So, I've been wondering.... if delta V is altered by gamma (relativity) that means that if you were to accelerate a propellant to a significant quantity of light speed, that means that it's effective mass (as it relates to the rocket equation) would be greater than it's actual mass, correct?
>>17057530so the best "future thruster" is a particle accelerator.... amirite?
relativity clearly states that the faster you go, the more mass you have, which would bend the rocket equation over a desk and make it bleed.
sorry guys, lemme dummy it down for you /sci/entists.if you throw propellant ou the ass of your ship fas enough, is literally weighs more, and thus gives more thrust than it'smass SHOULD give.because of "Gamma" relativity.am I wrong?
Google AI: "if you throw propellant out the back of your ship fast enough according to relativity, doesn't it have more mass?"ANSWER.Yes, throwing propellant at relativistic speeds gives you a much greater propulsive boost because its energy and momentum scale up dramatically as it approaches the speed of light.Momentum vs. "Relativistic Mass"In modern physics, scientists prefer to talk about an object's momentum (\(p\)The Rest Mass Stays Constant: If you were riding along with the exhaust gas, its mass (\(m\)The Result: As the exhaust velocity (\(v\) gets closer to the speed of light (\(c\) approaches infinity. This means the propellant carries away vastly more momentum than it would in classical physics.The Ultimate Fuel Efficiency Because the propellant carries so much more momentum, your ship gets a much larger forward kick (thrust) for every kilogram of fuel you throw out.
I mean , whenever you are ready....hey musk, you wanna do nuclear powered cyclotrons to mars for the relativity boost?
>>17057543or do you want to admit that einsten was retarded?
Damn bro where was your big beautiful brain back during the Einstein days. Things would have been so different. A whole new era of humanity would have dawned. Instead we had to wait for your disappointing hundred year entrance? Please solve more of our problems, wise one.
>>17057545https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B302gAJlyZQ
>>17057545funny how you didn't actually dispute anything I said....and just used ad homenims.weird even.
>>17057548Bro I am not good at math so I don't add hominems to anything. I was being pretty supportive, I thought. You have a special mind. One of a kind.
>>17057550thanks.what say you?
damnit /sci/, I thought you had a fucking spine.
>>17057538It takes shittons of energy to accelerate mass that fast and requires a massive particle accelerator. It's more practical to just put another xenon tank on your ion thruster powered by your dinky solar panels/RTG.
>>17057530Yes, how do you think solar sails work, despite photons being "massless"?
Traveling through space would be energy than with the edge.
>>17057530Geee you're right OP!and since it's easy to accelerate MASS up to near the speed of light (when that mass multiplier kicks in) this means it will be easy to travel to the stars now that you have enlightened us (just kidding, we're right back to the "it would take all the energy in the universe to move a car at the speed of light" problem we began with)
>>17057530Seems to make sense
>>17057624Basically this. Even were this feasible how are we going to accelerate the fuel to these speeds in a way that is not impractical? Might as well just slap a fusion reactor on a rocket. EZ
