Thrust
-
Aumaan Anubis
- Posts: 2938
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:01 pm
- Location: Aumaan
- Contact:
|
|
|
I did some calculations...
5 gallons of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine gets me 5,869 meters into the air. Approximately 3.6 miles.
And with another calculation, I'll get that high in about 34 seconds.
And then 34 seconds down
So, even if I can somehow find another fuel that can last 34 seconds(I'm not using unsymm. dimethhydra. It's toxic.), I have to find a way to control the thrust generated, so I don't go flying 3.5 miles into the air in 34 seconds.
And FYI, I did some more calculations, that's like, an average of 360 mph. Think about what the velocity would be at the instant of takeoff.
And again, I'm turning to the idea that I need a replenishable energy source.
Dr. Cox mentioned beta particles. Pretty sure they won't work.
I'll look at them again, look at some alpha particles and whatnot.
5 gallons of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine gets me 5,869 meters into the air. Approximately 3.6 miles.
And with another calculation, I'll get that high in about 34 seconds.
And then 34 seconds down
So, even if I can somehow find another fuel that can last 34 seconds(I'm not using unsymm. dimethhydra. It's toxic.), I have to find a way to control the thrust generated, so I don't go flying 3.5 miles into the air in 34 seconds.
And FYI, I did some more calculations, that's like, an average of 360 mph. Think about what the velocity would be at the instant of takeoff.
And again, I'm turning to the idea that I need a replenishable energy source.
Dr. Cox mentioned beta particles. Pretty sure they won't work.
I'll look at them again, look at some alpha particles and whatnot.
It is expected, and demanded.Tural wrote:MrMurder, we're going to hold you to that promise.
I don't get what you're trying to accomplish...
You've turned around and basically said Space Rockets use so much fuel blah blah blah, is it all necessary, isn't there a more efficient fuel that'll give more duration from less of it?
Of course there isn't. You think NASA and those guys would be using all that fuel that doesn't offer much duration unless they had no other feasible choice?
It's like me coming in here and saying why can't we build a time-machine, all we need is a flux-capacitor
You've turned around and basically said Space Rockets use so much fuel blah blah blah, is it all necessary, isn't there a more efficient fuel that'll give more duration from less of it?
Of course there isn't. You think NASA and those guys would be using all that fuel that doesn't offer much duration unless they had no other feasible choice?
It's like me coming in here and saying why can't we build a time-machine, all we need is a flux-capacitor
For extremely cheap web hosting and domains, PM me. Includes excellent control panel software and instant activation!
-
Aumaan Anubis
- Posts: 2938
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:01 pm
- Location: Aumaan
- Contact:
|
|
|
|
NASA uses fuel with low bond energy because it's easier to control, which I learnt today.
Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Hydrogen, specifically.
NASA pretty much would have a choice, but they're choosing to go with the safer choice, because they don't need as much duration as I'm going for. It only takes them a few minutes.
Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Hydrogen, specifically.
NASA pretty much would have a choice, but they're choosing to go with the safer choice, because they don't need as much duration as I'm going for. It only takes them a few minutes.
It is expected, and demanded.Tural wrote:MrMurder, we're going to hold you to that promise.
-
Aumaan Anubis
- Posts: 2938
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:01 pm
- Location: Aumaan
- Contact:
|
|
|
|
Realistic options, please.
Other than the fact that the price for obtaining even a particle of antimatter is probably incredibly high, I betcha that any sort of engine that could use it is still in design stages.
I'd have to contain it in a magnetic field... and control the huge, enormous annihilation of it and the ordinary matter.
It's not so realistic at the moment.
Other than the fact that the price for obtaining even a particle of antimatter is probably incredibly high, I betcha that any sort of engine that could use it is still in design stages.
I'd have to contain it in a magnetic field... and control the huge, enormous annihilation of it and the ordinary matter.
It's not so realistic at the moment.
It is expected, and demanded.Tural wrote:MrMurder, we're going to hold you to that promise.
