Fusion Engine/Mars in 30 days

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


Actually you are bringing up Worm holes whose energy is more equivalent to that of Black holes.

Again the topic is about fusion drive and its potential as an energy source on Earth.




posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Kashai
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


Actually you are bringing up Worm holes whose energy is more equivalent to that of Black holes.

Again the topic is about fusion drive and its potential as an energy source on Earth.

I realize, and we had kind of lightly changed topics to warp drive and I may be confusing warp drive with worm holes, not sure? Kind of new to the whole thought process of it


Fusion drive would definitely assist as the in-between power source until a faster than light speed power was developed though, and I need to do a bit of research on the topic



posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Incorrect, that article states:

Maximum velocity (kilometers per second): "Energy limited orion": 1000 km/s (=0.33% of the speed of light) or "Momentum Limited Orion": 10,000 km/s (=3.3% of the speed of light)

You are confusing 0.33% with 33%

Speed of light = 186,282.4 Miles per second.

Speed of supposed fusion engine = 6213 miles per second

That makes it 3.3%



edit on 20/10/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   

woogleuk
reply to post by Kashai
 


Incorrect, that article states:

Maximum velocity (kilometers per second): "Energy limited orion": 1000 km/s (=0.33% of the speed of light) or "Momentum Limited Orion": 10,000 km/s (=3.3% of the speed of light)

You are confusing 0.33% with 33%


Either way, its a definite upgrade over our current predicament of 17,500 miles (28,000 kilometers) per hour with the NASA space shuttle



posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


Actually, those are just the speeds the shuttle needed to maintain orbit.

There is faster craft out there (including Voyager 1), the Helios probes for example reached a speed of 157,000 miles per hour, and there is quite a lot more out there....shuttles are quite slow in comparison.



posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   
The article is from April 20th
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by goou111
 


while traversing the interwebs trying to find more information on the fusion propulsion system, I ran across this tidbit:

science.howstuffworks.com...



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 





“To power a rocket, the team has devised a system in which a powerful magnetic field causes large metal rings to implode around this plasma, compressing it to a fusion state. The converging rings merge to form a shell that ignites the fusion, but only for a few microseconds. Even though the compression time is very short, enough energy is released from the fusion reactions to quickly heat and ionize the shell. This super-heated, ionized metal is ejected out of the rocket nozzle at a high velocity. This process is repeated every minute or so, propelling the spacecraft.


So, they propose to "eject" a mass rearward every minute,large enough to move the craft forward, for a period of time necessary to reach a velocity which will traverse 26 million miles in thirty days.
I can't help but wonder just how large these rings will be and therefore how large the initial craft will need to be.
Also, after they gain the required velocity, how will they slow the craft when they reach mars, and will there be enough of the craft left over for the trip home.
Based on this, they will have to build a craft 4 times as large as they need for the first part of the trip.
I would hope these points will be taken into account before they leave.

But, they are still using the same technology for propulsion as a chemical rocket.
edit on 21-10-2013 by teamcommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 



I stand corrected


I still do not understand why this technology has not been presented as also relevant to, creating a fusion power plant for use on Earth.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I just cannot imagine a scenario where the cost of creating a fusion drive would be worth sending a few people quickly to Mars. Invest a fraction of that money in developing intelligent robots and we can find out all we need to know about Mars without needing to send anybody there.

YOU are never going to stand on Mars and watch a sunset, just like YOU never put a foot on the Moon.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Blue Shift
I just cannot imagine a scenario where the cost of creating a fusion drive would be worth sending a few people quickly to Mars. Invest a fraction of that money in developing intelligent robots and we can find out all we need to know about Mars without needing to send anybody there.

YOU are never going to stand on Mars and watch a sunset, just like YOU never put a foot on the Moon.


Actually I was 7, when man first landed on the moon and will be about 61 by the time this potential mission to Mars comes around. The scenario in question is with respect to overpopulation and the ability to feed our planets growing numbers. A Robot is only as good as its programing but if your suggesting something along the lines of"Data", in Star Trek we are far away from anything like that.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Kashai
The scenario in question is with respect to overpopulation and the ability to feed our planets growing numbers.

Spreading out to other planets to colonize or farm doesn't work economically or logically. Shipping food all the way from Mars will never be economical, considering the time and resources necessary to make it happen.

And it's not as if the entire planet will be converted to farms that will exclusively be used by Earth humans. Once you get enough people on Mars, they will start breeding themselves and soon their population will expand to use all the resources they can produce. They'll put up "KEEP OUT" signs pretty fast.

The only way to keep people fed on Earth is to have less people here and eliminate any warlords or governments that use food and starvation as a weapon.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
How about we take 90 days so that we don't arrive as goo from the acceleration? Without some kind of inertia dampener that's exactly what would happen.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Blue Shift

Kashai
The scenario in question is with respect to overpopulation and the ability to feed our planets growing numbers.

Spreading out to other planets to colonize or farm doesn't work economically or logically. Shipping food all the way from Mars will never be economical, considering the time and resources necessary to make it happen.

And it's not as if the entire planet will be converted to farms that will exclusively be used by Earth humans. Once you get enough people on Mars, they will start breeding themselves and soon their population will expand to use all the resources they can produce. They'll put up "KEEP OUT" signs pretty fast.

The only way to keep people fed on Earth is to have less people here and eliminate any warlords or governments that use food and starvation as a weapon.


Actually that is not sand on the surface of mars.


The resources available to us in our solar system is gargantuan. The idea being collecting all those resources and apply them to our benefit and then continuing expanding as our technology develops.

Mars is simply the first step.

Water appears to exist pretty much everywhere in our solar system. With that what is needed is a work force capable of converting raw minerals into useful materials. An example being for building really large sealed structures where earth like conditions can be replicated.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

JIMC5499
How about we take 90 days so that we don't arrive as goo from the acceleration? Without some kind of inertia dampener that's exactly what would happen.


It would make little sense for NASA to spend all this money on planning such a venture without being able to stop.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


I know this is about the fusion drive so I'm off topic but I work in the service industry, hotels are a big part of my day. Where I'm presently posted as a contractor to a medium sized hotel shows me that overpopulation and food supply is being seriously miscalculated in general. The hotel I presently work throws out, every day, enough food to feed 50 or so people....It has been paid for in a sales contract between client and hotel. How many hotels are there in the world, some way bigger than the one I frequent? If you have the coin, you have the food. Shortage is not an issue....Mismanagement of the resource is!

Secondly and more on topic, While fossil fuels are used to power the wealth of mega corporations that sell them and in doing so, have the powers that be scrambling to protect their interests, even if developed, a fusion apparatus to power cars and provide electrical power to people on the cheap just isn't going to happen anytime soon on this little blue bowling ball.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by minkmouse
 


Those are valid statistics but you are correct a lot of food is wasted.

In so far as building a fusion engine for personal use that is another issue However the process of Fusion generates very large amounts of electricity. A Fusion reactor built to the scale of a modern day Fission reactor could power a city with a population of about 1 million. That is inclusive by the way of every car in that city running entirely on electricity.

Fossil fuels will become obsolete.

Geo-politically fossil fuels make the world go round (proverbially). In space fossil fuels are effectively useless and try getting into the space program as a person who smokes cigarettes.


The Technology necessary to operate in space will make its way to replacing what we use for fuel on Earth.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Kashai
It would make little sense for NASA to spend all this money on planning such a venture without being able to stop.


I'm not worried about being able to stop. I'm worried about being squished into the rear bulkhead by the acceleration necessary to reach a speed to make Mars in 30 days.

95% of wasted food is caused by complying with Health Code laws.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Based upon the PDF file they are presenting a 6 day burn to full acceleration.

In comparison to reach 1/3 the speed of light assuming technology that can allow a person to tolerate 25g it would take 4 1/2 days to accelerate and 4 1/2 days to slow down.

The exhaust velocity for the space-craft in question is (> 30 km/s), therefore while the above example relates to accelerating to 100,000 km/s. the issue of g-forces is minimal.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Cash-Landrum Incident??

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-Landrum_incident
en.wikipedia.org...

There was a thread around here that connected the Cash-Landrum incident to this technology!!
edit on 23-10-2013 by AbleEndangered because: added explanation for relevance





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join