Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 02:23 AM
link   
If possible its great technology but if its built I don't see human usage for a while, who wants to be the country that blew up their own crew in a 'try out', its going to go through many many un-manned tests.

The idea of man on Mars is stunning but in my life time, possibly but for me unlikely.




posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
I think we also need to consider the fact that space is not empty!

When and if we begin to travel through said medium at velocities in the 100s of miles per second range any type or size of particulate matter is going to be like hitting a brick wall if its in the space crafts flight path!

We need to design some type of magnetic forward shield like the navigational shields in Star Trek before we can go that fast.

edit on 7-4-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I would like to see something like this put to use as a shuttle to go back and forth to the moon.

I would like to see bases built on the moon where the materials there could be utilized to build other craft. The moon could essentially become our giant space station where launching expedition missions to planets such as mars would become far easier and with time the moon could have its own factories.

We could mine helium three which would solve all the problems for electric needs of earth that would be worth the investment right there. I also read that there are other advantages such as when aluminum is forged in near 0 gravity it has a tensile strength greater than steel. There are several reasons which can also be lucrative for setting up permanent bases on the moon. With this fusion drive it would cut down on one of the most dangerous aspects of traveling there the time involved.

Maybe I am just a dreamer but it is a nice dream.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by fatpastyhead
so we would get to the moon using this technology pretty quick?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



The closer the target (such as the Moon), the less advantage is gained by going really fast -- that's because there is the time it takes to safely decelerate to consider.

It's a little like saying I can get into my garage from the street end of my driveway more quickly if I drive 100 mph. Sure I can, but it will be awfully difficult to stop the car once inside my garage.

By the time it takes a fusion rocket (or some other fast spacecraft technology) to get up to full speed on the way to the Moon, it may soon be time to begin the deceleration phase -- which needs to be done slowly due to g-forces. The spacecraft can't be going that fast if it needs to go into lunar orbit.



edit on 4/7/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Surely if we built a base on the moon we could eventually construct a craft there which could then travel to Mars much quicker.

One would think that less fuel would be used than when launching through Earth's atmosphere. Don't know the facts to back up those assumptions however. ~$heopleNation



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Impossible! Eh, wait, what was I reading..?

*looks*

"Scientists develop fusion rocket.... blah blah"

Impossible!

Ok, well on serious note, who knows? We're on the edge of what we know and on the other side is the unknown. If researchers knew exactly what they were doing they wouldn't be researching.
edit on 7-4-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


You say " With this fusion drive it would cut down on one of the most dangerous aspects of traveling there the time involved. "

Did you not see that the latest flight to the ISS only took hours instead of the previous 3 day flight.

I think it was achieved by accurate flight planning rather than any increase in power or new drive.

The moon must therefore be reachable nearly as quickly.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Suppose you could build such a rocket...traveling at 47,000 miles per hour, the slightest dust particle will probably penetrate the hull like a bullet through butter.....i think most of the vehicle will be a massively reinforced nose cone...



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy06shake
I think we also need to consider the fact that space is not empty!

When and if we begin to travel through said medium at velocities in the 100s of miles per second range any type or size of particulate matter is going to be like hitting a brick wall if its in the space crafts flight path!

We need to design some type of magnetic forward shield like the navigational shields in Star Trek before we can go that fast.

edit on 7-4-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

Great minds and all....Fancy getting into the space program business..



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dowot
 


You may want to look into that. The flight to the moon took days and one of the dangers was radiation. Imagine the time in a microwave oven the longer you are traveling the more radiation you are exposed to. Cutting down on flight time reduces the amount of radiation exposure. They had already plotted the best course they could to reduce those risks. A faster engine would make a huge difference a powerful enough one could eliminate the need to slingshot around the moon for deceleration.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CJCrawley
Intriguing news item, but I think highly unlikely.
The heat produced would vaporise the rocket.
Besides, if they can build a fusion-powered rocket, why not a fusion reactor?
They need to haul ass to the moon and get mining that there Helium-3.....


Good point. Explosions aside, if they make the fusion powered rocket twice as strong, could they get there in half the time? Make an impact crater twice as deep. Then with enough scientists, this light bulb could get screwed in just so to where they could get to Mars in less than a week. That is what they are making right? A deuterium bulb?

Maybe if they made a metal shell, tubular shaped, little radioactive pellet being spun through it, they might get somewhere after plugging in that new data about the Higgs boson and whatnot. I might be the idiot to give that idea away. The scientists have an idea with the ring of metal, but you know they are the developing scientists not the inventors of the place. The fact it is made public means it's technology on the path of consumerism, not military. They either aren't getting the big picture or they aren't giving the big picture with this.

Helium-3 is nice but I'm hoping for that "lunarium" which some supposed time traveler claimed would be a new element in the Moon. And when am I going to get my flying car?

Consider once that developmental bridge has been crossed, the technology is so risky that if a competitive other country got its hands on it, they could modify it for all the classic end-is-nigh devices, like missiles. I'm surprised they're giving away missile technology online for free. A metal ring squeezing a deuterium droplet, and "it kinda blows up" says Slough. It's so hard to read because they are still building their craft on the propulsion basis of space-farts.

A space-crawler might be better.
edit on 7-4-2013 by Sandalphon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Yeah, this will be the last time we hear of this.

Fusion power is not something they want the average guy to think is doable, cheap or renewable.

~Tenth
The second i read the post headline i thought the same thing.

The fact they are just now coming to this conclusion after 50 years is BS.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by KuhNate
 


You still have to get the mass moving. That requires a constant thrust. Once it's moving then there's no friction to slow it down, but that doesn't mean that a short burst of thruster is going to suddenly jump your speed 1000 mph.


No, but a whole lot of small bursts averages out over time. It's real possible to pulse-drive a space craft. We just don't do it that way. Generally.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I like to think of us having probes like curiousity sent to jupiter and some of its moons.

It seems like if this tech works we should be able to get there in what 8 or 9 months?

Would be so cool to be looking at hi-res pics of Titan



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Yes you can, but if there are people on board it would be a bit uncomfortable. Gravity/no gravity/gravity/no gravity............

It would also provide additional and constant stressors to the craft itself.

P



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChuckNasty
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.


Generally speaking, you don't get SLAGged unless your patent app really looks spooky to them, or it's very convincing in a new sort of way, or it's directly related to a black project. And, of course, DOE SLAGs every nuke patent that comes down the pipe as a 'born secret'.

They didn't just do it in the cold war, it's a function of the patent office, you get maybe 500 SLAGs a year for individuals and maybe 1500 for small technical businesses. There's an informal competition for the most by a single inventor and by a small company for the most in a year.

But you don't "die from a standard procedure" or I'd be a goner several times over.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Yes you can, but if there are people on board it would be a bit uncomfortable. Gravity/no gravity/gravity/no gravity............

It would also provide additional and constant stressors to the craft itself.

P


Heck, that's already been worked out, old stuff from the 60's. They even built small scale demo systems. See also: Project Orion



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


they are already planning private missions that might require the crew to die on the planet. I think it's worth a couple deaths to advance 7 billion people with a dangerously growing population.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...


NERVA is an acronym for Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application, a joint program of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and NASA managed by the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office (SNPO) until both the program and the office ended at the end of 1972. NERVA demonstrated that nuclear thermal rocket engines were a feasible and reliable tool for space exploration, and at the end of 1968 SNPO certified that the latest NERVA engine, the NRX/XE, met the requirements for a manned Mars mission. Although NERVA engines were built and tested as much as possible with flight-certified components and the engine was deemed ready for integration into a spacecraft, much of the U.S. space program was cancelled by the Nixon Administration before a manned visit to Mars could take place. NERVA was considered by the AEC, SNPO and NASA to be a highly successful program; it met or exceeded its program goals. Its principal objective was to "establish a technology base for nuclear rocket engine systems to be utilized in the design and development of propulsion systems for space mission application".[1] Virtually all space mission plans that use nuclear thermal rockets use derivative designs from the NERVA NRX or Pewee.



The Rover/NERVA program accumulated 17 hours of operating time with 6 hours above 2000 K. Although the engine, turbine and liquid hydrogen tank were never physically assembled together, the NERVA was deemed ready to design into a working vehicle by NASA, creating a small political crisis in Congress because of the danger a Mars exploration program presented to the national budget. Clinton P. Anderson, the New Mexico senator who had protected the program, had become severely ill. Lyndon B. Johnson, another powerful advocate of human space exploration, had decided not to run for a second term and was considerably weakened. NASA program funding was somewhat reduced by Congress for the 1969 budget, and the incoming Nixon administration reduced it still further for 1970, shutting down the Saturn rocket production line and cancelling Apollo missions after Apollo 17. Without the Saturn S-N rocket to carry the NERVA to orbit, Los Alamos continued the Rover Program for a few more years with Pewee and the Nuclear Furnace, but it was disbanded by 1972. The most serious injury during testing was a hydrogen explosion in which two employees sustained foot and ear drum injuries. At one point in 1965 the liquid hydrogen storage at Test Cell #2 during a Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Test was accidentally allowed to run dry; the core overheated and ejected on to the floor of the Nevada desert. Test Site personnel waited 3 weeks and then walked out and collected the pieces without mishap. The nuclear waste from the damaged core was spread across the desert and was collected by an Army group as a decontamination exercise. An engine of this type is on outdoor display on the grounds of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville Alabama.



The RIFT vehicle consisted of a Saturn S-IC first stage, an SII stage and an S-N (Saturn-Nuclear) third stage. The Space Nuclear Propulsion Office planned to build ten RIFT vehicles, six for ground tests and four for flight tests, but RIFT was delayed after 1966 as NERVA became a political proxy in the debate over a Mars mission. The nuclear Saturn C-5 would carry two to three times more payload into space than the chemical version, enough to easily loft 340,000 pound space stations and replenish orbital propellant depots. Wernher von Braun also proposed a manned Mars mission using NERVA and a spinning donut-shaped spacecraft to simulate gravity. Many of the NASA plans for Mars in the 1960s and early 1970s used the NERVA rocket specifically, see list of manned Mars mission plans in the 20th century.


This is just one engine that was developed and I used to have the some data on the second competing engine design but have no idea where to look now. We could have gone to Mars (engine wise) back in the 70s. Remember our old friend and Nuclear physics Stanton Frieman??? One of his claims to fame was he actually worked on the Nuclear engine design and testing. Probably a youtube video where he talks about the research he was involved in.
Like one of the posters said you fire up the engine run just a little more than halfway there flip 180 degrees so the tail is pointing at your target destination still under power and you reach the planet at orbital velocity. Warner Von Bron for some reason wanted to donut and spin the space ship for gravity whereby Walt Disney in one of his earth to the moon films did the flipping maneuver... anyway getting there without a six month journey was figured out in the early 60s as far as destination orbit. Bad thing about the spacecraft is the nuclear material and parts for assembly had to be taken to orbit by conventional means and our rockets were not up to the task..There was a great fear of one blowing up and spreading nuclear material all over the blast area.

What is nice about the nuclear option is you don't kill/turn the engine off until you achieve orbit and can maintain 1g for the whole trip except during the 180 rotation and even then you don't have to kill the engine... anyone who has studied space medicine and the effect of micro gravity on the human body will understand the 1g thingy is a big deal. Strictly orbit to orbit engine so you would need a lander once there and a way back to the orbiter. Again all this was on the drawing board and ready to attempt but was de-funded.
edit on 7-4-2013 by 727Sky because: edit
edit on 7-4-2013 by 727Sky because: defunded



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 


"Great minds and all....Fancy getting into the space program business.."

All I can say to that is we probably have as good a chance as anyone else, considering the level of endeavour Humanity seems to be committing to getting us of this rock.

I'm up for it!
LoL

Humanity should have been exploring the inner planets at least since the beginning of the millennium, the technology is there, all we lack is the commitment and finance!

One has to wonder why a race of explorers, stopped exploring!





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join