Space flight, how long do you think it will take scientists to look beyond fossil fuel for space exploration?

Question

do any of you agree they should look to combining magnetics with solar energy?

Answer 1

The scientists are way ahead of you.

There are two basic areas in spacecraft propulsion that have to e addressed. On e is getting from Earth into orbit. The other is traveling in space once you get into orbit.

Getting into orbit--the key here is that it takes a LOT of power. Unlike an airplane, a spacecraft has to achieve speeds of about 17,500 MPH--and it has to do it in about 8-1/2 minutes. That means a very high level of thrust. There is NO known way of doing that except chemical fuels--or nuclear powered rockets. The latter is out, however. In and of itself, it can be done and is safe--but from time to time, you will have crashes (like airliners--as safe as they are, we still get crashes). And a crash of a nuclear powered ship would be like the Chernobyl accident--it could kill tens of thousands of people.

But--ultimately, we won't need fossil fuels. Although for the next few years, we are going to need to sue them, eventually we will be able to produce liquid hydrogen and oxygen (the best chemical combination that is safe) with solar energy at a reasonable cost. So--eventually, no more fossil fuels.

Travel in Space--there are a lot of technologies possible. You don't need the high power levels of spacraft taking off from Earth. the speeds needed are often much greater--but once in space, you can take hours, or even days, to build up that speed. Small nuclear engines could be used--once in space, if something goes wrong, they won't fall to Earth. But alternatives--solar powered engines, solar sails, and possibly even engines relying on magnetic fields are under studyby NASA and a lot of other people.

The big reason we don't see more progress is that NASA, etc. aren't eing welll funded. but more and more nations are starting space programs-not for 'prestige" but for some very sound economic reasons. Within a few years, wel'll start to see better funding for this kind of research, once our politicians figure out that they have to fund it to keep the US competetive, not just in space, but in the techonology and economic areas.

Answer 2

They already use it. Fossil fuels don't have the explosively combustible qualities required for launch/escape velocity. Hydrogen/oxygen mixes are used for fuel on most space craft, not oil or coal. Ion engines, solar sails etc have all been mooted as alternatives for deep space flight, and laser light has been suggested as a means of launching supply ships to space stations (the laser heats the air beneath the module, causing it to expand, propelling the module skyward)

Answer 3

There's not a single technology used in space that relies on fossil fuels. Rockets burn a bunch of different types of things; the space shuttle mostly burns a solid fuel that's a mixture of ammonium perchlorate and aluminum. Previous rockets have used similar mixtures of oxidizing/reducing substances (zinc/sulfur, for example). Satellites rely on nuclear batteries or solar power.

Gasoline or coal simply doesn't have (a) the energy density or (b) the explosive power nor (c) the longevity necessary for space travel applications. It's convenient for daily use because it's cheap and easy to get on a mass scale. However, there are MUCH better fuels that are used for specialized applications like rocketry.

Answer 4

Ummm, they've looked beyond it since it became a concept. They have never used fossil fuels, nor will they ever. Besides the fact that they don't produce anywhere near enough energy. They use oxygen and hydrogen, and the byproduct is water, along with the solid rocket boosters. And solar energy is used all the time to power things such as the Mars rovers.

Answer 5

from "Ask A Scientist"
For launch the STS uses 2 systems: the main engines in the orbiter that burn hydrogen and oxygen from the external tank (the great big orange cylinder that the orbiter is attached to for launch); and the SRBs (Solid Rocket Boosters) that burn a solid rocket propellant that is a mixture of powdered aluminum and ammonium perchlorate. These are used only for launch. The orbiter (what most people think of as "the Space Shuttle") has two propulsion systems: OMS (Orbital Manoeuvering System) used to change orbit and to return to earth, and the RCS (Reaction Control System) used for station-keeping and attitude control. Both systems burn hydrazine with oxygen.

So I guess the answer is - they have

John H

Answer 6

Technically, fossil fuels (oil, coal, etc.) have never been used for space exploration. Fossil Fuels are CARBON based and are BURNED for energy. They simply aren't efficient and/or powerful enough to break gravity's pull. Rather than internal combustion engines, they often use liquid or solid fuels to generate hot gases rather than explosions for propulsion.

They use Liquid Oxygen for propellant, and even the first rockets (fireworks) used nitrogen based fuels (like gunpowder.)

Scientists are now looking at nuclear and ion based engines for the future.

Answer 7

They've been 'looking beyond' fossil fuels for space flight since the inception of space flight. They simply haven't found a good replacement yet that's workable.

Answer 8

Well, the shuttle uses liquid oxygen & liquid hydrogen as the oxidizer/fuel combo. And hydrazine to power the generators. The SRBs use chiefly aluminum perchlorate, so....

I guess we've already ventured beyond the ol' kerosene Saturn V days...

Answer 9

They have been using alternatives:
Many launch vehicles use liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen for the burn phase.
Pitch and Yaw controls in the Apollo missions used H2O2 jets
Long term probes, rovers, and the international space station all rely highly on solar power.

Answer 10

I suppose the fuel source has to create enough thrust for space craft to leave the Earth. I think the space ship has to already be in space for an ion engine to work.

Energy (such as light) moves (somehow) where-as an engine pushes exhaust fumes etc.. out to move. So I suppose it's trying to understand how energy moves as opposed to losing energy to move.

I would guess it would be 100 years or more before we would have a USS Star Trek space ship.