posted from my book's interior, i worked this one out today...it may be of some use to NASA, at some point--
Drag
in-space--
Yes, i suggest there is a slight drag in space, due to the “space-dust”,
and other “small particles” found within the heavens, that a space-craft must push through to travel, being there, in the way…I feel the
drag is precisely relative to the mass( weight), of the average particle, the
amount of particles found per-sq-inch of space being traversed, and the
sq-inches of possible contact, against the leading
edges of the craft…I also suggest, this small
“drag value”( in foot-pounds), may then be gained via utilizing the same math within the calc above… with
“weight - square-inches” included in the calc’s variables, allowing us to know the “foot-pounds of force” , against
any surface area on the craft, in
relation to the angle it faces during forward travel…and of course, we may then gain the expected force of a particle striking the forward areas of contact, on the craft...with this method, we may even know the force-of-impact if said particle weighs several tons…but why?? Perhaps we can simply note the time we lost
coms…??
Example--
Step-1
) Weight of 1 particle x modifier( expected particles per-sq inch), = “sq-weight”
Step-2) "sq-weight" x ( 1.46 x mph ) - angle of contact + ( resting-weight - 1 ) = inch-pounds of force--
--(
the long-hand )--
( inertia ) ( resting weight - 1)
( inch-lbs ) ( ft per-sec ) ( angle of ) ( 2000 -1 ) ( force )
( "sq-weight" ) x ( 1.46 x 1 mph ) - ( contact ) + ( 2000 - 1) = (inch-pounds)
2000 1.46 36 1900 4784
The
above math is in relation to the average particles per-sq inch expected in space, that the hull might incur...this means, we must utilize "inch-pounds" in the final exponent of the problem. due to the problem starting with a parameter of particles per-inch...we can, at the end of the calc, then convert to ft-pounds, via multiplying 4784 x 12, to get 398.666667 foot-pounds per sq-inch bearing against the forward areas of contact on the craft--
note--
for future work on this problem tomorrow...could utilizing the angle as a percent be more accurate for the answer of the calc??...meaning, ( 36 x 100 )...making the calc
" 2000 x 1.46 - 3600 + 1900 = 1220...??
note--
for future work on this problem tomorrow...could utilizing the angle as a percent be more accurate for the answer of the calc??...meaning, ( 36 x 100 )...making the calc
" 2000 x 1.46 - 3600 + 1900 = 1220...??
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space
flight/max-speed correlations--
I suggest, that space-flight has similar
dynamics that limit the “top-speed” we may travel, much like those found in
aircraft within the earth’s atmosphere, except, in space, we may have a smaller limitation for this maximum
speed, due to the weight of the average particle “in-atmo” being heavier than the weight of the
average particle found in space( 0.1 hydrogen molecule per-cubic cm x 16.3871 = 1.63871 hydrogen molecules per
cubic-inch ), meaning, although all particles within space are weightless, once
they contact a moving object, we see an “inverse”, yet “congruent” model, of our
“object hitting a stationary object” problem, found in the calc above, and also
our earlier "centrifugal force" calc…so, the force of the object “in-motion”
striking the particle, that has mass…generates the foot-pounds of pressure
against the leading edges of the craft…the faster the craft is traveling
through space when it encounters an object( a particle), the more foot-pounds
of force per-sq inch, it has…indicating to me, that there is definitely a maximum
load, from encountering "space-dust", that the craft may bear…and also a maximum
amount of friction, from incurring an average,
expected size, of particle…before structural failure occurs( from
heat/pressure)…well above the speed of sound--
--(the long-hand)--
Step-1)
1 gram of hydrogen has
600000000000000000000000 atoms in it…divide 1 gram by 600000000000000000000000
= 0.000000000000000000000001667 grams per hydrogen molecule
Step-2)
The average
cubic cm of space has 0.1 hydrogen molecule in it
Step-3)
0.1 hydrogen molecules per-Cubic cm x 1.6387064 = 1.6387064 hydrogen atoms per-cubic inch
Step-4)
1 hydrogen molecule = 0.000000000000000000000001667
grams x 1.6387064 hydrogen molecules per cubic-inch = 0.0000000000000000000000027317235688
grams per cubic-inch of space
Summary--
Grams per cubic-inch of contact is above…sadly, this is a “rough number”, we must still account
for the angle of the surface area, in relation to the direction of the “point-of-contact”…and
the fun continues, ad nauseum--
The point--
With this in mind, without crunching numbers
"long-hand", we can predict that the total “space-travel velocity value” will definitely
be a number well above those seen on
earth,”in-atmo”…at present, the number is limited by the weight of the average
particle encountered…unless a way to eliminate contact from large space debris is
found( we may travel faster in space than on earth, but the possibility of a collision from particles the size of a walnut, or greater, exists...even though the average particle in space is smaller than those found within earth's atmosphere, i feel speeds must be limited to eliminate dangers from these less common particles, the size of a walnut, or greater)--
--The long-hand--
Weight
x ( 1.46 x 10) – angle + resting weight = force
per sq-inch of contact??
the calc( without the angle of contact)--
the calc( without the angle of contact)--
( grams) ( grams)
( weight) ( 1.46 x mph) ( resting-weight) ( inch-pounds)
( 1 cubic inch of space) x ( feet per-sec ) + ( 1 cubic inch of space) = ( force per sq-inch of contact)
0.0000000000000000000000027317235688 x ( 1.46 x 10mph ) + 0.0000000000000000000000027317235688 =
( weight) ( 1.46 x mph) ( resting-weight) ( inch-pounds)
( 1 cubic inch of space) x ( feet per-sec ) + ( 1 cubic inch of space) = ( force per sq-inch of contact)
0.0000000000000000000000027317235688 x ( 1.46 x 10mph ) + 0.0000000000000000000000027317235688 =
0.00000000000000000000004261488767328
inch-pounds of force, per sq-inch of contact, at a 90 degree angle--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
skinny--
0.00000000000000000000004261488767328
x 0.083333333 = 0.00000000000000000000000355124062523503744224 foot-pounds of
force, per sq-inch of contact, on the leading edges of the craft = “total load”
against the leading surfaces of the craft( drag inverted), without accounting for "angle of contact" of particles against the
craft…at ten mph…(if the craft was a cube)--
Accounting
for angle of contact--
More later…
conclusion--
the future of space travel is likely a means of creating a "thruster", similar in design to a comets tail...i spoke to a young lady about this once, and she made good use of it( i'm excited about her progress)...i suggest a comet moves not only due to gravity, it also moves as a result of the "temperature differential", "in-play" on the comet...meaning, the side with huge friction from encountering the many particles of space is being cooled, from the surface area on the back-side of the comet not being hot, from the friction of particles encountered, and this "cold-side", is resisting the action of the forward side's heat from friction, melting the entire comet...and, in this way, i believe a type of "jet-propulsion" is generated...where the heat spills around the sides of the "leading edge" of the comet, acting like thrusters, at the outer edges...also, heat is traveling through the comet, towards the "face" of the comet, from the cooler "tail", acting like a cold soda on a hot summer day( where the evaporation of water vapour, on the outside of the can, cools the can's surfaces, and it frosts over)...
the ice tail--
i feel that the key to the movement is a "convection" of heat-transfer, causing molecules within the area of space directly behind the comet, to slow down, due to heat within this area being in a "cone", or "ring-of-fire", resulting from the heat produced from the leading edge of the comet, contacting "space-dust" while in motion( friction)...so, i suggest this "cone of fire" is being cooled by the action of the slower molecules found in the space directly behind the comet( low collisions per-sec), being slowed even farther, from heat-loss( less collisions per-sec"), of the space, moving from the area directly behind the comet, through the comet, to the forward face, and also, i feel heat transfers from the cooler space within the area directly behind the comet, to join with the heated space within the "outer heat cone" , that exists due to the heat generated via friction, on the forward side of the comet...acting as a "flow", or stream, with cooler space mixing with warmer space, in an "attempted equalization", of the two temperatures, within the flow of heat spilling around the forward surface of the comet...via natural processes, resulting in a pocket of "super-cold space", directly behind the comet...and an "ice tail" to boot( for more about "thermo-dynamics/cooling effects", see my earlier "thermo-dynamics" post)...lastly, the 0.1 hydrogen molecules found within the dust of space, are likely being burned within the "outer halo" of the comet's "ice tail", from contacting the heat spilling off the edges of the comet's leading surfaces, and being ignited( working in the same manner as a modern jet's "afterburner")...adding to the fire trailing off the front "face" of the comet...in short, i believe the comet is an ideal natural model, for future propulsion in space, one that is endless, and requires no re-fueling...instead, collection of hydrogen molecules found within space, that are in endless supply, is the most realistic answer, to "long term" space-flight--
concept re-purposed( for propulsion)--
so, propulsion may also be possible in this way, in space, for emergencies??...perhaps more...via heating one side of the particles entering a tubular chamber, to create "mini-comets", inside the tube, acting as a type of "rail-gun", looking somewhat like the "starship enterprize's" engines( if the ship moves, and the particles remain where they were originally, it's the same result as the particles being accelerated, and flying out the tube, to push the craft forward)...
or, more likely, we could learn to collect the 0.1 hydrogen molecules found within every cubic inch of space in the heavens...and burn that for fuel, instead of the solid rocket fuel we utilize now, likely possible with a small on-board refinery, that collects the hydrogen, and burns it, rapidly enough, that a huge tank is not needed, instead, a small chamber is utilized for holding hydrogen, and at the same time, the engine burns it, yet the amount being burned is always less than the amount being collected, so the engine does not run-out of fuel, while less danger of explosion exists...basically, a small collection chamber that is filled very rapidly, constantly, may be better than a huge collection tank, that is rarely filled, but can easily explode...
water in space--
well, if my concept above is correct, and we may harvest the 0.1 molecules of hydrogen found within every cubic cm of space, this would indicate to me, that manufacturing water is also a viable option while in space...due to water being the natural "by-product" of mixing hydrogen and oxygen, to produce water( completely pure), the oxygen to produce this water would likely be best harvested from a huge volume of plants, located somewhere on the spacecraft, a simple means of producing oxygen, while scrubbing carbon dioxide, in a "symbiotic relationship", where one living thing thrives from the presence of the other, and neither may exist alone, in the environment of space...water for the plants from hydrogen, power for lights to make them grow from burning hydrogen, and co2 from the astronauts on board...it works...the only trouble might be that if the crew encountered aliens, they might conclude that the plants were controlling the ship...since aliens probably analyze everything, and assume very little, until they do some study( humor, be it dry)-- lol...
note--
a word of caution...i believe long term space-flight is possible with the above notion, but, the cost of soil depletion, of vitamins/minerals, would be high( suffocation), due to the odds of finding good, replacement soil, within the confines of space, being poor...forcing the crew to attempt the collection of asteroids, or other earth-like material, to survive?? ..."no bucks, no buck-rogers...no soil, no anybody else"--
the "upper-range" of travel--
due to my inspection of our natural propulsion model( the comet), i feel that we may deduce that the "upper-range" of high speed travel, within space, is slower than the speed of a comet...due to the fact that while traveling at the speed of a comet, with any serious mass/sq-inches, facing in the forward direction of travel, half of the space-craft must be on fire...indicating to me that the "max-speed" of a space-craft, is well below this "comet-thresh-hold", where heat incurred is too great for the hull to bear, from friction of contacting even the smallest particles, while at that speed--
note--
NASA may have already determined what i am about to say, after reading my paragraph above, or, maybe not...anyway, here goes...i noticed online that there was a collision between the forward pilots window on the space shuttle, and a "micro-meteorite", one that very nearly breached the portal( to my untrained eyes anyway, it looked close to penetrating), i suggest, this encounter gives the ultimate answer, in regards to the space shuttles "max-speed", at it's current level of engineering( if the variables of size, weight, and speed of the "micro-meteor" that struck the shuttle are known, before impact)...essentially, i believe that the out-come is the same if the "micro-meteor" was sitting still, in space, before the moving space shuttle collided with it, and so we have the answer, of the maximum safe speed that the shuttle may "cavort", around the solar system...taa-daa...
the point--
for future space travel at higher speeds than this to be possible, i feel that "metal shielding plates/blast-shields" would need to be present on the craft somehow, to increase the strength of any "portals" of the craft...as well as a collision proximity alert, for objects of a size deemed dangerous, for the shuttle to contact, at max-speed...so the shuttle may simply move to avoid contact, while in-flight, to allow high-speed space travel to be possible--
proper flight path--
in light of the above math...plotting a course that avoids particles larger than a potato, is definitely the key to space travel at high speeds, due to the joy of sitting still in your little card-board "space-coffin", while someone basically fires a "potato-gun" with the power of a bazooka, through your life-sustaining capsule( that must remain "air-tight", at all times), could be a "less-than optimal" situation, to endure...in all cases...not cool--
best wishes, john kruschke--
conclusion--
the future of space travel is likely a means of creating a "thruster", similar in design to a comets tail...i spoke to a young lady about this once, and she made good use of it( i'm excited about her progress)...i suggest a comet moves not only due to gravity, it also moves as a result of the "temperature differential", "in-play" on the comet...meaning, the side with huge friction from encountering the many particles of space is being cooled, from the surface area on the back-side of the comet not being hot, from the friction of particles encountered, and this "cold-side", is resisting the action of the forward side's heat from friction, melting the entire comet...and, in this way, i believe a type of "jet-propulsion" is generated...where the heat spills around the sides of the "leading edge" of the comet, acting like thrusters, at the outer edges...also, heat is traveling through the comet, towards the "face" of the comet, from the cooler "tail", acting like a cold soda on a hot summer day( where the evaporation of water vapour, on the outside of the can, cools the can's surfaces, and it frosts over)...
the ice tail--
i feel that the key to the movement is a "convection" of heat-transfer, causing molecules within the area of space directly behind the comet, to slow down, due to heat within this area being in a "cone", or "ring-of-fire", resulting from the heat produced from the leading edge of the comet, contacting "space-dust" while in motion( friction)...so, i suggest this "cone of fire" is being cooled by the action of the slower molecules found in the space directly behind the comet( low collisions per-sec), being slowed even farther, from heat-loss( less collisions per-sec"), of the space, moving from the area directly behind the comet, through the comet, to the forward face, and also, i feel heat transfers from the cooler space within the area directly behind the comet, to join with the heated space within the "outer heat cone" , that exists due to the heat generated via friction, on the forward side of the comet...acting as a "flow", or stream, with cooler space mixing with warmer space, in an "attempted equalization", of the two temperatures, within the flow of heat spilling around the forward surface of the comet...via natural processes, resulting in a pocket of "super-cold space", directly behind the comet...and an "ice tail" to boot( for more about "thermo-dynamics/cooling effects", see my earlier "thermo-dynamics" post)...lastly, the 0.1 hydrogen molecules found within the dust of space, are likely being burned within the "outer halo" of the comet's "ice tail", from contacting the heat spilling off the edges of the comet's leading surfaces, and being ignited( working in the same manner as a modern jet's "afterburner")...adding to the fire trailing off the front "face" of the comet...in short, i believe the comet is an ideal natural model, for future propulsion in space, one that is endless, and requires no re-fueling...instead, collection of hydrogen molecules found within space, that are in endless supply, is the most realistic answer, to "long term" space-flight--
concept re-purposed( for propulsion)--
so, propulsion may also be possible in this way, in space, for emergencies??...perhaps more...via heating one side of the particles entering a tubular chamber, to create "mini-comets", inside the tube, acting as a type of "rail-gun", looking somewhat like the "starship enterprize's" engines( if the ship moves, and the particles remain where they were originally, it's the same result as the particles being accelerated, and flying out the tube, to push the craft forward)...
or, more likely, we could learn to collect the 0.1 hydrogen molecules found within every cubic inch of space in the heavens...and burn that for fuel, instead of the solid rocket fuel we utilize now, likely possible with a small on-board refinery, that collects the hydrogen, and burns it, rapidly enough, that a huge tank is not needed, instead, a small chamber is utilized for holding hydrogen, and at the same time, the engine burns it, yet the amount being burned is always less than the amount being collected, so the engine does not run-out of fuel, while less danger of explosion exists...basically, a small collection chamber that is filled very rapidly, constantly, may be better than a huge collection tank, that is rarely filled, but can easily explode...
water in space--
well, if my concept above is correct, and we may harvest the 0.1 molecules of hydrogen found within every cubic cm of space, this would indicate to me, that manufacturing water is also a viable option while in space...due to water being the natural "by-product" of mixing hydrogen and oxygen, to produce water( completely pure), the oxygen to produce this water would likely be best harvested from a huge volume of plants, located somewhere on the spacecraft, a simple means of producing oxygen, while scrubbing carbon dioxide, in a "symbiotic relationship", where one living thing thrives from the presence of the other, and neither may exist alone, in the environment of space...water for the plants from hydrogen, power for lights to make them grow from burning hydrogen, and co2 from the astronauts on board...it works...the only trouble might be that if the crew encountered aliens, they might conclude that the plants were controlling the ship...since aliens probably analyze everything, and assume very little, until they do some study( humor, be it dry)-- lol...
note--
a word of caution...i believe long term space-flight is possible with the above notion, but, the cost of soil depletion, of vitamins/minerals, would be high( suffocation), due to the odds of finding good, replacement soil, within the confines of space, being poor...forcing the crew to attempt the collection of asteroids, or other earth-like material, to survive?? ..."no bucks, no buck-rogers...no soil, no anybody else"--
the "upper-range" of travel--
due to my inspection of our natural propulsion model( the comet), i feel that we may deduce that the "upper-range" of high speed travel, within space, is slower than the speed of a comet...due to the fact that while traveling at the speed of a comet, with any serious mass/sq-inches, facing in the forward direction of travel, half of the space-craft must be on fire...indicating to me that the "max-speed" of a space-craft, is well below this "comet-thresh-hold", where heat incurred is too great for the hull to bear, from friction of contacting even the smallest particles, while at that speed--
note--
NASA may have already determined what i am about to say, after reading my paragraph above, or, maybe not...anyway, here goes...i noticed online that there was a collision between the forward pilots window on the space shuttle, and a "micro-meteorite", one that very nearly breached the portal( to my untrained eyes anyway, it looked close to penetrating), i suggest, this encounter gives the ultimate answer, in regards to the space shuttles "max-speed", at it's current level of engineering( if the variables of size, weight, and speed of the "micro-meteor" that struck the shuttle are known, before impact)...essentially, i believe that the out-come is the same if the "micro-meteor" was sitting still, in space, before the moving space shuttle collided with it, and so we have the answer, of the maximum safe speed that the shuttle may "cavort", around the solar system...taa-daa...
the point--
for future space travel at higher speeds than this to be possible, i feel that "metal shielding plates/blast-shields" would need to be present on the craft somehow, to increase the strength of any "portals" of the craft...as well as a collision proximity alert, for objects of a size deemed dangerous, for the shuttle to contact, at max-speed...so the shuttle may simply move to avoid contact, while in-flight, to allow high-speed space travel to be possible--
proper flight path--
in light of the above math...plotting a course that avoids particles larger than a potato, is definitely the key to space travel at high speeds, due to the joy of sitting still in your little card-board "space-coffin", while someone basically fires a "potato-gun" with the power of a bazooka, through your life-sustaining capsule( that must remain "air-tight", at all times), could be a "less-than optimal" situation, to endure...in all cases...not cool--
best wishes, john kruschke--
