$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab', '
')Until I remembered the overhead in energy required to accelerate the (so far) unburned rocket fuel, it appeared to be a near thing as to whether this could or couldn't be done.
PeakOil is You
THE Titan Thread (merged)
Re: Harvesting hydrocarbons from Titan: not feasible.
by Omnitir » Sat 03 Sep 2005, 03:06:13
Why do you insist on assuming anyone would even consider attempting such inter-solar travel with low-tech chemical rockets? They were good for short jumps to the moon, or accelerating small probes into deeper space, but as you’ve pointed out, they are completely unfeasible for transferring large payloads.
There are much better solutions then chemical rockets for space propulsion. The Ion engine just requires a large electrical power supply and a small payload of gas for ionisation. The propulsion system would be much smaller then a chemical rocket system designed for a similar trip, and the velocity an Ion engine is capable is far greater then simple a chemical explosion can provide.
This kind of technology completely invalidates your argument, because there is no rocket fuel to worry about.
There is a range of different electric propulsion technologies, then there is solar-sail technology which does not even require a power source, and nuclear fission technology.
To me your argument is severely flawed. How can you look at one single technology – which happens to be our most primitive form of space propulsion – and conclude that large payload trips are impossible? It’s a bit like someone in the pre jet age saying that aircraft will never travel faster then X speed or higher then Y hight, because props can’t provide enough thrust.
-
Omnitir - Tar Sands
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
Re: Harvesting hydrocarbons from Titan: not feasible.
by Licho » Sat 03 Sep 2005, 05:43:05
Omnitir, what kind of energy resources exists on asteroids? I'm unaware of any...
There can be some trace ammount of hydrocarbons (not worth it), some heavy elements and perhaps in water frozen isotopes of hydrogen usefull for fusion (but useless to gather from space, we have plenty in oceans). So what would you mine, uranium?
Do you think we can really make automated facility that would find it, process it, mine, enrich and fill up ship's reactor in zero gravity and temperatures frequently changing by hundreds of derees?
There can be some trace ammount of hydrocarbons (not worth it), some heavy elements and perhaps in water frozen isotopes of hydrogen usefull for fusion (but useless to gather from space, we have plenty in oceans). So what would you mine, uranium?
Do you think we can really make automated facility that would find it, process it, mine, enrich and fill up ship's reactor in zero gravity and temperatures frequently changing by hundreds of derees?
-
Licho - Tar Sands
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon 31 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Brno, Czech rep., EU
Re: Harvesting hydrocarbons from Titan: not feasible.
by Omnitir » Sat 03 Sep 2005, 07:34:03
Asteroids have many valuable resources including volatiles such as methane, and water and oxygen. Here’s an interesting research paper researching the feasibility of asteroid mining: The Technical and Economic Feasibility of Mining the Near-Earth Asteroids
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The natural resources in space include metallic nickel-iron alloy, silicate minerals, hydrated minerals, bituminous material, and various volatiles, including water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, and others. These have all been identified either in meteorites, or spectroscopically in asteroids and comets.
…
Some Near-Earth Asteroids offer very promising targets as future orebodies for in-space resources, for reasons of accessibility, ease of return, apparent variety of source materials, and probable ease of extraction of both metals and volatiles, both of which are likely to be in heavy demand during the development of large-scale space infrastructure.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The natural resources in space include metallic nickel-iron alloy, silicate minerals, hydrated minerals, bituminous material, and various volatiles, including water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, and others. These have all been identified either in meteorites, or spectroscopically in asteroids and comets.
…
Some Near-Earth Asteroids offer very promising targets as future orebodies for in-space resources, for reasons of accessibility, ease of return, apparent variety of source materials, and probable ease of extraction of both metals and volatiles, both of which are likely to be in heavy demand during the development of large-scale space infrastructure.
Setting up automated robotic systems to mine and process asteroid resources is not a complicated issue, and in many regards it would be much easier to do in space then it is here on Earth – though of course that’s not to say it’s not without it’s challenges. However they are challenges well within our means to overcome.
Space itself is ideal for large-scale electrical generation through space based solar power collectors, since the powerful energy from the sun is unfiltered through Earths atmosphere. I personally believe space based solar power presents the best long-term solution for large-scale sustainable energy supply.
There is virtually an inexhaustible supply of valuable resources orbiting the inner-solar system. This should be strong enough reason for humanity to learn to manoeuvre and capture asteroids, not only because of the immense wealth easily attainable once the technology is developed, but also because there is a great possibility of one of those things destroying all life on Earth, and with a little investment, we could prevent that.
Harvesting resources from space is essential if we are to ever achieve space industrialism, and achieving space industrialism is essential if there is to be long-term survival of the human race. Screw peak oil, and screw the powerdown option. We need to put all we can into developing space while we still can. Unfortunately I fear it may be too late, and humanity is doomed to extinction. That’s the price we may pay for giving up on NASA after Apollo.
-
Omnitir - Tar Sands
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
Re: Harvesting hydrocarbons from Titan: not feasible.
by Jenab » Sat 03 Sep 2005, 13:56:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab', '
')Until I remembered the overhead in energy required to accelerate the (so far) unburned rocket fuel, it appeared to be a near thing as to whether this could or couldn't be done.
')Until I remembered the overhead in energy required to accelerate the (so far) unburned rocket fuel, it appeared to be a near thing as to whether this could or couldn't be done.
Why do you insist on assuming anyone would even consider attempting such inter-solar travel with low-tech chemical rockets? They were good for short jumps to the moon, or accelerating small probes into deeper space, but as you’ve pointed out, they are completely unfeasible for transferring large payloads.
There are much better solutions then chemical rockets for space propulsion. The Ion engine just requires a large electrical power supply and a small payload of gas for ionisation. The propulsion system would be much smaller then a chemical rocket system designed for a similar trip, and the velocity an Ion engine is capable is far greater then simple a chemical explosion can provide.
This kind of technology completely invalidates your argument, because there is no rocket fuel to worry about.
There is a range of different electric propulsion technologies, then there is solar-sail technology which does not even require a power source, and nuclear fission technology.
To me your argument is severely flawed. How can you look at one single technology – which happens to be our most primitive form of space propulsion – and conclude that large payload trips are impossible? It’s a bit like someone in the pre jet age saying that aircraft will never travel faster then X speed or higher then Y hight, because props can’t provide enough thrust.
Ion engines do require reaction mass. But they need less of it (for the same delta-vee) because the exhaust velocity is higher than for chemical rockets. The actual thrust of an ion rocket is very low, however. It's a trade-off between efficiency and thrust time. The celestial mechanics used for ion rockets is different from the impulse-then-coast math that I use for transfer orbits because you have to account for the long duration acceleration maneuvers of the ion engines.
Jerry Abbott
-
Jenab - Lignite
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
