Scientists develop fusion rocket technology that could get to Mars in 30 days

reply to post by pheonix358


Actually, thats probably the most intelligent thing anyone has said on here. It may be rocket science but sometime people just over complicate things. Yes you must overcome the initial launch to space as well as thrust required to obtain appropriate speed to begin your acceleration from. Some one previously stated its not a straight shot... ( i thought that was a given... space IS curved ) well it actually kinda is. err kinda..imagine a quarter back tossing a pass to a running receiver . we wont get into specifics but none the less... Truth of the matter is the current issue in tech is just the propulsion system. The one guy is right, current plasmatic thruster dont have the capability to move the mass at the speed we need without inducing major G's on the crew. But This is how problems get solved. Recognize the exact problem, look at current tech and limitations, and move forward from there. I like the direction and idea of a fusion powered rocket but id have to see some schematics first. I have yet to see a working legit "fusion" anything .. How would they control the force of the blast? Thats ALOT of energy to be controlled and directed. What about low speed acceleration? etc etc...

Everything you ever wanted to know about Rocketry in one convenient source:


"So You Wanna Build A Rocket?" (Engines)
www.projectrho.com...

Originally posted by wildespace
Is it going to be like the Turboencabulator?

Yep...now we know what the 13th Doctor will look like.

Wibbly-Wobbly, Timey-Wimey, Spacey-Wacey

I do hope NASA is getting their act together during their hiatus. If they can come up with a fusion rocket, and get regular shuttles to and from earth/moon, that would be a nice step to see in my lifetime, with manned missions (plural) to mars. I would like to see the birth of our galactic ventures in my life..hopefully that will happen. The first few steps are always the most fun anyhow (although what a perfect time to be immortal to watch the whole arch..still, take what you can get).

But ya...nasa should focus 100% on functional R&D to really blast the field ahead

The facts seem hazy....
I always figured that top speed would be reached at the halfway point of the trip....and an equal (but opposite) amount if energy has to be used slowing down to the destination, otherwise OVERSHOOT!
So, the trip would be 15 days accelleration, turnover, and 15 days slowing down again....Or matching speeds with mars itself....
Fusion engines would be dirty wouldnt they?
or is space so radioactive it doesnt matter?
Im hazy on that one too.....

Very cool thread s&f

As far as the debate on if it'll work are not, and the mathematics of space travel
I'll just believe the scientist know more than I do, and listen to them.

I hope they get the backing they need. I'd love to see this work.

Plus my generation we'll finally have something to remember, that's as
great as the moon landing.

Aren't they kind of jumping the gun on this. They have parts made but have no clue if it even works for sure yet. Releasing promising information like this means they probably need more money to complete it. It will probably not work. NASA is probably partly funding them and giving them input. It is too expensive for NASA to have their high priced scientists work on this so they divert money to organizations testing this stuff once in a while.

I vote it won't work as planned.

reply to post by goou111


It is cool that they have their sights set on mars, but I would love to see more visits to the moon.

Even if we could get to Mars in 30 days, then manage to land with astronauts and cargo intact. They would have to survive on Mars for a year and a half on there own before they could launch back into orbit and return to Earth.

Where would they get the oxygen, food and water to survive a year and a half? Never mind the vehicle and fuel to get back into Mars orbit and start the return journey home.

If they can indeed get there in 30 days it will be a one way trip!

The Moon seems a lot more viable as a testing bed for this technology as blivey suggested.

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

AT that speed! Ye gods, what are you using for hull material! You realize that if you accelerate at 1 G most of the way to Mars you would be doing (Tries quick calculation, brain explodes) (Go to fall back position and pull number from bum) Mach 50 or so +/- 95%.

P

No one can hear you scream in space. Mach number is related to speed of sound, but I get your general point. The hull could really be made out of pretty much anything in space, as there is no drag force in a vacuum.

reply to post by goou111

So they can get there in 30 day's what about coming back?

Originally posted by stirling
The facts seem hazy....
I always figured that top speed would be reached at the halfway point of the trip....and an equal (but opposite) amount if energy has to be used slowing down to the destination, otherwise OVERSHOOT!
So, the trip would be 15 days accelleration, turnover, and 15 days slowing down again....Or matching speeds with mars itself....
Fusion engines would be dirty wouldnt they?
or is space so radioactive it doesnt matter?
Im hazy on that one too.....

Fusion reactions aren't dirty. Unlike fission, the reaction itself doesn't produce radioactive particles, but it does emit plenty of high energy neutrons which can produce radioactivity in whatever absorbs them.

And send one to the moon to shut up all the fake moon landing detractors.

Originally posted by Dantose

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

AT that speed! Ye gods, what are you using for hull material! You realize that if you accelerate at 1 G most of the way to Mars you would be doing (Tries quick calculation, brain explodes) (Go to fall back position and pull number from bum) Mach 50 or so +/- 95%.

P

No one can hear you scream in space. Mach number is related to speed of sound, but I get your general point. The hull could really be made out of pretty much anything in space, as there is no drag force in a vacuum.

Mach is a measure of speed. Its origins do not matter. My comment re hull materials is aimed at the thought of using atmospheric braking to slow down. At the speed they will be going the hull would melt in just a few seconds unless of course the rocket was torn apart from the forces applied as it entered the martian atmosphere.

P

Originally posted by Mogget
You can't just fly directly to Mars from Earth in a straight line. Orbital mechanics does not work like that. You have to remember that both planets are moving, and therefore the trajectory needs to be a curve. This is a considerably greater distance, which means that the space vehicle will have to be moving a LOT faster than you might think to get there in 30 days!

edit on 6-4-2013 by Mogget because: (no reason given)

No! Sorry but no!

You know the start point, Earth. You calculate the trip time, say 30 days. You know where Mars is now, calculate where Mars will be in 30 days, aim for that point and fire the engines!

It is really only complicated by having to leave Earths gravitational field and at the end of your journey, entering the Martian gravitation field to achieve orbit.

Reverse the process for the return journey. The only 'curves' to deal with are the gravitational effects of the Sun and other major planets all of which can be calculated as you point your rocket in the right direction to start the journey.

P

ETA Yes there are vectors to consider. When you leave Earth you have an orbital momentum equivalent to that of Earth. When you wish to enter Mars orbit you must add velocity to match Mars' greater orbital velocity. You can do this with a straight line application of force. You do not need to travel a curved path.

Originally posted by pheonix358

Originally posted by Dantose

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

AT that speed! Ye gods, what are you using for hull material! You realize that if you accelerate at 1 G most of the way to Mars you would be doing (Tries quick calculation, brain explodes) (Go to fall back position and pull number from bum) Mach 50 or so +/- 95%.

P

No one can hear you scream in space. Mach number is related to speed of sound, but I get your general point. The hull could really be made out of pretty much anything in space, as there is no drag force in a vacuum.

Mach is a measure of speed. Its origins do not matter. My comment re hull materials is aimed at the thought of using atmospheric braking to slow down. At the speed they will be going the hull would melt in just a few seconds unless of course the rocket was torn apart from the forces applied as it entered the martian atmosphere.

P

Using my Google/wiki powers - mach speed calculations do use current altitude numbers in a way. (Speed of sound).

I can see this technology being scooped up by the U.S. Military to use in bombs. Just think if you could deliver a nuke 8 times faster than anyone else on the planet. Defense systems designed to knock down incoming rockets may be hard pressed to stop these.Either everyone should have this technology or no one should have it.

Originally posted by James1982
reply to post by Aliensun

 

Your point?

If you suggest some secret shadow government is in control of this high technology, and will never release it, what does it matter? For all intents and purposes it doesn't exist, then, if it will never be used.

Do you suggest we just stop trying to advance any technology? Just give up improving our technology because there might be some highly advanced stuff locked away.

If these aliens were able to develop such technologies I don't see why humans couldn't, given time. But we aren't going to achieve that level of technology by just giving up and stopping all additional research and development.

Are you helping anyone or anything, are you designing new propulsion methods which would put the one being discussed here to shame?

I ask again, what's your point?

Think his point is... The govt has and will keep hushing new tech if it poses a problem to national security. They'll classify the patents and file it away out of fear. They did this during the cold war era and they'll do it now. China has the financial backing to take any new idea and do it. Imagine if the rocket does work...who'd you think will get to mars first? Won't be American, more likely a joint Russian & China mission.

Even if you develop something that is a game changer - odds are there is a patent already. That pat would likely be top secret, you'd be asked to stop and there would be nothing you can do about it. You'd then die from a freak medical complication from a standard procedure.

reply to post by goou111


Thanks for the cool post. My dad worked for Rocketdyne, and was one of the developers of the J-2 rocket engine on the 3rd stage of the Apollo. We should have landed on Mars 20 years ago, but instead we spend too much money on weapons of war, and social programs. No doubt in my mind that a fusion engine will be developed, it's just a matter of the will and resources to do it.

Sure...


Can i haz one for my house?
I need cheap electricity...

"Fusion" powerd rockets...
Yea Right

Define FUSION power...

1+1 atom forced to colide = MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY RELEASED