What's the Terminal Velocity of Space

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by bradguth, Jul 4, 2004.

  1. bradguth Banned Banned

    Messages:
    226
    at 10% light speed it'll take 90+years as for arriving from Sirius.

    at 1% light speed we're talking of said travel of perhaps 1000 years.

    Either of those are suggesting of one-way tickets, and I believe the fastest recorded substance (short of any supernovae associated flak) that has been recorded was 600 km/s, and obviously that's not even 1% light speed. Hopefully this is where your expertise input is going to help accomplish my understanding.

    I thereby have this somewhat mortal sub-light-speed question.

    Being that running yourself into even a mere 2 mg speck of something is going to be absolutely lethal at 3e8 m/s, how about we contemplate upon the notions of a more conservative 3e7 m/s (10% light speed), or just 3e6 as 1% light speed.

    Say once we get ourselves past a given nullification zone, such as 8% towards Sirius (that's merely 0.7 light year along the way), and being that the Sirius star system offers twice the mass of what all our solar system has to offer, what would be the energy requirement as to maintaining either 1% or 10% LS if the medium of said space were sufficiently slight in terms of atom count/m3.

    In other words, what's known about the terminal velocity of such space travel beyond such a given nullification zone?

    Of how much additional energy/m3 is it going to require as to exceeding that terminal velocity?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. bradguth Banned Banned

    Messages:
    226
    Physical matter may have a maximum velocity (given a source of unlimited energy) of obtaining .5 LS (1.5e8 m/s), whereas indications of what can be transferred along an existing photonic waveguide is suggesting there are no such limits to what a quantum delivered packet can manage, given the right environment and applied technology. At least NEC/Wang haven't been the only such wizards in leading the "faster than light speed" pack, as others have also demonstrated their transferring of information at greater than light speed and as such, if we can manage as to transfer a sufficient amount of such quantum packets worth of raw data, then perhaps there's no need of our having to physically travel at such ungodly speeds, as even the notion of 1% LS seems sufficiently lethal to humanity, as for running into much of anything at such a velocity is not offering a good outcome, especially since no physical substance has ever recorded as obtaining much past 0.5% LS, unless it's another in-progress supernovae which hardly looks the least bit enticing to life as we know it. As such, the practical terminal velocity of space might be as little as 0.1% LS (300 km/s), whereas exceeding that 0.1% LS is going to take excessive energy and becoming ever more lethal should the soup of the day contain anything much greater in mass than mere atoms, whereas even some of those heavier atoms should be avoided at all cost, especially at anything approaching .5% LS, unless you've become a quantum photon, or of something surrounded by such a spinning field of influence as to fending off whatever is in your path.

    Within our inner solar system, say headed towards Venus, the soup and solar flak of the day might suggest 1e9 atoms/m3, as such without creating a comet like tale of debris being excavated away from your spacecraft, thus perhaps 60 km/s is about all the terminal velocity that such a craft of good size can be sustained without excessive energy and having to implement some sort of energy surround as a protective shield.

    Apout atoms and photons; http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photons-m3.htm

    Actually, for the given size and thereby surface area and cubic displacement, the velocity of what a given planet is traveling in orbit is perhaps what the natural slug value is for space travel, thus cutting the overall size should allow the smaller displacement of a spacecraft to theoretically travel faster, although unlike Earth having its own multi-layer and multitasking surrounds of energy fields as to protecting its passengers, whereas the raw nature of a relatively small spacecraft will not offer this buffer zone, thus the velocity increase may still be limited, and obviously as to encountering much of anything that's the least bit of mass is perhaps the biggest limitation of all.

    On behalf of a given spacecraft, at least the associated gravity influence isn't going to be attracting anything that's within your vicinity, whereas almost anything that's within 2r of the moon is almost certain to make contact with the lunar surface, such as those openings in the rings of Saturn were most likely cleared by way of being collected and thereby deposited upon whichever moon was in the vicinity.

    KE=.5MV2 for even 30e3/s is 900e6 Joules/s per every 2 grams.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. bradguth Banned Banned

    Messages:
    226
    Here's an interesting cross-over topic, that which is related to what needs to be communicated with, thus photons are obviously going to make this into a local laser area code of interplanetary communications, somewhat side-stepping the terminal velocity issue all together, not to mention improving our safety by way of not physically going to such hot and nasty places, unless invited..

    There's also a notion of our establishing a TRACE-II sort of relay or transponder at Venus L2.

    Pseudoscience; Venus Offers Whatever It Takes For UFOs
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    I don't understand what your saying here. 'Terminal velocity' is the velocity reached when an accelerating force is balanced against a drag force. The most common example is atmospheric drag against someone being accelerated through the air by gravity. Since there isn't any substantial drag force in space (unless you're flying through some sort of freakishly dense nebula or something) there wouldn't be a terminal velocity. You would probably have a very slight velocity loss because of collisions with the occasional stray subatomic particle or micrometeorite, but I don't think that would produce enough drag to slow you down considerably.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2004
  8. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Eh? Given an unlimited energy source, it should be possible to accelerate physical matter to any arbitrary speed below the speed of light. Why would there be a barrier at .5 C?
    No! It is quite well established that you can't transfer information faster than light. The NEC experiments (and all the other 'faster than light' experiments that have been getting press recently) involve creating light pulses in which the group velocity of light is faster than 3e8 m/s, but the phase velocity is not. You can't transmit information faster than light with this sort of scheme. Check out NEC's own FAQ on the experiment at http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/lwan/faq.htm . Here's the critical except:

    Q. Is Einstein's Relativity violated?
    A. Our experiment is not at odds with Einstein’s special relativity. The experiment can be well explained using existing physics theories that are consistent with Relativity. In fact, the experiment was designed based on calculations using existing physics theories.
    ...
    Information coded using a light pulse cannot be transmitted faster than c using this effect. Hence, it is still true to say that "Information carried by a light pulse cannot be transmitted faster than c." The detailed reasons are very complex and are still under debate. However, using this effect, one might be able to increase information transfer speed up to c. In present day technology, information is transmitted at speed far slower than c in most cases such as through the Internet and inside a computer.”
     
  9. bradguth Banned Banned

    Messages:
    226
    The soup of the day that's relatively near to Earth (500+km) is roughly estimated as worth 1e9 atoms/m3, and I believe that not all of them atoms are going to be wossy hydrogen atoms.

    Perhaps in the nullification zone between Earth and our moon (323,000 km from Earth, +/- 2.55%), or perhaps that zone being of Earth L4 or L5 is where there's a few as 1e6 atoms/m3, otherwise 1e8 until exiting our solar system.

    Obviously a meteor moving itself along at 72 km/s in relationship to our 30+km/s, as in mutually traveling about our sun, is an indication of suggesting upon some form of terminal velocity, as otherwise the likes of such debris would be greatly accelerating as they approached Earth, moon or especially the sun.

    As such, I'm thinking of what's actually possible to obtain and sustain in the way of making our way towards the Sirius star system, being that the nullification zone is only 0.7 light year away, and the rest of the trip could become a real speedy event, unless there's too much friction.

    Dear Nasor,
    If something quantum string like shifted and/or arrived at 310X c, then if that's not a worthy quantum bit, what is?

    DwayneD.L.Rabon;
    "As it appears that mass is unstable at high speeds, it would be due to the event of energy induction change and emission changes, where traveling at higher speeds allows energy to be emitted at higher speeds, sort of to speak the plug in the drain has been pulled."

    I'm not seriously thinking of humanity traveling much faster than 10% c, as even at that velocity (given sufficient energy, and as you've pointed out) it's what you'd be running yourself into that's the real problem.

    Although, as for establishing a photonic waveguide out to or past the nullification point between us and the Sirius star system (requiring 0.7 light year), and then introducing those NEC/Wang quantum string like qbits traveling at 310X c seems like a perfectly good sort of thing to be doing, and a whole lot safer, as well as energy efficient, as far as our otherwise physically attempting even 1% c (3e6 m/s).
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2004
  10. bradguth Banned Banned

    Messages:
    226
    If the analogy of what DwayneD.L.Rabon explained is sufficiently true, that our perception of the speed of light is related to the speed of the spinning atomic field (atomic Oort zone) surrounding the atom, in which hydrogen atoms spin at nearly 3e8 m/s, and since supposedly 90% of what's out there is hydrogen, thereby hydrogen clearly rules the day as far as light speed is concerned (I believe that's also what I've been saying all along).

    It thereby stands to reason as to why our efforts as to communicate at speeds faster than 3e8 m/s isn't going to happen, unless there are a sufficient number of heavier atoms, or perhaps those of artifically enhanced atomic spins aligned.

    My thoughts on photons coexisting everywhere, as nearly resting, or as otherwise communicating or transfering information as great speeds (acting somewhat like a photonic superconductor), and of such photons coexisting in numbers of trillions upon trillion more than of mere atoms, is further suggesting that the photon itself is not necessarily having to "move about the country", but rather having to be told or informed of what to do next, or pass alomg by way of communicating.

    Communications as such isn't necessarly about a photon individually/physically going anywhere.

    Communications can be like what it is, a handshake or that of a wave coexistance agreement as to pass along the message without each photon ever actually having to goto the intended destination. In that way the least amount of energy is expended, the least chance of having to otherwise avoid running into something as massive as an atom, and thereby the best possible coexistance transpires without a hitch.

    If a photon wavelength could exist as a full light year (1 hz) and carry out a message transference along its wave, and if that wave were sufficiently comprised of an alignment of faster spinning atomic fields as those selected/created by the NEC/Wang(310X c), as then it stands to reason that communications could in fact deliver a quantum packet worth of data at speeds faster than the frequency of the carier wave, and without anything physicially going anywhere.

    Of course, this means the photonic carrier wave or waveguide must first exist or otherwise be created, much like a copper wire must first exist before those electrons of energy can be delivered, whereas obviously those electrons are transfering through at speeds much faster than the copper conductor that's essentially at rest, of which said copper conductor isn't going anywhere that Earth isn't already going, offers a similar analogy to that of a photonic waveguide of aligned and spinning atoms performing as individual FIFO photon nodes.

    Obviousy if the carier frequency were of 1 hz, the communications or transfer of such quantum data is in fact happening at much greater speed than of the 1 hz carrier photon itself. So, if those carrier photons were already of several tera hz, and if those available atoms were sufficiently aligned as to comprising the nature of those carrier-wave or waveguide of photons was of something other than hydrogen, then we should be able to communicate as in much faster than 3e8 m/s, perhaps even faster than the NEC/Wang 310X factor..
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2004
  11. bradguth Banned Banned

    Messages:
    226
    I've added my "Supposition-101 (photons do not travel)" into the following link;

    Superconducting Photons via Atomic Oort Zones
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37921

    Though don't bother informing nice folks like Nasor that something travels/communicates at anything faster than light speed, as his borg CPU "blue screen of death" emerges.
     
  12. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Wow - Dwayne and Brad on the same thread. Scary.

    Dwayne sez:

    As my understanding is not orthodox in the common, i suppose that my respone will be controversal with some.

    Your understanding is not orthodox, it is non-existent - therefore your response can be everything but controversial.
     
  13. bradguth Banned Banned

    Messages:
    226
    Supposedly there's 1e6 atoms/m3 outside of our solar system, and not all of them atoms are of hydrogen.

    If we had ourselves a 1000 m3 craft traveling through that soup of supposedly empty space at 1% light speed (3e6 m/s), as such what would be the drag coefficient or "terminal velocity" aspect of said empty space?

    Assuming a nullification zone of nearly zilch worth of gravity influence to deal with;
    Obviously our 1000 m3 craft is having to displace through a volume of 3e9 m3/s, of each of those m3 offering us 1e6 atoms, thus we have to displace 3e15 atoms/s, and hope to God that we don't run ourselves into as much as a dust-bunny while traveling at 1% "c".
     
  14. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    as such what would be the drag coefficient or "terminal velocity" aspect of said empty space?

    That is a contradiction. You can't have drag in empty space.
     
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    there have been cosmic rays that travel at 99.99% LS, Cosmic rays with as much force squeezed into a single atom as that found in a well throw rock!

    So the limit is light speed as it would take infinite energy to get matter to the speed of light. Even then we simple would not have enough energy to get a space ship anywhere near 99% LS

    with nuclear bomb pulse rockets we could get to ~3% LS, acceleration time would be fast.

    with nuclear fusion engines with Isp of 2million we could do about ~15% LS acceleration time would be very slow.

    with antimater we could get up to ~!50% LS, acceleration time would be very slow.

    with laser sails we could get up to ~50% LS, acceleration time would be very slow.

    http://www.islandone.org/APC/index.html
     
  16. bradguth Banned Banned

    Messages:
    226
    Thanks for the "Advanced Propulsion Concepts" http://www.islandone.org/APC/index.html

    OK, that gives me what I already knew, that with essentially unlimited energy, something physical can obtain 0.5"c" (though not likely to survive upon impacting a dust-bunny), with the exception being your anti-matter solution, as in which case an impact with a mere atom becomes insurmountable, as in more than lethal.

    However, in fee space, as in a free falling event or timeline of traveling through whatever of supposedly nothingness, though of at least 1e6 atoms/m3, and of headed supposedly towards some point of gravity influence, while having no other energy applied;

    Such as; if the spacecraft were of a displacement of 1000 m3, and once accelerated to whatever speed as to reaching the nullification point between us and the likes of Sirius (null~0.7 light year), as from that point of no-return, what would become the terminal velocity?

    After all, if there's supposedly such little mass between yourself and of the massive gravity influence of the Sirius star system, what would become your final velocity, as in terminal velocity?

    I believe 72 km/s with reference to our frame of existence is tops. However, that's for traveling through the soup of the day that's within our solar system, that which could be as great as 1e9 atoms/m3, though supposedly 1e8/m3 is somewhat more likely, that is unless the spacecraft we're getting somewhat closer to the sun.

    Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm
     
  17. bradguth Banned Banned

    Messages:
    226
    The terminal velocity of local space is primarily of gravity issues, at least for the speeds that we've achieved thus far. Although, once into and/or especially beyond the nullification point of no-return, and if sort of coasting ever faster, there's going to become a measurable amount of friction. That is unless were're down to an environment of one atom/m3, of which I'm of the impression there's more than likely 1e7/m3, and/or at least 1e6 atoms/m3, and surely not all of them atoms are going to be of hydrogen.

    Since Sirius is most likely where Venus came from, and of perchance that same conjecture might even provide the substance as to where and/or how our moon was derived. As such be the impossible argument that it is, and in spite of that supposed fact, I'm going to ask a simple question, at least it should be simple for most any rocket scientest.

    If we constructed our best ever deep-space capable probe (say 10 m3 worth), and outfitted that probe with the utmost powerful and longest duration capable prosulsion technologies, of just what we actually have at our disposal; how fast could that probe be sent on it's way (meaning as exiting our solar system)?

    Or otherwise, of how much SOA can that sort of probe sustain as it heads itself (via ION or whatever alternative thruster power) for the Sirius nullification zone (roughly 0.7 LY) towards Sirius?

    As if such were to happen, what would become the arriving SOA into that sort of gravity null-point of no-return?
     
  18. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Two things here. First of all, you seem to have simply multiplied that volume of the craft by its velocity in order to find the volume of space that it displaces as it moves. That isn't correct; in order to find the displacement you would need to multiply the velocity of the craft by the surface area that the craft has facing along its direction of motion. If we assumed that your 1000 m^3 craft was a cube that was 10 meters on each side, then at 1% of light speed it would only displace 100 m^2 * 3e6 m/s = 3e8 m^3/s. You can tell that your way of working it out wasn't correct because if you just multiply the volume by the velocity you get units of m^4/s, or 'hypercubic meters,' which don't actually exist in the real world.

    Anyway, in order to calculate the 'terminal velocity' of a craft flying through space that had a density of 10^6 protons/m^3, you would need to know three things:
    -the cross-sectional shape of the craft along the direction of motion
    -the mass of the craft
    -how much force the craft's engines are supplying

    So instead of answering your difficult question, I'll answer a simpler one. What if rather than simply knocking the stray space atoms out of the way, you wanted to actually collect them? Maybe you could use the stray hydrogen as propellant or fuel for your reactor or something. In that case, assuming that your ship was the 10 m/side cubic shape that was mentioned earlier you would need to expend 100 m^2 * 3e6 m/s * 10^6 protons/m^3 * 6.022*10^-26 kg/proton, meaning you would be collecting about 5*10^-13 kg/s. To accelerate a mass of 5*10^-13 kg up to 1% of light speed every second, your space ship would need a power output of about 22.4 kW. Which is a lot, but seems pretty reasonable for an advanced space ship.

    Obviously you could make that much lower by having the craft be long and pointy rather than a big cube.
     
  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    The terminal velocity of local space is primarily of gravity issues, at least for the speeds that we've achieved thus far. Although, once into and/or especially beyond the nullification point of no-return...

    Brad, you made the exact same post here:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=648895#post648895

    If nothing else, you should receive a temporary banning for ignoring the moderators requests to stop spamming the forums, especially the science forums.
     

Share This Page