- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Get your redshirts ready! "Impossible" engine revolutionizes space travel
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:44 pm to fr33manator
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:44 pm to fr33manator
I have to see this movie now. I Just finished the book. Any good?
1
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:45 pm to The Boob
quote:
How funny would it be if we start going further into space than anyone thought was possible, and just run into wall like on Truman Show...
AND the big question... What is at the end of space?
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:47 pm to jbgleason
42
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:54 pm to SundayFunday
I enjoyed both the one with sting and the sci-fi miniseries
Posted on 7/28/15 at 4:20 pm to jbgleason
quote:
AND the big question... What is at the end of space?
More space. Jackass.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 4:21 pm to brodeo
I'm pretty fricking excited about this to be honest. Should make it a lot easier to explore our solar system.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 4:40 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Posted on 7/28/15 at 4:41 pm to BoogaBear
quote:
Brush guard and a yeti sticker. Next question.
Brush guard optional.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 4:48 pm to brodeo
Zubrin must jizz'n in his pants
Posted on 7/28/15 at 5:09 pm to Kracka
quote:
I don't get how they haven't created some kind of nuclear engine that could produce thrust and be able to launch that into space. But I guess water would be an issue? How do Nuclear reactors work on subs?
Wow.
A nuclear reactor creates steam to drive a propeller shaft.
A nuclear engine in space would, for all intents and purposes, be a bomb. You detonate the bomb, it propels the spacecraft to high velocities. Few issues:
#1: this propulsion system is completely useless for manned spacecraft as its high initial velocity. Inertial dampers are science fiction.
#2: the shielding and design mass required to shield and protect the spacecraft from the explosion would hamper its usefulness.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 6:01 pm to SundayFunday
quote:
The catch is, when you get going unbelievably fast, >1% speed of light, how do you avoid hitting objects that would rip through your hull. Something the size of a marble at that speed is death.
That's true at the much lower speeds probes reach today, that at least it not new.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 6:03 pm to elprez00
quote:
A nuclear reactor creates steam to drive a propeller shaft.
Correct.
quote:
A nuclear engine in space would, for all intents and purposes, be a bomb. You detonate the bomb, it propels the spacecraft to high velocities. Few issues:
#1: this propulsion system is completely useless for manned spacecraft as its high initial velocity. Inertial dampers are science fiction.
#2: the shielding and design mass required to shield and protect the spacecraft from the explosion would hamper its usefulness.
Read up on Project Orion. It was thought this would actually work very well but unfortunately it requires detonating nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, leading to fallout problems. Turns out the shielding needs are far less than expected.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 6:23 pm to colorchangintiger
quote:
because things on earth have to deal with friction. EmDrive's work by pushing a tiny bit continuously. In space that's great because there is nothing to slow it down, but on earth you're fighting friction caused by wind resistance and gravity.
I believe I read somewhere that the New Horizons had the thrust of about the weight of a piece of paper. But obviously that tiny bit of thrust over millions of miles and little/no friction eventually gets it humming along.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 10:42 pm to Chucktown_Badger
favorite thread from earlier..bump
Posted on 7/28/15 at 10:48 pm to cattus
4 hours to the moon?
Zeetusapeetus that's fast.
Zeetusapeetus that's fast.
Posted on 7/29/15 at 12:00 am to brodeo
quote:Yes, but I believe the point he was trying to make is that by Big Oil owning a monopoly on fuel, it gains the power to make the rules. Whereas in a free market, that technology would have long since been introduced into the mainstream.
How about Big Oil will do everything in their power, which is a lot of power, to block any changes to standard combustion.
Or, maybe they don't care what the energy source as long as they own it too? Shell and Exxon are the largest providers and researchers of alternative fuels and solar power. Oil baron T. Boone Pickens has been leading the charge for wind energy for decades. They don't care where the energy comes from as long as they make money off of it.
I mean, seriously, 100 years and technology still hasn't advanced past the gasoline powered engine? Who's still buying this?
Posted on 7/29/15 at 12:03 am to brodeo
quote:
A trip to Alpha Centauri, which would take tens of thousands of years to reach right now, could be reached in just 100 years.
Damn we better leave tomorrow. Our clocks are ticking.
Posted on 7/29/15 at 12:08 am to brodeo
quote:
Science, b*&@hes!
Posted on 7/29/15 at 12:10 am to waiting4saturday
quote:Can you imagine traveling on the 100 year journey, your children arrive and are greeted by people who are on their third trip in 50 years?
Would be pointless to even try, by the time they got there We would have developed a technology to get there in a few hours/days.
Posted on 7/29/15 at 12:13 am to jbgleason
quote:
AND the big question... What is at the end of space?
Probably more space
Why does there have to be an "end"?
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News