seems rather
interesting since radon is something that's not exactly all that hard
to come by, yet as far as I can tell, it seems that Earth and we humans
upon it could do quite nicely without the likes of radon.
One method of artificially creating an on-demand supply of radon while
on the fly is with having a sufficient cash of radium which supposedly
isn't exactly all that available upon Earth but, perhaps upon our moon
could represent megatonnes of Radium(Ra-226). Thereby the Radon(Rn-222)
ions as plasma thrusters of what a moon base of mostly robotic
operations could represent might become our very best alternative,
especially since by then solar/PV cell energy conversion/m2 at better
than 75% should become more than adequate for the available starshine
to be ionizing the likes of Radon into a substantial plasma flow. As
for getting whatever back up into lunar orbit shouldn't be all that
testy, and of course so much easier yet with the LSE-CM/ISS
accomplishing the simple and energy efficient elevator to/from task of
getting whatever tonnage of products and/or folks from the lunar
surface into the ME-L1/EM-L2 gravity free trade zone.
Of course a Plutonium energy cell for deriving the necessary kj/t of
probe might be supplemented along with having a 10,000 m2 PV collector
or possibly a tether dipole method of extracting energy from space, or
these days a sophisticated deep-space probe as performing as a one-way
massage packet transponder could become as little as 100 kg, whereas
the only message need be: SOS Earth(3rd rock from the sun) SOS
Earth(3rd rock from the sun) SOS, and so forth. If ETs can't manage to
extrapolate our position from following a portion of our radon ion
trail, then they're probably not worth their salt and shouldn't bother
coming to our rescue.
I'm thinking 222/131 = 1.71 fold thrust improvement (if not the square
of that amount being 2.89) over using Xenon and, a greater than 800
fold improvement in thrust duration due to utilizing a sufficient cash
of Ra-226 on behalf of producing the Rn-222 on the fly, thus a good
1360:1 overall mission improvement (that's not even taking the added
thrust velocity into account), which seems perfectly nifty for a
interstellar probe that could be making 10% light speed once getting
itself gravity pulled towards the next available star system. Meaning
that we could use the likes of Sirius as a terrific velocity booster
for sending that speedy probe far beyond.
Radium (Ra-226) offers a half life of 1600 years (I believe that's got
to represent lots of radon gas generation potential)
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/ra.html
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/xe.html
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/rn.html
Our Colorful Moon :
http://www.rc-astro.com/img/moon_colors_2005-04-18.jpg
All images and site content are Copyright ©2002-2005 by Russell
Croman.
© 2005 Russell Croman, www.rc-astro.com
http://www.rc-astro.com/contact.htm
The colors in the Moon image are real, in a sense, Croman explained.
"To bring out the differences between the various regions, the color
saturation has been greatly enhanced," he explained. "The hues are
correct."
"Differences in color on the lunar surface indicate different ages and
types of materials. Croman offers prints of this and other space
images."
Giving this image of his a 50% boost in contrast is certainly worth
doing, as that'll get the albedo a bit closer to reality. There are
actually many official color images of the moon as having been obtained
from orbit that are considerably darker and yet indicating as to a good
amount of deeply rich colors while fully solar illuminated. Thus
there's no viable excuse for the nearly white-out zones of colorless
lunar terrain that went on and on for as far as their UNFILTERED Kodak
moments could record.
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.
-
Dear lord and all-knowing Bookman,
But what about all of the lunar radium-226 and of the subsequent
radon-222?
Why are you avoiding the truth and nothing but the truth this time?
In case your intellectual pagan buttology hasn't noticed, I don't give
a crapolla tinkers damn about your incest sexual partner (Bruce) in
crimes against humanity, but unlike yourself I actually do care about
radium.
Can you possibly be any more out of context for us lord Bookman(pagan
spermologest).
Autymn D. C.
complex adjectives, illiterate rambler.
Radon is stinten. Poor NASA still hasn't learnt how to use sunbeams
and a compound mirror to probe afar.
-Aut
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d2cf56b39252dc4c
Brad Guth
Sorry folks, this isn't a grammar nor syntax contest of whomever can
out-spell, out-type or otherwise ramble off better gibberish than next
guy, although I'd have to bet that I could hold my own against some of
the best.
Although I'll have to totally agree with your contribution that;
>Poor NASA still hasn't learnt how to use sunbeams
>and a compound mirror to probe afar.
StevenB...@aol.com
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ...learn how to use hufens...
Quantum Mirror
IMHO science fiction has made star travel seem like a simple
engineering problem. I think it will be thousands of years before we
could even begin to work out the problems. To begin we must first
survive long enough to accomplish this task. Our narrow minded breed to
extinction mindset will need to come to a tragic end. With a reduction
in population of the planet to about 1 billion we could easily live in
harmony with the planet. With the menial tasks taken over by robots and
selective breeding for intelligence we could have a happy and healthy
existence with research and knowledge our goal. The final space travel
would probably be the way we arrived here on this planet. The complete
understanding of DNA and "packets" to accomplish evolutionary harmony
and intelligence, sent out by the trillions into space to land on
suitable planets and start the process again.
donsto...@hotmail.com
to communicate via radio telescope instead of using physical
interstellar travel. Each of them attains intelligence and goes
through what is called superationality. They think "what would a
likewise intelligent civilization on another plant do?" Radio
communication beats physical travel hands down as far as effort goes.
So that's where they put their efforts. And the nice thing is that
this is the way intelligence develops, through messaging between nodes
in a neural network.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> A very natural possibilty would be for all intelligences in the galaxy
> to communicate via radio telescope instead of using physical
> interstellar travel. Each of them attains intelligence and goes
> through what is called superationality.
>
centuries. We don't seem to have arrived anywhere close to rationality
yet, let alone 'super rationality'!
--
O how I cried when Alice died
The day we were to have wed!
We never had our Roasted Duck
And now she's a Loaf of Bread!
At nights I weep an cannot sleep,
Moonlight to me recalls
I never saw her Waterfront
Nor she my Waterfalls
- W.H. Auden verses for 'The Dog Beneath the Skin'
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Autymn D. C.
to be fashioned into a tree whose leaves are the mirror-radiators,
after I remembered the thread explaining why leaves grew around in
multiples of fi to each get the greatest sunlight. So the sunbeams
will need to be regenerated as much as possible for the greatest
efficiency yet the greatest thrust, as the sail doesn't get a
near-field propellant. The sail will be always hopping off the sun [or
the earth] as the greatest momentum reservoir around, and won't waste
all that energy on JPL spume that only moves the air around.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
find a three-terawatt maser. Any suppliers?
-Aut
Quantum Mirror
There could be a form of communication we have not advanced far enough
to understand that is orders of magnitude more efficient at
intergalactic and interstellar communication. When we discover this
there may be plenty of information already available from space.
Wouldn't it be great to download advanced physics and engineering from
an alien planet.
The universe may be too young to have widespread intelligence. When
you consider stellar nucleosynthesis to have the complex chemistry of
this planet and 4 Billion years of evolution with possible help from
advanced amino acids and RNA from space, 15 Billion years does not seem
like much time.
Brad Guth
Good and perfectly rational feedback. However, our local universe may
in fact be a bit too young, although even the Sirius star system has
got to be millions if not a billion years older and thus wiser. Either
that or such folks of Sirius having become quite dead and gone.
Communications via laser cannon, especially that of a 0.05 milliradian
offering 400~450 nm as quantum/FM photons getting efficiently projected
away from our moon or perhaps away from the LSE-CM/ISS would be even
better, whereas such focused energy and subsequent packet throughput
being at the very least 1e9:1 better off than anything of microwave RF
seems quite doable and certainly a whole lot cheaper as well as so much
faster than deploying any micro-probe that could eventually become
worth making a potential velocity of 10% c, that is if the
radium-->radon ion/plasma thrusters could even last long enough to get
the craft past the nearest interstellar nullification zone.
Thus I'm all for the energy efficient usage of whatever "Quantum
Mirror" or perhaps laser cannon methods of sending off our best digital
smut so that eventually smarter ETs will get our SOS, and hopefully
return to this planet which they'd helped to terraform with an icy
proto-moon in the first place, though perhaps their returning this time
in order to put us out of our misery and start the intelligent design
process entirely over, as I'm certain that even intelligent ETs have
made more than their fair share of mistakes.
Too bad the world has become so easily snookered and thus dumbfounded
by our NASA rusemasters, so much so that the truth represents little if
anything.
Brad Guth
velocity and still a half-life of fuel/energy reserve that's nearly if
not fully nuclear.
The half-life of Radium(Ra226)-->Radon(Rn222) is worth 1600 years of
continuous ion thrusting, whereas a smaller amount of continuous
thrusting beats anything SBR or of other conventional engine fuels by
millions to one.
With some of my usual math corrections that only seems to have turned
out as offering a bit more fantastic than before, with each applied MJ
worth of Radon ions suggesting KE = 158e6 Kgf is getting this method
into a level of nuclear thrust if enough Radon(Rn222) gas can be
supplied into the ion generating arrays of such thrusters without
everything melting down upon the tarmac. Although this is still purely
mad-science speculation as based upon obtaining a theoretical ion exit
velocity of 150e3 km/s, though doing the math on just 150 km/s isn't
entirely without merit at delivering 158 Kgf/MJ.
As before, I'll still have to totally agree that going spaceship bigger
is better. Because, folks like "tomcat" are absolutely right about
what's new and always getting improved about CNT fabrics, rocket
engines and of the fuel they burn, and even SBRs have been getting into
delivering more reliable bang for their tonnage. Per usable volume of
shuttle-like interior, whereas these CNT Spaceplanes of the near future
should outperform the existing usable volume as currently provided by
our NASA shuttle, I'm thinking by at least a good 2:1 if not 4:1 seems
doable if it's a whole-body form of flying Spaceplane (what the hell do
we need individual wings for?)
Here's another improvement upon what I'm thinking a Radon ion thruster
array might have to offer. I must say that it's actually getting a
little embarrassingly super terrific as compared to wossy Xenon, but
that may be entirely related to my math running amuck as suggesting far
more ion velocity capability than what's actually obtainable. But even
if I'm only 0.1% right, it's still going to offer an impressive number.
First look at the proven Xenon/ion method;
Xenon - Atomic Mass: 131.29 Amu
Xenon ION thrust exit velocity @30 km/s
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/X/XIPS.html
"These investigations showed that xenon offered the highest thrust of
any non-reactive gas; Ions ejected by XIPS travel in a stream at a
speed of 30 km/s (62,900 mph), nearly 10 times that of a conventional
chemical thruster."
Unlike the non-reactive(dead) aspects of Xenon(Xe), obviously
Radon(Rn222) might otherwise be considered as a highly reactive form of
gas, as such it seems entirely possible that Radon ions should become
those as nearly photon ejected at half 'c', thus conceivably 150e3 km/s
could be suggesting a 5000:1 exit velocity improvement, of which
V2(velocity squared) should therefore represent a rather impressive
25e6:1 improvement in the KE worth of thrust potential and, whereas
Radon having the Amu of 222 is certainly much denser than any Xenon Amu
worth of 131.3, so as to start off with being worth another 1.69:1
advantage.
No matters what, besides the factor of Xe having to be initially just
as artificially obtained, sub-frozen and then highly insulated as a
sequestered into a sub-frozen mass of Xe, and of whatever mass of this
Xe is eventually going to vaporise and/or simply run out from being
consumed, whereas accommodating a sufficient cash of Radium(Ra226)
that's creating Radon(Rn222) on the fly is good for a half life of 1600
years.
ION thruster: Boeing 702: 25 centimeters in diameter = 165 mN of thrust
"Boeing Electron Dynamic Devices (702 Thruster), XIPS is 10 times more
efficient than conventional liquid fuel systems." The 702 offers an
individual range of power consumption up to 4.5 kW that obtains 3500
seconds/kg worth of Xenon ISP for creating 165 mN of thrust.
I'm certainly not the all-knowing Radon(Rn222) ion thruster wizard but,
I'm thinking the amount of required energy as to ionize Rn222 that's
already somewhat on the go isn't going to be nearly as great as per the
none-reactive and thus passive Xenon. Therefore, the auxiliary power
source of electrons as being derived via PV cells, tether dipole or
that of an onboard reactor might be relatively slight on behalf of
energising ions from Radon.
See if my reverse engineering and not always so great math is worth yet
another bad example:
Xenon ion thrust at 165e-3/4.5e3 = 36.666e-6 N per J
Based upon a 5000:1 increase in ion exit velocity represents a KE
mutiplier factor of 25e6
At good vacuum, Radon ion thrust = 36.666e-6 * 25e6 * 1.69 = 1549 N per
J
Thus a MJ applied for creating a Radon ion flow as thrust might become
good for 1549e6 N
The thrust per MJ in terms of Kgf becomes 1549e6 * 0.101972 = 157.95e6
Kgf
Obviously 158e6 Kgf of ion thrust per MJ of applied auxiliary energy
seems a bit much. Therefore perhaps the actual improvement in Ra222 ion
exit velocity isn't going to ever become worth the 5000:1 over the
velocity of Xenon ions, that is unless it somehow turns into a laser
cannon form of ion thruster, in which case the radon ion velocity
improvement could reach 10,000:1. Otherwise if achieving just a
conservative 150 km/s of ion thrust would cut the results down to 158
Kgf/MJ, which still isn't all that bad.
This radon/ion notion still represents having a rather sizable cash of
Radium(Ra226) which the spaceplane is having to haul about, perhaps
several tonnes worth unless there's some viable method of expediting
the rate of decay into becoming Rn222. Possibly forcing the decay of
Ra226 within a power reactor might suggest upon one method of
generating the onboard auxiliary energy at the same time as per
expediting the production of Rn222.
Otherwise having a continuously usable ISP of 3500 * 1600 years = 5.6e6
seems rather interesting. Not that using the basis of any kg worth of
Xenon under continuous usage is going to be good for more than an
hour/kg, therefore the actual Radium(Ra226)-->Radon(Rn222) ISP
half-life gets this way further past the mark of 5.6e6 * 8.736e3 =
48.9e9
Of course, as per the added mass of the external basalt composite
shield which need not come and go from Earth, as equally for the cash
of Radium(Ra226) tonnage need not be onboard for the launch or reentry
phase. Having robotically pre-launched the Radium and whatever
containment reactor and/or Radon(Rn222) extractor into orbit is the
same logic as to having created the basalt composite shielding as
pre-established in orbit, thus is why the spaceplane need not
physically carry the added mass upon launch or reentry. However, since
there's no apparent shortage of Radon(Rn222) to being had upon Earth,
this is why a good amount of that element as a frozen gas (possibly as
a liquid or solid) could become utilized as a portion of their launch
thrusting energy via ion thrusters, although I'd expect that in
addition to whatever terrestrial heavy lift aerodynamic transporter as
was utilized in the SS1 case, a few SBRs would remain the norm if the
large spaceplane launch mass is essentially representing several
hundred tonnes in need of exiting Earth's gravity at 8 km/s.
If the LSE-CM/ISS were established, as then parking the massive
Spaceplane along side this 200e6 tonne CM(counter mass of 1.28 km
diameter) as having the 1e9 m3 ISS within is just the best ever
spaceplane depot/pitstop you can imagine, providing a good 50t/m2 worth
of physical and radiation shielding that should take whatever the sun
has to offer without measurably impacting the spaceplane crew and
passengers that would simply vacate their moderately shielded ride and
wait it out within that relative safety of the CM/ISS.
In closing, I may not have fully considered the ultimate ramifications
of actually using such large amounts of Radon within our terrestrial
environment, as I'm re-thinking this Radon(Rn222) ion thruster might
somehow represent a situation that's somewhat like pumping out a whole
lot nastier density worth of substance than lead at 150,000 km/s,
whereas the down-wind of thruster exhaust might become a wee bit lethal
until the final decay of whatever's lost volumes of Rn222 becomes
actual lead, as for then whomever's still alive gets to prematurely die
from lead poising.
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Brad Guth
the nearby stars that's reasonably doable within our lifetimes, at
least robotically speaking, by way of using Radium-->Radon-->ion
thrusters.
Folks like "tomcat" certainly have great CNT Spaceplane ideas and good
intentions. However, I'm not some village idiot suggesting that I'm
some all-knowing wizard, or that all forms of conventional SBRs and
slush liquid whatever worth of rocket fuels and of their complex as
well as massive engines along with all of the testy and not to mention
well documented lethal consequences should be abandoned. I'm just
imposing my limited exposure as to what others have had to say about
using Radon(Rn222) for what it is, whereas putting 2 and 2 together is
somewhat like my observationology of connecting those 8-bit and 36-look
per pixel dots into suggesting upon their representing a whole lot more
artificial patterns than not.
A Single Stage Reusable Ballistic Space Shuttle Concept, by Dietrich E
Koelle;
The conventional methods are by the numbers doable, though somewhat
energy inefficient, not all that reusable and, birth to grave highly
polluting for the humanity that's sequestered upon this already badly
polluted and thus global-warming and ocean-rising planet that's running
itself out of affordable fossil fuel alternatives faster than either of
us can shake a fist full of flaming sticks at.
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/beta_a_single_stage_reusable_ballistic_space_shuttle_concept.shtml
There are also numbers associated as to what Radon energy can
contribute as much as 6.28e9 joules/g.
Taking 50% conversion efficiency into account; ion thrust = 3.14e9 per
gram of Radon usage per second.
Adding in the plasma energy influx of a few megajoules seems to suggest
upon creating an ion thrust velocity that's only going to become worth
a whole lot greater than 3.14e9 joules/gram/second.
Supposedly Xenon-->ion thrust is being accomplished at 165e-3/4.5e3 =
36.666e-6 N/J
If my initial SWAG(scientific wild ass guess) on Radon(Rn222)-->ion
thrust is 1e6 fold better = 36.666e-6 * 1e6 = 37 N/J
Without calculating for the added ion mass of Rn222 ions as opposed to
those wossy Xe ions, it's looking like 37 newton/joule isn't all that
unlikely. That's certainly an impressive 3.773 Kgf per applied joule.
Radon is already in a high state of flux, having a half life of roughly
92 hours means that it's already in motion and simply waiting somewhat
briefly around for a little incentive in the right direction before it
turns itself into lead, perhaps in the form of hefty ions leaving the
thruster at a thousand fold greater velocity than of those relatively
passive Xe ions.
There's certainly no shortage of Radon(Rn222) upon Earth. It's oozing
out of just about everything that's decaying, including as a nasty
byproduct of most forms extracting and consuming fossil fuel and most
certainly from that of our utilizing unclear energy.
Obtaining a substantial on-demand inventory of either sub-frozen and/or
highly pressurized Radon isn't one of those insurmountable nor
otherwise horrific energy consuming problems. Storing Radon as a
sub-frozen liquid phase isn't the least bit complex nor unsafe. Radon
is one of those use-it or lose-it resources that for the most part
we've been ignoring and thus wasting.
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/rn.html
Name: Radon
Symbol: Rn
Atomic Number: 86
Atomic Mass: (222.0) amu
Melting Point: -71.0 °C (202.15 K, -95.8 °F)
Boiling Point: -61.8 °C (211.35 K, -79.24 °F)
Number of Protons/Electrons: 86
Number of Neutrons: 136
Classification: Noble Gas
Crystal Structure: Cubic
? Density @ 293 K: 9.73 g/cm3 (? = 9.73 t/m3)
Color: colorless
Density/kg m3: n.a. [solid]; 4400 [liquid at boiling point]; 9.73 [gas,
273 K]
Radon(Rn222) liquid/gas density ratio of 4400/9.73 = 452:1
http://www.atral.com/ElementsRadon1.html
Ionization enthalpies
1st: 1037
2nd: 1930
3rd: 2890
4th: 4250
5th: 5310
According to this link and most any other you'd like to review:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:IaOK3EGLZ64J:www.crcpd.org/Radon/Reno/10-29-02_0835_Burkhardt.ppt+polonium-214&hl=en
Radon(Rn222) changes into polonium-218. Polonium-218 is the first of
four relatively short-lived "radon decay products". Polonium-218
turns into lead-214. Lead-214, in turn, becomes bismuth-214.
Bismuth-214 then becomes polonium-214. When polonium-218 becomes
polonium-214, "bang", there goes another alpha particle.
Thus without having introduced external electron excitement as to
taking advantage by way of creating a highly directed and accelerated
plasma flow of ions from all that's transpiring naturally, it seems
that freshly made Radon is prime energy, that in most cases is just
going to waste somewhat like so much natural gas being burned off at a
given oil wellhead or refinery that has no other viable alternative for
dealing with all of the surplus natural gas, which btw is highly
radioactive (including loads of Radon). In either case, what a pathetic
unconscionable waste of natural energy resources.
The 452:1 increase in Radon density as a fluid phase as opposed to a
gas phase seems like another nifty win-win for packing a great deal of
such energy into a relatively small space, thus leaving whatever
Spaceplane/shuttle with volumes of interior available for the crew,
hundreds of passengers and perhaps 100+tonnes of cargo/payload to boot.
I'm certain that my SWAG worth of info isn't the last word nor is my
dyslexic math of any importance. What's important is that we're
underestimating the worth of Radon by a very large extent. Possibly a
Radium-->Radon breeder reactor can become the onboard solution as to
creating a continuous supply of Radon on the fly, thus once
sufficiently beyond the gravity influence of mother Earth there's no
limits as per at least robotically going where no robot has gone
before. There's not much sense sending actual humans along for the ride
because, we simply can't possibly live long enough to matter
(especially with the likes of GW Bush in office), not to mention making
each and every interplanetary and especially inter stellar exploration
effort at least a thousand fold more costly and perhaps a million fold
more complex while also cutting the potential mission velocity by a
good 10:1 if not 100:1. At most visiting Mars and Venus via human
expeditions is about as dumb and dumber than we mere humans ever need
to understand about such other worlds. Although, if having to pick
between Mars and Venus, there's no contest as to which of those two
worlds I'd select.
Brad Guth
There's nothing unimpressive about our existing shuttles, nor about the
proposed CNT Spaceplane as touted by the likes of "tomcat". They're
certainly big and impressive items, extremely complex and at least our
existing shuttles remain relatively heavy for their usable volume even
when bone dry, not to mention spendy as all get out to have been
created in the first place, as well as damn near as spendy to keep
reusing, especially spendy if you'd care to put any price tag on human
life as well as for their truly horrific environmental impact upon
mother Earth that goes far beyond that which is launch contributed. The
biggest technical problem remains their rate of LH2/fuel and
O2/oxidiser consumption is so horrific that the ET needs to be several
times the volume of the entire shuttle itself, and even then it needs
those two extremely powerful SRBs/SBRs to boot. Therefore, short of
using an H-Bomb as a method of getting yourself into space, the shuttle
is next in line to being nearly as spendy per kg and damn near as
lethal as any form of metro transportation gets.
Here's what seemingly everybody in Usenet already knows, although topic
newcomers might be amused to learn;
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/srb.html
The two SRBs provide the main thrust to lift the space shuttle off the
pad and up to an altitude of about 150,000 feet, or 24 nautical miles
(28 statute miles). Each booster has a thrust (sea level) of
approximately 3,300,000 pounds at launch. The two SRBs provide 71.4
percent of the thrust at lift- off and during first-stage ascent.
Seventy five seconds after SRB separation, SRB apogee occurs at an
altitude of approximately 220,000 feet, or 35 nautical miles (41
statute miles). SRB impact occurs in the ocean approximately 122
nautical miles (141 statute miles) downrange.
Each SRB weighs approximately 1,300,000 pounds at launch. The
propellant for each solid rocket motor weighs approximately 1,100,000
pounds. The inert weight of each SRB is approximately 192,000 pounds.
Rocketdyne SSME @~500,000 lbs thrust (Vacuum)
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/propul/SSMEamaz.html
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/propul/SSME.html
SSME can attain a maximum thrust level (in vacuum) of 512,950 pounds
which is equivalent to greater than 12,000,000 horsepower.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/37552/
Each SSME burns 920 lbs/s(417 kg/s) of LOX and 155 lb/s(70 kg/s) of
LH2. At 100% power, that's per each and every second per engine.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-mps.html
The main engines can be throttled over a range of 65 to 109 percent of
their rated power level in 1-percent increments. A value of 100 percent
corresponds to a thrust level of 375,000 pounds at sea level and
470,000 pounds in a vacuum. A value of 104 percent corresponds to
393,800 pounds at sea level and 488,800 pounds in a vacuum; 109 percent
corresponds to 417,300 pounds at sea level and 513,250 pounds in a
vacuum.
The 17-inch-diameter feed line permits liquid oxygen to flow at
approximately 2,787 pounds (1264 kg) per second with the SSMEs
operating at 104 percent or permits a maximum flow of 17,592 gallons
per minute. The liquid oxygen tank's double-wedge nose cone reduces
drag and heating, contains the vehicle's ascent air data system (for
nine tanks only) and serves as a lightning rod. The liquid oxygen
tank's volume is 19,563 cubic feet. It is 331 inches in diameter, 592
inches long and weighs 12,000 pounds empty.
The liquid hydrogen feed line flow rate is 465 pounds (211 kg) per
second with the SSMEs at 104 percent or a maximum flow of 47,365
gallons per minute. The liquid hydrogen tank is 331 inches in diameter,
1,160 inches long, and has a volume of 53,518 cubic feet and a dry
weight of 29,000 pounds.
-
Overall, a space shuttle main engine weighs in at approximately 7,000
pounds, but it also requires a great deal of extra structural
spacecraft attributes and loads of secondary/external related circuitry
and elements in order to accommodate each engine, such as the massive
ET interface plus the Helium/LXO internal tankage, thus perhaps a tally
of 10,000 pounds each represents 3X 10,000 = 30,000 lbs(13,608 kg), and
obviously a good deal of sheer volume is allocated.
Any good sized (new and improved) Spaceplane/shuttle would likely need
at least 6 if not an interplanetary dozen of these SSMEs, plus at least
4 of those SBRs for getting past the first 150,000', thus 2~4 times the
ET volumes of LH2/LXO unless the SBRs contribute a whole lot more than
75% of the total package thrust. The only alternative is to construct
everything as much as possible out of basalt and CNT composites, so
that we might get the entire package back into the realm of using just
two SRBs/SBRs and perhaps not more than the original 3 SSMEs, which
might then enable a payload of 100 tonnes getting delivered to a
greater than LEO altitude of 350+km. Unfortunately, the existing
cargo-bay design needs to be half again as wide and nearly twice as
long, meaning less room for accommodating those conventional SSMEs.
Just cutting the SRB inert mass in half should more than do the trick,
tossing in another similar reduction in shuttle and ET inert mass by
50% is just icing on the cake that'll get whatever delivered in style
with margin to spare, perhaps even enough margin for a lunar mission
involving our establishing the LSE-CM/ISS before China, Russia or
ESA/India beats us to the punch. Of course, these lighter weight SRBs
and even the ET might not be quite as reusable, but then reusing such
items as before has created come rather serious compromises that have
more than cost as much as going with the 100% disposable plan of
action.
LRn222, use it or lose it
on the other hand, if the Radium-->Radon-->ION can accomplish what I'm
thinking it can, in which case the massive ET can be replaced with
something that's not even 10% the volume. The shuttle itself would have
an array of ion thrusters that I'm wishful thinking together shouldn't
weigh half as much as one SSME, but even if at 10,000 lbs worth and yet
affording the same if not greater net thrust as 3 SSMEs is still 3:1
better off. Therefore, an internal capacity of spare LRn plus having an
onboard Radium-->Radon breeder reactor for creating a fresh supply of
Radon on the fly that isn't going to take up all that much volume, nor
demanding the degree of containment and thus greatly improving the
overall safety while making all such things as Spaceplanes lighter as
well as simpler to own and operate, as well as a whole lot less
polluting.