Timeline for Can acceleration be achieved without reaction mass?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 3, 2014 at 6:09 | vote | accept | Hello World | ||
| May 22, 2014 at 3:37 | answer | added | diffeomorphism | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 17, 2014 at 14:22 | comment | added | Hello World | Thanks, but I already searched there, all the technologies mentioned lose mass. | |
| May 16, 2014 at 4:23 | answer | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 15, 2014 at 23:02 | comment | added | user6972 | Here's a nice summary of current technologies you can probably pick something from that list you could put into your swimming ship. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion like a plasma engine. Until we can bend space-time at will, loosing mass of some kind is the most efficient way to accelerate. | |
| May 15, 2014 at 21:07 | comment | added | rob♦ | A related question computes the mass lost by a laser-driven "rocket" after it has reached some final velocity. | |
| May 15, 2014 at 21:03 | history | edited | Hello World | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added "No external source"
|
| May 15, 2014 at 21:01 | comment | added | Hello World | Solar sails require an external source, I will edit my question to exclude that. Thanks. | |
| May 15, 2014 at 21:00 | comment | added | webb | I'm not sure if your preservation of mass is all that useful, because you are still ejecting energy that you need for propulsion. Other options which "don't lose mass" would include things like solar sails, where your craft uses none of its own fuel. | |
| May 15, 2014 at 20:57 | history | asked | Hello World | CC BY-SA 3.0 |