PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2017-02-28, 03:39:05
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: The Moon Landings  (Read 11898 times)
Group: Guest
This may provide an idea of what NASA thinks is possible...

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050170447_2005172301.pdf

Section 5.5, I believe, is referring to the technology discussed in the video links in my previous post

Interesting to see some of the names of the researchers whose work we're studying in that NASA document... EV Gray, Lindemann, Steinmentz, Konstantin Meyl, Tesla of course... Interesting to see them talk about ZPE
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 2794
It's turtles all the way down
Regarding the MOL program for those who think it is not possible to compartmentalize to the point where only a few have the "big picture" chew on this quote:

"It was almost impossible to find out what another office was doing. No one ever seemed to know the 'big picture" of what was going on. A lot of people knew a great deal about what was happening in their particular offices, but the only person who ever understood everything that was going on in the entire MOL program, in my opinion, was Sam Tennant." ...Joe Wambolt

The MOL was supposed to fly in NEO.... near earth orbit. I cannot find a satisfactory definition for NEO but it is probably well above LEO. "The laboratory would be attached to a modified Gemini capsule and boosted into near-Earth orbit by an upgraded Titan III."

Perhaps the MOL program was cancelled because of a nagging problem: Van Allen radiation belts.

Bear in mind that all shuttle launches and space stations are at the very bottom of low earth orbit (LEO)

None have even come close to the upper end of LEO, let alone made it to medium earth orbit (MEO)

Various earth orbits to scale; Cyan represents low earth orbit.
« Last Edit: 2010-08-18, 14:43:27 by ION »


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1852
Even Van Allen said the radiation hazards during a month stay was less than most get with medical Xrays in a year's time. NEO was an area between LEO and geosyncronous. 


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
Hmmm...and they are talking about going to Mars now...

Have we ever put anything into an orbit around the sun rather than the earth?
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 2794
It's turtles all the way down
Quote
Even Van Allen said the radiation hazards during a month stay was less than most get with medical Xrays in a year's time.

This has to be qualified as to which layer of the belts he was referring to. Their are several belts with different energies and differing particles e.g.

"The inner Van Allen Belt extends from an altitude of 100–10,000 km [6] (0.01 to 1.5 Earth radii) above the Earth's surface, and contains high concentrations of energetic protons with energies exceeding 100 MeV and electrons in the range of hundreds of keV, trapped by the strong (relative to the outer belts) magnetic fields in the region".

"The proton belts contain protons with kinetic energies ranging from about 100 keV (which can penetrate 0.6 mm of lead) to over 400 MeV (which can penetrate 143 mm of lead)."

"The region between two to three earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone"

Safe Zone Orbits: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003000/a003052/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

143mm of lead is quite thick.

Passing through the belts is quite different than spending a lot of time (months) in a really "hot" region.

I would like to see the context in which Van Allens statement was made as it is too general.

Naturally this can all be argued ad infinitum.  don't want to do that.


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

Quote
Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to three earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".

"divert all power to shields"

We probably have shield technology, but we aren'y about to admit it.
   
Group: Guest
Grumpy:

Wasn't it you that linked to some pdfs about developing shielding technology for any potential moon-base?  It was stuff based on high-voltage Van der Graaf spheres or wire grids carrying current and stuff like that.  It was kind of like mimicking what the earth does.  So you could do that for a space station in the radiation belts.  It's all boring stuff again, just the application of conventional electromagnetics.

For the International Space Station, the orbit is low for several reasons.  The main reason is that a lower orbit allows rockets going to the station to have higher payloads.  As long as you have your near-zero-g environment, you are happy and can grow crystals and all that stuff.

Perhaps the first paying industrial proposition for space manufacture will be for computer processing chips.  A "wafer fab" in space might allow for the cost-effective production of a 32-core microprocessor with unbelievably small semiconductor geometries.  It would cost a zillion dollars to build.  It would be kind of cool to know the chip in your home PC was manufactured in space.  I suppose we will figure out what to do with all of that computing power.  The next generation of HDTV might need it, or your kitchen recipe card index!  lol

MileHigh
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
Yep.  That was my link.

What about non-conventional means?  Any thoughts?
   
Group: Guest
Sorry, no real thoughts right now Grumpy.  I am not good nor do I like too much to stick my neck out for stuff like that so I stay quiet.  I have sat in classes where the derivation of both forms of Maxwell's equations are done step by step and all that.  And I went over all of the fundamentals.  It was such a long time ago that I would have to relearn it to be able to say something with confidence.

MileHigh
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
Well, it seems obvious that we don't have the necessary technology in the public sector to explore space, physically, beyond LEO.

Our means of propulsion are meager at best.  http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1998/tm-1998-208400.pdf

Radiation shielding is inadequate. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/publication/140.pdf

The only adequate power sources are nuclear.  http://www.ne.doe.gov/space/neSpace2a.html

Looking at the shielding issue:  What sort of force field, hypothetically speaking, is required to shield radiation?

EDIT:
Can we somehow direct the high enrgy particles around the space craft?

Can we somehow reduce the energy of the particles before the reach the space craft?


velocity in empty space is related to permittivity & permeability:
velocity = 1 / sqrt (permittivity x permeability)

So, if Imake the permeability and/or permittivity very high, the particles slow down.
   
Group: Guest
Quote
So, if Imake the permeability and/or permittivity very high, the particles slow down.

That's what a glass prism does, the speed of light inside the glass is slower.  The same thing applies to the speed of signal propagation along the trace of a PCB, which is also slower than the speed of light in free space.

The partial reflection in a pane of glass is due to the discontinuity at the air/glass boundary.   That causes a partial reflection off light off the surface of the glass because of the impedance mismatch between the EM impedance of the air and the EM impedance of the glass.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
That's what a glass prism does, the speed of light inside the glass is slower.  The same thing applies to the speed of signal propagation along the trace of a PCB, which is also slower than the speed of light in free space.

The partial reflection in a pane of glass is due to the discontinuity at the air/glass boundary.   That causes a partial reflection off light off the surface of the glass because of the impedance mismatch between the EM impedance of the air and the EM impedance of the glass.

How high would the permittivity and/or permeability have to be to reduce radiation levels in space to safe levels?
   
Group: Guest
Grumpy:

Your question presupposes that increasing permittivity and/or permeability will reduce the radiation levels in space but that's not he case.  You can't change either factor, space is space.  The characteristic impedance of free space is 377 ohms.  It's just another way to describe the relation between the permittivity and permeability.

So the solution is to use reflecting foil for protection from the EM radiation for spacecraft.  For less weight sensitive applications you see things wrapped with special multi-layer white blankets, like the Canadian robotic arms.  In other words, mirrors.  The permittivity and permeability of the surface of a mirror is so radically different from 377 ohms that most EM radiation gets reflected away because of the impedance discontinuity.

That only works for EM radiation.  For high-speed alpha particles, bullets in space, you need lead shielding and stuff like that.

I am basically a layperson here.

MileHigh
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
Grumpy:

Your question presupposes that increasing permittivity and/or permeability will reduce the radiation levels in space but that's not he case.  You can't change either factor, space is space.  The characteristic impedance of free space is 377 ohms.  It's just another way to describe the relation between the permittivity and permeability.

So the solution is to use reflecting foil for protection from the EM radiation for spacecraft.  For less weight sensitive applications you see things wrapped with special multi-layer white blankets, like the Canadian robotic arms.  In other words, mirrors.  The permittivity and permeability of the surface of a mirror is so radically different from 377 ohms that most EM radiation gets reflected away because of the impedance discontinuity.

That only works for EM radiation.  For high-speed alpha particles, bullets in space, you need lead shielding and stuff like that.

I am basically a layperson here.

MileHigh

Humor me and let's say that we can change these properties of space.  What sort of values are required?
   
Group: Guest
Grumpy:

I'll take a crack, but like I said I am not too comfortable.  For starters, like I alluded to before, EM radiation can still travel inside an imaginary volume if the permittivity and permeability are different inside that volume.  If the source of radiation "lives" inside the imaginary volume, and you live inside the imaginary volume, then you are back at square one and the only recourse is to get mirrors again.

On the other hand, if your imaginary volume is in orbit around the earth, and you are living inside of it, then you are looking at a partial or near 100% mirror effect again at the boundaries between the imaginary volume and normal space.  So if you look up "electromagnetic wave reflection at impedance discontinuities" on Google, you might be off on your way.

This is probably not what you are looking for but that's all I've got.

MileHigh

« Last Edit: 2010-08-18, 23:24:24 by MileHigh »
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
Grumpy:

I'll take a crack, but like I said I am not too comfortable.  For starters, like I alluded to before, EM radiation can still travel inside an imaginary volume if the permittivity and permeability are different inside that volume.  If the source of radiation "lives" inside the imaginary volume, and you live inside the imaginary volume, then you are back at square one and the only recourse is to get mirrors again.

On the other hand, if your imaginary volume is in orbit around the earth, and you are living inside of it, then you are looking at a partial or near 100% mirror effect again at the boundaries between the imaginary volume and normal space.  So if you look up "electromagnetic wave reflection at impedance discontinuities" on Google, you might be off on your way.

This is probably not what you are looking for but that's all I've got.

MileHigh

That is exactly what I was looking for and sheds some light on why objects within the field of altered space appear as if they are in a fog - partial reflection perhaps as complete reflection would result in invisibility as the light never hits the object but is reflected at the field edge.

   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
what properties would a region of vacuum with "negative" permittivity and permeability have?
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 15
Grumpy:
I'm no expert in this either but my my reading of it is the danger is the bullets
(as MileHigh) put it and not EM waves: high speed particles from the sun or
from outside our solar system. I don't know why they refer to it as radiation
in the same sentence they say it's particles since when I hear radiation I
think of X and gamma rays which are EM waves.

From my reading and viewing, polyethylene is supposed to help with the
cosmic rays (high speed particles from outside the solar system) and
water or lead (though lead is too heavy to use) is supposed to help with
the particles from the sun. This seems to be an area of ongoing research
though. Polyethylene is used for the sleeping compartments in the ISS
for this reason. The document you linked to, 140.pdf, does mention
polyethylene. Here's a video that talks about these issues, even using
electric fields and magnetic fields to redirect particles away, parts 2, 3
and 4 in particular:
  http://www.youtube.com/user/synteticboy#p/c/23FC6C0288281BBA
NASA's Space Radiation Laboratory studies these issues:
 http://spaceradiation.usra.edu/
As well as humans, the electronics also needs to be hardened.

As for propulsion there's a new ion engine technology that's supposed
to be a game changer (so not use usual puny amount of thrust over
a long period of time.) It's already working on the ground and it'll be
tested on the space station around 2013 for reboosting. After that
they'll work on a version for a full scale rocket. They say it should be
able to use it to get to Mars in 39 days by thrusting the entire time
(same or less amount of fuel, just shoving it out the back faster):
 http://www.nautel.com/rocketscience/
 http://watch.ctv.ca/news/#clip225583

So stuff's happening in the public world.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org   http://wsminfo.org
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
Statism is Dead: Part 3 - The Matrix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY

   
Pages: 1 2 [3]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2017-02-28, 03:39:05