Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Inter-planetary Travel and Occupation


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#16    Wookietim

Wookietim

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,908 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kirkland, WA

  • Search on the Android App Store for "Mothras Unexplained Mysteries" for the app I am very proud of...

Posted 16 June 2011 - 02:29 PM

View Postdanielost, on 15 June 2011 - 11:40 PM, said:

not entirely true.  nuke subs have the same problem with co2 build up.  but they use scrubbers to clean it.  they convert it back to 02.  and i didnt really mean it to sound easy.  simple not easy.

as for insects, the only insects you would need are pollinators. and they can be controlled.  honeybees would be best but arent the only ones.

if you plan for the pop. to grow then you wont have as big a problem at the end.  i assume that the animal life will increase over the time period as well.

Nuke subs also have the benefit of being able to surface every now and then to control air and water quality. You don't think they are underwater 24/7 365 days per year for decades do you?

Scrubbers only work for so long and certainly not for thousands of years.


#17    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,308 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 16 June 2011 - 04:05 PM

View PostWookietim, on 16 June 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:

Nuke subs also have the benefit of being able to surface every now and then to control air and water quality. You don't think they are underwater 24/7 365 days per year for decades do you?

Scrubbers only work for so long and certainly not for thousands of years.
the only reason a nuke has to surface is for food.  at least that is what i have heard claimed by the navy.





Nuclear-powered submarines can stay submerged for long periods of time. They are designed and manned to stay underwater long enough to support a wide variety of missions, which can last for several months. Submarines have equipment to make oxygen and keep the air safe. Food and supplies are the only limitations on submergence time for a nuclear submarine. Normally, submarines carry a 90-day supply of food. Historically, diesel-powered submarines operated internal-combustion, air-breathing engines on the surface or just below the surface by using a snorkel mast (snorkeling). When completely submerged, a diesel-powered submarine uses its battery power and electric motors for propulsion. Depending on speed and other battery use, the submarine could stay underwater for up to several days before recharging batteries and exchanging stale air for fresh air.  more


http://www.experts12...underwater.html


How long can submarines stay underwater?
Nuclear-powered submarines can stay submerged for long periods of time. They are designed and manned to stay underwater long enough to support a wide variety of missions, which can last for several months. Submarines have equipment to make oxygen and keep the air safe. Food and supplies are the only limitations on submergence time for a nuclear submarine. Normally, submarines carry a 90-day supply of food.

Historically, diesel-powered submarines operated internal-combustion, air-breathing engines on the surface or just below the surface by using a snorkel mast (snorkeling). When completely submerged, a diesel-powered submarine uses its battery power and electric motors for propulsion. Depending on speed and other battery use, the submarine could stay underwater for up to several days before recharging batteries and exchanging stale air for fresh air.


http://www.navy.mil/...no/n87/faq.html

question 17 on the link.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#18    Wookietim

Wookietim

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,908 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kirkland, WA

  • Search on the Android App Store for "Mothras Unexplained Mysteries" for the app I am very proud of...

Posted 16 June 2011 - 04:11 PM

View Postdanielost, on 16 June 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

the only reason a nuke has to surface is for food.  at least that is what i have heard claimed by the navy.





Nuclear-powered submarines can stay submerged for long periods of time. They are designed and manned to stay underwater long enough to support a wide variety of missions, which can last for several months. Submarines have equipment to make oxygen and keep the air safe. Food and supplies are the only limitations on submergence time for a nuclear submarine. Normally, submarines carry a 90-day supply of food. Historically, diesel-powered submarines operated internal-combustion, air-breathing engines on the surface or just below the surface by using a snorkel mast (snorkeling). When completely submerged, a diesel-powered submarine uses its battery power and electric motors for propulsion. Depending on speed and other battery use, the submarine could stay underwater for up to several days before recharging batteries and exchanging stale air for fresh air.  more


http://www.experts12...underwater.html


How long can submarines stay underwater?
Nuclear-powered submarines can stay submerged for long periods of time. They are designed and manned to stay underwater long enough to support a wide variety of missions, which can last for several months. Submarines have equipment to make oxygen and keep the air safe. Food and supplies are the only limitations on submergence time for a nuclear submarine. Normally, submarines carry a 90-day supply of food.

Historically, diesel-powered submarines operated internal-combustion, air-breathing engines on the surface or just below the surface by using a snorkel mast (snorkeling). When completely submerged, a diesel-powered submarine uses its battery power and electric motors for propulsion. Depending on speed and other battery use, the submarine could stay underwater for up to several days before recharging batteries and exchanging stale air for fresh air.


http://www.navy.mil/...no/n87/faq.html

question 17 on the link.

Yeah - I was in the Navy. Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything they tell you about their god-like powers.


#19    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,308 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 16 June 2011 - 04:19 PM

View PostWookietim, on 16 June 2011 - 04:11 PM, said:

Yeah - I was in the Navy. Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything they tell you about their god-like powers.
when i dont believe everything i am told then you jump me for not believing, make up my mind.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#20    Wookietim

Wookietim

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,908 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kirkland, WA

  • Search on the Android App Store for "Mothras Unexplained Mysteries" for the app I am very proud of...

Posted 16 June 2011 - 04:27 PM

View Postdanielost, on 16 June 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

when i dont believe everything i am told then you jump me for not believing, make up my mind.

I am telling you, bluntly, that even a nuclear sub must surface from time to time. Their air is not going to last for a few thousand years no matter how good their filters are. Their fuel may very well last that long (I have no idea how long it would last but I have to assume it's pretty long) but they do sort of need other things to allow their crew to continue living - air, food, and water to name three.

If you want to travel a distance that will take thousands of years and you want to travel that distance in a route that will not allow for any restocking at all on the way (And probably no restocking when you get there either - remember that... It's not just the journey after all, it's also what happens when you get there) then you need to plan a lot further ahead than anyone yet has.

Just to elaborate - you seem to focus on the journey. That's not even half of the problem. What happens when you get to the other planet and then are presented with a world that might have the right air but on which any life that developed didn't develop in a way to make it conducive to human life? After all, the plants on an alien world are probably not going to be edible by humans since they developed in a different ecosystem to feed other types of digestive tracks... and the stuff there is certainly not going to be providing materials for medicine that humans need... and if there are insects, they aren't going to be attracted to the plants evolved on Earth and they probably won't work like the insects here...

And it's not just a matter of taking bees with you. Bees need pollen to make honey. Not every plant that produces pollen that they need is pollinated by bees - other insects also are needed. And you don't want the insects onboard to breed out of control so you need to take predators (Birds and lizards)... But you also need their predators and so on. The only way to create a sustainable ship that will be able to travel for thousands of years as well as populate a new world is to take a copy of the Earth with it.


#21    Torgo

Torgo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,239 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Graduate School

  • I aM tOrGo... I tAkE cArE oF tHe PlAcE wHiLe ThE mAsTeR iS aWaY...

Posted 17 June 2011 - 03:09 PM

Nuclear submarines use monoethanolamine to dissolve CO2 out of the air, and then vent it out of the sub where it dissolves in the ocean water - it does not convert it back to oxygen.  They can get more air when they surface, but they do NOT have a closed loop going on.


#22    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 4,892 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 18 June 2011 - 05:04 AM

I once wrote a science fiction story about a future generation ship that had all these technological problems solved. The several thousand inhabitants were so used to living in the ship and having such a nice time there, when they finally reached the planet they just kept on going.

"Who wants to live on some mucky planet?", was the general consensus.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
To see reality loose your opinions.

#23    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 33,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 19 June 2011 - 06:06 PM

View PostTorgo, on 17 June 2011 - 03:09 PM, said:

They can get more air when they surface, but they do NOT have a closed loop going on.
Thank you Torgo, for saving me the effort of pointing out to danielost, once again, that he is posting false information, in this case about the CO2 scrubbers not generating O2 (anyone that could make them do that would have a fortune that would make Bill Gates look like a pauper and we would never have to hear the expression "carbon footprint" again).

However nuclear submarines DO generate their own O2. They do it by electrolysis of water, a resource that literally surrounds a nuclear submarine, but is scarce in interstellar space.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#24    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 33,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 19 June 2011 - 07:13 PM

Whilst we are on the subject of posting false information danielost, once again you have made a lot of claims without bothering to check if they are correct. Let's examine the one in which your whole argument is based on, a 500 generation flight time to the nearest star using current technology-

View Postdanielost, on 14 June 2011 - 05:19 AM, said:

the closest star to us other than the sun is 10,000 years away at our current tech lvl.
You say this is 500 generations, that works out about 20 years per generation which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Let's see how accurate that is shall we? You are talking about a trip to the nearest star as is demonstrated by this post of yours:

View Postdanielost, on 14 June 2011 - 02:52 PM, said:

even at light speed that close system is 4.5 years away.
Let's use the CORRECT figures shall we? Proxima Centauri is 4.24 ly away, whilst the rest of the Alpha Centauri system (A & B) are 4.37 ly (Source: wikipedia).

The fastest ever spacecraft at launch was New Horizons, which had a launch speed of 36,373 mph (Source: wikipedia), although Voyager 1 is actually travelling faster due to gravity assists from Jupiter and Saturn. Voyager 1 is departing the solar system at a velocity relative to the sun of 38,155 mph (source NASA - Voyager Mission Operations Status Reports)

The number of hours in a Julian year is 365.25 x 24 = 8766, which means that in one year New Horizons travels 318,845,718 miles and Voyager 1 travels 334,466,730 miles

A light year is the distance travelled by light in one Julian year, which is 5,878,625,373,183.608 miles (Source: wikipedia), so the distance to Proxima is 4.24 x 5,878,625,373,183.608 = 4.4925372x1013 miles.

Now to find out how long it would take to reach Proxima, in years, "using our current technology lvl", we just need to divide distance to Proxima in miles by the distance travelled by the spacecraft per year in miles. Doing this we get the following figures:
  • New Horizons = 78,174 years
  • Voyager 1 = 74,523 years

So danielost, your figure of 10,000 years is out by a massive margin. Where did you get it from? Using current technology and your figure of 20 years per generation we find that it will take not the 500 generations you guessed, but somewhere around 3,700 to 3,900.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#25    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,308 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 19 June 2011 - 07:27 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 19 June 2011 - 06:06 PM, said:

Thank you Torgo, for saving me the effort of pointing out to danielost, once again, that he is posting false information, in this case about the CO2 scrubbers not generating O2 (anyone that could make them do that would have a fortune that would make Bill Gates look like a pauper and we would never have to hear the expression "carbon footprint" again).

However nuclear submarines DO generate their own O2. They do it by electrolysis of water, a resource that literally surrounds a nuclear submarine, but is scarce in interstellar space.
sorry my info, came from the navy itself or did you even bother to look at the link.

they stated they had enough food for staying down for 90 days, they also stated that is all they need to surface for.

now the difference as to how long they can stay down and normally stay down is totally different.  and yes if i was the captain i would get fresh air as often as possible too.  

according to the navy they make their own air and water on subs.  

*snip*

Edited by Saru, 19 June 2011 - 08:08 PM.
How about you take note of what people say to you instead of demanding an apology when you've been corrected.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#26    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 4,892 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 19 June 2011 - 09:16 PM

Quote

Going to a star requires that you speed up and then slow down. It is a double calculation. Half of the trip you accelerate, but if you need to slow down for the second half so that you reach the star, not splat against it.

According to this webpage, taking into account time dilation, accelerating and decelerating at 1g to the Alfa Centauri system would take 3.5416661 years aboard ship.  Time elapsed on Earth would be 5.8693297 years.

http://www.cthreepo....lab/math1.shtml

I don't know how much energy a propulsion system would need to accomplish this. Maybe someone else can figure that out.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
To see reality loose your opinions.

#27    SurgeTechnologies

SurgeTechnologies

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not disclosed

  • "Why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction"

Posted 19 June 2011 - 09:24 PM

Even so, maybe one can try to adept to their ecosystem ( if we find earth-like planet ). And once this expedition lands maybe they can examine/analyze surroundings to learn from this ecosystem from start.  :huh:

*About how far we are with space propulsion, if this vasimir engine travels to iSS will soon know results ( i hope ) will know more. And that that engine is capable of very high speeds.
( only in space of course).
Magic

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 19 June 2011 - 09:43 PM.
fixed broken link.

RSOE EDIS - Emergency and Disaster Information Service App is available on site!

   SHTFPlan Source for all sorts of news and updates!

#28    Thanato

Thanato

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,609 posts
  • Joined:27 Jun 2004

Posted 26 June 2011 - 01:24 AM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 19 June 2011 - 07:13 PM, said:

Whilst we are on the subject of posting false information danielost, once again you have made a lot of claims without bothering to check if they are correct. Let's examine the one in which your whole argument is based on, a 500 generation flight time to the nearest star using current technology-


You say this is 500 generations, that works out about 20 years per generation which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Let's see how accurate that is shall we? You are talking about a trip to the nearest star as is demonstrated by this post of yours:

Let's use the CORRECT figures shall we? Proxima Centauri is 4.24 ly away, whilst the rest of the Alpha Centauri system (A & B) are 4.37 ly (Source: wikipedia).

The fastest ever spacecraft at launch was New Horizons, which had a launch speed of 36,373 mph (Source: wikipedia), although Voyager 1 is actually travelling faster due to gravity assists from Jupiter and Saturn. Voyager 1 is departing the solar system at a velocity relative to the sun of 38,155 mph (source NASA - Voyager Mission Operations Status Reports)

The number of hours in a Julian year is 365.25 x 24 = 8766, which means that in one year New Horizons travels 318,845,718 miles and Voyager 1 travels 334,466,730 miles

A light year is the distance travelled by light in one Julian year, which is 5,878,625,373,183.608 miles (Source: wikipedia), so the distance to Proxima is 4.24 x 5,878,625,373,183.608 = 4.4925372x1013 miles.

Now to find out how long it would take to reach Proxima, in years, "using our current technology lvl", we just need to divide distance to Proxima in miles by the distance travelled by the spacecraft per year in miles. Doing this we get the following figures:
  • New Horizons = 78,174 years
  • Voyager 1 = 74,523 years

So danielost, your figure of 10,000 years is out by a massive margin. Where did you get it from? Using current technology and your figure of 20 years per generation we find that it will take not the 500 generations you guessed, but somewhere around 3,700 to 3,900.

Thats a long time in a tin coffin... I'll take my FTL to go please.

However that tech which you are stating is older then current levels, it's just those are the most current figures. I can't wait to see what is going to be coming out of the independent and government funded research projects into purpolsuion in the next few years.

~Thanato

"Your toast has been burnt, and no amount of scrapping will remove the black parts!" ~Caboose

"I will eat your unhappyness!" ~Caboose

****
"Freedom isn't bought in stores, it is bought on battlefields." ~Thanato
****

#29    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 33,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 26 June 2011 - 09:24 AM

View Postdanielost, on 19 June 2011 - 07:27 PM, said:

sorry my info, came from the navy itself or did you even bother to look at the link.
Yes danielost, I did bother to look at the links, and yes they do say that nuclear submarines can stay submerged virtually indefinitely. There are two problems for you though:

  • I have never argued against this fact.
  • This is not your original claim (did you bother to look at the link on the straw man fallacy I provided you with?)

Let's examine what you ORIGINALLY claimed shall we? You said:

View Postdanielost, on 15 June 2011 - 11:40 PM, said:

not entirely true.  nuke subs have the same problem with co2 build up.  but they use scrubbers to clean it.  they convert it back to 02.

It is the part emphasised that I argued with (did you actually bother to read my posts?)
A reminder of what I ACTUALLY said (although you shouldn't need reminding as you actually quoted me):

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 19 June 2011 - 06:06 PM, said:

View PostTorgo, on 17 June 2011 - 03:09 PM, said:

They can get more air when they surface, but they do NOT have a closed loop going on.
Thank you Torgo, for saving me the effort of pointing out to danielost, once again, that he is posting false information, in this case about the CO2 scrubbers not generating O2 (anyone that could make them do that would have a fortune that would make Bill Gates look like a pauper and we would never have to hear the expression "carbon footprint" again).

However nuclear submarines DO generate their own O2. They do it by electrolysis of water, a resource that literally surrounds a nuclear submarine, but is scarce in interstellar space.
Notice I have made no claim that nuclear submarines cannot remain submerged indefinitely, in fact my point about O2 generation supports the fact that they can. It is only your (incorrect) claim about converting CO2 back into O2 that I have challenged.

Now would you care to point out to me where in your links there is any support for this original claim of yours? Actually I can save you the time, the only reference is this:

Quote

Submarines have equipment to make oxygen and keep the air safe.
Source: Submarine Frequently Asked Questions

So given that this is all your own links say on the subject, where is the support for your claim that CO2 is converted back into O2 or, for that matter, your claim that it states that submarines make their own water?:

View Postdanielost, on 19 June 2011 - 07:27 PM, said:

according to the navy they make their own air and water on subs.

I am not sure where this claim of making water comes from, as no such thing is stated in the links you provided.

Given that a submerged submarine is surrounded on all sides by water it shouldn’t take a lot of working out to realise that water is the one thing a nuclear submarine does not need to make.  What nuclear submarines do manufacture is fresh water from salt water.

Quote

Nuclear Submarine Parts

Let's take a look at some of the basic parts of a nuclear submarine.

  • Distilling plants purify saltwater to be used for the engine or for drinking water.
Source: How Stuff Works - Nuclear Submarines

Of course it is possible that you meant to say that submarines make their own drinking water but, if that is the case, you need to be more accurate in your statements.


So what is this equipment that makes oxygen and keeps the air safe? Well you are half right about CO2 scrubbers. They do exactly what the name suggests, scrub CO2 from the atmosphere.

All quotes below (unless specified otherwise) are from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, course 12.000, Solving Complex problems. The document is in pdf format. Source: SUBMARINE AIR TREATMENT

Quote

CO2 is removed from submarine atmospheres by means that are classified as regenerative or non-regenerative depending on whether the absorbent can be recycled at sea.

The non-regenerative method uses non-reversible chemistry. When the cartridges are used up the submarine would have to surface, however the regenerative type can be used indefinitely:

Quote

CO2 Scrubbers
These are regenerative systems which utilize aqueous solutions of 25 - 30 wt.% (4-5 M) monoethanolamine (MEA), NH2CH2CH2OH. The absorption process is a Lewis acid-base reaction:

H-O-CH-CH-NH + O=C=O → H-O-CH-CH-NH-CO-OH


The reaction is reversed by heat or by exposure of the product to an atmosphere with low PCO2. The air to be treated enters the exchange tower at 80°F and 75% relative humidity (RH). It is blown through woven stainless steel packing over which the MEA solution is flowing. Between 70 and 90% of the CO2 is removed by this one pass through. The air is passed through a filter to entrap droplets of the MEA solution and the air returns to the sub at about 75°and 100% RH. The MEA solution is recycled over the stainless steel screens with a portion of it withdrawn on each pass. This material is passed through a column packed with glass rings and heated to drive off the CO2 under pressure. The "cleaned" MEA is returned to the absorption cycle. The CO2 is cooled, compressed, and discharged overboard.

Compare that quote with what Torgo told you:

View PostTorgo, on 17 June 2011 - 03:09 PM, said:

Nuclear submarines use monoethanolamine to dissolve CO2 out of the air, and then vent it out of the sub where it dissolves in the ocean water - it does not convert it back to oxygen.  They can get more air when they surface, but they do NOT have a closed loop going on.
Now I disagree with Torgo about the submarine having to surface to replenish the air, as you will have already seen in my quote above, but he has already provided you with the correct information about how nuclear submarines deal with carbon dioxide.

A key sentence to note from the MIT document is this one:

Quote

The CO2 is cooled, compressed, and discharged overboard.
The carbon dioxide is being dumped at sea; this means that this system cannot possibly be a closed loop, something else Torgo told you.

The CO2 being lost from the system (and not converted back into O2 as you incorrectly claimed). As this CO2 is generated by respiration it means that O2 is being lost to the system. The O2 has to be replenished somehow? If the submarine is not resurfacing then there must be another method. Let's return to the MIT document to find out what that method is:

Quote

Oxygen Supply Systems
Oxygen may be replenished while submerged by electrolytic oxygen generators (EOGs), stored oxygen, or oxygen candle furnaces. Most nuclear submarines are equipped with EOG systems, but many classes carry other oxygen systems as back up. The EOG can supply oxygen indefinitely; the other systems are limited by storage capacity.

Electrochemical Oxygen Generator

The production of oxygen is accomplished by the electrolysis of water. Direct current is passed through a KOH solution, which electrolyzes the water to H2 and O2. The water has been treated by an ion exchange system to eliminate other electrolytes. Sixteen electrolytic cells at about 1000 amps are required to produce 120 SCFH of O2 (sufficient for 120 men) at pressures up to 3000 psig. The gases are removed from the cells and distributed (O2) or disposed of (H2). Hydrogen is discharged overboard.

Shall we compare that to what I said?:

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 19 June 2011 - 06:06 PM, said:

However nuclear submarines DO generate their own O2. They do it by electrolysis of water, a resource that literally surrounds a nuclear submarine, but is scarce in interstellar space.

So you see, danielost, submarines do not operate on a closed loop system. They are (as I have already told you) able to remain submerged indefinitely PRECISELY because they surrounded by water. They produce drinking water by distilling the salt water that surrounds the vessel, an option not available to a spacecraft. They manufacture oxygen from the water surrounding the vessel, also useless on a spacecraft. The technology that enables a nuclear submarine to remain submerged almost indefinitely is totally inappropriate for even a relatively short space mission, never mind a generation ship.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#30    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 33,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 26 June 2011 - 09:38 AM

View PostThanato, on 26 June 2011 - 01:24 AM, said:

Thats a long time in a tin coffin... I'll take my FTL to go please.

However that tech which you are stating is older then current levels, it's just those are the most current figures. I can't wait to see what is going to be coming out of the independent and government funded research projects into purpolsuion in the next few years.

~Thanato
I don't see how current figures can be anything but the current levels. The stuff that is still in the research project stage is, almost by definition, future technology.

The technology being worked on seems to be mostly various forms of ion propulsion. This will offer significant reductions in travel within the solar system but we are not talking about technology which offers us even a small percentage of the speed of light. We would still need generation ships and flight times of tens or hundreds of generations. We are still a long LONG way from practical interstellar travel.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users