h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Valkeryrie Project - The next Giant Leap? - A8792427
Author: Cardi-Bling - U1619796

I read the article outlined at the bottom a while ago and have always wanted to try to turn it into a guide entry. This is the result and hopefully it is of sufficient quality to enter the guide.

Firstly: As couldn't find much other information on the Valkeryie I had to use the article as a base so if anyone spots any parts that read just too close to the original point them out and I'll try to distance it some more...we don't want plagarism in the guide now do we!

Secondly: I'm not a physicist, I'm an engineer and therefore my physics knowledge is not much more advanced than a-level/university level engineering. I know there are researchers out there who are physicists so if you spot any errors please point them out and I'll happliy adjust or make corrections.

I'm flexible with this entry as I find it so fascinating that it should get into the guide soon!

Cheers people...

Hi there,

first the pedantic! in your sentance "The chances of there being life elsewhere in space is actually quite statistically even if we assume that life occurs on only 0.1% of earth-like planets." there seems to be a word missing after statistically.

secondly this concept seems to link well to concepts of the Von Neumann probe - another solution to the immense time contraints on space exploration implied by relativity. Can't seem to find an H2G2 entry on such probes but have included a Wiki link. Could be worth somebody having a go at working up something on this to bolster the H2G2 space exploration content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_probe

I really quite like this entry, Cardi-Bling. My only concern is that it might become a bit dated. This is something that is happening right now, and the project's plans may change in the next year or two (space exploration being a realm that is constantly being updated).

Though other PRers may disagree with me, I suggest that you submit this to <./>ThePost</.>, where it will be published in a more time-sensitive matter.

I wouldn't disagree with that at all, EMR. Sounds pretty sensible to me.

Especially cause it means we get more submissions.

Yeah thats fair enough if you think it will date badly can you explain why you think my entry will.

The original article that Pellegrino wrote is dated from 2001 so its 5 years old already. I see this article on similar lines to this edited guide article on Bussard Ramjets,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A600436

Ok so they were designed in the 60's compared to Valkeryrie which is a 90's design, why does that mean my article will date when the Ramjet one is fine?

Thanks for the input I'll go with what the consensus agree on after all thats what PR is for after all!

I had a quick skim through this and it is very good. I don't know whether the idea of an antimatter drive is practical, but the rest of the entry fills in a lot of background information about the difiiculties of space travel, which cannot be overstated. I'd love to see this Entry get into the Edited Guide.

The normal spelling of the word is Valkyrie. Can you check exactly what the inventor called his invention, please?

oops your right Gnomon it is spelled Valkyrie...I wonder how I missed that... rushes of to chuck the whole thing through a spell checker again! <---we need a better embarrassed smiley than just a little blush, we need a full on

It's been a little while since anyone replied to my thread here...any thoughts on the text or obvious spelling/grammar mistakes. I'd love to get this into the guide.

I love the Entry, there are a few minor things that I honestly think a Sub-Editor could sort out (a few missing fullstops and capital letters here and there, plus changing some of the link tags to include titles, just to make it look prettier).

However as far as content is concerned, I enjoyed reading it immensely.

MJ

I also enjoyed reading this a lot, and think it is defintely EG material, so please excuse me for being picky here:

Having read the whole thing, I realised that in fact there is nothing particularly revolutionary about Valkyrie that makes it a special condender for interstellar travel - it is merely another fusion-powered spaceship design. The intro however implies that this is some new concept that suddenly makes everything possible.

<>
A relativistic speed is one for where the effects of relativity become significant, not necessarily light-speed. 0.92C would appear to qualify as relativistic.

"kms", "atom smashers" and "breakthroughs" don't need apostrophes.

It might be an idea to standardise on SI units; you use kms and mphs in various places.

<>
Perhaps a bit more explanation needed. You can ionise a hydrogen atom by removing its electron. So why add it in the first place?

-273 C *is* absolute zero (more or less), not one degree above it.

<> Too many "atom"s and "accelerate"s in this sentence.

<<...where the matter and anti-matter crash into each other and are totally annihilated as all the mass turns into energy. This energy starts a fusion process in the hydrogen...>>
You've lost me here. If both matter and anti-matter are annihilated, what is fusing? Is there an excess of matter over anti-matter?

<>
This doesn't make any sense. Firstly, a meson is just a particle; the name implies nothing about its speed. Secondly, it is not a proton. Thirdly, I don't believe wave/particle duality is speed-dependent either, but I could be wrong there. Fourthly, it seems to conclude that the thrust is generated by converting the meson's consituent particle's into energy - but why is this energy any different to the energy provided by the matter/anti-matter reaction? (An antimatter reaction produces a LOT more energy than a fusion reaction per unit of fuel). And if the meson is created by the antimatter reaction, and this provides the actual thrust, what is the point in the fusion reaction?

<>
This appears to be saying the same thing twice.

<<...switching on the redundant second engine.>> If the second engine has a unique purpose (to slow the craft down), it is not "redundant".

<> It is not a relativity equation, it was just invented by the same bloke and is used in relativity calculations.

<> Sub-atomic particles are not elements. You mean heavier than hydrogen.

Lots of punctuation problems but I guess the sub-eds will sort that out

Dave,

Cheers for the reply I tried to go through the article and make some of the adjustments you stated.



I'm no physicist so I don't really understand some of the more complex physics. I've therefore tried to trim some of that stuff out as I'd rather gloss over the physics than make untrue statements. Have a read of that original article

http://www.charlespellegrino.com/project_valkyrie.htm

Perhaps the science will make more sense to you in that! If it does and you can see a better way of explaining some of those bits ion my entry then I'd love to know as I do like explaining the science in more depth.

Ouch; I think I understand that. Just. It does seem to make some sense.

The crux of it seems to be:

1. At "low" speeds there is an excess of matter over antimatter. A small antimatter reaction is used to trigger fusion in the remaining (normal) hydrogen fuel. The high-mass but low-velocity fusion products act in a similar way to the combustion products in a conventional rocket, i.e. they are free to exit at the rear but hit the engine (a magnetic field instead of a combustion chamber in this case) at the front thereby providing thrust.

2. At higher speeds the fuel mix is gradually adjusted so that there are more equal quantities of antimatter and matter, so the thrust is provided by the lower mass but higher-speed antimatter reaction products. We don't really need to understand exactly what those products are.

Fascinating stuff

Cheers Dave yeah you've got the idea..

I've adjusted the section about the thrust to try to simplify it. The 'crux' you just gave is right and I want to try to capture that simplicity in the text see what you think...

Any other thoughts out their people?

The only thought I had was you've linked to an awful lot of BBC pages, aren't there some Edited Guide Entries that are just as good?

As Manuel would say Qué?

All of those links where it says 'Related BBC Pages'
ARE Edited Guide entries!

AHH, I see said the blindman...

What you have done is this;

...

What you should do is this;

...

Much better.

I wonder if you can do something about footnote 7 - the equation looks a bit E=mC^27 at the moment, which is indeed a vast amount of energy!

Are cheers MJ I get it now...all nicely adjusted



Dave, I spotted that the other day also and planned on changing it around, hopefully it works a bit better now.


Cheers guys!