It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1.5 Years to Mars? Russia Could Do It in 1.5 Months Russia's space program

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   

In a recent address to the Federation Council (Russia's Senate), former Prime Minister-turned-nuke-exec Kirienko proposed an ambitious project to cut the time needed to travel to Mars by 92%. For some years, Rosatom has been working on the development of a megawatt-class "thermonuclear battery" for use in powering spaceships. Declared the former PM: "Installing a nuclear engine will allow [a spacecraft] to fly to Mars in a month and a half and to come back."


www.fool.com...
What do you think, could Russia get to Mars in so short a time or is this all just more smoke blowing? I'm still on the cliff with this one.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I know a lot of people here have been brainwashed by Russian propaganda.

But are they stupid enough to believe this?

We'll see.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
They can get there huh?
Can they stop there? Or just go splat?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ADSE255

The headline on the article (which you quoted for the title of the thread) is misleading because no one claims it would take 1.5 years to get to Mars. A minimum-fuel trajectory (which is what we use today) takes only 7 months.

Other than that it's a pretty good article. It points-out that many others (including NASA) are working on propulsion technologies to shorten the flight time. There are others not listed.

Of course, talk is cheap and flying men to Mars is expensive. The trick (as Sergey Kirienko and Mark Cuban allude to in the article) is getting people to understand that this is an investment in the technology that will pay-off down the road. No matter how many times these investments in space tech have paid off before, the ignorant masses (and short-sighted politicians) still think that space is some sort of "hole" that money is thrown-down and wasted with no practical benefit on Earth.

Ironically, they tend to post these Luddite screeds on computers that would not have been possible without the investment in space tech.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ADSE255

Typically the journey to Mars takes around 6-9 months depending on certain variables.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
It adds up if the engine is capable of producing a constant acceleration of 1G. Accelerate at 1G to the halfway point, then turn around and decelerate at 1G would get you there in under 2 days with the benefit for the crew being they would experience 'natural' 1g gravity for the entire journey apart from the turning around time and after orbit insertion at the destination.

Political issues will arise from the proposal to launch such a reactor into orbit in the first place no doubt.

Just as a side note: the same approach would get to the moon in about 4 hours IE accelerate at 1G to 1/2 way, decelerate at -1G to destination.
edit on 7/8/2017 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Yes, let's strap a themonuclear device to a rocket and shoot it up into the sky.

What could possibly go wrong? Not like we don't have enough radiation poisoning floating around already



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Go for it Russia.

How many Russians died trying to get a Russian to the Moon again?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Nice correction.
edit on 7-8-2017 by CreationBro because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Russia can't seem to get beyond low earth orbit these days.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: CreationBro

Remember inertia - mass experiencing constant acceleration in zero gravity will experience 'artificial' gravity. If close to the earth at the start of a journey, the acceleration would be additive to the earth's gravity so a 1G acceleration would initially result in an equivalent effect of near 2G which would diminish to 1G as distance from the planet increased.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

Learned something today.

Has more to do with change in spatial location of the craft vs. "stationary" occupants rather than gravity sources.

Nice.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Empty out a submarine of the ballast (and rudders and everything else that it "swims" with) replace with Oxygen and life support system, install 2 Nuclear Reactor, slap on 1 or several Ion Engines, take the beast to Mars.

I'm not even joking.

Submarine designed for many atmospheres, in space you only need 1 - launch it in pieces and dock them together.

PS: Yes I know the pressure is the opposite, however that does not matter, it won't explode with 1 or 1 partial atmospheres.
edit on 8-8-2017 by MuonToGluon because: Added + Fixed



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven
Russia can't seem to get beyond low earth orbit these days.


get with the current narrative dude, russia did everything better and first.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Saint Exupery



The trick (as Sergey Kirienko and Mark Cuban allude to in the article) is getting people to understand that this is an investment in the technology that will pay-off down the road. No matter how many times these investments in space tech have paid off before, the ignorant masses (and short-sighted politicians) still think that space is some sort of "hole" that money is thrown-down and wasted with no practical benefit on Earth. Ironically, they tend to post these Luddite screeds on computers that would not have been possible without the investment in space tech.

The problem is the "messaging" (political definition). Many people think of it as "you want us to spend x-amount of my tax money on space when it could be spent here?". And scientists seem to present it as "we'll spend x-amount of your tax money on space, but eventually the technology will trickle down to your lives in one way or another". Why would poor or otherwise cash-strapped citizens go along with that?

Instead, it needs to be presented as "we're creating the technology of sci-fi fantasies and one result of it will be an advanced space program". People are far more likely to be supportive of it if they think their tax money is going towards finally creating teleportation, warp drives, Star Wars or Star Trek styled technology, etc. Maybe even rename/rebrand NASA something into something like "The Department of Advanced Hyper-Tech", "The Future-Tech Agency", etc. Make it sound like DARPA on steriods.

That may sound ridiculous but the simple truth is most people don't care about space like we did in the past. There are simply too many other forms of entertainment out there that are way more instantly gratifying. Right now, humankind is literally exploring other worlds w/our drones and probes, yet it barely even makes the news. And that's not because the info is suppressed; most of the info from those missions is free online. But most people simply don't care anymore.

So if scientists and engineers want more funds for this stuff, they're going to have to find a way to recapture the public's collective imagination. And explaining how they intend to improve efficiency by 1.5% isn't going to cut it (just an arbitrary example).

ETA: I guess I'm just saying to make it sound like it's a direct investment in technology that will immediately benefit all of humankind, with one application being the advancement of our space programs. I love space exploration but I still have a hard time justifying spending so much money on a Boeing contract and hoping that something from that contract eventually trickles down to our daily lives. Especially since I know that any trickled down technology will still be sold to me at a profit.
edit on 8-8-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby
I know a lot of people here have been brainwashed by Russian propaganda.

But are they stupid enough to believe this?

We'll see.


I am an American Patriot; to that end

I've posted this In other threads in ENGLISH

Космодром Байконур

BRAINWASH???

Some enemy we, rely and allow OUR best???

Seriously???

Turn off the tv



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 03:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven
Russia can't seem to get beyond low earth orbit these days.

Neither can America or any of the rest of the world, for that matter. But there's no harm in researching and working on such projects. If anything, they advance our knowledge and may benefit us in other areas of technology.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby
I know a lot of people here have been brainwashed by Russian propaganda.

But are they stupid enough to believe this?

We'll see.


Perhaps if they had you to consult with they might make it, oh wise one.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Xeven
Russia can't seem to get beyond low earth orbit these days.

Neither can America or any of the rest of the world, for that matter. But there's no harm in researching and working on such projects. If anything, they advance our knowledge and may benefit us in other areas of technology.


The recent van Allen belt capsule test...

Davy Jones didn't survive splashdown

Getting closer 🍘



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Went over the numbers again and 1.5 month figure only requires a paltry amount of acceleration which could be provided by a hotted up ion thruster or EM drive type of motor (on steroids). The catch is the motor has to operate for the entire trip and conventional propulsion system (rockets) would require more fuel than the craft could carry hence the nuclear power source. They'd still require a rocket boost to get through the radiation belts as quickly as possible and far enough from earth's gravity for such a drive to be adequate to maintain the acceleration.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join