• NASA-backed fusion engine could cut Mars journey to as low as 30 days.
    99 replies, posted
[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] How is everyone so autistic as to not detect his sarcasm? He even emphasized certain spots to help you poor guys.
[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? [/QUOTE] Assuming there could be an electric fuel source you would still either need a premade electricity source (batteries of supercapcitors) or at least a fission reactor so either way you'd need to carry extra weight with you.
[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] I hope for you and mankind that this is a huge post of sarcasm. [editline]12th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=hypno-toad;40251506]Assuming there could be an electric fuel source you would still either need a premade electricity source (batteries of supercapcitors) or at least a fission reactor so either way you'd need to carry extra weight with you.[/QUOTE] What about solar panels? But what you really need is something to push the ship. Every thruster works by the principle of recoil. Even ion thrusters use some gas as propellant to create thrust in accordance to momentum conservation. [IMG]http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1000px-Electrostatic_ion_thruster-en.svg_.png[/IMG]
I wonder if deceleration is even necessary if you manage to pull off an aerobraking maneuver correctly.
[QUOTE=Nikita;40281453]I wonder if deceleration is even necessary if you manage to pull off an aerobraking maneuver correctly.[/QUOTE] As was posted a bit earlier, with this kind of propulsion, the extra fuel needed to decelerate would weigh less than the shielding you'd need for an aerobreaking maneuver.
remove the outer space treaty and watch the nasa budget grow tenfold
[QUOTE=catbarf;40240777]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] I really don't think there will be legal trouble with a fusion drive. The idea behind Orion was to literally set off hydrogen bombs in space, hence the concern.
Doesn't this also mean that during the 6 days total spent accelerating/decelerating that the crew will experience a sort of simulated gravity?
Man, I hope by the time we see people on Mars the space suits will look as badass as they did in 1969.
[QUOTE=Jack Bryce;40286917]Doesn't this also mean that during the 6 days total spent accelerating/decelerating that the crew will experience a sort of simulated gravity?[/QUOTE] Yes it does, but without looking it up I'd imagine the thrust is so low that it would be barely noticeable.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.