Re:Relativistic Spaceship
by timschmidt on Monday February 05, 2024 @06:05PM
(#39268455)
Less complicated. The rocket exhaust literally forms a plasma shield in front of the decelerating rocket.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Relativistic Spaceship
by cooper_ganglia on Monday February 05, 2024 @06:27PM
(#39268640)
Well then, it's easy: Just always face the exhaust in that direction! It's not rocket science!
Re:Relativistic Spaceship
by JumpCrisscross on Monday February 05, 2024 @07:00PM
(#39268916)
> always face the exhaust in that direction! It's not rocket science!
You don't see a problem with trying to accelerate with two exhaust streams at 180ΒΊ to each other?
What if the front one is only a small fraction of the thrust at the rear? Would that be enough to "clear the path". Surely it would cost some efficiency but it may beat he alternative
Re:Relativistic Spaceship
by timschmidt on Monday February 05, 2024 @10:14PM
(#39270346)
Whipple shields [1] don't weigh much, and don't involve negative acceleration of any kind.
Re:Relativistic Spaceship
by the_third_wave on Tuesday February 06, 2024 @08:43AM
(#39274077)
In other words the space-equivalent of a supercavitating torpedo like the Shkval [1], more or less an underwater rocket which creates its own gas bubble around the projectile by deflecting part of the exhaust stream to nozzles on the front of the device.
Re:Relativistic Spaceship
by cooper_ganglia on Monday February 05, 2024 @09:08PM
(#39269917)
In a universe where every action has an equal and opposite reaction, why not make those reactions argue about it?
what about for the period of time that you're travelling sideways with a largely unshielded broadside facing not exactly empty space?
You wouldn't literally turn around.
You'd probably move your rocket engine over to the other side (or have both a front and back engine in the first place).
Most of the mass of your spaceship will be fuel (like 90%+). You can use that as shielding.