Advice needed about rocket performances

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr Wu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rocket
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of a manned spacecraft powered by antimatter traveling to the Oort Cloud, specifically addressing the required thrust, fuel efficiency, and mass ratios involved in such a journey. Participants explore theoretical aspects of rocket performance, including the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, and the implications of different propulsion strategies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that a continuous thrust of 1.6 m/s² could allow a spacecraft to reach 2,000 AU in ten months, raising questions about the mass ratio and fuel requirements.
  • Another participant calculates that achieving such speeds would require significant amounts of antimatter, suggesting a five-digit tonnage depending on efficiency.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes the importance of efficiency, estimating a need for around 800 tons of antimatter for a round trip, assuming 100% efficiency.
  • Concerns are raised about the feasibility of producing and transporting the required antimatter safely, with suggestions for alternative energy sources like beamed power.
  • Participants discuss the implications of acceleration phases, with one suggesting that a shorter acceleration followed by coasting could reduce fuel needs significantly.
  • Another participant mentions the potential for using high g's to boost acceleration and the idea of using hypothetical propulsion methods that do not rely on traditional rocket equations.
  • There is a discussion about the energy requirements, with one participant estimating an energy outlay of 5,300 exajoules for the journey, while expressing skepticism about the reliability of online calculators.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility of the proposed mission, with no consensus on the exact fuel requirements or the efficiency of the antimatter drive. There is ongoing debate about the implications of different propulsion strategies and the safety concerns associated with antimatter production.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their calculations, including assumptions about efficiency and the challenges of achieving the necessary thrust and speed. The discussion remains open-ended regarding the practicalities of the proposed mission.

  • #31
mfb said:
you would need 200,000 times this power
Dish size on Wu's spacecraft is also a factor in that multiple. Though as you point out, if the craft is powered by laser it can certainly communicate far more efficiently. Without googling, I wonder if NASA is considering such for future deep space spacecraft . Maybe the improvements in solid state laser power make this a possibility, or not.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
The factor 200,000 times is for spacecraft -> inner solar system only (and you can reduce it with a larger dish for the spacecraft ). For the other direction, you probably want a smaller dish and a larger sender power - if you increase power by a factor of 1000, you can reduce the dish size by a factor of 1000, reducing the 70m dish to a 2m dish (ignoring issues with angular resolution here).
And this is for radio waves. I did not find numbers (apart from the data transmission rate) for NASA's test, but apparently it gives better data rates with lower power.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
14K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
19K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
7K