Neumann Drive

Void · 2023-06-17 08:04:54

With the continuing consent of the management being supposed, I think this sort of drive is different enough to disserve a topic section. If you want something else then go ahead with that.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/explor … 20security Quote:

21 April 2023 / Jamie Seidel
US Space Force evaluates Aussie space-junk fuel concept.

Quote:

Neumann Space’s CEO, Herve Astier, says the drive has already proven it can use a variety of in-space metals as fuel. The most common is steel and aluminium.

Quote:

CisLunar’s Calnan says the metal-power drive can be fuelled by space junk to retrieve more space junk, which can be smelted in orbital foundries to become more fuel for metal-powered drives aboard customer spacecraft.

Metal-fueled thruster:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/news/radical … -security/
Quote:

Radical satellite thruster passes security
Molybdenum rod is enough to give a satellite a kick along and its safer and far far cheaper than xenon or hydrazine

Quote:

The thruster is a hybrid between an arc welder and a flashbulb. An electrical pulse generates a tiny spark from the rod. But that’s enough to give an orbital object a kick in the desired direction.

So, then instead of crashing old space stations into the atmosphere maybe you move them up a bit to a salvage station?

So, if metal propellant tanks are to become propellant does that indicate that you could send a "Naked" starship to orbit SSTO, and turn it into rocket fuel? I think in that case you might want to extract the engines and a few outer parts and bring them back down for reuse.

Doing that, you might get to soften the harshness Rocket Equation a bit.

Obviously metals from various worlds also may become important.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-06-17 08:18:17)

Void · 2023-06-18 09:24:59

I have been wondering about a "What if". What if you strapped some solid rockets onto a Starship?

What if you strapped two Falcon 9's onto a Starship? Four?

I know that Falcon Heavy was so hard to SpaceX to master that Elon Musk said it was almost not worth the effort, but they did do it. And they do know how to mate 3 rocket bodies together. Starship is a different sort of fish, but still???

Then what about a "Naked" Starship boosted in that way? We are not then talking SSTO. But all Falcon 9's might be recovered like side boosters for Falcon Heavy.

Certainly SpaceX cannot at this time divert attention from the main effort, but I do say that Falcon 9's are well understood at this time, and the fuel for them is rather suitable for atmospheric operations on Earth. A large reason that Methane was selected for Starship was that it could be made on Mars. But the Falcon 9's would not be going to Mars.

If you wanted to make space stations out of Naked Starships, this might be a good route. And upon orbit you might scavenge the propellant tanks to make Neumann Drive propellants, and make your space stations only out of the crew cabins. (Upper part of the Ship). A different sort of propellant method.

You may say, well then Falcon 9's are outdated, but, maybe they can have a second life after Starship and with Starship.

The Launch Facilities would be complex, in a sort of way, but again, you would not be loading up a Super Heavy with all that propellant.

So, there could be launch sites that would be off limits for a Starship and Super Heavy, but might tolerate a Starship with two Falcon 9 boosters.

I think that launch sites may be at a premium, if the Starship effort expands to what it might expand to.

Well, just a notion. Keeping in mind that a Propellant Starship has not only the Starship and Super Heavy but also the propellants to lift to orbit. This would have only the propellants in the three devices. And the propellant tanks would be the delivered propellant. If you wanted to you could turn a whole Starship into propellants. But likely you would want to salvage the engines that were still good.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-06-18 09:53:24)

Void · 2023-06-18 09:54:34

Now that I think about it, Elon Musk had already said that Starship could be SSTO, if it did not have the legs, flaps/motors, heat shield. And that was before Raptor 3's. So, launch pads for that would be much more available, and not using side boosters would be way easier.

So, presuming the salvage of engines and avionics and such, then the rest of ship may become Neumann drive propellants.

Is that they ~100 Tons of propellant for a Neumann drive?

A thing about this which is different than salvage of space junk is that the ships being similar through time the method of converting a ship to propellant would be almost identical each time.

You could still use the cabins to make space stations, but you would have to furnish them in orbit. It may be possible down the road to make hardware on the Moon for them. And if you have the tons of propellant, metal, then you can move such space stations to proximity to the Moon as well. And Moon metals could further be propellant also.

And then you can make big interplanetary ships by this method.

Lots of fun!

Deseves a smile!

Done

Last edited by Void (2023-06-18 10:01:54)

Void · 2023-06-18 10:04:50

The Princess, (Or Hero), of the Party: https://neumannspace.com/

Quote:

NEUMANN DRIVE
THE NEW STANDARD FOR
IN-SPACE ELECTRIC PROPULSION

Very good.

Done

Last edited by Void (2023-06-18 10:05:58)

tahanson43206 · 2023-06-18 10:52:44

For Void ....

Your introduction of this space propulsion method reminds your readers that there are atoms of various sizes moving through space, so a space vessel (or a station for that matter) needs to be aware of the probability of encounters with all of them.

While we've been discussing propulsion using light weight atoms in the past, your discovery of this propulsion method reminds the designer of space shields to plan for heavier atoms in the mix.

A space weather report, already characterized by reports of ionizing radiation, may well include reports of clouds of atoms of various kinds moving through space in the path of moving vessels.

(th)

Void · 2023-06-18 11:22:49

I know what you mean, but I did not discover, rather learned of the space drive.

Your concerns are justified.

Ideally the output will be almost entirely small particles. But some could be a significant problem.

I don't think the problem will be as bad as for a Mass Driver that expels dust, but it needs attention.

Drags for magnetic dust or small particles will be significant if at the altitude of the International Space Station. The surface area of the particles will be very large relative to mass. So, atmospheric drag should pull it down rather quickly.

It may also be that inductive reactance in a metal, perhaps would also drag particles down, as they would be traveling though the Earth's magnetic field up to and perhaps beyond Geostationary orbit. Ideally the particles will not be any worse than micrometeorites, which must already be tolerated by spacecraft.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne … s-3911799/

So, those factors are needing attention.

But another concept is the emergence speed of the particles emitted by the drive. If they are fast enough then they will leave the Earth's Hill Sphere. If they point at the atmosphere, then they will impact the atmosphere and be disposed of that way.

For orbits not in the Earth's magnetic field, the solar wind may sweep the particles out of the solar system entirely if they are small enough and particularly if they have an electrical charge, or maybe even if they are magnetic in any way.
There are Magnetics and Paramagnetic possibilities.

The orbital plane of the particles will matter than as well. They can be diluted in the volume of space by sending them on a path not likely to intercept popular orbits.

And then their is the vast volume of space. Kesler syndrome is more possible in Low Earth Orbit than other orbits, so dust will be more highly diluted by the vast volumes of (sort of), empty space.

So, important considerations, but I think possible to manage properly.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-06-18 11:38:01)

Void · 2023-06-18 14:44:04

OK, it seem like a Starship now might mass ~85 tons, but maybe not without the heat shield and flaps and Flap motors.

If you took out and recycled the engines then you might get ~60 to 70 tons of metal for the Neumann Drive. And you would need the processing tools in orbit to do it as well.

So, maybe of some value. SSTO.

However, if you used Super Heavy and a Naked Starship, then it is ~250 tons cargo and ~60 to 70 tons ships metals.

Maybe it could make sense if Starships are mass produced as is considered. So technically ~310 to ~320 tons to orbit doing that. And the engines and some other items could be reused, if you had means to land them, in other more complete Starships. And again in some options the cabin of the Starship might be used to make space stations.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-06-18 14:44:22)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2023-06-17 08:04:54

Neumann Drive

#2 2023-06-18 09:24:59

Re: Neumann Drive

#3 2023-06-18 09:54:34

Re: Neumann Drive

#4 2023-06-18 10:04:50

Re: Neumann Drive

#5 2023-06-18 10:52:44

Re: Neumann Drive

#6 2023-06-18 11:22:49

Re: Neumann Drive

#7 2023-06-18 14:44:04

Re: Neumann Drive

Board footer