Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Best Guess At No More Fossil Fuel?  
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2896 posts, RR: 10
Posted (4 years 4 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2240 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

After spending my life dreaming since the 1960's when a Star Trek shuttle was powered by someting else...no fire, no exaust...all the way to today when our dreams of flying are less similar than a lawn mower and more like the flying, gravity defying Star Wars like crafts? Do we have a hunch how to do it? is it Ion power? Is it just a dream? I am confident mankind will do it, unfortunately I will be gone for a long, long time?

And naturally, what number would Boeing use!!!    


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2228 times:

Laser propulsion has always fascinated me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion. It has been practically demonstrated in small scale.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19698 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2178 times:

Honestly, if we're going to do crewed starflight, we're going to need a *lot* of energy and fusion is the only thing that makes sense. Second only to Star Trek's matter/antimatter drives (which are horribly dangerous and use outrageously expensive fuel that is equally horribly dangerous), fusion fuel carries more energy per unit mass than any other fuel. Bussard ramscoops could provide both fuel for the reactor and reaction mass for the drives.

Even at 1g the whole way, travel to even the nearest star will take many years. But it's a start.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2153 times:

As Doc says. I would add zero point energy to fusion and antimatter.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineTravelAVNut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1612 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2142 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
zero point energy

If it is usable. What I have read about zero point energy untill now is all from the pseudo-science realm..



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2115 times:

And I would agree!  

For an entertaining bit of fiction on the subject, read Travis S. Taylor's "Warp Speed".



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinemrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 1887 times:

Fossil fuel will be rendered obsolete in aviation by:

1. Synthetic hydrocarbons becoming cheaper to make than natural sources of oil are to extract and refine
2. Controllable small scale fusion

Yeah, #1 still has us burning the same stuff. And, contrary to what we hear everywhere, it will not destroy the planet.


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3761 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

I agree with everybosy else here. Fusion is the only medium term feasible propulsion method that would provide enough energy for space travel, albeit not interstellar travel. If we manage to harness it and make spacecrafts capable of travelling with the solar system to harvest its mineral and gazeous resources, it'll be a good start. The technology can evolve from there once there is a commercial incentive.

Everything other form of space propulsion out there is still highly theoretical, and most of them require amounts of energy we can hardly comprehend, let alone create...
Though it would be cool to see some sort of giant energy capacitor which, once charged, would provide enough energy to locally distort space and time in such a way that it would bring you to another point in space instantly, provided it is at all possible to cohenrently manage that distortion.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1784 times:

francoflier, ion propulsion is way more than theoretical. While thrust levels are low, specific impulse is very high, meaning it is an excellent engine for interplanetary travel.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Best Guess At No More Fossil Fuel?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No More "thr 26L" At FRA? posted Sun Jul 26 2009 12:25:49 by DanVS
Why No More T-Tail Airplanes, Besides Regionals? posted Wed Mar 31 2010 18:36:21 by c5load
No More Alitalia Cargo Operated By Atlas Air? posted Fri Oct 21 2005 19:24:46 by B744F
737 Why No More Eyebrow Windows? posted Tue Mar 8 2005 14:41:01 by Thrust
Why NO More Three Engined Widebodies posted Wed May 12 2004 21:14:53 by Bluethunder
AFT CoG: Why More Fuel Efficient? posted Mon Aug 17 2009 16:55:05 by JER757
Fuel Temps At Cruising posted Fri Aug 7 2009 08:14:32 by Jetblueguy22
Q400 Vs. A320/A321 - What's More Fuel Efficient? posted Sat Jul 25 2009 07:06:15 by YTZ
Airman Spots A Fuel Leak At 35,000 Feet posted Thu May 14 2009 18:27:40 by Ryu2
Airbus A319 CJ - How Much More Fuel Capacity? posted Sun May 10 2009 13:45:31 by Mozart

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format