NASA-backed fusion engine could cut Mars journey to as low as 30 days.
99 replies, posted
Progress is not always productive in itself.
[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;40236382]Because the Moon landning did us so good
Interesting though[/QUOTE]
Funny, Today I was just thinking "Man, We aren't gonna get anywhere fast with current technology."
I need to think about human hunger next.
Anyways, How fast would this take to get to Jupiter/Saturn? 1-2 years? Because if this stuff takes off (Literally) we are going to be knowing alot more about shit in space.
We need fusion engines spitting out smaller fusion engines spitting out propulsion. Lightspeed ahoy!
[QUOTE=Smeetin;40236466]Progress is not always productive in itself.[/QUOTE]
If it's not productive, how is it progress? Doing things to keep busy isn't progress.
hmmm, I wonder how R&D of Fusion Engines could be beneficial to non-space at all (at all)
[B]((at all))[/B]
[QUOTE=Clavus;40231907]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.[/QUOTE]
there is a fundamental problem with fusion energy. the sun is able to do it because it has such a high volume and quantum tunneling with so many particles in such a huge body aids in the fusion reaction. however, small reactors can't exploit quantum tunneling to aid with fusion reactions.
it has massive potential, but only if we figure out how to simulate what the sun does. as it is fusion energy will never be feasible because it will always take more energy to run than fusion can produce.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40237224]If it's not productive, how is it progress? Doing things to keep busy isn't progress.[/QUOTE]
Developing new technologies often spawns other new technologies. And it's a human achievement - don't you want a bit of excitement around here? We do lots of stuff that "makes no sense", at least this is cool.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40233155]Sounds like a pulsed-fusion [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)"]Orion drive[/URL]. I'm excited for this technology but also concerned that it might end up being restricted the way nuclear propulsion was, which is what killed Orion.
Also this will probably be the least fun way to travel imaginable, being slammed forward once every minute, but with such high Isp AND decent thrust it's worth it.[/QUOTE]
I don't really see how this is at all similar to Orion.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40234051]Theoretically, is it at all possible to build an engine that requires nothing but electricity to run (no fuels/propellants/etc) for space travel?
Ion engines need a gas, this needs pellets, it seems like we're always going to be stuck having to bring extra stuff with us to go anywhere which makes it pretty much impossible to go any real distances without refuelling.
Aside from solar sails I can't think of anything - space is a vacuum so you have nothing to push against to facilitate a mechanical means of movement but maybe I'm missing something obvious[/QUOTE]
near the sun you can accelerate the ions in the solar wind, and in any magnetic field (e.g. the milky way's) you can use big charged cables (basically exploiting the lorentz force) - not a very powerful method, only [U]0.0005[/U] newtons will be made by 1000m of wire carrying 1000amps of current if you are outside the solar system : [URL]https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&gs_rn=8&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=l4PhTV5ErNcwvi3VYhx00w&pq=1000*1000*5*10^-10&cp=35&gs_id=6i&xhr=t&q=1000amps*1000meters*(5*10^-10)tesla&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=1000amps*1000meters*(5*10^-10)tesla&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45107431,d.d2k&fp=b5bc131ac2238416&ion=1&biw=1440&bih=799&bs=1[/URL]
[editline]11th April 2013[/editline]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic_tether[/URL]
[QUOTE=General J;40237258]hmmm, I wonder how R&D of Fusion Engines could be beneficial to non-space at all (at all)
[B]((at all))[/B][/QUOTE]
you just some kind of anti-space killjoy or something?
[QUOTE=catbarf;40235170]Spacecraft rely on Newtonian physics to propel themselves, which means that it is physically impossible for a ship to propel itself without expelling some sort of propellant as reaction mass.
However, photons (light) can be used. The problem is that because they have so astronomically little mass, it takes an enormous amount of power to provide any useful thrust. You can calculate the theoretical maximum efficiency of a photon drive, and it equals out to three hundred megawatts for just one Newton of thrust, which isn't practical at all.[/QUOTE]
Did you just say a photon has mass?
Does anyone know how reliable a source The Register is? Because I'd really like this to be plausible, at the very least.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40237224]If it's not productive, how is it progress? Doing things to keep busy isn't progress.[/QUOTE]
It is to quench human curiosity
[QUOTE=Falubii;40239141]Did you just say a photon has mass?[/QUOTE]
A photon has relativistic mass proportional to its momentum, not rest mass, which for a layman is not exactly a straightforward concept. This momentum can be used for propulsion.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_photonic_rocket"]Have a gander.[/URL] [URL="http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1075"]This works too.[/URL]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40238881]you just some kind of anti-space killjoy or something?[/QUOTE]
Yes. History has proven that the pursuit of space technology has literally done [U]nothing[/U] to benefit non-space [B][I][U]at all.[/U][/I][/B]
Ever. At all. There's far more important things that needs budgeting. We should definitely not concern ourselves with traveling to some rock. [I]That would be pointless.[/I]
[QUOTE=Djessey;40232885]Blegh sounds boring, We should cut their finances, Gotta buy more tanks!![/QUOTE]
Can NASA develop them? I want space tanks NOW.
[QUOTE=General J;40240632]Yes. History has proven that the pursuit of space technology has literally done [U]nothing[/U] to benefit non-space [B][I][U]at all.[/U][/I][/B]
Ever. At all. There's far more important things that needs budgeting. We should definitely not concern ourselves with traveling to some rock. [I]That would be pointless.[/I][/QUOTE]
Apart from developing [B]thousands[/B] of useful technologies along the way, it's absolutely useless. That's just a very select few--> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies[/url]
Being able to control fusion for a rocket engine would be a huge step towards controlling it for electrical generation.
Also, the Wikipedia article forgot to mention GPS, Weather satellites, and Communications satellites.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40233562]I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but a lot of people are making back-of-the-notebook calculations that aren't accurate. A plotted course planned at ten hours for one trip does not correspond to five hours if the orbital distance is halved. That's not even getting into linear distance or gravitational effects, which both vary constantly since we're in a rotating reference plane. The amount of delta-V required and the length of the trip vary based on the start time in relation to the synodic launch window, as well as the thrust of the vessel since the impulse at each acceleration point will determine the efficiency of a Hohmann transfer or, worse and more headache-inducing to calculate, a brachistochrone.
Point is, this is not a get-somewhere-fast drive per se, it's a get-somewhere-along-a-faster-route drive. It can have a lower overall thrust and still offer a shorter travel time, because having more delta-V available means it can take faster but more costly routes between points rather than be locked into optimal Hohmann transfers like with chemical rockets that have to squeeze every last bit of impulse out of their fuel. For short missions like Earth-orbit or Earth-Moon it won't offer much of an advantage, since chemical rockets can already do those fairly efficiently and delta-V costs become exponentially greater as you try to shorten the travel time.
But for travel to other planets, this is a big first step.[/QUOTE]
wow that was really god damn complicated
[QUOTE=General J;40240632]Yes. History has proven that the pursuit of space technology has literally done [U]nothing[/U] to benefit non-space [B][I][U]at all.[/U][/I][/B]
Ever. At all. There's far more important things that needs budgeting. We should definitely not concern ourselves with traveling to some rock. [I]That would be pointless.[/I][/QUOTE]
Does someone have to post this in [I]every[/I] space thread?
[url]http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2012/pdf/Spinoff2012.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=Disseminate;40240766]Does someone have to post this in [I]every[/I] space thread?
[url]http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2012/pdf/Spinoff2012.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]
That is much more complete, thanks.
[QUOTE=Falubii;40237475]I don't really see how this is at all similar to Orion.[/QUOTE]
It's a pulsed-propulsion drive with both high thrust and high specific impulse, with potential legal concerns due to laws regarding nuclear devices in space.
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40240756]wow that was really god damn complicated[/QUOTE]
Play some KSP, learn rocket science.
Wow that was a fast ninja.
[QUOTE=General J;40240632]Yes. History has proven that the pursuit of space technology has literally done [U]nothing[/U] to benefit non-space [B][I][U]at all.[/U][/I][/B]
Ever. At all. There's far more important things that needs budgeting. We should definitely not concern ourselves with traveling to some rock. [I]That would be pointless.[/I][/QUOTE]
excuse me do your fucking research before you post you sound like a fucking fool.
To put this in perspective, you can sail across the Atlantic ocean in about 30 days.
[QUOTE=General J;40240632]Yes. History has proven that the pursuit of space technology has literally done [U]nothing[/U] to benefit non-space [B][I][U]at all.[/U][/I][/B]
Ever. At all. There's far more important things that needs budgeting. We should definitely not concern ourselves with traveling to some rock. [I]That would be pointless.[/I][/QUOTE]
Have you ever used GPS? Or heard of all the organizations that were formed when we saw the first pictures of Earth from the moon, because we realized that this planet is really all we have?
I'm sure there were people who said the same as you when America was discovered by the Europeans, just a piece of rock a different place in the ocean why bother.
[I]Edit:
[/I][U]While the post I quoted might have been sarcasm, I felt this needed to be said either way, as quite a few people seem to think space exploration is useless.[/U]
pretty sure he was being sarcastic [I]especially since he put things in italics[/I]
[QUOTE=General J;40240632]Yes. History has proven that the pursuit of space technology has literally done [U]nothing[/U] to benefit non-space [B][I][U]at all.[/U][/I][/B]
Ever. At all. There's far more important things that needs budgeting. We should definitely not concern ourselves with traveling to some rock. [I]That would be pointless.[/I][/QUOTE]
GPS wants a word with you.
Never mind the fact that a single asteroid could hold more precious metals than we have mined on Earth throughout history.
So yeah, going to Asteroids as well as other planets would be a colossal step for mankind, not only in terms of cheap materials and to satisfy curiosity but the fact that having all of our species on one planet is like asking for a global catastrophe.
One particularly nasty comet and we're toasted, billions of years of evolution pissed down the drain because a few short sighted idiots didn't think it was worth it.
[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]
Or develope these engines instead and save lots of space when you don't need all those thuster all over the hull to turn around.
[IMG]http://i48.tinypic.com/6ef2u0.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i48.tinypic.com/15zny2w.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/33xx2qx.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=smeismastger;40243537]Or develope these engines instead and save lots of space when you don't need all those thuster all over the hull to turn around.[/QUOTE]
The problem there is that your main drive needs to be burning to provide turning ability, which is a problem if you're in a delicate maneuver that won't take kindly to applying a perpendicular acceleration.
A better idea would be the use of flywheels for turning. Spin up a wheel and the ship turns in the opposite direction, use brakes to stop the flywheel and conservation of momentum stops the ship.
[QUOTE=General J;40240632]Yes. History has proven that the pursuit of space technology has literally done [U]nothing[/U] to benefit non-space [B][I][U]at all.[/U][/I][/B]
Ever. At all. There's far more important things that needs budgeting. We should definitely not concern ourselves with traveling to some rock. [I]That would be pointless.[/I][/QUOTE]
You're pointless.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.