Energy contained in fuel in speed of light ship

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of approaching the speed of light in a hypothetical spacecraft, particularly regarding the energy contained in fuel and the effects of relativistic physics on momentum and mass. Participants explore concepts related to energy conservation, relativistic mass, and the feasibility of achieving light-speed travel, touching on theoretical and practical aspects of propulsion systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that as a ship approaches the speed of light, its momentum and mass increase, necessitating more energy for further acceleration, leading to the idea that infinite energy would be required at light speed.
  • Others argue that energy cannot be created from nothing and that relativistic mass is not a useful concept in modern physics, suggesting that any massive object cannot reach the speed of light.
  • A participant questions the nature of acceleration in space, asserting that gravity is the only natural means of constant acceleration, while others provide counterexamples, such as solar radiation pressure.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of fuel expulsion on the ship's mass and energy, with some asserting that while the ship gets lighter, the energy required to accelerate the remaining mass increases more rapidly.
  • Some participants mention that proper acceleration can theoretically continue indefinitely, though coordinate acceleration will reduce as speed approaches light.
  • Concerns are raised about the limits of current propulsion technologies and the potential for future advancements, with references to concepts like photon rockets and plasma drives.
  • There is a mention of the Lorentz transformation and its implications for the impossibility of reaching or exceeding the speed of light with massive objects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the feasibility of reaching light speed, the nature of relativistic mass, and the implications of energy conservation. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the key points raised.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of mass and energy, the unresolved nature of relativistic effects, and the assumptions made about propulsion systems and external forces.

  • #31
Boing3000 said:
The calculator got me 0.9999999999924827 for 5*10^5 light year. After that , rounding errors seems to kick in.
I'll do one myself using high precision library. I supposed you had some handy.
You're right. I must have messed up the calculation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
A constant 1 g acceleration for decades is beyond any feasibility with the universe as we know it, so that problem is purely theoretical.

A 100% antimatter/matter annihilation rocket with an Isp of 3*107 seconds (5 orders of magnitude higher than chemical rockets, 10 orders of magnitude in terms of energy density) would use about 2/3 of the ship mass as propellant per year to maintain this acceleration (as seen by the ship). Over 30 years, you need 1014 times the ship mass as propellant (likely more as you need multiple stages). A single kilogram as final ship mass would need 1014 kg of antimatter/matter, with an energy content of 1031 J, several billion times the global yearly energy consumption.

There is no known way to get 100% efficiency, however. In particular, some energy will be lost to neutrinos (assuming we have to use baryons). If just 50% of the energy contributes to thrust, we need 8/9 of the ship mass per year. Over 30 years, a single kilogram of ship mass will need 1028 kg of matter/antimatter, or 1045 J. That exceeds the energy released in a typical supernova by an order of magnitude and violates the rule that supernovae are always stronger.

You can scoop up matter on the way and use that as propellant - but that won't work beyond some critical (engineering-dependent) speed as scooping up the particles will slow the ship more than expelling it can accelerate it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mheslep

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
276
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 130 ·
5
Replies
130
Views
16K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K