Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Science and Technology => Topic started by: Nick on February 28, 2004, 12:56:22 PM
-
Hello. I`m designing a space craft for a large animation I`m planning on making. Its a Search And Rescue (SAR) type craft. Just wondering if any of you have any ideas on how I could make it VTOL? I first thought of rocket motors, because they`re starting to "come back into fashion" at the moment. But then I thought, that wouldn`t work because you`d fry anybody you`re rescuing. :-)
Any of you know if Ion drives would work? I know they`re good in space, but what about in an atmosphere? Could they be developed to provide enough thrust? and would it harm anybody under it?
I`m trying to make the animation fairly believable. If Ion drives are good enough in an atmosphere, that would solve my other problem. Getting out of the atmopshere. I don`t want loads of different engines. The craft isn`t supposed to be huge, or travel huge distances anyway (in space terms anyway).
I was thinking of Ion in space, Some sort of efficient jet for cruising and hovering in an atmosphere and an efficient rocket for exiting a planets gravity, but 3 engines!? A tad complex!
Any idea?
Thanks
Nick
-
Nick wrote:
Hello. I`m designing a space craft for a large animation I`m planning on making. Its a Search And Rescue (SAR) type craft. Just wondering if any of you have any ideas on how I could make it VTOL? I first thought of rocket motors, because they`re starting to "come back into fashion" at the moment. But then I thought, that wouldn`t work because you`d fry anybody you`re rescuing. :-)
Any of you know if Ion drives would work? I know they`re good in space, but what about in an atmosphere? Could they be developed to provide enough thrust? and would it harm anybody under it?
I`m trying to make the animation fairly believable. If Ion drives are good enough in an atmosphere, that would solve my other problem. Getting out of the atmopshere. I don`t want loads of different engines. The craft isn`t supposed to be huge, or travel huge distances anyway (in space terms anyway).
I was thinking of Ion in space, Some sort of efficient jet for cruising and hovering in an atmosphere and an efficient rocket for exiting a planets gravity, but 3 engines!? A tad complex!
Any idea?
Thanks
Nick
Ion drives suck, both in space and in atmosphears. The most eficient method for VTOL is to put a big fan on top and call it a helicopter.
-
Hehe I did think of that. this thing is sort of supposed to be helicopter like.
Sod it I`ll invent technology. :-D Some sort of Ion type drive, which works in all situations, end some sort of cold jet engine. Perfect! :-)
-
Heck, just stick a nice shiny light on there. No-one asked any questions when Gene Roddenberry did that.
Incidentally, no-one ever asked why the Warp Nacelle Pylons were so flimsy-looking:
(http://www.actwin.com/toaph/life/trek/enterprise.gif)
Surely the stress of warp-speed propulsion would break these babies off? Was this ever accounted for? (Not much of a Trekkie, really.)
-
The problem with any system producing 'thrust' is that in order to hover over your rescuees, they will be subjected to a downward force equal to the weight of the craft. Not good. You could have sideways extending arms which hold the thrusters I suppose.
The helicopter works in this situation because its downward thrust is spread over a wide area and the resuees under the body are largely shielded from the downdraft.
What your spacecraft needs is an antigravity drive. That way, you would have no downward thrust at all. Since you plan on designing new technology for your craft, an antigravity drive should be pretty simple I would have thought. ;)
Cheers,
JaX
-
If you want to be all sci-fi, do the "unknown means of propulsion" thing with glowing and humming.
If you want to stay closer to current times, I'd go with a set of ducted fans.
-
In the future propulsion will be intertialess anyway and so won't need vents or exhaust ports. :-P
-
KennyR wrote:
In the future propulsion will be intertialess anyway and so won't need vents or exhaust ports. :-P
Technically, it wouldn't then be propulsion, would it? :-P
-
@that_punk_guy
Presumably he's talking about molecular disintegration/reintegration similar to the Brundle concept.
Sounds good, but don't let any flies in!
JaX
-
No, I mean movement by using a phased and vectored, artificially generated gravitational field. You just fall in whatever direction you like, using the closest large mass to apply your force against. So technically it would be propulsion - but it wouldn't involve inertia, ie. throwing something backwards to go forwards.
-
KennyR wrote:
No, I mean movement by using a phased and vectored, artificially generated gravitational field. You just fall in whatever direction you like, using the closest large mass to apply your force against. So technically it would be propulsion - but it wouldn't involve inertia, ie. throwing something backwards to go forwards.
That way aren't you just overcoming inertia much more efficiently? It's something I haven't thought about before, but doesn't even gravity have to overcome the inertia of a falling object to some extent - even though it's small enough that you could say it was free of inertia?
(I'm attempting to spark interesting conversation, because there's not enough of it at the moment... and probably failing miserably... ;-))
-
tpg wrote:
That way aren't you just overcoming inertia much more efficiently?
Well technically yes, but you're pushing against the more massive body using the curvature of space itself, so the inertia of your own craft is cancelled out (which is what you want). Basically, you're creating space between where you were and where you want to be. This means you don't have to expend most of the mass of the craft in fuel just flinging it out the back.
Of course it still involves inertia though - ye canna break the laws o' physics, capn.
-
@KennyR
Ultimately, in the far and distant future, the problem of travel will be resolved by quantum physics. You need to get from A to B. As things stand, you must pass across the intervening space, enjoying the countryside if you will. We 'have a nice journey' - or not, as the case may be. However, using Brundle's principle (yea I know it was only a movie, but humour me) the ultimate traveller never does that. He is either at A or at B and nowhere else.
This happens with sub-atomic particles (electrons, etc) right now. Electrons easily move from inner to outer 'orbits' around the atomic nucleus, but they do not 'move' between these orbits. They are either at A or B but never between. They are powered by quantum energy, energy packets of specific size, no more no less. This is gained or lost by the electrons through thermodynamic changes within their parent system.
In that far, far distant future, I see no reason why the particles which make up our atoms cannot be 'moved' from A to B by applying Terajoules of quantum energy in some form of 'Brundle cage'.
Cheers,
JaX
-
@nick
Hows the spacecraft coming along?
JaX
-
As long as we don't turn people into baboon stew in the process, I'm happy. :-)
-
@that_punk_guy
That only happens in movies! ;)
JaX
-
All interesting thoughts. I`m not trying to go for the ultimate spacecraft really. I want it to be almost basic, but futuristic at the same time. Functional yet cool too. I`ve made the basic fuselage. Sort of helicopter like, as its an SAR craft. Got most of the design ready to be modelled. I want to get this craft right. Even designed its interior, well roughly.
This animation is going to need many many more craft and other models made. Can`t wait! :-)
Thanks for the ideas.
-
JaXanim wrote:
This happens with sub-atomic particles (electrons, etc) right now. Electrons easily move from inner to outer 'orbits' around the atomic nucleus, but they do not 'move' between these orbits. They are either at A or B but never between. They are powered by quantum energy, energy packets of specific size, no more no less. This is gained or lost by the electrons through thermodynamic changes within their parent system.
The way I remember my QM lessons was that they have a certain probability to be anywhere they want, with the biggest values centered on A and B. It isn't that they are 'never in between'---the likelihood of seeing an electron 'in between' is just very, very small.
In that far, far distant future, I see no reason why the particles which make up our atoms cannot be 'moved' from A to B by applying Terajoules of quantum energy in some form of 'Brundle cage'.
Quantum decoherence of macroscopic systems is most likely going to prevent that. And I don't think a terajoule would be suffiencent :-). In any case, if you want a nice story where the above principle is applied---although the quality of the tale drops off in the final part---read Dan Symmons' 'Hyperion' saga.
-
Hi
What about blimp/dirigible/"lighter than air" aircraft?
There is a research about laser driven engine, but you should put a giant laser generator on the ground.
-
Cymric wrote:
The way I remember my QM lessons was that they have a certain probability to be anywhere they want, with the biggest values centered on A and B. It isn't that they are 'never in between'---the likelihood of seeing an electron 'in between' is just very, very small.
That's how electron clouds work, but that doesn't define the orbitals. The actual orbitals have discrete energy levels where an electron just seems to pop out of existence and back in again at a different level. They don't exist inbetween for real, not even quadrillionths of a quadrillionth of an instant. This is what being a quanta is all about.
Quantum decoherence of macroscopic systems is most likely going to prevent that.
Yep, decoherence kills all quantum effects stone dead. The only way to get most quantum effects working is at several thousands of a degree near absolute zero on the picometer scale. Not useful for a spacecraft.
-
I had a feeling Brundle was flawed. Think I'll just shelve the whole thing.{-(
Cheers,
JaX
-
@asian1
Lighter than air wouldn`t look so cool, unless is was cunningly shaped out of polystyrene and had a hollow core filled with Helium :-D
I forgot about those laser engines. I saw a program about those a while ago. Quite restricting really. And they don`t produce cool looking flames. I`m not going for the Startrek look. Thrusters all over the place.
I`ve just about created the basic, functioning exterior. Can`t wait to complete this animation, so i can show it off :-)
-
Just be sure to use an Amiga for its onboard computer system :-P
-
@mikeymike
Yes indeed!
And in case anyone here hasn't seen why (well there MUST be someone who hasn't seen it!) I suggest you pop over to THIS SITE (http://www.amigaatlanta.org/AEcastro.html) for some serious educational stuff!
Cheers,
JaX
-
@ KennyR
Qoute
no, I mean movement by using a phased and vectored, artificially generated gravitational field. You just fall in whatever direction you like,
You just described warp drive EXACTLY.
Chris