European Space Agency Freighter

[the_dark_light]

An interesting article for the real space geeks here:

Automated Transfer Vehicle - ESA

The unmanned cargo craft more than doubles the cargo capacity of the Russian Progress cargo craft. In fact, it seems to provide the same functionality as the Italian built MultiPurpose Logistics Module (From which the craft is derived) while eliminating the need to use a Shuttle to deliver the payload. (As it provides the ability to correct the ISS orbit it also takes over one of the roles played by the US Space Shuttle. A vital step forwards considering the imminant retirement of the veteran transport system)

Does anyone have any thoughts on this new system?

[firemaster]

This is very poor compared to the ESAs research in the last few years, with a sufficient power source they could leave earth orbit with no rocket fuel required and in no time . lol, and the power source will be built soon, Europe's first Nuclear Fussion Power Planet.

[the_dark_light]

This is very poor compared to the ESAs research in the last few years, with a sufficient power source they could leave earth orbit with no rocket fuel required and in no time . lol, and the power source will be built soon, Europe's first Nuclear Fussion Power Planet.

Well ESA have carried out research in to alternative propulsion technology, in the form of the Ion Drive in one of their Moon probes. Unfortunately this is a very slow form of propulsion but had the advantage of being very lightweight and could be powered by electricity from solar cells and a little propellent (gas).

What you say about fusion is completely impractical, however. While the ITER reactor will provide an important milestone on the road to fusion power the technology is a long way off (We are still learning about high energy plasma physics, although great strides have been made in recent years)

Once the technology can be made to work (by work I mean reach the "break even" point, fusion has already been achieved at JET and other sites although it currently takes more energy to sustain a fusion reaction than can be extracted) it would be many more years before it could be suitably miniturised to the point where it could be installed on a spacecraft.

Nonetheless you make a good point.

Another point, if the ATV negates the need for the MPLM then will it be possible to resume a schedule for the Lobstor module? (I think that's the name. The X-Ray telescope. Something cosmologists were very disappointed about when they found out that the instrument could not be launched (Though it was built))

[firemaster]

I don't think you understand the French are getting the Nuclear Fusion Power Planet (lucky *******s, lol) and this is one that makes profit for the power. So far in the "lab" work it has not used enough hydrogen to create enough power for profit however in a bigger model the power requirements are similar and power is created in a bigger range so they make profit. This is not yet built btw.

Anyway the power planet is not required to break Earths gravity in a space craft without using rocket fuel. A superconductive ring can create a magnetic field, power it up enough to 25 Tesla with Cooper pairs being formed and in the right conditions for the supercondutive ring to be supercondutive, you will break Earths gravity, even orbit. (Do not try this at home! ).

This research was done by the ESA btw, thats what i meant. If you line the hull of a space shuttle with tiny superconductive rings and monitor it using tiny accelerometers then you could control the environment to create a gravitational bubble, again, power this up enough and you drop down into sub-space (don't do this at home, don't do it anywhere near earth you idiot! lol ) once there you can adapt the field as an accelerator and a booster to whatever speed you want e.g (10xc) - Because Sub-space means spacetime is miniaturized, you travel 10 metres and in space that could be 10 miles, also light speed is faster.

And finally, with a gravitational bubble you could also manipulate gravity to travel through spacetime faster than yoru engines take you (dozens of times faster - depending on power and equipment). And even if you go faster than the speed of light in spacetime, you will not break general relativity or affect spacetime. Using a gravitophoton drive you could go close to light speed as well.

[Ancient122]

OK, I rather smart but, WHAT IN THE UNIVERSE DID YOU JUST SAY. Why don't we just stick to the ion engines we have but no one ever believes me about?

[the_dark_light]

OK, I rather smart but, WHAT IN THE UNIVERSE DID YOU JUST SAY. Why don't we just stick to the ion engines we have but no one ever believes me about?

lol, the discussion does seem to be getting rather hairy

And in response to firemasters point, while the facility is in France there are 2 points:

1) It is a research reactor and cannot generate power (Although reading are taken to find out how much power would be generated)
2) ITER is a multi-country venture. All countries involved benifit from the technology.

Personally I don't have a problem with siting the reactor in France one spot is as good as another. Besides, the UK has had its turn already: JET

This research was done by the ESA btw, thats what i meant. If you line the hull of a space shuttle with tiny superconductive rings and monitor it using tiny accelerometers then you could control the environment to create a gravitational bubble, again, power this up enough and you drop down into sub-space (don't do this at home, don't do it anywhere near earth you idiot! lol ) once there you can adapt the field as an accelerator and a booster to whatever speed you want e.g (10xc) - Because Sub-space means spacetime is miniaturized, you travel 10 metres and in space that could be 10 miles, also light speed is faster.

And finally, with a gravitational bubble you could also manipulate gravity to travel through spacetime faster than yoru engines take you (dozens of times faster - depending on power and equipment). And even if you go faster than the speed of light in spacetime, you will not break general relativity or affect spacetime. Using a gravitophoton drive you could go close to light speed as well.

Interesting, can you recommend any further reading on this topic?

[Semmer]

OK, I rather smart but, WHAT IN THE UNIVERSE DID YOU JUST SAY. Why don't we just stick to the ion engines we have but no one ever believes me about?

Relax. I know there are ion engines. I believe it was a probe called DeepSpace1 which had the first ion drive to propel it out of our solar system?

[Specter177]

There are Ion engines, but I don't think any have been used in space.

[the_dark_light]

The technology was only used on the SMART-1 probe. No spacecraft leaving the solar system has ever been powered by such an engine. In fact, (as far as I am aware) the only 3 man made objects to leave the system are Pioneer 10 and the Vorager (1&2) probes.

[Crazy Tom]

Interesting, can you recommend any further reading on this topic?

that's heim theory, nobody really understands his work, he was very reclusive, but the technology seems to have a lot of potential.

[Ancient122]

For once someone believes me... (sigh of relief) I was afraid it would be the "WWII Aircraft Carrier made of Ice Incident" all over again.

I my opinion the new shuttle fleet should be powered by fusion reactors and have ion engines as propulsion. Perhaps the asteroid belt/gas giants should be mined instead of depleting our planet's resources.

[firemaster]

The ION Engine was invented in the 1800s it is "unique" lets say but is crap, it is slow and would need to be 200 times or even more times bigger than the ship (it is a circular object, i am talking about surface area) in order to move it at a speed equal to a positron drive.

A positron Drive is the next step to space travel, it requires hydrogen and positrons (anti-electrons) which are mixed together to ignite the hydrogen. The only problem with it is high-level gamma radiation is given off which damages the ship, crew and drive. So they are trying to find a way to create only low-level gamma radiation without affecting the speed or costs of the ship.

Finally:

OK, I rather smart but, WHAT IN THE UNIVERSE DID YOU JUST SAY. Why don't we just stick to the ion engines we have but no one ever believes me about?

What i said was a simple explanation of how the hyperspace drive works and i also know how to build one .

[Ancient122]

I thought we were trying to stick to the near future, so there for the ion engine IS the next step in space propulsion. The ion engine generates a lot more thrust than our current chemical engines used aboard the current shuttle fleet. While a "positron" drive would be great, one still needs a dedicated power supply. BTW, I believe the opposite of an electron is a proton.

[firemaster]

Ancient122 how old are you? You could not be more wrong, firstly an electron and a proton are opposite in charge but not size or location in side an atom, an electron can be given off from an atom as a form or radiation which is called beta (i think, i get beta and alpha mixed up all the time, lol). - Now a muon i might have reluctantly agreed with you, but an electron, no.

ION ENGINE IS NOT FAST, we are more advanced than the media leads us to believe in fact. The ION ENGINE IS NOT THE FUTURE, again it was invented in the 1800s, now i'm pretty sure we're in the 21st century ryt?

Thanks to Dr. Heims Research Group and their findings using variables provided by the ESA we can not only go faster than the speed of light but we can travel probably even 100 times the speed of light or even more.

I may have talked about the Hyperspace drive as one thing, however like they said in Atlantis there are two types, both use a gravitational bubble to drop into sub-space. Once in sub-space a Interstellar Hyperspace drive would rely on the ships thrusters to travel and nothing more, however an Intergalactic Hyperspace Drive would then use the gravitational bubble to accelerate the ships thruster's to be several ten times faster. In theory i could build you one with the equipment, resources and MONEY! .

This is why the U.S. Military and NASA have held several meetings with Dr. Heim's Research Group however they have not yet stated whether they'll use the research to build a ship, sure hope they do .

And Dr. Heim is dead btw, he continued the work of Einstein as Einstein admittedly said that General Relativity was wrong in some areas and needed fixing so whoever did it would be a genius.
Your probably wondering why the Germans seem to be so smart at everything as well? lol, if you want i can explain?

[Crazy Tom]

For once someone believes me... (sigh of relief) I was afraid it would be the "WWII Aircraft Carrier made of Ice Incident" all over again.

I my opinion the new shuttle fleet should be powered by fusion reactors and have ion engines as propulsion. Perhaps the asteroid belt/gas giants should be mined instead of depleting our planet's resources.

just...no.

1. ion engine you already know why not.

2. fusion reactirs are BIG. it would take a lot of time before they could get hte imput output ration hight enough, sand the reactor small enough, and light enough to go aon the shuttel (itself an antiquated piece of crap).

3. teh future propulsion on earth orbit vechicles(and probably inteplanetary ones) is a plasma thruster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR read it and weep

4. mining asteroids in teh belt is a crapy idea wihtout practical FTL. it would be much easier to nudge asteroids into earth orbit with cntroled nuclear detanations and mine them in orbit than luging all that equipment to the belt and luging the ore back. teh reason people don't ewant to do it is becasue
a) holywood, need i say more?
b) nucler explosives are not alowed in space

edit: welcome to the forum Firemaster