The Future of Manned Space Flight

[lenbrazil]

Not wanting to take another thread totally off topic I started this one. The original thread was: apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1136347930&page=2

jayutah said:

BTW How long would it take using current technology to reach Jupiter?

On the order of years, depending on launch date and therefore relative planetary positioning.

I assume they would time the launch of any such missions to reduce travel time. Are we talking 2 -3 years 4-or 5?

Is there any technology under development that might significantly reduce travel time in space?

For manned missions, not really. We are working toward ever-more-powerful propulsion, but at a certain point the human organism's tolerance becomes the limiting factor.

-Is the technology reaching that point?

-What is the strain on the tolerance of the human body in near gravityless space?

-Is there any way reduce this or increase the body's tolerance?

- What speeds are we talking about?

-How much faster could unmanned probes be (than manned ones) with technology currently in sight?

-Other than Mars and the Moon what other destinations are seriously being considered for manned missions?

Given that there doesn't seem to be much promise in higher-energy transfers, the research is being directed toward crew duration and equipment longevity.

This is where the ISS starts pulling its mass. We can test equipment and methods for manned longevity and failure characteristics in a space environment without having to undertake a mission. We often complain about being limited to Earth orbit, but you can simulate years in space on a trans-Jupiter mission that way without actually having to try to go to Jupiter.

What sort of shielding does the ISS have?

What sort of shielding did the Soyuz have?

IIRC the ISS is (and Soyuz was) well below the Van Allen Belts. If so what value is there in simulating intra planetary travel there?

[Bob B.]

I’ll take a crack at some of your questions...

I assume they would time the launch of any such missions to reduce travel time. Are we talking 2 -3 years 4-or 5?

If we use a Hohmann transfer trajectory, then we’re talking about 5.5 years to get to Jupiter. We can get there faster but it will require more energy, which means either a larger rocket or a smaller payload. We'll reach a point though where is just not possible to get there any faster because the velocities required to do so are just not attainable. I currently don't know what the fastest practical travel time to Jupiter is with existing technology.

What speeds are we talking about?

I’m sure I could give you an idea of the velocities involved but I’ll have to do some calculations, which will require more time.

How much faster could unmanned probes be (than manned ones) with technology currently in sight?

Really no faster as long as the same propulsion technology is employed and money is no object. However, since unmanned probes are smaller than manned payloads, they can be launched to the same velocity using cheaper and smaller rockets. Or, for the same cost, they can be propelled to high velocities thus reducing the travel time.

Other than Mars and the Moon what other destinations are seriously being considered for manned missions?

None that I’m aware of.

IIRC the ISS is (and Soyuz was) well below the Van Allen Belts. If so what value is there in simulating intra planetary travel there?

We may not be able to simulate the radiation environment in low earth orbit, but other aspects of long-duration spaceflight can be studied, such as the effects of weightlessness.

[iamspartacus]

I know this is a bit out there and a few of you will start rolling your eyes when I mention anti-gravity. But wait, it might not be as wacky as you think!

This weeks issue of New Scientist has an article on anti-gravity based on some obscure work by a German scientist (aren’t they always) called Burkhard Heim back in the 50s. It’s all to do with magnets (don't groan) so I’ll let you read it:

www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200.html

The article also mentioned the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics which has apparently given a prize for a recent paper on anti-gravity based on Heim's work:

www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/NFFP.pdf

It gets better. The AIAA site also claims that NASA has been looking into anti-gravity for many years under the auspices of the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project:

www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/

It seems we don’t yet have the technology to build the powerful magnets required and Heims theory is largely given credence due to its ability to very accurately predict the masses of fundamental particles. Some pretty august bodies are looking at it so what do you think?

[Al Johnston]

I saw that. It will be fascinating if it pans out, but I know now I haven't a hope of understanding the maths... ;D

[lenbrazil]

He fit the stereotype of the mad scientist to a T.

Who was Burkhard Heim?

Burkhard Heim had a remarkable life. Born in 1925 in Potsdam, Germany, he decided at the age of 6 that he wanted to become a rocket scientist. He disguised his designs in code so that no one could discover his secret. And in the cellar of his parents' house, he experimented with high explosives. But this was to lead to disaster.

Towards the end of the second world war, he worked as an explosives developer, and an accident in 1944 in which a device exploded in his hands left him permanently disabled. He lost both his forearms, along with 90 per cent of his hearing and eyesight.

After the war, he attended university in Göttingen to study physics. The idea of propelling a spacecraft using quantum mechanics rather than rocket fuel led him to study general relativity and quantum mechanics. It took an enormous effort. From 1948, his father and wife replaced his senses, spending hours reading papers and transcribing his calculations onto paper. And he developed a photographic memory

iamspartacus said:

I know this is a bit out there and a few of you will start rolling your eyes when I mention anti-gravity. But wait, it might not be as wacky as you think!

This weeks issue of New Scientist has an article on anti-gravity based on some obscure work by a German scientist (aren’t they always) called Burkhard Heim back in the 50s. It’s all to do with magnets (don't groan) so I’ll let you read it:

www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200.html

The article also mentioned the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics which has apparently given a prize for a recent paper on anti-gravity based on Heim's work:

www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/NFFP.pdf

It gets better. The AIAA site also claims that NASA has been looking into anti-gravity for many years under the auspices of the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project:

www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/

It seems we don’t yet have the technology to build the powerful magnets required and Heims theory is largely given credence due to its ability to very accurately predict the masses of fundamental particles. Some pretty august bodies are looking at it so what do you think?