Super light-weight Space-Crafts of the future!!!

[Gardamorg]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

What we need is a better and lighter power supply. The gaseous core nuclear reactor engine has an Isp of over 3000 to about 5000 that is as much as 10 times as good as the Saturn five rocket. This rocket can not only be operated safely but if it massed the same as the Saturn five rocket it could launch 2 million pounds of cargo into Earth orbit in one launch! Not only that it could also fly back down on it's own exhaust and carry cargo back to earth. It would be a true space ship, no multiple throw away stages. Just one space craft capable of doing almost anything we want it to do.

What exactly is ISP, and a gaseous nuclear core reactor engine?

And how will structural strength increase it's speed specifically?

I'm talking about nano structure mastery to the point where something can be light, still strong enough to last for a long time, and doesn't shatter, break or deform as easily as diamond or titanium.

All it needs is a really strong nano-structure, as CraigD pointed out there is a limit, but it's probably a vast one at that.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Gardamorg

Okay I get the point....

What were you proposing exactly?

Lighter fuel as opposed to a lighter craft?

You didn't read the link I provided did you? I am proposing more powerful engines, up to 10 times as powerful as the best chemical rockets. 2,000,000 lbs of payload from surface to orbit in one launch. Reusable launch vehicle, one stage lands on it's own exhaust. No need for a space elevator. Read the link then we'll discuss.

BRUCE BEHRHORST ARTICLE LIST

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

What we need is a better and lighter power supply. The gaseous core nuclear reactor engine has an Isp of over 3000 to about 5000 that is as much as 10 times as good as the Saturn five rocket. This rocket can not only be operated safely but if it massed the same as the Saturn five rocket it could launch 2 million pounds of cargo into Earth orbit in one launch! Not only that it could also fly back down on it's own exhaust and carry cargo back to earth. It would be a true space ship, no multiple throw away stages. Just one space craft capable of doing almost anything we want it to do.

Right on!

We really need to have a serious thread on the “Liberty Ship” in your sig – the nuclearspace.com site, while big on advocacy, enthusiasm, and logos, is weak on technical discussion – that is, actual rocket science. The devil is, of course, in the details.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Since we don't have warp fields to lower the mass or antimatter to fuel the space craft what should we turn to?

Though warp fields do seem pretty unlikely, we do have antimatter – just not much of it. Given special purpose factories and huge power supplies – almost certainly needing to be constructed in space and placed in power-rich orbits, such as near the sun or a gas giant planet – there appears to be no insurmountable barrier to having a lot of it.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

The Saturn Five previously mentioned had engines that ran on liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.

A point of accuracy: the 2nd, 3rd stages of the Saturn V were LOX+LH2 propelled. The first stage, about 80% of the total system by mass, were LOX/Kerosene propelled. One of may good references is this astronautix.com page.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Gardamorg

Nano Assembly would allow the spacecraft to be both strong and light.

With light fuel, and a light haul/craft, the craft will zip through space, as opposed to a craft with light fuel and a heavy craft producing drag.

The following info should be relevant and interesting. It is from Relativistic Rocket

Assuming that the fuel the rocket uses (matter / antimatter) is 100% efficient (The fuel is converted to massless particles and expelled at the speed of light) and also assuming that the craft has constant acceleration, then the equation for fuel to payload ratio is:

where M is the fuel, m is the payload, a is the acceleration (assumed to be 9.8 m/s/s for the table below), T is the proper time as measured on the rocket, and c is the speed of light.

To give an idea of the results, the link above has these two tables, the first is the case of going to the destination and passing it (not slowing down to stop there). The second table, which requires more fuel, is the case of accelerating at 1g for half the trip then accelerating in the opposite direction at 1g for the second half so that it is possible to stop at the destination.

D is distance, M is mass of fuel needed per each kilogram of payload:

d             Not stopping, sailing past:       M       
4.3 ly        Nearest star                      10 kg
27 ly         Vega                              57 kg
30,000 ly     Center of our galaxy              62 tonnes
2,000,000 ly  Andromeda galaxy                  4,100 tonnes

d             Stopping at:               M       
4.3 ly        Nearest star               38 kg
27 ly         Vega                       886 kg
30,000 ly     Center of our galaxy       955,000 tonnes
2,000,000 ly  Andromeda galaxy           4.2 thousand million tonnes

So, if you want to visit the nearest star quickly (1g acceleration) and you have a 100% efficient matter/antimatter drive and craft weighing 1,000 kg, you'll need 10,000 kg of matter/antimatter fuel. Good times.

~modest

[Moontanman]

I've been burning Google up looking for this but no luck so far but I remember reading an article somewhere that claimed the Russians have developed some sort of nuclear/ion/plasma technology that would allow a rather large space craft (human crewed) to accelerate to it's destination anywhere in the solar system at .25G there and back. this would make anywhere in the entire solar system a few weeks at most destination.