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

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?

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.....

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.....

This sort of fusion rocket looks easier to do than a fusion reactor. The plasma escapes the system almost immediately, serving as the reaction mass, and carrying the heat away with it. In a conventional fusion reactor, they would try try to confine the hot plasma indefinitely inside a system and draw heat from it to boil water to spin turbines.
A space vessel with a conventional fusion reactor could have a substance, like water, forced through the core, flashed into an expanding plasma, and expelled as the reaction mass.
This alternate scheme works around the fact that we are currently unable to confine a fusion plasma for long, and exploits it.

I think most people forget how physics in space works.... you dont need a constant thrust produced... only small shots. Think of newtons law : an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an equal or greater force - in space there's no gravity, no atmosphere, nothing to create an opposing force. So once you reach "space" you just hit the double helicon plasmatic thrusters once and pow, your going say 1000mph, wait a minute + add some thrust and pow again... 2000mph... hypothetical of course... dont give me any bs about numbers here.

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. You have to have a constant impetus to accelerate. Just because there's no atmosphere to slow you down, the rules of physics don't get thrown out the window, you still have mass to overcome.

That's why ion thrusters are really efficient, and have a higher top speed, but they take a LONG time accelerate. They're more efficient fuel wise, but they can't push a large mass very hard, so they have to take a long time to get it up to speed.

Originally posted by KuhNate
I think most people forget how physics in space works.... you dont need a constant thrust produced... only small shots. Think of newtons law : an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an equal or greater force - in space there's no gravity, no atmosphere, nothing to create an opposing force. So once you reach "space" you just hit the double helicon plasmatic thrusters once and pow, your going say 1000mph, wait a minute + add some thrust and pow again... 2000mph... hypothetical of course... dont give me any bs about numbers here.

Sure, in theory. I know the turbo-enfluxumator could easily supply the necessary impulse in a few seconds, but can that rocket handle being bitch-slapped by the sheer magnitude of the force?

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!

Then there is the small matter of not turning the crew into jam when you hit the go-go juice button. Not everyone has those inertial damper thingies like what they do on Star Trek et al.

reply to post by goou111


It would take about 2 days. The moon is about 12 times closer than Mars, 30 days to mars divided by 12 is 2.5. So about twice as fast as the Apollo mission.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

 

Because with fusion power you can accelerate for a much much longer period of time, without having to have huge amounts of fuel. Right now, to get to Mars you have to accelerate out of Earth's orbit, and then slingshot around other gravity sources to accelerate. A fusion rocket leaves Earth orbit, points to Mars, and starts firing its engine, and fires the engine for most of the way there.

I am sorry my friend but that is a little wrong. If you accelerate for most of the way there, how are you going to slow down when you want to land.

The best answer is to accelerate at say 1G (10m/s/s) until you get half way. All this time you feel as if you have full gravity for a comfy ride.

Turn off the motor, turn the ship around through 180 degrees and then fire the motor at the same rate. Now you will decelerate at 1G and you feel as if you have normal gravity again.

If you used this to go to the moon it would take 3 hours to get there. If you just want to fly around the moon as in not slow down to land, the return trip from / to earth would only take 4 hours or so.

P

reply to post by pheonix358


As someone else pointed out, that's what aerobraking is for. You accelerate most of the way there, and use the Mars atmosphere to slow down. Even the moon has a very thin atmosphere, but for the moon, you do as said, and flip half way there, or just beyond, and by the time you get there, you're slowed down. For Mars, you accelerate most of the way there, and then use the atmosphere to slow down.

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

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

Of course, you get the same response if it isn't doable, cheap or renewable. A problem.

Originally posted by pheonix358

I am sorry my friend but that is a little wrong. If you accelerate for most of the way there, how are you going to slow down when you want to land.

Oh, that's simple. We call this the "thwop method". You do all the deceleration at the end by plowing into Mars. Thwop! And you're down. Not in one piece, mind you.

reply to post by pheonix358


Yeah, but you don't accelerate at 1G. You don't have to. You just have to accelerate, even at .1G you're going to get there much faster than if you were to slingshot.

reply to post by Bedlam


I always thought it was the "thud" method.

reply to post by Bedlam


Looking through telescope at Mars. "Now children this is Bedlam Crater. It was the first attempt at a high speed transport to Mars, before the colony was established. May he rest in piece(s)"

P

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yes, but if the fusion power plant is up to it, why not have normal gravity all the way and get there in just, well, a short, very short, span of time. Then you are all fit and ready to explore on your fusion powered Mars Mobile Machine. The time you take to get there is time you don't have to explore and we have enough photo thingies to spend half a life time up there.

P

ETA, there was a time I could have calculated all this and had some real answers. Those were they days in the old school yard!

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Looking through telescope at Mars. "Now children this is Bedlam Crater. It was the first attempt at a high speed transport to Mars, before the colony was established. May he rest in piece(s)"

P

It also depends on how fast you're going. You don't get the same crater if the rocket's going Whop 2 as you do if it's going Whop 6.

Would this tech also allow for return trips in the same rocket?
Sounds amazing,I hope it spells the start of NASA getting its act back together.

Frequent trips to and from Mars,get a base built and start monthy resupply/upgrade rockets.