I Questions about the Voyager spacecraft

  • Thread starter Thread starter abdossamad2003
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spacecraft Voyager
Click For Summary
The Voyager spacecraft could potentially collide with a celestial body, but the likelihood of this happening is low for the foreseeable future. Current spacecraft, including Voyager, rely on traditional propulsion methods, which face significant challenges in achieving higher speeds due to fuel limitations and the physics of space travel. While alternatives like ion drives offer better fuel efficiency, they produce low thrust and require extended periods to reach significant speeds. NASA is exploring various propulsion systems, but any advancements must balance fuel efficiency with the energy available for long-duration missions. The complexities of space travel and the engineering challenges involved make significant acceleration in empty space an ongoing problem.
  • #31
abdossamad2003 said:
To travel to interstellar space requires the final speed and highest speed without return and slow down.
I read this and was planning a reply. A dismissive polite reply has been made, pointing out that it's largely nonsense except for as an incremental step (one further than Voyager). But a very useful mission could be throwaway. It would need a massive robot laboratory and a seriously big transmitter to return a vast amount of data - and a selfie with our first extra-terrestrial.
Missions within the Solar System would benefit from a return trip - not just with humans but with retrieved material. I don't really subscribe to the urgency of sending humans everywhere. From the high success rates of modern robot systems, I have to conclude that they are far far better value. Also they don't have the public trauma when space travellers die in service; robot fails don't have to lead to a halt in the flow of finance for space investigations.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
phyzguy said:
How would you propose to launch a spacecraft weighing 10^9 kg into space?
I'm more impressed with a mass ratio of 1 to 1000000.

Also even if we assume no payload, hand wave away the mass of the structure and tanks and use all the dry mass for ion engines and electricity generation that will be one amazingly slow accelerating rocket.
 
  • #33
"Ah, but we're going at night!"
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K