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.

 

Plasma Rocket Could Travel to Mars in 39 Days

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Jupiter and Saturn have no "ground".
You did know that, right?


ok well... planet's core then

Also when I said Saturn I actually meant Mercury, my bad

I want to see images of a planet with no atmosphere, or an exosphere, whatever it is. But I assume no ship could survive.

I'm just tired of all the Mars stuff, I need a new planet!




posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





Previously, spacecraft – including Russian and European cargo ships – have provided these boosts by firing their engines while docked with the space station.

But with conventional thrusters, the boosts consume 7.5 tonnes of propellant each year. VASIMR could do the same job with just 0.3 tonnes of argon per year, Chang-Diaz says. Since it is expensive to launch fuel into orbit, that could save millions of dollars per year, he says.


NEWS SCIENTIST LINK


you are sorta correct, the problem with conventional fuel is you need a burst at the other end to STOP you , this requires you to take the same amount of fuel to stop the thrust as to start it.. and then the craft gets heavier with fuel so MORE fuel is required to stop and start it .. and so on and so forth, but as you can see above the new engine provides as much thrust as 7.5 tonnes of conventional fuel with just 0.3 tonnes of the new stuff......... this is a giant leap forward IF it can be upscaled correctly.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
The Only thing that saddens me is that they are some say 50 years ahead of civilian technology but yet they let us die and fight for energy.

Maybe this is the small steps to realse new technology. They cant just bring it out after hidding it for so long. Some one as to invent it again right?

Imagine the Gov saying; We lied and we are sorry. We have propulsion system far more advanced then what you were led to believe. We can make it to Mars in no more then 2-3 months even less. The energy well we got an almost endless source or we adapted nuclear energy to fit our needs.

Wouldnt people just freak out and want to know what else are they hidding.

The problem with conspiracy is to admit one will create a chaine reaction of what else are you not telling us.

I hope to see men on a Mars mission soon. Mars is an intresting planet and could reveal to be a key some say to many questions. We'll have to wait and see.


[edit on 7-10-2009 by NIGHTRID3R]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
you would think NASA would be all over this if it was viable. the reluctance on their part to announce this publicly with some degree of excitement and enthusiasm, leads me to believe that they don't care. they know they are just a public front, to what's really going on in space travel. the tepid response is noticable, and telling at the same time.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


Wow, cool stuff. S&F. This kind of info is very interesting to me. Space is just awesome, I wish our Governments would stop withholding technologies from the Private Sectors so we could actually accomplish something worth while. The ISS is not Worth While and is a Pet Pig Project. We shouldnt be wasting time with silly frog experiments and concentrate on Planetary Bases and methods of travel.

My understanding of this Tech, is that it pretty much has a limitless acceleration. If you got the time, you got the speed pretty much. However, that is just hearsay. These things are slow going at first but with exponential accelerations. Or Not. Just what I heard.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I have been following the development of this VASIMR rocket for some time.

The great thing about this technology is that this is essentialy 2 rockets in one, allowing you to "change gears" between high specific impulse - low thrust and low specific impulse - high thrust mode.

It is also the only electric high-impulse rocket capable of pretty reasonable thrust, can efficiently process plenty of power and has magnetic "electrode" instead of conventional one.

This rocket is also hopefully gonna be installed on ISS, to keep it in orbit with using minimal fuel.

39 days to Mars is sort of best case scenario, but this rocket coupled with nuclear reactor is really mankinds best chance to finally leave this rock..



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel
 


Read carefully. Sure, the plasma engine uses less propellant, but the propellant they use (argon) is not the energy source, unlike propellants used in chemical rockets. This is exactly the source of difference in propellant mass! Pretty obvious, actually.

Now, the plasma engine will need energy to operate, so they will have to carry an energy source at least as heavy as conventional rockets.

Case closed.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by spartan1337

Originally posted by Totalstranger
lets do it. I volunteer. Hopefully this wont be coopted by black ops and never heard about again. Then again, if their technology is supposedly 10 to 20 years ahead of what the public has, maybe they are already going there.


They have already made a lot of flying saucers from all the reverse engineering of the crashed ships in the last 60 years so chances are very high that they have already been there more than once.



Prove it.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Its about time to start a real effort to get our fingers in the rest of our solar system. be it space stations or the slow terraformation of other planets and moons. Having all our eggs in one basket is worrysome.

So, within 100 years, we have gone from horse and buggy systems to potentially sublight space travel. Wonder where we will be in 100 years from now...really wish there was a way to be around to see it, and youthful enough to benefit from it.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
you would think NASA would be all over this if it was viable. the reluctance on their part to announce this publicly with some degree of excitement and enthusiasm, leads me to believe that they don't care. they know they are just a public front, to what's really going on in space travel. the tepid response is noticable, and telling at the same time.


Yes, that is interesting.
Well, perhaps some of the other space agencys around the world will take the torch and run with it. Now announcing the Interplanetary Airlines of India..fly to India to take a trip to Mars.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
you know, and this isnt meant to hijack the thread, but if Virgin Air(space) is getting ready for human flights into space for $$, then it cant be that hard to do. I dont believe in most things but that coupled with this new thing makes me think people must be going to the moon or Mars. I mean, I know people are stupid and irrational, but tell us whats going on in scientific terms at least. the ppl who dont know who George Washigton is wont know or car anyway(speaking for US only)



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   



Read carefully. Sure, the plasma engine uses less propellant, but the propellant they use (argon) is not the energy source, unlike propellants used in chemical rockets. This is exactly the source of difference in propellant mass! Pretty obvious, actually.

Now, the plasma engine will need energy to operate, so they will have to carry an energy source at least as heavy as conventional rockets.



First, the plasma engine uses VASTLY less propellant, like order of magnitude less.

The energy source of conventional rocket is chemical fuel, which is very heavy. And spaceflight is mostly about mass!
This could use any electric energy source, and nuclear reactors are relatively very light (10 tonnes max maybe?).
Even better idea would be to use hydrogen instead of argon as fuel, because it has lower atomic mass, you will get even higher propellant velocity (more effective) and have better shielding, but it is harder to store.

Couple this with nuclear reactor and you can get to Mars in 2 months with half the fuel, Im telling you.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
This is very, very cool.

Just think where this technology will be in 10 years. On Mars I hope !!!

PS - Great thread.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo



Read carefully. Sure, the plasma engine uses less propellant, but the propellant they use (argon) is not the energy source, unlike propellants used in chemical rockets. This is exactly the source of difference in propellant mass! Pretty obvious, actually.

Now, the plasma engine will need energy to operate, so they will have to carry an energy source at least as heavy as conventional rockets.



First, the plasma engine uses VASTLY less propellant, like order of magnitude less.

The energy source of conventional rocket is chemical fuel, which is very heavy. And spaceflight is mostly about mass!
This could use any electric energy source, and nuclear reactors are relatively very light (10 tonnes max maybe?).
Even better idea would be to use hydrogen instead of argon as fuel, because it has lower atomic mass, you will get even higher propellant velocity (more effective) and have better shielding, but it is harder to store.

Couple this with nuclear reactor and you can get to Mars in 2 months with half the fuel, Im telling you.



I would like to take this time to draw attention to the Lagrangian points. en.wikipedia.org...

This would be a very good way to store fuel for long haul flights around the solar system. For trips to other stars...lets hope for something fast and a colony ship or cryo travel.

(Excuse spelling mistakes, I'm at work)



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Couple this with nuclear reactor and you can get to Mars in 2 months with half the fuel, Im telling you.


Maslo, I didn't mention nuclear power on purpose, because in foreseeable future it will be close to impossible, politically, to launch a nuclear reactor in space.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   


Read carefully. Sure, the plasma engine uses less propellant, but the propellant they use (argon) is not the energy source, unlike propellants used in chemical rockets. This is exactly the source of difference in propellant mass! Pretty obvious, actually. Now, the plasma engine will need energy to operate, so they will have to carry an energy source at least as heavy as conventional rockets. Case closed.


Not so - Basic physics states that force is mass times acceleration. A plasma rocket ejects the plasma at a vastly greater speed than a chemical propellant can - therefore the same, or greater force can be achieved with much less fuel mass.

You are correct in the fact that the energy needed to convert the argon to plasma and accelerate it will need to come from somewhere, but I believe that this can be done at a hugely reduced weight cost. Take a look at Deepspace 1 - It did not provide a massive amount of thrust, but it was a constant acceleration that propelled it to incredible speeds using a very small amount of fuel, all while keeping it down to a small package.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by Speedtek]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Speedtek


Read carefully. Sure, the plasma engine uses less propellant, but the propellant they use (argon) is not the energy source, unlike propellants used in chemical rockets. This is exactly the source of difference in propellant mass! Pretty obvious, actually. Now, the plasma engine will need energy to operate, so they will have to carry an energy source at least as heavy as conventional rockets. Case closed.


Not so - Basic physics states that force is mass times acceleration. A plasma rocket ejects the plasma at a vastly greater speed than a chemical propellant can - therefore the same, or greater force can be achieved with much less fuel mass.


Look, please try to digest the part where I said energy is still needed, regardless of muzzle velocity of plasma being ejected. You have to store energy somehow. If you don't use nuclear power, you are still stuck with fuel of some sort (in this case not the propellant which is inert).



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





It uses radio waves to heat argon gas, turning it into a hot plasma – a state of matter in which electrons are no longer bound to atomic nuclei. Magnetic fields then squirt the superheated plasma out the back of the engine, producing thrust in the opposite direction.


It is Niave of you to wave YOUR views around shouting case closed , the argon gas is heated with RADIO waves.

i guess they make the radio waves heavy were u come from?, conventional will be needed to get into orbit that is all.

besides it says it in black and white




It shoots the propellant out at much higher velocity than conventional engines, resulting in far more acceleration per kilogram of fuel consumed.


resulting in far more acceleration per kilogram of fuel consumed

lets continue debating eh? and not stamp our feet and proclaim that you are 100% correct



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
And yes i know whatever makes the radio waves will require a more conventional power source.. but producing radio waves must be more cost efficient than the other method

[2nd post as i did not want it to seem i was adding to my posts after and circumventing points others may bring up in this debate]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


well, the conspiracy goes that there is a ground to Jupiter, and it's not just a gaseous planet...

but then again, i have zero proof of that, as it's only hearsay at the moment




top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join