Spaceship fuel on Europa
$begingroup$
What would make a good propulsion source for small engines and manouvering thrusters for spacecraft vehicles on Europa (moon of Jupiter), both for near-surface operations (vacuum) and in caves beneath the ice (low or medium pressure)?
I am only interested in spacescraft thruster propulsion systems, not wheels or tanks tracks etc. My version of europa has an extensive cave system within the ice, which will be navigated by spacecraft using thrusters. I am ignoring gas pressure and propellors, and assuming the pressure is too low to bother with aerodynamics.
Say my colonists have ample amounts of electricity from fusion power. They want to use local materials if possible. Refueling drops from other locations in the jovian system are acceptable as long as they are plausible and make economic sense...
space-travel fuels jupiter
asked Mar 29 at 16:24
InnovineInnovine
3,619725
$endgroup$
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
What would make a good propulsion source for small engines and manouvering thrusters for spacecraft vehicles on Europa (moon of Jupiter), both for near-surface operations (vacuum) and in caves beneath the ice (low or medium pressure)?
I am only interested in spacescraft thruster propulsion systems, not wheels or tanks tracks etc. My version of europa has an extensive cave system within the ice, which will be navigated by spacecraft using thrusters. I am ignoring gas pressure and propellors, and assuming the pressure is too low to bother with aerodynamics.
Say my colonists have ample amounts of electricity from fusion power. They want to use local materials if possible. Refueling drops from other locations in the jovian system are acceptable as long as they are plausible and make economic sense...
space-travel fuels jupiter
asked Mar 29 at 16:24
InnovineInnovine
3,619725
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
SE's Q&A model is one-specific-question/one-best-answer. I see at least 3 questions, which makes the question "too broad." You can always post more questions if necessary. Please edit this post to express a single, specific question. Also, our help center states, "avoid asking subjective questions where your answer is provided along with the question."
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 29 at 16:29
1
$begingroup$
While I agree with the above to some extent, I think the questions closely relate to each other enough that it may be considered one continuous question. Consider rewording some questions in a way to illustrate possible solutions you've thought of. I think that would clear up the question.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
Mar 29 at 16:37
2
$begingroup$
Sometimes authors use questions rhetorically. In this case, I'm seeing one larger question with some ideas thrown out in the form of questions.
$endgroup$
– Cyn
Mar 29 at 17:16
$begingroup$
You don't need anything special, wheels or ski, powered by an electric motor will work just fine. Given the conditions on Europa, some sort of covered snowmobile would be best.
$endgroup$
– ventsyv
Mar 29 at 18:59
1
$begingroup$
@ventsyv there's no snow on Europa. The surface ice is brittle and rock hard. A lunar rover-type vehicle might work if it weren't for the ultra-rough cryovolcanic landscape, but in low-gravity vacuum, good old thrusters are usually the best solution.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
What would make a good propulsion source for small engines and manouvering thrusters for spacecraft vehicles on Europa (moon of Jupiter), both for near-surface operations (vacuum) and in caves beneath the ice (low or medium pressure)?
I am only interested in spacescraft thruster propulsion systems, not wheels or tanks tracks etc. My version of europa has an extensive cave system within the ice, which will be navigated by spacecraft using thrusters. I am ignoring gas pressure and propellors, and assuming the pressure is too low to bother with aerodynamics.
Say my colonists have ample amounts of electricity from fusion power. They want to use local materials if possible. Refueling drops from other locations in the jovian system are acceptable as long as they are plausible and make economic sense...
space-travel fuels jupiter
asked Mar 29 at 16:24
InnovineInnovine
3,619725
$endgroup$
What would make a good propulsion source for small engines and manouvering thrusters for spacecraft vehicles on Europa (moon of Jupiter), both for near-surface operations (vacuum) and in caves beneath the ice (low or medium pressure)?
I am only interested in spacescraft thruster propulsion systems, not wheels or tanks tracks etc. My version of europa has an extensive cave system within the ice, which will be navigated by spacecraft using thrusters. I am ignoring gas pressure and propellors, and assuming the pressure is too low to bother with aerodynamics.
Say my colonists have ample amounts of electricity from fusion power. They want to use local materials if possible. Refueling drops from other locations in the jovian system are acceptable as long as they are plausible and make economic sense...
space-travel fuels jupiter
space-travel fuels jupiter
asked Mar 29 at 16:24
InnovineInnovine
3,619725
asked Mar 29 at 16:24
InnovineInnovine
3,619725
edited 14 hours ago
Innovine
asked Mar 29 at 16:24
InnovineInnovine
3,619725
asked Mar 29 at 16:24
InnovineInnovine
3,619725
asked Mar 29 at 16:24
InnovineInnovine
3,619725
3,619725
$begingroup$
SE's Q&A model is one-specific-question/one-best-answer. I see at least 3 questions, which makes the question "too broad." You can always post more questions if necessary. Please edit this post to express a single, specific question. Also, our help center states, "avoid asking subjective questions where your answer is provided along with the question."
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 29 at 16:29
1
$begingroup$
While I agree with the above to some extent, I think the questions closely relate to each other enough that it may be considered one continuous question. Consider rewording some questions in a way to illustrate possible solutions you've thought of. I think that would clear up the question.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
Mar 29 at 16:37
2
$begingroup$
Sometimes authors use questions rhetorically. In this case, I'm seeing one larger question with some ideas thrown out in the form of questions.
$endgroup$
– Cyn
Mar 29 at 17:16
$begingroup$
You don't need anything special, wheels or ski, powered by an electric motor will work just fine. Given the conditions on Europa, some sort of covered snowmobile would be best.
$endgroup$
– ventsyv
Mar 29 at 18:59
1
$begingroup$
@ventsyv there's no snow on Europa. The surface ice is brittle and rock hard. A lunar rover-type vehicle might work if it weren't for the ultra-rough cryovolcanic landscape, but in low-gravity vacuum, good old thrusters are usually the best solution.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
SE's Q&A model is one-specific-question/one-best-answer. I see at least 3 questions, which makes the question "too broad." You can always post more questions if necessary. Please edit this post to express a single, specific question. Also, our help center states, "avoid asking subjective questions where your answer is provided along with the question."
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 29 at 16:29
1
$begingroup$
While I agree with the above to some extent, I think the questions closely relate to each other enough that it may be considered one continuous question. Consider rewording some questions in a way to illustrate possible solutions you've thought of. I think that would clear up the question.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
Mar 29 at 16:37
2
$begingroup$
Sometimes authors use questions rhetorically. In this case, I'm seeing one larger question with some ideas thrown out in the form of questions.
$endgroup$
– Cyn
Mar 29 at 17:16
$begingroup$
You don't need anything special, wheels or ski, powered by an electric motor will work just fine. Given the conditions on Europa, some sort of covered snowmobile would be best.
$endgroup$
– ventsyv
Mar 29 at 18:59
1
$begingroup$
@ventsyv there's no snow on Europa. The surface ice is brittle and rock hard. A lunar rover-type vehicle might work if it weren't for the ultra-rough cryovolcanic landscape, but in low-gravity vacuum, good old thrusters are usually the best solution.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
2 days ago
$begingroup$
SE's Q&A model is one-specific-question/one-best-answer. I see at least 3 questions, which makes the question "too broad." You can always post more questions if necessary. Please edit this post to express a single, specific question. Also, our help center states, "avoid asking subjective questions where your answer is provided along with the question."
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 29 at 16:29
$begingroup$
SE's Q&A model is one-specific-question/one-best-answer. I see at least 3 questions, which makes the question "too broad." You can always post more questions if necessary. Please edit this post to express a single, specific question. Also, our help center states, "avoid asking subjective questions where your answer is provided along with the question."
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 29 at 16:29
1
1
$begingroup$
While I agree with the above to some extent, I think the questions closely relate to each other enough that it may be considered one continuous question. Consider rewording some questions in a way to illustrate possible solutions you've thought of. I think that would clear up the question.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
Mar 29 at 16:37
$begingroup$
While I agree with the above to some extent, I think the questions closely relate to each other enough that it may be considered one continuous question. Consider rewording some questions in a way to illustrate possible solutions you've thought of. I think that would clear up the question.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
Mar 29 at 16:37
2
2
$begingroup$
Sometimes authors use questions rhetorically. In this case, I'm seeing one larger question with some ideas thrown out in the form of questions.
$endgroup$
– Cyn
Mar 29 at 17:16
$begingroup$
Sometimes authors use questions rhetorically. In this case, I'm seeing one larger question with some ideas thrown out in the form of questions.
$endgroup$
– Cyn
Mar 29 at 17:16
$begingroup$
You don't need anything special, wheels or ski, powered by an electric motor will work just fine. Given the conditions on Europa, some sort of covered snowmobile would be best.
$endgroup$
– ventsyv
Mar 29 at 18:59
$begingroup$
You don't need anything special, wheels or ski, powered by an electric motor will work just fine. Given the conditions on Europa, some sort of covered snowmobile would be best.
$endgroup$
– ventsyv
Mar 29 at 18:59
1
1
$begingroup$
@ventsyv there's no snow on Europa. The surface ice is brittle and rock hard. A lunar rover-type vehicle might work if it weren't for the ultra-rough cryovolcanic landscape, but in low-gravity vacuum, good old thrusters are usually the best solution.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@ventsyv there's no snow on Europa. The surface ice is brittle and rock hard. A lunar rover-type vehicle might work if it weren't for the ultra-rough cryovolcanic landscape, but in low-gravity vacuum, good old thrusters are usually the best solution.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Under the ice:
Under the ice on Europa, there is... more ice. The upper layer of the planet is actually a solid ice layer, similar to the upper mantle of the Earth. While solid, there is a lot of convection (on Earth this creates tectonic activity), so if you drilled a tunnel down there, it would collapse pretty quickly due to the shifting ice. Also, as you drilled down there would be lots of pressure from the gas formed by sublimating ice that you've newly exposed to the vacuum of space.
So vehicles designed to go down there would have their own drilling equipment and be able to fix themselves to the ice, maybe using giant spikes or equivalent. If and when they get down to the water level, they would probably stay as close as possible to the surface to avoid getting caught in underwater currents caused by the tides (when you orbit a gas giant, your tidal forces are very, very strong), so I doubt you'd even have a submarine-like design, just a tank that claws its way through the slushy ice-soup that saturates the top levels of the oceans.
On the surface:
Easy peasy. Europa's gravity is about 13% of Earth's, so you could propel yourself with jets of water vapor expelled from RCS thrusters:
Water vapor is easy to make when the ground is made of ice and you have nuclear power. Don't bother with hydrogen and oxygen: just superheat the water and explosively blast it out of a nozzle: the easiest way to store hydrogen and oxygen is in the form of water.
Local materials:
Well, you're good on fuel. Everything else would have to be imported or slowly fished out from the ice's mineral content through electrolysis, dew point separation, or whatever ends up being more efficient. There's a good amount of carbon down there, and plenty of hydrogen, so you could conceivably make plastics through a convoluted and power-hungry process. Some metals are present at impact sites, as well as silicon, which you could use to make ceramics. You might be better off importing though. It depends: if Europa is a fuel-mining colony, they can probably afford to filter their water for impurities as part of the refining process. If they're a research outpost, haha good luck!
answered Mar 29 at 16:49
Adrian HallAdrian Hall
1,267114
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Remember that access to fusion power does not imply that the right sort of fusion reactor to drive a rocket is available and light enough to be used for that purpose, even on Europa. A solid core fission rocket would certainly work fine, but its fuel will be harder to come by on Europa, and it isn't an engine you can just turn on and off at will so it wouldn't really be suitable as a small engine.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
The spacecraft can be battery powered. Which might have the greatest mass, a small fusion reactor, a radioisotope generator, or a bank of batteries? the idea of containing a steam boiler is not bad, but wouldnt greater amounts of gas fuel be easier to have onboard under much higher pressure?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
This answer needs to prove that storing water is more efficient than hydrogen, oxygen or both under high pressure. Or would it be best to store as H and O, and then combine to water, superheat, and eject as steam?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@StarfishPrime Energy is generated by a fusion reactor housed in a building. The energy only has to be stored by the ship, not generated. Given that the maximum energy density of resting matter is about 10^17 joules per kg (via e=mc^2), I doubt there are any inherent issues with the energy being too heavy – the main concern is the safety of transporting it. You can superheat water with enough energy, no matter where said energy comes from.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AdrianHall yes, it is true that you can solve the issue by handwaving an arbitrarily capable energy storage system.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
6 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
This answers the original question as asked before edits. This answer does not work for a recently edited version of the question.
You do not need any special fuel. You said that you have plenty of electricity that you are generating, so just use electrical motors.
A good propulsion source on the surface would be wheels or legs. If the ground is solid, you use conventional means to traverse it. So, we use the same technology we have been using for thousands of years.
A good propulsion source under the surface but still in the solid volume would be a drill. This could be either a conventional mechanical drill, or, since you have ample electricity, it could drill through the ice using heat; but beware, drilling using heat will leave behind water and/or water-vapor which you may have to deal with.
A good propulsion source deeper under the surface in the volume which is believed to be liquid would require a sub.
So you see, everything will just use types of devices that we are already used to, though they may need to be adapted a bit to the specific conditions of Europa. In fact, people have been working on this for years. See the following...
Robot Submarine on Jupiter Moon Europa is 'Holy Grail' Mission for Planetary Science
An Alien-Hunting Submarine Is Being Tested in Antarctica
NASA’s New Deep-Sea Submarine Could Eventually Look for Aliens
answered Mar 29 at 17:53
AaronAaron
2,524620
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
He probably things he needs a reaction engine since he is in "space" and everyone knows you use thrusters in space.
$endgroup$
– ventsyv
Mar 29 at 18:53
$begingroup$
Europa's surface gravity is comparable to that of the Moon. Yes, you can drive on it, but the reduced traction due to lower gravity limits your speed. For longer distances, rocket-propelled hoppers are the most practical way to get around.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 29 at 21:51
$begingroup$
Yes, I need free flying craft.
$endgroup$
– Innovine
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Could they melt ice to water and electrolyse it to hydrogen and oxygen?
Absolutely. "Ample" electricity from fusion means that this would be trivial, as would more complex bits of chemistry to synthesise hydrocarbons. In the limit, this means that any fuel we use today could be synthesised in situ, given sufficient chemical feedstocks. Given hydrogen's low density and inconvenient storage requirements and interactions with certain materials it would certainly be appealing to use other materials for rocket or jet fuel if possible.
Other options include hydrogen peroxide production, which is a useful material in itself as well as being a suitable as a rocket monopropellant or the oxidiser in a bipropellant rocket system, though high-test peroxide is a fairly hazardous thing to handle. Peroxide is an interesting high pressure gas source that can be used for pneumatic mechanisms, and has been experimented with as a power source for robots and prosthetic arms.
If so, how would a hydrogen and oxygen based propulsion system function?
Obvious answer:
More generally: hydrogen isn't a very convenient fuel to store, but you can use it in most places you'd use a hydrocarbon fuel. You could make a jet engine that runs on it, or run it through a fuel cell for electricity production and then use that to drive other means of propulsion such as a propeller or pump jet.
What other solutions might they use?
Given that the Europan surface gravity is so low, you will probably be OK using water as reaction mass as-is, without having to go through the whole inconvenient process of electrolysis and storing hydrogen (which is quite inconvenient). One way to do this would be to use steam rockets which would be quite effective on a low-g moon in a vacuum. The steam could be generated ahead of time and stored in a tank, or it could be generated in-flight by fusion power if your reactors were light enough or could be heated by external lasers on the moon's surface. With a bit of clever engineering, a pulsed-plasma drive system using high power external lasers vapourising ice pellets could be quite powerful.
You could even use entirely external propulsion in the form of a big steam cannon to simply blast ships and cargo into the sky, though an electromagnetic catapult would probably be a more sensible thing to use here. If you really wanted a gonzo solution to landing, deploy a parachute and have your destination shoot water cannon at you.
Also, going back to peroxide rockets, take a look at this: Bell Rocket Belt.
answered yesterday
Starfish PrimeStarfish Prime
4328
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks, this was very useful. I'll skip the bits about steam cannons since my goal is small engines and maneuvering thrusters, often in caves and canyons, but the hydrogen peroxide sounds quite plausible to me. The nitrogen pressurizer is not consumed I assume? Is the catalyst rapidly consumed, because silver will need to be imported, and may be prohibitively expensive. Any thoughts on storing H and O under high pressure, and combining them to water to power a steam rocket, or is that just too complicated? I worry about large tanks of water being required. Or just have a steam tank onboard?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine catalysts are generally not consumed in any process. They may eventually degrade or become too contaminated to function, but this takes some time and there's plenty of scope for reprocessing them. Any pressurising gas could be used; we use nitrogen on earth because it is easily available and inert.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Innovine storing hydrogen is hard, due to its very low density and low boiling point. If you can avoid it, you probably should. Hydrogen tanks will be much larger than water tanks, and be more awkward to make (due to hydrogen embrittlemen of some metals) and quite possibly need cryogenic cooling. A hydrogen/oxygen burning rocket is not usually referred to as a steam rocket, due to the difference between a nozzle emitting steam and one emitting multiple-thousand-degree fire.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine for an example of the hassle of hydrogen, look at all the X-prize competitors and their modern day descendants in the form of SpaceX and Virgin Galactic. If an alternative fuel to liquid hydrogen could be used, it was, because it is so hard to work with.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hydrogen peroxide looks great so far :)
$endgroup$
– Innovine
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142774%2fspaceship-fuel-on-europa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Under the ice:
Under the ice on Europa, there is... more ice. The upper layer of the planet is actually a solid ice layer, similar to the upper mantle of the Earth. While solid, there is a lot of convection (on Earth this creates tectonic activity), so if you drilled a tunnel down there, it would collapse pretty quickly due to the shifting ice. Also, as you drilled down there would be lots of pressure from the gas formed by sublimating ice that you've newly exposed to the vacuum of space.
So vehicles designed to go down there would have their own drilling equipment and be able to fix themselves to the ice, maybe using giant spikes or equivalent. If and when they get down to the water level, they would probably stay as close as possible to the surface to avoid getting caught in underwater currents caused by the tides (when you orbit a gas giant, your tidal forces are very, very strong), so I doubt you'd even have a submarine-like design, just a tank that claws its way through the slushy ice-soup that saturates the top levels of the oceans.
On the surface:
Easy peasy. Europa's gravity is about 13% of Earth's, so you could propel yourself with jets of water vapor expelled from RCS thrusters:
Water vapor is easy to make when the ground is made of ice and you have nuclear power. Don't bother with hydrogen and oxygen: just superheat the water and explosively blast it out of a nozzle: the easiest way to store hydrogen and oxygen is in the form of water.
Local materials:
Well, you're good on fuel. Everything else would have to be imported or slowly fished out from the ice's mineral content through electrolysis, dew point separation, or whatever ends up being more efficient. There's a good amount of carbon down there, and plenty of hydrogen, so you could conceivably make plastics through a convoluted and power-hungry process. Some metals are present at impact sites, as well as silicon, which you could use to make ceramics. You might be better off importing though. It depends: if Europa is a fuel-mining colony, they can probably afford to filter their water for impurities as part of the refining process. If they're a research outpost, haha good luck!
answered Mar 29 at 16:49
Adrian HallAdrian Hall
1,267114
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Remember that access to fusion power does not imply that the right sort of fusion reactor to drive a rocket is available and light enough to be used for that purpose, even on Europa. A solid core fission rocket would certainly work fine, but its fuel will be harder to come by on Europa, and it isn't an engine you can just turn on and off at will so it wouldn't really be suitable as a small engine.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
The spacecraft can be battery powered. Which might have the greatest mass, a small fusion reactor, a radioisotope generator, or a bank of batteries? the idea of containing a steam boiler is not bad, but wouldnt greater amounts of gas fuel be easier to have onboard under much higher pressure?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
This answer needs to prove that storing water is more efficient than hydrogen, oxygen or both under high pressure. Or would it be best to store as H and O, and then combine to water, superheat, and eject as steam?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@StarfishPrime Energy is generated by a fusion reactor housed in a building. The energy only has to be stored by the ship, not generated. Given that the maximum energy density of resting matter is about 10^17 joules per kg (via e=mc^2), I doubt there are any inherent issues with the energy being too heavy – the main concern is the safety of transporting it. You can superheat water with enough energy, no matter where said energy comes from.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AdrianHall yes, it is true that you can solve the issue by handwaving an arbitrarily capable energy storage system.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
6 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
Under the ice:
Under the ice on Europa, there is... more ice. The upper layer of the planet is actually a solid ice layer, similar to the upper mantle of the Earth. While solid, there is a lot of convection (on Earth this creates tectonic activity), so if you drilled a tunnel down there, it would collapse pretty quickly due to the shifting ice. Also, as you drilled down there would be lots of pressure from the gas formed by sublimating ice that you've newly exposed to the vacuum of space.
So vehicles designed to go down there would have their own drilling equipment and be able to fix themselves to the ice, maybe using giant spikes or equivalent. If and when they get down to the water level, they would probably stay as close as possible to the surface to avoid getting caught in underwater currents caused by the tides (when you orbit a gas giant, your tidal forces are very, very strong), so I doubt you'd even have a submarine-like design, just a tank that claws its way through the slushy ice-soup that saturates the top levels of the oceans.
On the surface:
Easy peasy. Europa's gravity is about 13% of Earth's, so you could propel yourself with jets of water vapor expelled from RCS thrusters:
Water vapor is easy to make when the ground is made of ice and you have nuclear power. Don't bother with hydrogen and oxygen: just superheat the water and explosively blast it out of a nozzle: the easiest way to store hydrogen and oxygen is in the form of water.
Local materials:
Well, you're good on fuel. Everything else would have to be imported or slowly fished out from the ice's mineral content through electrolysis, dew point separation, or whatever ends up being more efficient. There's a good amount of carbon down there, and plenty of hydrogen, so you could conceivably make plastics through a convoluted and power-hungry process. Some metals are present at impact sites, as well as silicon, which you could use to make ceramics. You might be better off importing though. It depends: if Europa is a fuel-mining colony, they can probably afford to filter their water for impurities as part of the refining process. If they're a research outpost, haha good luck!
answered Mar 29 at 16:49
Adrian HallAdrian Hall
1,267114
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Remember that access to fusion power does not imply that the right sort of fusion reactor to drive a rocket is available and light enough to be used for that purpose, even on Europa. A solid core fission rocket would certainly work fine, but its fuel will be harder to come by on Europa, and it isn't an engine you can just turn on and off at will so it wouldn't really be suitable as a small engine.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
The spacecraft can be battery powered. Which might have the greatest mass, a small fusion reactor, a radioisotope generator, or a bank of batteries? the idea of containing a steam boiler is not bad, but wouldnt greater amounts of gas fuel be easier to have onboard under much higher pressure?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
This answer needs to prove that storing water is more efficient than hydrogen, oxygen or both under high pressure. Or would it be best to store as H and O, and then combine to water, superheat, and eject as steam?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@StarfishPrime Energy is generated by a fusion reactor housed in a building. The energy only has to be stored by the ship, not generated. Given that the maximum energy density of resting matter is about 10^17 joules per kg (via e=mc^2), I doubt there are any inherent issues with the energy being too heavy – the main concern is the safety of transporting it. You can superheat water with enough energy, no matter where said energy comes from.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AdrianHall yes, it is true that you can solve the issue by handwaving an arbitrarily capable energy storage system.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
6 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
Under the ice:
Under the ice on Europa, there is... more ice. The upper layer of the planet is actually a solid ice layer, similar to the upper mantle of the Earth. While solid, there is a lot of convection (on Earth this creates tectonic activity), so if you drilled a tunnel down there, it would collapse pretty quickly due to the shifting ice. Also, as you drilled down there would be lots of pressure from the gas formed by sublimating ice that you've newly exposed to the vacuum of space.
So vehicles designed to go down there would have their own drilling equipment and be able to fix themselves to the ice, maybe using giant spikes or equivalent. If and when they get down to the water level, they would probably stay as close as possible to the surface to avoid getting caught in underwater currents caused by the tides (when you orbit a gas giant, your tidal forces are very, very strong), so I doubt you'd even have a submarine-like design, just a tank that claws its way through the slushy ice-soup that saturates the top levels of the oceans.
On the surface:
Easy peasy. Europa's gravity is about 13% of Earth's, so you could propel yourself with jets of water vapor expelled from RCS thrusters:
Water vapor is easy to make when the ground is made of ice and you have nuclear power. Don't bother with hydrogen and oxygen: just superheat the water and explosively blast it out of a nozzle: the easiest way to store hydrogen and oxygen is in the form of water.
Local materials:
Well, you're good on fuel. Everything else would have to be imported or slowly fished out from the ice's mineral content through electrolysis, dew point separation, or whatever ends up being more efficient. There's a good amount of carbon down there, and plenty of hydrogen, so you could conceivably make plastics through a convoluted and power-hungry process. Some metals are present at impact sites, as well as silicon, which you could use to make ceramics. You might be better off importing though. It depends: if Europa is a fuel-mining colony, they can probably afford to filter their water for impurities as part of the refining process. If they're a research outpost, haha good luck!
answered Mar 29 at 16:49
Adrian HallAdrian Hall
1,267114
$endgroup$
Under the ice:
Under the ice on Europa, there is... more ice. The upper layer of the planet is actually a solid ice layer, similar to the upper mantle of the Earth. While solid, there is a lot of convection (on Earth this creates tectonic activity), so if you drilled a tunnel down there, it would collapse pretty quickly due to the shifting ice. Also, as you drilled down there would be lots of pressure from the gas formed by sublimating ice that you've newly exposed to the vacuum of space.
So vehicles designed to go down there would have their own drilling equipment and be able to fix themselves to the ice, maybe using giant spikes or equivalent. If and when they get down to the water level, they would probably stay as close as possible to the surface to avoid getting caught in underwater currents caused by the tides (when you orbit a gas giant, your tidal forces are very, very strong), so I doubt you'd even have a submarine-like design, just a tank that claws its way through the slushy ice-soup that saturates the top levels of the oceans.
On the surface:
Easy peasy. Europa's gravity is about 13% of Earth's, so you could propel yourself with jets of water vapor expelled from RCS thrusters:
Water vapor is easy to make when the ground is made of ice and you have nuclear power. Don't bother with hydrogen and oxygen: just superheat the water and explosively blast it out of a nozzle: the easiest way to store hydrogen and oxygen is in the form of water.
Local materials:
Well, you're good on fuel. Everything else would have to be imported or slowly fished out from the ice's mineral content through electrolysis, dew point separation, or whatever ends up being more efficient. There's a good amount of carbon down there, and plenty of hydrogen, so you could conceivably make plastics through a convoluted and power-hungry process. Some metals are present at impact sites, as well as silicon, which you could use to make ceramics. You might be better off importing though. It depends: if Europa is a fuel-mining colony, they can probably afford to filter their water for impurities as part of the refining process. If they're a research outpost, haha good luck!
answered Mar 29 at 16:49
Adrian HallAdrian Hall
1,267114
answered Mar 29 at 16:49
Adrian HallAdrian Hall
1,267114
answered Mar 29 at 16:49
Adrian HallAdrian Hall
1,267114
answered Mar 29 at 16:49
Adrian HallAdrian Hall
1,267114
1,267114
$begingroup$
Remember that access to fusion power does not imply that the right sort of fusion reactor to drive a rocket is available and light enough to be used for that purpose, even on Europa. A solid core fission rocket would certainly work fine, but its fuel will be harder to come by on Europa, and it isn't an engine you can just turn on and off at will so it wouldn't really be suitable as a small engine.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
The spacecraft can be battery powered. Which might have the greatest mass, a small fusion reactor, a radioisotope generator, or a bank of batteries? the idea of containing a steam boiler is not bad, but wouldnt greater amounts of gas fuel be easier to have onboard under much higher pressure?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
This answer needs to prove that storing water is more efficient than hydrogen, oxygen or both under high pressure. Or would it be best to store as H and O, and then combine to water, superheat, and eject as steam?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@StarfishPrime Energy is generated by a fusion reactor housed in a building. The energy only has to be stored by the ship, not generated. Given that the maximum energy density of resting matter is about 10^17 joules per kg (via e=mc^2), I doubt there are any inherent issues with the energy being too heavy – the main concern is the safety of transporting it. You can superheat water with enough energy, no matter where said energy comes from.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AdrianHall yes, it is true that you can solve the issue by handwaving an arbitrarily capable energy storage system.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
6 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
Remember that access to fusion power does not imply that the right sort of fusion reactor to drive a rocket is available and light enough to be used for that purpose, even on Europa. A solid core fission rocket would certainly work fine, but its fuel will be harder to come by on Europa, and it isn't an engine you can just turn on and off at will so it wouldn't really be suitable as a small engine.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
The spacecraft can be battery powered. Which might have the greatest mass, a small fusion reactor, a radioisotope generator, or a bank of batteries? the idea of containing a steam boiler is not bad, but wouldnt greater amounts of gas fuel be easier to have onboard under much higher pressure?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
This answer needs to prove that storing water is more efficient than hydrogen, oxygen or both under high pressure. Or would it be best to store as H and O, and then combine to water, superheat, and eject as steam?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@StarfishPrime Energy is generated by a fusion reactor housed in a building. The energy only has to be stored by the ship, not generated. Given that the maximum energy density of resting matter is about 10^17 joules per kg (via e=mc^2), I doubt there are any inherent issues with the energy being too heavy – the main concern is the safety of transporting it. You can superheat water with enough energy, no matter where said energy comes from.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AdrianHall yes, it is true that you can solve the issue by handwaving an arbitrarily capable energy storage system.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Remember that access to fusion power does not imply that the right sort of fusion reactor to drive a rocket is available and light enough to be used for that purpose, even on Europa. A solid core fission rocket would certainly work fine, but its fuel will be harder to come by on Europa, and it isn't an engine you can just turn on and off at will so it wouldn't really be suitable as a small engine.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
Remember that access to fusion power does not imply that the right sort of fusion reactor to drive a rocket is available and light enough to be used for that purpose, even on Europa. A solid core fission rocket would certainly work fine, but its fuel will be harder to come by on Europa, and it isn't an engine you can just turn on and off at will so it wouldn't really be suitable as a small engine.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
The spacecraft can be battery powered. Which might have the greatest mass, a small fusion reactor, a radioisotope generator, or a bank of batteries? the idea of containing a steam boiler is not bad, but wouldnt greater amounts of gas fuel be easier to have onboard under much higher pressure?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
The spacecraft can be battery powered. Which might have the greatest mass, a small fusion reactor, a radioisotope generator, or a bank of batteries? the idea of containing a steam boiler is not bad, but wouldnt greater amounts of gas fuel be easier to have onboard under much higher pressure?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
This answer needs to prove that storing water is more efficient than hydrogen, oxygen or both under high pressure. Or would it be best to store as H and O, and then combine to water, superheat, and eject as steam?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
This answer needs to prove that storing water is more efficient than hydrogen, oxygen or both under high pressure. Or would it be best to store as H and O, and then combine to water, superheat, and eject as steam?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@StarfishPrime Energy is generated by a fusion reactor housed in a building. The energy only has to be stored by the ship, not generated. Given that the maximum energy density of resting matter is about 10^17 joules per kg (via e=mc^2), I doubt there are any inherent issues with the energy being too heavy – the main concern is the safety of transporting it. You can superheat water with enough energy, no matter where said energy comes from.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@StarfishPrime Energy is generated by a fusion reactor housed in a building. The energy only has to be stored by the ship, not generated. Given that the maximum energy density of resting matter is about 10^17 joules per kg (via e=mc^2), I doubt there are any inherent issues with the energy being too heavy – the main concern is the safety of transporting it. You can superheat water with enough energy, no matter where said energy comes from.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AdrianHall yes, it is true that you can solve the issue by handwaving an arbitrarily capable energy storage system.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AdrianHall yes, it is true that you can solve the issue by handwaving an arbitrarily capable energy storage system.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
6 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
This answers the original question as asked before edits. This answer does not work for a recently edited version of the question.
You do not need any special fuel. You said that you have plenty of electricity that you are generating, so just use electrical motors.
A good propulsion source on the surface would be wheels or legs. If the ground is solid, you use conventional means to traverse it. So, we use the same technology we have been using for thousands of years.
A good propulsion source under the surface but still in the solid volume would be a drill. This could be either a conventional mechanical drill, or, since you have ample electricity, it could drill through the ice using heat; but beware, drilling using heat will leave behind water and/or water-vapor which you may have to deal with.
A good propulsion source deeper under the surface in the volume which is believed to be liquid would require a sub.
So you see, everything will just use types of devices that we are already used to, though they may need to be adapted a bit to the specific conditions of Europa. In fact, people have been working on this for years. See the following...
Robot Submarine on Jupiter Moon Europa is 'Holy Grail' Mission for Planetary Science
An Alien-Hunting Submarine Is Being Tested in Antarctica
NASA’s New Deep-Sea Submarine Could Eventually Look for Aliens
answered Mar 29 at 17:53
AaronAaron
2,524620
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
He probably things he needs a reaction engine since he is in "space" and everyone knows you use thrusters in space.
$endgroup$
– ventsyv
Mar 29 at 18:53
$begingroup$
Europa's surface gravity is comparable to that of the Moon. Yes, you can drive on it, but the reduced traction due to lower gravity limits your speed. For longer distances, rocket-propelled hoppers are the most practical way to get around.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 29 at 21:51
$begingroup$
Yes, I need free flying craft.
$endgroup$
– Innovine
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This answers the original question as asked before edits. This answer does not work for a recently edited version of the question.
You do not need any special fuel. You said that you have plenty of electricity that you are generating, so just use electrical motors.
A good propulsion source on the surface would be wheels or legs. If the ground is solid, you use conventional means to traverse it. So, we use the same technology we have been using for thousands of years.
A good propulsion source under the surface but still in the solid volume would be a drill. This could be either a conventional mechanical drill, or, since you have ample electricity, it could drill through the ice using heat; but beware, drilling using heat will leave behind water and/or water-vapor which you may have to deal with.
A good propulsion source deeper under the surface in the volume which is believed to be liquid would require a sub.
So you see, everything will just use types of devices that we are already used to, though they may need to be adapted a bit to the specific conditions of Europa. In fact, people have been working on this for years. See the following...
Robot Submarine on Jupiter Moon Europa is 'Holy Grail' Mission for Planetary Science
An Alien-Hunting Submarine Is Being Tested in Antarctica
NASA’s New Deep-Sea Submarine Could Eventually Look for Aliens
answered Mar 29 at 17:53
AaronAaron
2,524620
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
He probably things he needs a reaction engine since he is in "space" and everyone knows you use thrusters in space.
$endgroup$
– ventsyv
Mar 29 at 18:53
$begingroup$
Europa's surface gravity is comparable to that of the Moon. Yes, you can drive on it, but the reduced traction due to lower gravity limits your speed. For longer distances, rocket-propelled hoppers are the most practical way to get around.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 29 at 21:51
$begingroup$
Yes, I need free flying craft.
$endgroup$
– Innovine
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This answers the original question as asked before edits. This answer does not work for a recently edited version of the question.
You do not need any special fuel. You said that you have plenty of electricity that you are generating, so just use electrical motors.
A good propulsion source on the surface would be wheels or legs. If the ground is solid, you use conventional means to traverse it. So, we use the same technology we have been using for thousands of years.
A good propulsion source under the surface but still in the solid volume would be a drill. This could be either a conventional mechanical drill, or, since you have ample electricity, it could drill through the ice using heat; but beware, drilling using heat will leave behind water and/or water-vapor which you may have to deal with.
A good propulsion source deeper under the surface in the volume which is believed to be liquid would require a sub.
So you see, everything will just use types of devices that we are already used to, though they may need to be adapted a bit to the specific conditions of Europa. In fact, people have been working on this for years. See the following...
Robot Submarine on Jupiter Moon Europa is 'Holy Grail' Mission for Planetary Science
An Alien-Hunting Submarine Is Being Tested in Antarctica
NASA’s New Deep-Sea Submarine Could Eventually Look for Aliens
answered Mar 29 at 17:53
AaronAaron
2,524620
$endgroup$
This answers the original question as asked before edits. This answer does not work for a recently edited version of the question.
You do not need any special fuel. You said that you have plenty of electricity that you are generating, so just use electrical motors.
A good propulsion source on the surface would be wheels or legs. If the ground is solid, you use conventional means to traverse it. So, we use the same technology we have been using for thousands of years.
A good propulsion source under the surface but still in the solid volume would be a drill. This could be either a conventional mechanical drill, or, since you have ample electricity, it could drill through the ice using heat; but beware, drilling using heat will leave behind water and/or water-vapor which you may have to deal with.
A good propulsion source deeper under the surface in the volume which is believed to be liquid would require a sub.
So you see, everything will just use types of devices that we are already used to, though they may need to be adapted a bit to the specific conditions of Europa. In fact, people have been working on this for years. See the following...
Robot Submarine on Jupiter Moon Europa is 'Holy Grail' Mission for Planetary Science
An Alien-Hunting Submarine Is Being Tested in Antarctica
NASA’s New Deep-Sea Submarine Could Eventually Look for Aliens
answered Mar 29 at 17:53
AaronAaron
2,524620
edited 6 hours ago
answered Mar 29 at 17:53
AaronAaron
2,524620
answered Mar 29 at 17:53
AaronAaron
2,524620
answered Mar 29 at 17:53
AaronAaron
2,524620
2,524620
$begingroup$
He probably things he needs a reaction engine since he is in "space" and everyone knows you use thrusters in space.
$endgroup$
– ventsyv
Mar 29 at 18:53
$begingroup$
Europa's surface gravity is comparable to that of the Moon. Yes, you can drive on it, but the reduced traction due to lower gravity limits your speed. For longer distances, rocket-propelled hoppers are the most practical way to get around.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 29 at 21:51
$begingroup$
Yes, I need free flying craft.
$endgroup$
– Innovine
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
He probably things he needs a reaction engine since he is in "space" and everyone knows you use thrusters in space.
$endgroup$
– ventsyv
Mar 29 at 18:53
$begingroup$
Europa's surface gravity is comparable to that of the Moon. Yes, you can drive on it, but the reduced traction due to lower gravity limits your speed. For longer distances, rocket-propelled hoppers are the most practical way to get around.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 29 at 21:51
$begingroup$
Yes, I need free flying craft.
$endgroup$
– Innovine
2 days ago
$begingroup$
He probably things he needs a reaction engine since he is in "space" and everyone knows you use thrusters in space.
$endgroup$
– ventsyv
Mar 29 at 18:53
$begingroup$
He probably things he needs a reaction engine since he is in "space" and everyone knows you use thrusters in space.
$endgroup$
– ventsyv
Mar 29 at 18:53
$begingroup$
Europa's surface gravity is comparable to that of the Moon. Yes, you can drive on it, but the reduced traction due to lower gravity limits your speed. For longer distances, rocket-propelled hoppers are the most practical way to get around.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 29 at 21:51
$begingroup$
Europa's surface gravity is comparable to that of the Moon. Yes, you can drive on it, but the reduced traction due to lower gravity limits your speed. For longer distances, rocket-propelled hoppers are the most practical way to get around.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 29 at 21:51
$begingroup$
Yes, I need free flying craft.
$endgroup$
– Innovine
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Yes, I need free flying craft.
$endgroup$
– Innovine
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Could they melt ice to water and electrolyse it to hydrogen and oxygen?
Absolutely. "Ample" electricity from fusion means that this would be trivial, as would more complex bits of chemistry to synthesise hydrocarbons. In the limit, this means that any fuel we use today could be synthesised in situ, given sufficient chemical feedstocks. Given hydrogen's low density and inconvenient storage requirements and interactions with certain materials it would certainly be appealing to use other materials for rocket or jet fuel if possible.
Other options include hydrogen peroxide production, which is a useful material in itself as well as being a suitable as a rocket monopropellant or the oxidiser in a bipropellant rocket system, though high-test peroxide is a fairly hazardous thing to handle. Peroxide is an interesting high pressure gas source that can be used for pneumatic mechanisms, and has been experimented with as a power source for robots and prosthetic arms.
If so, how would a hydrogen and oxygen based propulsion system function?
Obvious answer:
More generally: hydrogen isn't a very convenient fuel to store, but you can use it in most places you'd use a hydrocarbon fuel. You could make a jet engine that runs on it, or run it through a fuel cell for electricity production and then use that to drive other means of propulsion such as a propeller or pump jet.
What other solutions might they use?
Given that the Europan surface gravity is so low, you will probably be OK using water as reaction mass as-is, without having to go through the whole inconvenient process of electrolysis and storing hydrogen (which is quite inconvenient). One way to do this would be to use steam rockets which would be quite effective on a low-g moon in a vacuum. The steam could be generated ahead of time and stored in a tank, or it could be generated in-flight by fusion power if your reactors were light enough or could be heated by external lasers on the moon's surface. With a bit of clever engineering, a pulsed-plasma drive system using high power external lasers vapourising ice pellets could be quite powerful.
You could even use entirely external propulsion in the form of a big steam cannon to simply blast ships and cargo into the sky, though an electromagnetic catapult would probably be a more sensible thing to use here. If you really wanted a gonzo solution to landing, deploy a parachute and have your destination shoot water cannon at you.
Also, going back to peroxide rockets, take a look at this: Bell Rocket Belt.
answered yesterday
Starfish PrimeStarfish Prime
4328
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks, this was very useful. I'll skip the bits about steam cannons since my goal is small engines and maneuvering thrusters, often in caves and canyons, but the hydrogen peroxide sounds quite plausible to me. The nitrogen pressurizer is not consumed I assume? Is the catalyst rapidly consumed, because silver will need to be imported, and may be prohibitively expensive. Any thoughts on storing H and O under high pressure, and combining them to water to power a steam rocket, or is that just too complicated? I worry about large tanks of water being required. Or just have a steam tank onboard?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine catalysts are generally not consumed in any process. They may eventually degrade or become too contaminated to function, but this takes some time and there's plenty of scope for reprocessing them. Any pressurising gas could be used; we use nitrogen on earth because it is easily available and inert.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Innovine storing hydrogen is hard, due to its very low density and low boiling point. If you can avoid it, you probably should. Hydrogen tanks will be much larger than water tanks, and be more awkward to make (due to hydrogen embrittlemen of some metals) and quite possibly need cryogenic cooling. A hydrogen/oxygen burning rocket is not usually referred to as a steam rocket, due to the difference between a nozzle emitting steam and one emitting multiple-thousand-degree fire.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine for an example of the hassle of hydrogen, look at all the X-prize competitors and their modern day descendants in the form of SpaceX and Virgin Galactic. If an alternative fuel to liquid hydrogen could be used, it was, because it is so hard to work with.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hydrogen peroxide looks great so far :)
$endgroup$
– Innovine
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Could they melt ice to water and electrolyse it to hydrogen and oxygen?
Absolutely. "Ample" electricity from fusion means that this would be trivial, as would more complex bits of chemistry to synthesise hydrocarbons. In the limit, this means that any fuel we use today could be synthesised in situ, given sufficient chemical feedstocks. Given hydrogen's low density and inconvenient storage requirements and interactions with certain materials it would certainly be appealing to use other materials for rocket or jet fuel if possible.
Other options include hydrogen peroxide production, which is a useful material in itself as well as being a suitable as a rocket monopropellant or the oxidiser in a bipropellant rocket system, though high-test peroxide is a fairly hazardous thing to handle. Peroxide is an interesting high pressure gas source that can be used for pneumatic mechanisms, and has been experimented with as a power source for robots and prosthetic arms.
If so, how would a hydrogen and oxygen based propulsion system function?
Obvious answer:
More generally: hydrogen isn't a very convenient fuel to store, but you can use it in most places you'd use a hydrocarbon fuel. You could make a jet engine that runs on it, or run it through a fuel cell for electricity production and then use that to drive other means of propulsion such as a propeller or pump jet.
What other solutions might they use?
Given that the Europan surface gravity is so low, you will probably be OK using water as reaction mass as-is, without having to go through the whole inconvenient process of electrolysis and storing hydrogen (which is quite inconvenient). One way to do this would be to use steam rockets which would be quite effective on a low-g moon in a vacuum. The steam could be generated ahead of time and stored in a tank, or it could be generated in-flight by fusion power if your reactors were light enough or could be heated by external lasers on the moon's surface. With a bit of clever engineering, a pulsed-plasma drive system using high power external lasers vapourising ice pellets could be quite powerful.
You could even use entirely external propulsion in the form of a big steam cannon to simply blast ships and cargo into the sky, though an electromagnetic catapult would probably be a more sensible thing to use here. If you really wanted a gonzo solution to landing, deploy a parachute and have your destination shoot water cannon at you.
Also, going back to peroxide rockets, take a look at this: Bell Rocket Belt.
answered yesterday
Starfish PrimeStarfish Prime
4328
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks, this was very useful. I'll skip the bits about steam cannons since my goal is small engines and maneuvering thrusters, often in caves and canyons, but the hydrogen peroxide sounds quite plausible to me. The nitrogen pressurizer is not consumed I assume? Is the catalyst rapidly consumed, because silver will need to be imported, and may be prohibitively expensive. Any thoughts on storing H and O under high pressure, and combining them to water to power a steam rocket, or is that just too complicated? I worry about large tanks of water being required. Or just have a steam tank onboard?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine catalysts are generally not consumed in any process. They may eventually degrade or become too contaminated to function, but this takes some time and there's plenty of scope for reprocessing them. Any pressurising gas could be used; we use nitrogen on earth because it is easily available and inert.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Innovine storing hydrogen is hard, due to its very low density and low boiling point. If you can avoid it, you probably should. Hydrogen tanks will be much larger than water tanks, and be more awkward to make (due to hydrogen embrittlemen of some metals) and quite possibly need cryogenic cooling. A hydrogen/oxygen burning rocket is not usually referred to as a steam rocket, due to the difference between a nozzle emitting steam and one emitting multiple-thousand-degree fire.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine for an example of the hassle of hydrogen, look at all the X-prize competitors and their modern day descendants in the form of SpaceX and Virgin Galactic. If an alternative fuel to liquid hydrogen could be used, it was, because it is so hard to work with.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hydrogen peroxide looks great so far :)
$endgroup$
– Innovine
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Could they melt ice to water and electrolyse it to hydrogen and oxygen?
Absolutely. "Ample" electricity from fusion means that this would be trivial, as would more complex bits of chemistry to synthesise hydrocarbons. In the limit, this means that any fuel we use today could be synthesised in situ, given sufficient chemical feedstocks. Given hydrogen's low density and inconvenient storage requirements and interactions with certain materials it would certainly be appealing to use other materials for rocket or jet fuel if possible.
Other options include hydrogen peroxide production, which is a useful material in itself as well as being a suitable as a rocket monopropellant or the oxidiser in a bipropellant rocket system, though high-test peroxide is a fairly hazardous thing to handle. Peroxide is an interesting high pressure gas source that can be used for pneumatic mechanisms, and has been experimented with as a power source for robots and prosthetic arms.
If so, how would a hydrogen and oxygen based propulsion system function?
Obvious answer:
More generally: hydrogen isn't a very convenient fuel to store, but you can use it in most places you'd use a hydrocarbon fuel. You could make a jet engine that runs on it, or run it through a fuel cell for electricity production and then use that to drive other means of propulsion such as a propeller or pump jet.
What other solutions might they use?
Given that the Europan surface gravity is so low, you will probably be OK using water as reaction mass as-is, without having to go through the whole inconvenient process of electrolysis and storing hydrogen (which is quite inconvenient). One way to do this would be to use steam rockets which would be quite effective on a low-g moon in a vacuum. The steam could be generated ahead of time and stored in a tank, or it could be generated in-flight by fusion power if your reactors were light enough or could be heated by external lasers on the moon's surface. With a bit of clever engineering, a pulsed-plasma drive system using high power external lasers vapourising ice pellets could be quite powerful.
You could even use entirely external propulsion in the form of a big steam cannon to simply blast ships and cargo into the sky, though an electromagnetic catapult would probably be a more sensible thing to use here. If you really wanted a gonzo solution to landing, deploy a parachute and have your destination shoot water cannon at you.
Also, going back to peroxide rockets, take a look at this: Bell Rocket Belt.
answered yesterday
Starfish PrimeStarfish Prime
4328
$endgroup$
Could they melt ice to water and electrolyse it to hydrogen and oxygen?
Absolutely. "Ample" electricity from fusion means that this would be trivial, as would more complex bits of chemistry to synthesise hydrocarbons. In the limit, this means that any fuel we use today could be synthesised in situ, given sufficient chemical feedstocks. Given hydrogen's low density and inconvenient storage requirements and interactions with certain materials it would certainly be appealing to use other materials for rocket or jet fuel if possible.
Other options include hydrogen peroxide production, which is a useful material in itself as well as being a suitable as a rocket monopropellant or the oxidiser in a bipropellant rocket system, though high-test peroxide is a fairly hazardous thing to handle. Peroxide is an interesting high pressure gas source that can be used for pneumatic mechanisms, and has been experimented with as a power source for robots and prosthetic arms.
If so, how would a hydrogen and oxygen based propulsion system function?
Obvious answer:
More generally: hydrogen isn't a very convenient fuel to store, but you can use it in most places you'd use a hydrocarbon fuel. You could make a jet engine that runs on it, or run it through a fuel cell for electricity production and then use that to drive other means of propulsion such as a propeller or pump jet.
What other solutions might they use?
Given that the Europan surface gravity is so low, you will probably be OK using water as reaction mass as-is, without having to go through the whole inconvenient process of electrolysis and storing hydrogen (which is quite inconvenient). One way to do this would be to use steam rockets which would be quite effective on a low-g moon in a vacuum. The steam could be generated ahead of time and stored in a tank, or it could be generated in-flight by fusion power if your reactors were light enough or could be heated by external lasers on the moon's surface. With a bit of clever engineering, a pulsed-plasma drive system using high power external lasers vapourising ice pellets could be quite powerful.
You could even use entirely external propulsion in the form of a big steam cannon to simply blast ships and cargo into the sky, though an electromagnetic catapult would probably be a more sensible thing to use here. If you really wanted a gonzo solution to landing, deploy a parachute and have your destination shoot water cannon at you.
Also, going back to peroxide rockets, take a look at this: Bell Rocket Belt.
answered yesterday
Starfish PrimeStarfish Prime
4328
answered yesterday
Starfish PrimeStarfish Prime
4328
answered yesterday
Starfish PrimeStarfish Prime
4328
answered yesterday
Starfish PrimeStarfish Prime
4328
4328
$begingroup$
Thanks, this was very useful. I'll skip the bits about steam cannons since my goal is small engines and maneuvering thrusters, often in caves and canyons, but the hydrogen peroxide sounds quite plausible to me. The nitrogen pressurizer is not consumed I assume? Is the catalyst rapidly consumed, because silver will need to be imported, and may be prohibitively expensive. Any thoughts on storing H and O under high pressure, and combining them to water to power a steam rocket, or is that just too complicated? I worry about large tanks of water being required. Or just have a steam tank onboard?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine catalysts are generally not consumed in any process. They may eventually degrade or become too contaminated to function, but this takes some time and there's plenty of scope for reprocessing them. Any pressurising gas could be used; we use nitrogen on earth because it is easily available and inert.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Innovine storing hydrogen is hard, due to its very low density and low boiling point. If you can avoid it, you probably should. Hydrogen tanks will be much larger than water tanks, and be more awkward to make (due to hydrogen embrittlemen of some metals) and quite possibly need cryogenic cooling. A hydrogen/oxygen burning rocket is not usually referred to as a steam rocket, due to the difference between a nozzle emitting steam and one emitting multiple-thousand-degree fire.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine for an example of the hassle of hydrogen, look at all the X-prize competitors and their modern day descendants in the form of SpaceX and Virgin Galactic. If an alternative fuel to liquid hydrogen could be used, it was, because it is so hard to work with.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hydrogen peroxide looks great so far :)
$endgroup$
– Innovine
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Thanks, this was very useful. I'll skip the bits about steam cannons since my goal is small engines and maneuvering thrusters, often in caves and canyons, but the hydrogen peroxide sounds quite plausible to me. The nitrogen pressurizer is not consumed I assume? Is the catalyst rapidly consumed, because silver will need to be imported, and may be prohibitively expensive. Any thoughts on storing H and O under high pressure, and combining them to water to power a steam rocket, or is that just too complicated? I worry about large tanks of water being required. Or just have a steam tank onboard?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine catalysts are generally not consumed in any process. They may eventually degrade or become too contaminated to function, but this takes some time and there's plenty of scope for reprocessing them. Any pressurising gas could be used; we use nitrogen on earth because it is easily available and inert.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Innovine storing hydrogen is hard, due to its very low density and low boiling point. If you can avoid it, you probably should. Hydrogen tanks will be much larger than water tanks, and be more awkward to make (due to hydrogen embrittlemen of some metals) and quite possibly need cryogenic cooling. A hydrogen/oxygen burning rocket is not usually referred to as a steam rocket, due to the difference between a nozzle emitting steam and one emitting multiple-thousand-degree fire.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine for an example of the hassle of hydrogen, look at all the X-prize competitors and their modern day descendants in the form of SpaceX and Virgin Galactic. If an alternative fuel to liquid hydrogen could be used, it was, because it is so hard to work with.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hydrogen peroxide looks great so far :)
$endgroup$
– Innovine
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks, this was very useful. I'll skip the bits about steam cannons since my goal is small engines and maneuvering thrusters, often in caves and canyons, but the hydrogen peroxide sounds quite plausible to me. The nitrogen pressurizer is not consumed I assume? Is the catalyst rapidly consumed, because silver will need to be imported, and may be prohibitively expensive. Any thoughts on storing H and O under high pressure, and combining them to water to power a steam rocket, or is that just too complicated? I worry about large tanks of water being required. Or just have a steam tank onboard?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks, this was very useful. I'll skip the bits about steam cannons since my goal is small engines and maneuvering thrusters, often in caves and canyons, but the hydrogen peroxide sounds quite plausible to me. The nitrogen pressurizer is not consumed I assume? Is the catalyst rapidly consumed, because silver will need to be imported, and may be prohibitively expensive. Any thoughts on storing H and O under high pressure, and combining them to water to power a steam rocket, or is that just too complicated? I worry about large tanks of water being required. Or just have a steam tank onboard?
$endgroup$
– Innovine
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine catalysts are generally not consumed in any process. They may eventually degrade or become too contaminated to function, but this takes some time and there's plenty of scope for reprocessing them. Any pressurising gas could be used; we use nitrogen on earth because it is easily available and inert.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine catalysts are generally not consumed in any process. They may eventually degrade or become too contaminated to function, but this takes some time and there's plenty of scope for reprocessing them. Any pressurising gas could be used; we use nitrogen on earth because it is easily available and inert.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Innovine storing hydrogen is hard, due to its very low density and low boiling point. If you can avoid it, you probably should. Hydrogen tanks will be much larger than water tanks, and be more awkward to make (due to hydrogen embrittlemen of some metals) and quite possibly need cryogenic cooling. A hydrogen/oxygen burning rocket is not usually referred to as a steam rocket, due to the difference between a nozzle emitting steam and one emitting multiple-thousand-degree fire.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine storing hydrogen is hard, due to its very low density and low boiling point. If you can avoid it, you probably should. Hydrogen tanks will be much larger than water tanks, and be more awkward to make (due to hydrogen embrittlemen of some metals) and quite possibly need cryogenic cooling. A hydrogen/oxygen burning rocket is not usually referred to as a steam rocket, due to the difference between a nozzle emitting steam and one emitting multiple-thousand-degree fire.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine for an example of the hassle of hydrogen, look at all the X-prize competitors and their modern day descendants in the form of SpaceX and Virgin Galactic. If an alternative fuel to liquid hydrogen could be used, it was, because it is so hard to work with.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Innovine for an example of the hassle of hydrogen, look at all the X-prize competitors and their modern day descendants in the form of SpaceX and Virgin Galactic. If an alternative fuel to liquid hydrogen could be used, it was, because it is so hard to work with.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hydrogen peroxide looks great so far :)
$endgroup$
– Innovine
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hydrogen peroxide looks great so far :)
$endgroup$
– Innovine
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142774%2fspaceship-fuel-on-europa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
SE's Q&A model is one-specific-question/one-best-answer. I see at least 3 questions, which makes the question "too broad." You can always post more questions if necessary. Please edit this post to express a single, specific question. Also, our help center states, "avoid asking subjective questions where your answer is provided along with the question."
$endgroup$
– JBH
Mar 29 at 16:29
1
$begingroup$
While I agree with the above to some extent, I think the questions closely relate to each other enough that it may be considered one continuous question. Consider rewording some questions in a way to illustrate possible solutions you've thought of. I think that would clear up the question.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
Mar 29 at 16:37
2
$begingroup$
Sometimes authors use questions rhetorically. In this case, I'm seeing one larger question with some ideas thrown out in the form of questions.
$endgroup$
– Cyn
Mar 29 at 17:16
$begingroup$
You don't need anything special, wheels or ski, powered by an electric motor will work just fine. Given the conditions on Europa, some sort of covered snowmobile would be best.
$endgroup$
– ventsyv
Mar 29 at 18:59
1
$begingroup$
@ventsyv there's no snow on Europa. The surface ice is brittle and rock hard. A lunar rover-type vehicle might work if it weren't for the ultra-rough cryovolcanic landscape, but in low-gravity vacuum, good old thrusters are usually the best solution.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
2 days ago