Futuristic propulsion of spacecraft

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around futuristic propulsion methods for spacecraft, particularly focusing on ion thrusters and the potential for achieving relativistic speeds for missions from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to the Moon and back. Participants explore theoretical concepts, technical challenges, and speculative technologies such as antimatter batteries and VASIMR propulsion.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that ion thrusters could theoretically achieve relativistic speeds with sufficient energy, allowing for rapid travel to the Moon.
  • Others argue that current ion thrusters do not operate at relativistic speeds, with maximum thrust being a limiting factor for current designs.
  • A participant mentions that achieving relativistic speeds would require large accelerator structures and significant power sources, such as fission reactors.
  • There is discussion about the feasibility of using antimatter as a power source, with some suggesting it could solve energy density issues, while others highlight the challenges of antimatter production and storage.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential dangers of using antimatter, including catastrophic explosions if containment fails.
  • Some participants suggest that a larger spacecraft with lower acceleration could be more realistic for lunar missions, while others note that no current ion drive can generate the necessary thrust for such missions.
  • The potential for VASIMR propulsion is discussed, with references to its use of argon and its economic advantages over chemical propulsion.
  • Speculative ideas about faster-than-light (FTL) drives are briefly mentioned, with skepticism about their feasibility.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the feasibility of achieving relativistic speeds with ion thrusters or the practicality of antimatter propulsion. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing ideas and technical challenges highlighted.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on current technological capabilities, unresolved mathematical steps regarding thrust and energy requirements, and the speculative nature of proposed technologies like antimatter batteries.

  • #31
Combine a better ion thruster with a nuclear reactor and a lot of Xenon. Or better multiple reactors with multiple engines. Then wait.

At an exhaust velocity of 210km/s, you need e^5 or roughly 150 times the final ship mass as propellant. You can escape the solar system for free with clever gravitational slingshots - this will also give a few km/s final velocity, but that is negligible here.

It is hard to find numbers for power/weight of nuclear reactors. Thermoelectric generators reach 5W/kg. Let's be pessimistic and assume a nuclear reactor just doubles this number to 10W/kg. To power our ion thruster with 250kW design power, we need a reactor with a mass of 25 tons. Let's add 5 tons for radiators, support structure and so on. Therefore, a possible last stage of the rocket will have an initial mass of 90 tons, roughly 60 tons of xenon. With a thrust of 2.5N, it will have an acceleration of 3*10-5 N, later going up to 10-4 N. To get its velocity change of 210km/s, we have to wait ~150 years. With this design, the rocket will need 5 stages, for a total acceleration time of ~750 years. I have no idea how to design a rocket that will work for this timescale...

Everything scales with power density. If you believe the various claims for possible small-scale nuclear reactors (at least one of them), you might get something like ~20 MW electric power within 20 tons, a power density of ~1000W/kg. At that level, radiators are certainly important, but this thing can power 80 ion thrusters, and you get the same thing done in just 10 years.

The overall mass of the ship would be ~7000 tons, that is within the reach of current technologies. The ship would be assembled in orbit, the heaviest parts are the nuclear reactors. A Delta IV can launch 22 tons, Falcon Heavy aims for 50 tons, SLS for >100 tons. It would be extremely expensive, but possible to build such a thing within a reasonable timescale.There are certainly more futuristic ideas. Vasimr aims for an even higher exhaust velocity, and all the various fission and fusion concepts might give a much better performance as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) (10 000km/s with fission bombs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus (35 000km/s with fusion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Longshot (10 000km/s, fission to ignite fusion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Valkyrie (antimatter to ignite fusion)
...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I would be very reluctant to volunteer for a manned mission.
 
  • #33
Why? Just 1200 years until your remains will fly past Proxima Centauri! Assuming the ship is flying in that direction.

On a planetary scale, this looks more interesting. With the optimistic fission reactor design, you get ~10km/s per month (with 5% of the ship's mass ejected in that time). This allows missions to Mars within a few months, and to Jupiter within a year or so.
 
  • #34
This thread has little to do with astrophysics. A more appropriate venue is aerospace engineering, which is where I have moved it.
 
  • #35
Was this thread started by an engineer by chance?
 
  • #36
Ryan_m_b said:
The point is you have to keep antimatter caged up and hope that the storage mechanism never fails. The energy we are potentially talking about here is horrendous, if you manage to bring antimatter production down to reasonable prices then you've proposed a system whereby biosphere destroying devices are available for an unreasonable but possible price. Think of it this way: any vehicle fitted with a few grams of antimatter will release a Hiroshima scale explosion when damaged. A few kilograms and you've got the release of >Tsa Bomba scale explosion when damaged.

The potential harm of what you are proposing more than outweighs it's uses IMO.

I don't think antimatter necessarily has to be unsafe. The fact that it's so energy-dense means that it's going to be small and therefore much easier to contain with less things to go wrong. Also, there's no need to contain it inside the spaceship.

I'm visualizing a magnetic "bottle" held a distance away from the spaceship. You can design the bottle so that if the #### hits the fan, the explosion ejects the antimatter away from the rest of the ship.

But this might all be a moot point. If you're out in deep space in a tin-foil spaceship, it might not really matter much if the fuel explodes with a ton or 100 million tons of TNT.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 139 ·
5
Replies
139
Views
30K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K