What if we want to catch up to Voyager 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 кві 2024
- What if we want to catch up to Voyager 1
In this video we will discus how difficult it would be to reach the Voyager 1 probe with our current technology.
SOCIAL
X - / rafmxavier
Artstation - www.artstation.com/subjectzer...
STORE
subject-zero-laboratories.cre...
Softwares Used:
Blender 4.1
Final Cut Pro X - Наука та технологія
![ПОЛНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЭКЗОРЦИЗМА [Топ Сикрет]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBySr6Bt0B8/mqdefault.jpg)
Your voice is so perfect for narrations. another great video.
Potentially potentially. There's some "silly" pronunciation choices every 5-10 seconds, and are too distracting. I'm an accent coach and happy to document a list, but the client has to be happy to change, and it's always 80% about what the client wants to get.
@@whophdWe don't need your help here.
Really a priceless knowledge YET simple only for who knows, you learn something new everyday, Thanks @whophd for your precious comment & thank you SZS for you Videos.
I thought it was AI
this calls for a warp drive
Look up Project Lyra, the plan to send a probe to ʻOumuamua. That rock is traveling at almost twice the velocity of Voyager 1, but the probe could have gotten there in just 5 to 10 years. It involves sending the probe first to a reverse slingshot around Jupiter so it falls toward the sun. Then, as it flies within a few solar radii of the sun, it fires its engines again, taking advantage of the Oberth Effect to accelerate to over 250 km/s. Entirely doable with current technology.
Totally. I thought that's where this video was going tbh
i love the oberth effect it's like a real life speedrunning strat
'a few solar radii of the sun' - so also a healthy portion of good luck, or some non-current-technology-shielding required, to not get sun burned or damaged by Solar Flares/CME's
Conversion of nominal solar radius 1 R☉ = Units
6.95700×108 metres
695,700 kilometres
0.00465047 astronomical unit
432,288 miles
@@EgonSorensenThe Parker Solar Probe is currently doing 9 solar radii and 191km/s, with a planned life of 24 orbits. We are already living in the future you speak of.
@@EgonSorensen Yes, a flare would toast you even with a good shield. Some plans called for the flyby to be at 10 solar radii - which is about 4.3 million miles. Later this year the Parker Solar Probe will perform its closest ever approach at 3.83 million miles. So it's at least feasible.
Disappointed that gravity assists weren't mentioned...
You need to ask yourself "how did we get Voyager 1 to go so fast with tech from 50 years ago?"
The answer is that we used gravity assists to multiple the ship's velocity multiple times
Gravity assists are pitifully small and require IMMENSE amounts of time which is why they were NEVER mentioned
One thing that was also very cool about the Voyager program was that it was based on the Grand Tour Alignment, a positioning of the planets discovered in 1964 that lets all four gas giant planets be visited in a reasonable time (Voyager 2 was the one that took greater advantage of this, while Voyager 1 only did the first two but also got a closer look at Saturn's moon Titan). The next iteration of the alignment won't happen until the mid-22nd century, so it was very nice that the 'original' one happened while we had the rocket tech to exploit it. A few decades earlier and we probably wouldn't have even noticed.
1:17 :( I was expecting to hear Subject Zero here...
Thanks for the video
I miss the snarky little robot! Love the content, always something interesting to ponder. :)
Keep up the good work
I see no practical use for this. Time well spent.
Bruh if we wanna go get voyager probs one day we could this vid is a good insource into how we could recover them dum'my it's good time spent
@@andrewreynolds912
"Bruh" (🤨🙄), why would we want to, dummy? There is no justification for recovery a probe that was obsolete over 30 years ago. Try reading some books on financial responsibility.
And grow up.
@@andrewreynolds912why? In a decade or so it may as well be a glorified trashcan flying through the interstellar medium. It would be beyond a massive waste of resources.
@@AllMyGabensIs it a waste of resources to pursue other ancient artefacts?
@@christiancampbell466 depends on the ancient "artefact". If we're talking about your mother, then sure.
Don't forget you need enough fuel to slow down once you reach it, and then accelerate the ship and Voyager back to earth, and then have enough fuel to slow down AGAIN!
Yes that’s why the gastric core engine times four is the best way to go if it can be built.
It’s great that this came right after they received a signal from the Voyager-1
The plasma magnet is also an option, apparently it can reach insane speeds theoretically like 1 year to flyby Pluto so couple years to flyby Voyager 1
Again GREAT!
Others have pointed out the gravity assist possibilities.
Granted, this is just a quick look, but w/o grav assist, we need to carry 4x the fuel for the outbound journey. One to get going. One to cancel our velocity. One to burn back to Earth. One to cancel that velocity.
All of this increases the mass of the ship, which affects the rocket equation and makes things more difficult. You must take the fuel to accelerate the fuel you need for all the other burns.
It's a vicious loop.
Even the presented gaseous core is likely insufficient.
You wouldn’t get good thrust but I love the nuclear equivalent of ion engines:
the Fission Fragment Rocket Engine. It’s really counterintuitive to not try and capture the energy of the products, but shooting a roughly 100 amu product out the back at like 50 MeV (and catching the other product going towards the ship) gives you *Half a Million* isp!
I hope maybe oneday will get the technology to go and find voyagers again and being them back
That would be a good next video. Its one thing to catch up to it but getting there in 5 years means zipping right past it. Slowing down to dock with it, then bring it back is much harder. Perhaps 4x harder?
@@jaylewis9876More than 4x since you have the weight of additional fuel to worry about. It would be much, much harder to return.
@@ponyphonic good point! There could be stages that drop off as they are consumed but still more than 4x. Maybe 100x
How about solar sails? Can't they propel a starship to very high speeds, requiring no internal fuel? Or are they still just theoretical?
Hey subject zero hope yo'u read this theirs a vid by Dr ben mile's who did that vid on force field of radiation protection i think you give it a look and it could be amazing if you did a vid on the technology for future active radiation protection from space but also if you could dig into other tech and such to find that out
You really gotta do a video on Xenon, Argon, and Lithium engines at some point.
Need a ftl drive of sorts. Would be cool to go grab in and bring it back to the Smithsonian
Sad nuclear pulsed propulsion wasn't mentioned.
Guys it's back!
We need Nuclear Saltwater engines today!
another great video, b.t.w. I wouldn't have the patience to figure the math, thank you for giving us the conclusions, that was very interesting!
So, with the last engine thingmajig it could be a couple of days. Strap a pilot, an engineer and Bob and we can grab that thing that is trying to escape this hell system.
I love this but all I was saying while watching it it is why a 240t ship voyager 1 was not even a ton
That was merely an example in the event of a manned mission, but the entire idea is nothing more than a thought experiment. There is no financial justification for a recovery mission of a probe that was obsolete over 30 years ago.
With gravity assist and a pulse nuclear propulsion engine, this could be achieved with way less resources involved at fractions of the speed of light using only currently proven technology.
Well lets go do it then 😆
This reminds me of the time I lost my keys
In other words, you need Warp Drive
The answer becomes how to skip a light year?
Don't try
Only energy can do that.... That's your soul at somepoint in time...
I won't stop you. But this is one hell of a warning
For asteroid defense, raw power and ISP are needed. Slingshots might be of limited usefulness to defend Earth from such threats, especially without sufficiently advanced knowledge of the threat.
How do these engines compare to today's ion thrusters?
You don’t just have to catch up. You also have to decelerate to Voyager’s speed if you want to capture it. Also, are the calculations taking into account the mass of the fuel itself?
🙏 👍👍
The Voyagers will almost certainly be retrieved some day for their cultural significance but since this would always be an incredibly low priority mission, it probably won't happen until we are so advanced that at least local solar system travel becomes something trivial ! Doubt anyone is gonna go after the Voyagers before we routinely can travel 10-20% light speed.
Not unless we develop warp drive or something. Don't forget you need enough fuel to slow down once you reach it, and then accelerate the ship and Voyager back to earth, and then have enough fuel to slow down AGAIN! This makes the problem many orders of magnitude worse than this video presents. It's basically impossible.
@@blurglide Don't think warp drive would be necessary, anything sufficiently advanced that makes sub-relativistic space travel common place should suffice ! When it comes to tech I wouldn't throw around the word "impossible" :) ...5 years ago we thought the current AI capabilities are 30 years away. We can't even dream what's possible with enough computational power and AGI. Things will probably begin to snowball fast after Silicone is replaced in electronics with graphene. IF if we don't kill ourselves as a species by then or don't begin to regress like in the movie Idiocracy..there's nothing in the known laws of physics preventing us from EVENTUALLY getting the voyagers back, let alone the unknown laws that are sure to be discovered.
@@davidadelstein1064 What I'm saying is he underestimated the necessary energy by a LOT! This would never be remotely feasible for a souvenir unless space travel becomes ABSURDLY cheap.
Voyager 1 is as real as the Easter bunny.
Voyager one literally exists but is so far away from earth it takes insanely long time for controls and all that.
Hey, subject zero, thanks for rea'ding my com, man! I hope you can do a vid on active radiation and passive radiation protection technologies for space travel. Dr. Ben Miles is a great YTber. I hope you'll love the vid i recommended you to wa'tch from him!
I love this channel 🎉
And then slow down to grab it safely, and then slow down and accelerate back to earth, and then slow down to de orbit and land with an intact Voyager probe… 😢
Captain Kirk will find it in about 500 years. no wait that was voyager 6, which was never launched
Do a sun slingshot and enter time warp !
Catch it on the launch pad !
I don't know where you got the idea that gas core nuclear rocket can have a SI of 67,000s. According to a paper by the American Nuclear Society (from which your graphic comes) their SI is about 6000s. Also extremely high SI engines accelerate quite slowly which would change the time to reach Voyager considerably.
Weren't they talking about exhaust velocity there rather then ISP? At the least they expressed those numbers in m/s. Though I think you can get an idea of what ISP fits to an exhaust velocity by dividing it by 10 (Not sure if this is reliable though), in which case their given exhaust velocity would roughly get you 6700s ISP, pretty close to your figure.
So by basic conclusion, we might as well wait till fusion reactors work before trying to catch up? Those can get some what reasonable thrust levels still at very high engine exhaust velocities after all. And unlike the molten and gaseous core reactor designs are getting actual serious amounts of money put in to them. Meaning they'll probably be available well before those two fission designs are ever completed.
To clarify further why I think so, it is not necessary to develop a fusion system capable of commercially viable energy production for a rocket. The real goal is instead just to be able to get access to the extra temperatures and thus exhaust velocity that a fusion reactor can produce. If the reactor itself just has a more modest energy return, enough to run itself and power the ship, not to run entire cities, then it would be already good enough for use as a very capable engine. And such a goal is far easier to achieve relatively soon, even now various test units with more modest power returns goals are in the works after all. (ie 10 power returned for every 1 put in, rather then the 100+ thought needed for commercially viable reactors)
As such, I think a fusion drive will probably be available before more advanced fission engines.
Its only 20 years out.......every 20 years
@@kostarak3160 The commercial stuff sure, that is the joke on it.
But as noted we don't need that kind of grade for this. Reactors that should already be good enough are already at advanced levels of construction and will be completing in the coming years.
Now admittedly testing will still take awhile on those, but pretty good chances we'll understand reactors of this level by the 2030s.
What one does after that is up to the people of then, but most likely a fusion drive would be possible to design in principle.
@@Quickshot0 There are several problems that make fusion drive applications on spacecraft almost impossible to construct today. Significant breakthroughs are needed to make them viable even on the investment side of things.
Sure it could take 20 years only unlike commercial but i highly doubt it.
@@kostarak3160 I agree the challenges are still very high, but I'm glad you can see my point of view that at least on the pure research side it might be coming in to reach now.
Actually getting financing to build them could be pretty challenging though, yes. Still I made the original post in part on the basis of that perhaps such a fusion system would be more likely then some fission system that hasn't even entered R&D at all yet.
Still, if reusable rockets make space access a lot cheaper in the 2030s, I could see perhaps some government interest forming in giving it a go. So who knows, maybe things will converge with some luck.
@@Quickshot0 I might be wrong but some fission engines have been built and tested but they never stucked around because of high mass relative to their perfomance and some "unimportant" radiation pollution issues.
Welp,there is also the 1967 Outer Space Treaty that really killed any hope for them.
it is not really a matter if we can reach it, given a little time we'll eventually get the tech for it
the question is if we should
I say *hell yea!!!* sending our address to aliens was such a stuuuuuupid idea!
people often think if they can do something, not if they should
Sad to see how many fewer views this channel gets these days :(
Will turn around. Relax.
There are already quite a few ion engines that reach exhaust velocities of over ~70,000 m/s. The limiting factor is not fuel space or materials, it is thrust which is very low so it takes a long time to accelarate the spacecraft. As an example most ion engines take many months to reach geostationary orbit which is ~35,000 km away from earth not billions.
Thats what is propotional to the time we need to get to voyager 1 not exhaust velocity. Also, gravitational assists are the reason voager 1 and 2 were launched and relied on which was not mentioned on this video. Try to have better research next time in technical subjects.
Only 8pp views so far is crazy
Typos are crazy 😔☠️☠️
Would love to see you do a video about the different nuclear engine technologies, their feasibility, and how far off we are from making them a reality.
The space industry as a whole need to stop playing around and start testing this technologies, this has a lot of terrestrial use cases.
Plasma engine ///
Why bother? It’s right there, in the sky….
First in? Woop🎉
前排！
discuss not discus
Discus this: 🥏
i didnt like the flashing ... its painful to watch
Could it be your diet? scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&as_ylo=2020&q=epilepsy++“calorie+restriction”+OR+“caloric+restriction”&btnG=
I have a proposal, that according to the basics of Newton's laws of motion, and the conventional concept of a vacuum of space, wouldn't it be a fact that once broken free of Earth's gravity, a spaceship in motion should remain in motion, unless acted upon by another force?
In other words, once you've reached escape velocity at acceleration, you could turn off the thrusters and continue accelerating indefinitely, until reaching terminal velocity which would be the speed of light.
The problem however, is that although a vacuum offers no friction or resistance, neither will it allow you to steer or slow down. And nor will it permit heat displacement, so eventually even your own body-heat would cook you. Any form of heat-derived thrust would cook you. Light from stars or suns would cook you. A vacuum is in fact the perfect insulator, that's what makes the vacuum-flask such a popular method to store hot or cold liquids in for prolonged periods of time. There would be no heat in space, therefore absolute freezing, yet no means by which to displace your own heat, which leaves no option but to freeze or burn up.
I think this is why humans are forever destined to live here on our beautiful Stationary Planar Earth, and leave the dreams and fantasies of space-travel to the imaginary realms of childhood dreams and fantasies.
Couple things wrong with this:
1. You wouldn’t continue accelerating unless a force is being applied. So once you turn off thrusters, no more acceleration. Just coasting at that speed.
2. While it would be a small amount, heat would absolutely be transferred away from your body and ship, in the form of radiation. Heat wouldn’t transfer through means of conduction or convection, but it would transfer by radiating energy. By your logic, a vacuum-insulated bottle could keep a drink hot or cold forever. But we know that isn’t possible. Heat is radiated into or out of the bottle (and technically there is still some amount of heat transfer via conduction and convection, since the walls have to be connected at the top and bottom, but let’s say that’s negligible for this).
You don't keep accelerating, you keep going and those are two very different things.