Space Travel..the alternate way..

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by ZMacZ, Apr 16, 2014.

  1. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    (inside the solar system..not outside..)

    For this thread I have one criterium (and what's with all the 'new and improved spellings ?) : It must be do-able..current science fact only.. space liner would be driven by 8 large gyroscopes..(or 4 per drive in the drive train..)

    Why ? It can use solar cells to be powered...

    Combustibles in outer space are a bad way to travel since they always expend and leave you sitting in the middle of the solar system running on fumes..

    4 synchronized gyroscopes spinning against each other would create the push needed to move forward...

    What I have in mind is hard to put on paper..anyone have any ideas for a simple 3D build program ?

    (I long since hoped for something like that..but it's searching for a cookie in webstack..)

    Furthermore..would it be possible to create one that uses it's initial spin to help lift off from (lower) G'ed Mars ?

    By design it would of course be entirely dumb to make the entire liner land and take off, but smaller versions might be able to do so..

    (and yes..anyone tapping me on the head saying "cuckoo" is certainly entitled to do so..), but that's why I'm on the fringe right ?..
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    Note also that the way of the gyroscope would also make a semi gravitic environment possible by simple constant acceleration..

    And with V increasing over time..greatly decreasing travel time..acceleration for one month..deceleration for one month..

    And also..a large payload would not be much of a problem, cuz it would only increase the acceleration and deceleration times..

    And it's very highly re-usable..additions with re-usable energy 'cells' electric storage in the way's of electric turbine powered by H2 and O2..
    (stored SEPARATELY and highly compartmentalized...)
    In stationary mode the 'cells' would be charged..since no power expenditure would be needed other than by life support..

    Life support would be self regenerative as well...large scale application of chlorophyllic nutrient growth...(or maybe hydro culture..),
    whichever would work best for both food and O2 reclamation...

    (And nope..YOU CAN NOT BRING UR POWER HUNGRY PC'S WITH YOU !!!...only 1 KwHr per person per saver lappy's only...)
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    Separate to this...

    Since the actual reception of ultraviolet would be greater in outer space, how much of an increase in power output would a solar panel have ?

    Let's say the actual power output on a sunny day would be 150 Watts...what would the output be in outer space ?
    No ozone layer...more ultraviolet light (and maybe other types of light that would also excite a solar array ?)

    Would be nice if that would be doubled..or maybe even tripled...

    Which started me thinking on an 'ozone' shield..(not actual ozone, but simply a block for ultraviolet radiation..)

    What kind of shield could cover all that the sun emits that's harmful to human bodies ?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    The farther you travel away from the sun the less light you will have so eventually you won't have any sunlight and therefore no power.
  8. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    One issue I came up with is a micrometeorite shield..

    Rather a better way to try and block the incomings..I'd say deflection is better..
    Instead of a shield blocking and needing to stop the particles, pushing them aside and letting them pass is far more preferable..
    (still in combo with a shield..of sorts..ofc..)

    Unlike Star Trek, where all of those are energetic and powered by a terawatts warp cores..we only have a little bit of electric energy,
    and ab-so-lute-ly no energy shields people will have to be creative..

    So..for micrometeorite deflection..a physical but replenishable device...

    For the bigger stuff li-dar would be usefull..evasion..the small ones..well...can't avoid them all..

    Something like this maybe ?...

    View attachment 7045

    Since it won't actually stop the micrometeorites from traveling but only changes their course it might just be enough..

    And then ofc there's a big thick (40 metres long) of self re-closing ant-logistic hard foam..

    If it would get hit, re-newable by foam re-application to the damage part of the hard foam..

    Since the anti-logistic hard foam block itself would be enclosed by 'kevlar' mesh, to reseal the kevlar mesh,
    would also be do-able, by an external arm...and yes...'stickers'...

    Note that I use the word 'kevlar' loosely, cuz there are more tensile materials out there already..
    (for instance carbon nanotube.. )
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2014
  9. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    It's intra-stellar travel...not extra-stellar travel..(travel to another planet in the same system..not system to system..)

    Besides..when going system to'd need a primaary acceleration within the system you start from...

    And a brand new way of collecting solar radiation, solar collection maybe ?..combined with the initial speed and
    the increased radiation levels of still being outside the Earths magnetosphere..could still be useful..

    But yes..the further you get away from the sun the less power you'd receive..
    Then again..with a large enough solar array (do not think fixed big clumsy solar panels, but an actual very big dual layer,
    silicon mesh..looks like sail..but acts as power provider..and also..minimal life support..(critically so..)..
    But system to system..yes..really hard....

    - settles for trip to Mars..

    - suddenly thinks..double role for the deflector maybe ?

    - still prefers warp (if it would exist) to non-FTL dilatation flights..

    - also has some simple plans for gyroscopes that aren't ball-bearing based..(it can't be ball bearing based..those degrade too fast..any material vs. material won't last..and resupply is not an option..)

    "Oh crap..the ball bearings are all out..let's go back ?..oh wait..there's a gas station...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Nope..really not....since the gyroscopes would either have energy to work with (or not)...they only need
    electrical current to induce acceleration..when not in use the lack of gravity and their inertia would keep them in place..
    Using magnetics sufficient force can be applied through them..if no such force is being applied..than no magnetics are required to keep them in the same place..(barring accidents in which case a 'free float' design will make up for that..
    (mechanical back up for the gyroscopes to stay in position roughly..'ballbearings'....but not actual ballberings..)
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2014
  10. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    Off topic..

    - likes it on the fringe...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Although it's a lil quiet..

    Anyone ever played the game StarTopia ? (..funnnn..)
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2014
  11. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    There are just two flaws with this:

    1. Gyroscopes spinning against each other will not provide any propulsive force to move the ship.
    2. Gyroscopes spinning against each other will not provide any propulsive force to move the ship.

    Yes, technically, this is just one flaw, but it is such a huge one that it really needed to be stated twice.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

  13. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    Maybe I AM wrong..but tell me if the graph is correct ?

    Maybe I'm SOO wrong...
    Maybe you are wrong...

    Since I have misstated the following graph..

    View attachment 7047

    Since my theory is rusty (maybe) see if the graph works..
    If it creates a directional force than it works in space..if not..well..buhbye to my gyro-engine..back to hyper-thrust..and combustibles..
    (And nope..not the hyperthrust you see in the once so popular series Streethawk, but hyper-thrust that is created by not merely
    combusting a compound in the hope of creating enough thrust, by simply letting it exhaust..but by increasing the pressure it is under
    and only then releasing it, increasing the pressure upon release..)


    really..did you even read the original post ? NOT THEORETICAL !!! NO WARP DRIVE STUFF !!
    only sound actual EXISTING technology..
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2014
  14. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    Off topic remark about the concept (nomered hyper-thrust by me)...

    Instead of just releasing lots and lots of combustible fuel (like the solid rocket booster of the space shuttle..)
    getting the pressure up first and then releasing the exhaust will yield higher fuel-to-thrust ratios...

    Since the SRB isn't much more than a big flare with a tiny ship attached..well..I think this could be better..
    Also..specially with new tensile strength stuff like carbon nanotubes, the actual pressure that can be stored prior to release
    of said exhaust could be like 100x more powerfull..(and even more, x200, if graphene can be used for storing pressure..
    and that is comparative to using steel for a container..)
    (also..a small nuclear reactor providing even more heat and thus pressure upon the propellant's exit may increase the thrust yield even further..)
    Subsequently..the improved SRB could be as small as the spaceshuttle, and the spaceshuttle as large as the current SRB..
    Now that's what I call an increase in payload..

    But in any case...any input for better than the current space-shuttle technology will be appreciated..

    (And a question here...Does anyone know at what pressure the SRB delivers it's thrust ?..)
    (I did some simple comparison and found that storing pressure can yield up to 15.000 bar of pressure..for comparison to the SRB's output..)
    (which is roughly 220.000 PSI..)
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2014
  15. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    Another 'dumb' idea..

    Well..atmosphere skimming...

    Where you don't actually enter the atmosphere, but try and 'scoop' or 'suck' the upper part of the atmosphere in the lowest possible orbit,
    while actually remaining in and maintaining said orbit without expending a lot of 'fuel'...

    This could be useful in two ways...using the gasses directly, or turning them into a liquid form (if possible by chemical process..)
    (if it would be possible siphoning H2 and O2 and simply 'burning' them into water..the water being much less voluminous it would be much easier stored..)
    (the actual components could be derived by electrolyses..)
    (and yes..I know that actual O2 is way deeper into the atmosphere, but it was meant as an example for the process..)

    Specially the combination with nuclear heating and my 'hyper-thrust' would make this a much more viable way for getting 'fuel'..
    (and the term 'fuel' I use loosely here..maybe propellant would be more fitting..)
  16. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    This ENTIRE thread is nothing but wishful thinking.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Not a single means of actual propulsion has been introduced here. Certainly NOT gyros - the most they could accomplish is adding to the stability because they provide absolutely no propulsion whatsoever. Not even a tiny bit.
  17. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    Did you look at graph I made ?
    I simply wanna know if the principle I laid out in there works or not...
  18. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Yes, I looked at the graph - and the answer is a simple 'no.'

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member


    And here I was hoping to have found a simple way to propel myself in outer space..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    i guess it's back to the drawing board..or using propellants..
  20. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    If "back to the drawing board" means looking for more perpetual motion machines, you'd be better off doing nothing. At least when standing still, you aren't moving in the wrong direction.
  21. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    perpetual free motion ?...not searching for pike dreams..
    An engine that can use there's something that could be useful..but that's not perpetual motion..
    In space all motion IS by definition perpetual...once you have it..unless counter force is being'll stay with you forever..
    perpetual engines and an engine that runs on solar power..umm..not nearly the same (if there is any similarities at all..)
  22. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    I said this in another forum about space travel..

    And although I didn't have matter propulsion in mind..well..the gyroscope is off the table for now....ion thruster it is..
    (although it would have been neat to have a continuous force projecting engine that would only have needed electricity..)

    FYI..a fully loaded space shuttle weighs 2 million 2.000.000...
  23. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Sorry, but the numbers in the quoted section are way off.

    For this, you need to use the rocket equation:

    \(\Delta v = V_e \ln \left ( \frac{M_s+M_f}{M_s} \right )\)

    Mf is the mass of the fuel and Ms the mass of the ship, Ve is your exhaust velocity.

    Given Ve = 50 km/sec, delta v = 5000 km/sec, and Mf+Ms= 10e10 kg and solving for Ms, we actually get a "usable" payload of 3.7e-33 kg. Roughly 1/6,000,000 of the mass of a proton.

    Assuming Ve=100 km/sec and Vf=3000 km/sec, this improves to 0.009 kg. Granted, a vast improvement, but still not what I'd consider practical.

    I should add that this answer is not exact, since I used the classical rocket equation, and technically I should have used the relativistic one, which would have made the payload even smaller, but at 1% of c, the difference is pretty insignificant.

Share This Page