BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Rocket Engines- the way to go for space travel?

 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:20 / 05.05.05
We often talk about finding new fuel for cars, but what about spacecraft? I thought it might be interesting to discuss this.

Firstly, does anyone have anything to say or any knopwledge to share about the current systems?

And does anyone have any ideas about alternative sources?

All idea,links,PDF's welcome.
 
 
lekvar
21:20 / 05.05.05
Feh. Rockets are soooooooo 20th century. Space elevators are the way to go. Yes, there may be a few obstacles to surmount, like how to produce carbon nanotubes 62,000-miles long, but it think this is an exciting area of research.

One reason for distancing ourselves from rockets is the damage they do to the environment. Perchlorate, an ingredient in missile and rocket fuel, has been found in alarming concentrations in US drinking water. The Union of Concerned Scientists feel that rockets may contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer (scroll to bottom of page).
 
 
sleazenation
12:41 / 06.05.05
Sir Arthur C Clarke is certainly behind space elevators, a concept he came up with and believes will have more far reaching effects than his other main idea communication satellites in geostationary orbit… Of course there are problems with the development of space elevator technology, not least of which was outlined above another problem will be the risk of terrorist attack on any such structure…

As for other rockets… well they are alternatives but development costs for space but since we are out of the competitive cold-war era of the space race and since so immense few people are willing to plough the billions needed to develop alternative rocket fuels… the huge costs also play a significant role in the inertia of continuing to develop proven and refined rocket and fuel systems.

It was the massive costs combined with political pressure that eventually lead to the demise of Britain’s own Blue Streak Rocket technology. It’s High-Test Peroxide/Kerosine fuel was incredibly efficient, more so than American or Soviet fuels, but as far as I am aware the costs involved in updating the engines and lack of political will to plough money into the development costs mean that Britain is the only country to develop it’s own successful rocket system and then abandon it in favour of cheaper bought-in technology…
 
 
sleazenation
13:10 / 06.05.05
An overview of Britian's rocket programmme here.
 
 
sleazenation
16:27 / 06.05.05
It should probably also be noted that Space rocket reseach grew out of and will always come in a poor second to military rocket reseach - Space rockets are ICBM's with astronauts instead of warheads...

Like American and Soviet rockets before it - Blue Streak was developed as an ICBM-type weapon system. It failed in this function for a variety of reasons, one of which was because it was supposed to be a counterstrike measure. Since the rocket's fuel could not be stored in the rocket for any length of time, each Blue Streak had to be filled with fuel before it could be deployed and fired. Unfortunately fueling time was likely to be longer than the amount of time likely to be available in the event of a Soviet first strike, rendering it a less than effective deterrent...
 
 
grant
16:55 / 10.05.05
Note: They're already testing scramjets as a replacement for SSTs and Space Shuttles.

Basically, they go fast enough that they use the air for fuel. You need only enough fuel to get you to that speed.

It's sort of an atmospheric equivalent of the Bussard ramjet.
 
 
sleazenation
18:57 / 10.05.05
Wouldn't Scram Jets suffer the same sonic boom problems that dogged Concorde?

On the alternative rockets front ther was also the Orion Project to create a nuclear-pulse rocket...
 
 
grant
20:23 / 10.05.05
I think (*think*) the booms act differently because the air that's getting displaced by the Concorde is getting consumed by the scramjet. I'm not sure of that by any means.
 
 
jeed
09:27 / 11.05.05
I think the problems with using things like rockets for long missions is the weight of fuel you need to carry, which is why i'm kinda liking the idea of solar sails.

bbc link


1) because flying around the galaxy powered by light seems like a really efficient way of going about it.

2) and space pirates would be sooo much cooler if they sailed.
 
 
sleazenation
10:39 / 11.05.05
But you've still got to get off the planet and into space first before solar sails become an option...
 
 
jeed
11:06 / 11.05.05
ah, true, thought we were talking about rockets in space as well as getting them up there. Tsk...my mistake.
 
 
Atyeo
11:11 / 11.05.05
I did a project at uni on the Scramjet and so know a little about it.

You still need to carry fuel on a Scramjet.

Scramjets have no moving parts except the fuel intake unlike jet engines and they compress and heat the air (for ignition) by "ramming" the air in to the intake. This is the same as a ramjet, however scramjets (Supersonic Combustion Ramjets) can ignite the fuel at supersonic speeds.

Once the air has been compressed and heated, the fuel is added and combusts.

Another thing to note is that the scramjets are air breathing and so require oxygen. Therefore they become less useful at great heights and useless in space. They're also useless at slower speeds as the cannot "ram" the air into the intake at high enough speeds.

Over 90% of the cost of space travel is the fuel needed to escape earth's gravity. Therefore, the thinking behind scramjets and the future of space travel is that you bolt a scramjet/rocket hybrid onto the bottom of a plane. Accelerate to 400-500mph, launch the scramjet to speeds close to Mach 20 (this is all mainly theoretical) and high altitudes and then let the rocket do the little extra bit.

They major hurdle in development is that supersonic air is incredible hard to model and practical tests are extremely difficult and expensive.

Sorry for the lecture but it isn't everyday that I find something on Barbelith where I have something useful to say.
 
 
Atyeo
11:20 / 11.05.05
BTW, incase you didn't know, it already exists.

Find photos and vids here:

HyperX Scramjet
 
 
Spaniel
11:52 / 11.05.05
Atyeo, seriously, perhaps you should try and start some threads about things you *do* know about.

Interesting post, mate.
 
 
sleazenation
12:36 / 11.05.05
I agree - interesting post in an interesting thread - not wanting to knock Toast either, just pointing out the limits of technology... on further in-space alternatives to rockets we have ion drives...
 
 
Mirror
23:21 / 18.05.05
Another possibility for replacing rocket engines is the gas core nuclear thruster. The design discussed here is a uranium hexafluoride gas-core fission reactor that uses hydrogen as reaction mass to produce thrust.

This article is also available elsewhere with diagrams, but I'm not certain where I've seen it.
 
 
delta
10:11 / 19.05.05
How about zero point energy?

Hardcore physics action.
 
  
Add Your Reply