NASA-backed fusion engine could cut Mars journey to as low as 30 days.
99 replies, posted
[quote]NASA, and [URL="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/28/inspiration_mars_wants_couple_for_mars_trip/"]plenty[/URL] of [URL="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/27/musk_mars_colony/"]private individuals[/URL], want to put mankind on Mars. Now a team at the University of Washington being funded by the space agency is about to start building a fusion engine that could get humans there in just 30 days and make other forms of space travel obsolete.
[IMG]http://regmedia.co.uk/2013/04/09/fdr_fusion_drive.jpg[/IMG]
[B]Rocket fuel is just so last century[/B]
"Using existing rocket fuels, it's nearly impossible for humans to explore much beyond Earth," said lead researcher John Slough, a UW research associate professor of aeronautics and astronautics in a[URL="http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/04/04/rocket-powered-by-nuclear-fusion-could-send-humans-to-mars/"]statement[/URL]. "We are hoping to give us a much more powerful source of energy in space that could eventually lead to making interplanetary travel commonplace."
The proposed [URL="http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2012_phaseII_fellows_slough.html"]Fusion Driven Rocket[/URL] (FDR) is a 150-ton system that uses magnetism to compress lithium or aluminum metal bands around a deuterium-tritium fuel pellet to initiate fusion. The resultant microsecond reaction forces the propellant mass out at 30 kilometers per second, and would be able to pulse every minute or so and not cause g-force damage to the spacecraft's occupants.
The spent fuel pellet is ejected behind the motor to provide propulsion, and because the whole process is magnetically controlled there's relatively little wear and tear on the engines. A pellet the size of a grain of sand would provide the same propellant as a gallon of conventional rocket fuel.
[URL="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/10/nasa_fusion_engine_fast_mars_trip/"]Full article[/URL]
[/quote]
I'll see if I can find other sources on this, but this is awesome.
Didn't we hear this before?
Wow so does that mean it would take hours to get to the moon with this type of engine?
[QUOTE=Jookia;40231069]Didn't we hear this before?[/QUOTE]
I think the general concept has been around for a while, but this time they're actually building it. If this was posted before, then I apologize.
[QUOTE=Vilusia;40231071]Wow so does that mean it would take hours to get to the moon with this type of engine?[/QUOTE]
No, it needs time to accelerate.
The thing about this kind of engine isn't that it accelerates really fast, but it can accelerate for longer with the same mass of fuel, so you can achieve higher speeds, thus travel long distances faster.
A pellet of fuel equivalent to a gallon of conventional rocket fuel?
Sounds good.
This is gonna make KSP so much easier.
[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]
Also, uh... How about slowing back down again? I'd imagine that if you're going for a landing on Mars with a speed taking you there in 30 days would be... Pretty rough.
Well, time to slash NASA's budget again.
[QUOTE=Riller;40231254]
Also, uh... How about slowing back down again? I'd imagine that if you're going for a landing on Mars with a speed taking you there in 30 days would be... Pretty rough.[/QUOTE]
I don't claim to know science, but couldn't we put smaller engines on the other side of the ship and fire them to slow down?
[QUOTE=Riller;40231254]Also, uh... How about slowing back down again? I'd imagine that if you're going for a landing on Mars with a speed taking you there in 30 days would be... Pretty rough.[/QUOTE]
When you're half way there you rotate the rocket by 180 degrees with thrusters and turn the engines on again. I'm pretty sure that's factored into the 30 days calculation. 15 days accelerating and 15 days decelerating.
[QUOTE=Fine Hats;40231278]I don't claim to know science, but couldn't we put smaller engines on the other side of the ship and fire them to slow down?[/QUOTE]
Or you know, rotate the thing and fire the engines in the opposite direction
[quote]Using the FDR system, flight times to the Red Planet could take between 30 and 90 days, compared to over eight months that it took to send the Curiosity rover to Mars. The 30-day trip would require three days of engine operation to get the spacecraft up to speed and another three to slow it down into orbit around Mars.[/quote]
[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;40231304]Or you know, rotate the thing and fire the engines in the opposite direction[/QUOTE]
Whoa whoa! Slow down there, perfesser! Not all of us simple country folk kin keep up with yer fancy college-talk!
*Proceeds to hootenanny.*
[QUOTE=Lexic;40231309][/QUOTE]
Neat thanks for the info.
That's beautiful. Make it happen NASA.
[QUOTE=Jookia;40231069]Didn't we hear this before?[/QUOTE]
I think the other one is VASIMIR: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket[/url]
[QUOTE=Vilusia;40231071]Wow so does that mean it would take hours to get to the moon with this type of engine?[/QUOTE]
You wouldn't have long to accel/deaccelerate the craft. Mars is ~0.5 AU away, moon is ~0.0025. Ignoring acceleration times, 0.5/0.0025 = 200, so it'd take 1/200th of a month or about 3.6 hours. Given that you can't accelerate for 3 days and decelerate for another 3 though, it'd be anywhere between 3.6 and 48 hours.
[QUOTE=Lexic;40231301]When you're half way there you rotate the rocket by 180 degrees with thrusters and turn the engines on again. I'm pretty sure that's factored into the 30 days calculation. 15 days accelerating and 15 days decelerating.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://db.tt/iUB8aJ4i[/url]
no idea if i illustrated this right.
[QUOTE=lNloruzenchi;40231637][url]http://db.tt/iUB8aJ4i[/url]
no idea if i illustrated this right.[/QUOTE]
A spaceship exploding into confetti?
[QUOTE=LarparNar;40231094]No, it needs time to accelerate.
The thing about this kind of engine isn't that it accelerates really fast, but it can accelerate for longer with the same mass of fuel, so you can achieve higher speeds, thus travel long distances faster.[/QUOTE]
Velocity/Momentum speaking, this fusion rocket is akin to current ion engines. However has a hell of alot more thrust in comparision
Please, this would be so cool. I want to see man on mars
What's the state of fusion energy anyway? Are we still on track for building fusion reactors in the near future? From what I gathered, fusion energy has a massive potential but the engineering problems haven't been tackled yet.
People need to remember, fusion anything is highly experimental, and has been thrown around for quite a few years; It's still quite a ways off being probable. It probably won't be ready for any use for around 10 years or so, then again, considering this is space we're talking about that's not really a long time.
30 kilometers per second is:
- 67000 miles per hour
- 108000 kilometers per hour
For those who might be curious how fast this craft would theoretically go in more common units of measurement.
This [B]$600,000[/B] award will provide the proof-of-concept FDR system over the next 18 months, and a working spacecraft would be ready as soon as 2020, Pancokti predicted – but if NASA wanted to throw money at the project, this timescale could be cut.
And then the British government is going to spend around 3 million GDP on Thatcher's funeral.
Needs more mainsails.
[QUOTE=Riller;40231254]This is gonna make KSP so much easier.
[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]
Also, uh... How about slowing back down again? I'd imagine that if you're going for a landing on Mars with a speed taking you there in 30 days would be... Pretty rough.[/QUOTE]
Once the vehicle is captured by the Martian gravity-well, you just use aerobraking to slow the craft!
[QUOTE=ewitwins;40232421]Once the vehicle is captured by the Martian gravity-well, you just use aerobraking to slow the craft![/QUOTE]
[quote]Many space missions use aerobraking – using the friction of a planet's atmosphere to slow down – as a way of saving the propellant. This drive, however, is so efficient that aerobraking makes little sense, since the weight of the shielding needed for the maneuver is greater than the propellant FDR needs to slow down.[/quote]
Blegh sounds boring, We should cut their finances, Gotta buy more tanks!!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.