An
Alternative method to transport Zac
Manchester’s
PCB-starship to Alpha Centauri.
Internet entrepreneur Yuri Milner is proposing
sending a “nanocraft” (idea developed by Zac Manchester), a working space probe so small (1-2
grams) that it could be accelerated to 20% the speed of light and reach Alpha
Centauri in 20 years or so.
Mr Milner has launched a $100 million effort,
dubbed Breakthrough Starshot, to prove the principle of sending tiny crafts attached to light sails that are blasted from earth with
laser beams for propulsion, the idea has the blessings of Dr. Stephen Hawking,
Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg among
others, NASA is also working on Micro spacecraft.
Proposed Nanocraft light
beamer array will shoot gigawatts of laser beams to the
Nanocraft’s light sails.
(held
by Mr Yuri Milner)
The micro spacecraft
weighing little more than a sheet of paper and driven by a sail comparable in
size a child’s kite fashioned from fabric only a few hundred atoms in
thickness, will be accelerated by a 100 billion-watt laser-powered array
reaching a velocity of 60,000km a second.
Before sending the
first nanocrafts to Alpha Centauri we must wait for
the lasers to be designed and constructed, but as the nanocraft’s
development is fairly advanced, I propose attaching a nanocraft
to a Fluid Space Drive that is simple and inexpensive (compared to a multi
laser array) where it will travel with a constant acceleration of 0,2 mps reaching Alpha Centauri in
28 years (see main page).
The Fluid Space
Drive is a propellantless propulsion
system, to see how this is possible without breaking the law of conservation of linear
momentum please see note at end of this page, or
read what David Hambling wrote on Fortean
Times magazine: Looking for loopholes.
The impossible may just take longer and require some imagination.
Or see Fluid Space Drive’s main page, includes video
What are the advantage of a propellantless
propulsion system?
At present all
spacecraft travel from earth to their destination at constant speed (they coast
at constant velocity), We use enormous rockets in our space exploration
programs, but almost all the push the spacecraft acquires is during the first
few minutes the rockets are firing before they run out of fuel, the rest of the
trip the spaceship travels at a constant velocity (no acceleration).
So if it’s Mars we
want to go, at present we can produce a few minutes of acceleration versus 300
days of constant velocity (just coasting).
What the Fluid space
drive does is generate a strong force in one direction from the inside, constantly pushing the spacecraft/probe
resulting in it relentlessly gaining velocity to speeds never before possible.
As long as the Fluid
Space Drive receives electrical power by means of solar panels or/and some Air
Independent Power Source like the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator
illustrated in the following illustration, the spacecraft will continue
accelerating.
If we
send two identical spacecraft to Mars (figs 2, 3 and 4), spacecraft A with a
FSD attached and spacecraft B with no FSD, they will both start their journey
at the same velocity but while spacecraft B will spend 300 days at constant
velocity, as spacecraft A is constantly accelerating it will in time leave
spacecraft B far behind and reach enormous velocities (Fig 4)
Fig 2
Fig 3
Fig 4
An early proposed
application for the Fluid Space Drive was a simple method to get to Mars FAST
using technologies available now, for instant a spaceship composed of a Bigelow Aerospace inflatable module
towed to mars at a constant acceleration by an array of Fluid Space Drives.
If we replace the
payload (Bigelow space module) with a 2 gram nanocraft,
a constant acceleration of 0,2 mps
is possible and Alpha Centauri will be reached in 28 years (see main page).
William John Elliott S.
(Exit code) 56-2-2042863
(Exit code) 56-9-85530114
Whatsapp
+56985530114
william.john.elliott (contact on
Skype)
http://www.wjetech.cl/
wjeconsultant@gmail.com
wje@wjetech.cl
Fluid
Fig 1 Principal elements of a Fluid Space Drive.
We have:
A pressurized structure/spacecraft (1) in a micro-gravity
environment, inside the spacecraft is a 100k mass (2) we call Ram Mass Assembly
or RMA.
The RMA (2) has freedom to move across
the length (not breadth) of the spacecraft.
Inside the pressurized structure we have a forward ramming piston
(3a) and a rear ramming piston (3b)
We also have a probe (5) we wish to accelerate.
And a radioisotope
thermoelectric generator (RTG, RITEG)
(4) to provide power to the system.
For this presentation we shall assume that the assembly composed
of pressurized structure (1), probe (5), rear and forward ramming pistons (3a
and 3b) and secondary control systems (not shown) have a mass of 800k (mass of RMA (2) is not
included in this total).
Fig 2
Fig 2 illustrates the RMA (M2), it has a series of flaps attached to servo motors,
when the flaps are closed they form the shape of an open cone that functions as
an air brake increasing the RMA’s drag coefficient (note Dd) therefore slowing it’s
relative velocity inside the pressurized structure (M1).
Note: The illustration does not show the ideal aerodynamically
shape for low drag.
So how does it work?
Cycle 0
We start the cycle with the RMA (2)
positioned against the rear ramming piston (3a).
Cycle 1
The rear ramming piston (3a) expands with sufficient force to
accelerate the RMA (2) to a velocity (V2) of 1m/s in
the +X direction.
P2 is the RMA’s momentum,
(momentum = Mass x Velocity =100k x 1m/s =100P) in the +X direction so P2
=100p.
The spacecraft’s momentum (P2) in the –X direction is equal but in
the opposite (-X) direction or -100p.
Therefore the velocity of the spacecraft in the –X direction is -0.125m/s.
V1 = Velocity of
pressurized structure/spacecraft (1) in m/s.
V2 = Velocity of RMA(2) in
m/s
P1 = Momentum of
pressurized structure/spacecraft (1).
P2 = Momentum of RMA (2) mass x V2
Cycle 2
As the spacecraft’s travels in the –X direction with a constant
velocity of 0.125m/s, the RMA
is traveling inside the spacecraft with a constant velocity of 1m/s in the +X
direction.
Although the spacecraft is pressurized
(air or other suitable gas at normal atmospheric pressure), as the RMA’s flaps are open, the air drag is minimal and does not
exert sufficient force to noticeably slow it’s +X velocity.
Cycle 3
The spacecraft (1) and the RMA (2)
travel in opposite directions until they collide at the inner forward end of
the spaceship.
As both the spaceship (1) and the RMA
(2) have the equal momentum (P1 = -100p
P2 = 100p P1 + P2 = 0) the system
comes to a full stop.
Cycle 4
The forward ramming piston (3b) expands with sufficient force to
accelerate the RMA (2) to a velocity (V3) of 1m/s in
the -X direction.
P3 is the RMA’s momentum,
(momentum = Mass x Velocity =100k x 1m/s =100p) in the +X direction so P3
=-100p.
The spacecraft’s momentum (P4) in the –X direction is also 100p
therefore the velocity of the spacecraft in the +X direction is 0.125m/s.
V3 = Velocity of RMA (2) in m/s
V4 = Velocity of
pressurized structure/spacecraft (1) in m/s.
P4 = Momentum of
pressurized structure/spacecraft (1).
P3 = Momentum of RMA (2) mass x V2
Cycle 5
The RNA’s flaps close (see fig 2), greatly incrementing the drag
force slowing the RMA’s –X velocity without greatly
affecting the +X velocity of the spacecraft (M1).
This effect (the velocity of M2 is affected in greater magnitude that the velocity
of M1) is very counter intuitive to many (maybe everybody), why it works is
explain here, but more important the effect can be
observed with an experiment set up using the same elements available in a
physics classroom to demonstrate the conservation of momentum. (See here)
If a physics classroom/lab is not
available here is an idea for a DIY test bed that can be constructed with
little expenses.
Cycle 6
The spacecraft (1) and the RMA (2)
travel in opposite directions until they collide at the inner forward end of
the spaceship.
When the RMA collides with the
spacecraft’s inner wall it’s –X final velocity (V3f) is LESS than it’s –X
initial velocity (before the flaps were closed) it does not have the same momentum (it lost velocity) therefore the
collision is not sufficient to cancel M1’s +X acceleration (gained in cycle 4)
and the cycle finishes with a net gain of velocity in the +X direction for the
spacecraft.
The gain in +X velocity will increase every time the cycle (1 to
6) is repeated