Slashdot Mirror


To Mars and Back in Ninety Days

paltemalte writes "A new means of propelling spacecraft being developed at the University of Washington could dramatically cut the time needed for astronauts to travel to and from Mars and could make humans a permanent fixture in space. In fact, with magnetized-beam plasma propulsion, or mag-beam, quick trips to distant parts of the solar system could become routine, said Robert Winglee, a UW Earth and space sciences professor who is leading the project."

25 of 812 comments (clear)

  1. This is fine and well, but... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is fine and well, but how does one meanwhile solves the most pressing problem, that is, providing CHEAP and RELIABLE means to get into earth orbit???

    1. Re:This is fine and well, but... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Point taken. However, dropping the amount of fuel you have to hoist into orbit can only help.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:This is fine and well, but... by crawling_chaos · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Scaled still hasn't equalled the Mercury, much less the Vostok program yet. They're about at where NASA/USAF was with the X-15.

      Spaceship One has no chance of surviving re-entry at orbital velocities. Tier Two is going to need to be a totally new craft. I'm also betting its body shape will be closer to Buran or the STS than Spaceship One's. You need some bulk to carry the required heat shielding. You can't "feather" your way out of orbit, since there's no atmosphere for the feathers to work on.

      That isn't to say that I don't think that Scaled can do it, eventually. I'm just not willing to pee my pants in joy over their relatively minor accomplishments so far.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    3. Re:This is fine and well, but... by DerWulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you just don't get it. NASA doesn't even fart for 20mio$ much less get up 100kms. Small, baby steps procedure coupled with the profit and loss test of private enterprise will get us into orbit, cheaply, one day, if there is sufficient demand for it. Steady wins the race.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    4. Re:This is fine and well, but... by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      has no chance of surviving re-entry at orbital velocities.

      Question: which weighs more, the heat shielding and structure required to survive re-entry at orbital velocities or the fuel required to brake then re-enter at a low velocity?

      (Another question, at high altitudes, does the atmosphere rotate with the Earth?)

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    5. Re:This is fine and well, but... by Planetes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The bulk of the atmospheric density is below 25km in Altitude (space is considered 100km). In fact, sea level is 101kPa and 25km is around 5kPa. For this reason, it's beneficial to get your ass as high as you can as fast as you can. If you launch horizontally you have to deal with lift and a much higher amound of drag (what people here on slashdot are referring to as wind resistance). Launching vertical punches you out of the densest part of the atmosphere the fastest and conserves a lot of energy that would be expended with lift and the much higher drag of a verical launch.

      It's also a matter of the fact that rocket propulsion using a C-D nozzle accelerates a vehicle much more quickly than standard turbo jet aircraft are capable of accelerating. As a result you don't really deal with the extra drag nearly as long. That drag equates to friction which in turn equates to heat on the skin of the vehicle. If you used a rocket engine in a horizontal position you'd have higher drag for longer and therefore higher heat loading on the vehicle.

      The vehicles that launch from a horizontal position are almost always carried to 50,000 feet by a conventional aircraft. Examples include SpaceShipOne being carried up by White Knight and a Pegasus booster being lofted by a B-52 for a satellite launch.

      Daniel

      (Aerospace Engineering major.. Senior year finally.. I love my high-speed aero class.)

      --
      Planetes
      "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promo Ad
      "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitl
  2. Sign me up... by Kick+the+Donkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sign me up, should this ever become a reality. However, the only way space travel will become an everyday occrance is if it is profitable. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to do it for the sake of doing it. But people aren't willing to spend millions/billions/trillions of dollars to do something just because "its there".

    --
    /. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
    1. Re:Sign me up... by Tassach · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But people aren't willing to spend millions/billions/trillions of dollars to do something just because "its there".
      I would say that the tourism industry disproves that assumption quite nicely.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    2. Re:Sign me up... by zarthrag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think I've said this before, but the nearest asteroid to earth is worth something over 3 trillion in materials.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    3. Re:Sign me up... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually it isn't... once we have the tech to get to the asteroids and farm them, the materials suddenly go from 'rare' to 'abundant', and the price drops faster than the space shuttle on reentry...

      This is precisely why DeBeers are so keen to differentiate between 'real' (ie. they dug them out of the ground and make a fortune out of) and 'fake' (manufactured, potentially dirt cheap) diamonds - even though you need an electron microscope to actually tell the difference.

    4. Re:Sign me up... by krunk7 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Doing something "just because it's there" is exactly what has historically lead to the most profits:
      • The Americas
      • The moon (no profits you say? notice the tight correlation between our leap in technology and the lunar program?)
      • Every single instance of pure science that exists.

      Now the adventures and scientists always had a hook they sold to their Queen or benefactors.

      • "A path to Asia"
      • "Enhanced Missile design"
      • "Ermm, *cough* *cough* commercialization of space"
      The fact is, there is no predicting what fruits pure science will yeild, antibiotics, electricity, a new propulsion system, or different way of computing. The only guarantee is that if you throw enough money at them they will and it will pay off.

      The minute a nation forgets this fact and neglects the pure sciences in lieu of the sure thing, is the minute they begin to decline.

  3. New Method? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's all this about a "new method" being required for short trips to Mars? What about the 101 old methods we have? Nuclear Thermal, Nuclear Electric, Orion, Laser Lifters, Nuclear Salt Water (this seriously needs to be developed!), Fission Fragment engines, Nuclear Steam ships, etc, etc, etc.

    We've got high powered propulsion options pouring out of our ears. It all comes down to getting funding. Wave a plan near congress and they're sure to kill it before breakfast.

  4. increased speed equals drastically increased risk by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What are they looking at in creating particle or at least micrometeorite ablative shielding that can handle the increased velocity these hazards will bring with the increased speeds?

    right now our spacecraft are basically beer cans with insualtion and windows, any tiny object at any decent velocity can rip through them like tissue paper. on a long distance mission as a trip to mars would be, we need a craft that is at least 100 times stronger than anything we launch now which would make it more than that many times heavier.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  5. There is, of course, a major problem here... by Xaroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article mentions having one station here and another on the other side, so that the craft itself need not carry its own propulsion.

    However, any sort of malfunction - from the braking side not firing at the right time, to the braking side getting knocked off angle by a micrometeorite at the wrong moment, to the craft itself getting pushed off course - would mean that the craft itself would go hurtling through space with no real chance to be rescued.

    The way around this? Keep an on-board propulsion system that's able to slow it down from full-speed back to 0, and then speed it up enough to get back to where you were going originally in a reasonable amount of time.

    Which kind of defeats the purpose of the entire method.

    1. Re:There is, of course, a major problem here... by Control+Group · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This isn't really a problem.

      It sounds terrible, but really: any sort of malfunction in a self-contained craft, and the crew is completely SOL. This isn't like driving a car, where if you're off by a little bit, you just correct and pull into the correct stall anyway.

      All the equipment either works as planned and the ship stays on course, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you're screwed. Period.

      But this is nothing new. Exploring new frontiers has always been dangerous, and that hasn't stopped people from doing it. Sailing across the Atlantic wasn't exactly safe; if something went wrong (including something like the wind not blowing), you were done. Travelling from the US east coast to the west coast wasn't exactly a joyride, either, as anyone who's played Oregon Trail can tell you.

      The point is, if we get ourselves hung up on making it perfectly safe, we'll never actually do it. Safety stagnates progress, because risk/reward is immutable. It's the unknown. That's both its value and its danger. What we need is a best-effort at safety, and willing volunteers.

      Something tells me that there'd be no shortage of the latter. Say someone walked up to you and said "you can be one of the first people on Mars...but there's a 10% chance you won't make it. Want to go?"

      It's possible you'd say no, I suppose. But there are plenty of people who'd leap at the chance, myself included.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    2. Re:There is, of course, a major problem here... by duggy_92127 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      All the equipment either works as planned and the ship stays on course, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you're screwed. Period.

      Apollo 13 begs to differ with you.

      Doug

  6. Re:increased speed equals drastically increased ri by thorndt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Speed is relative. Meteors (including micrometeors) often travel 100's of thousands of miles an hour w/respect to the EARTH. A measly 20-40 thousand mph difference in ship speed isn't going to make much difference to one of these bad boys.

    --
    - The race is not [always] to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. -
  7. Re:Why send people to Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..is there ANY realistic reason why sending people to Mars is good science?

    No. There is no direct scientific reason to send humans to Mars. However there is a hell of a lot of capacity for new discoveries to be made and new technology to be invented by trying. Just look at the sort of stuff that came from the space program of the 50's and 60's. Likewise look at some of the stuff that came from [D]ARPA projects which on the surface had no direct scientific applications, but in retrospect gave us things like the Internet.

    Setting lofty goals and spending money on pure research and development without having to worry about practical application or reason is a great way to produce really good, useful science. Not mention it makes you look really good if you happen to be the nation doing it.

  8. Re:High Speed? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can always spin the spacecraft around. That's exactly what they do/did with the Space shuttle. You may be traveling at an obscenely high rate of speed, but you have 360/360 degrees of freedom for attitude. Haven't you ever played Asteroids?

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  9. Second Law by Wessler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can anyone tell me how the "pusher" satellite in the picture is supposed to work? I see one beam of energy with enough force to accelerate a spacecraft with a lot of force. Either there's an invisible other beam balancing this out, scorching the Earth underneath, or the satellite is doing a much better job of propelling itself out of the solar system than it is pushing the distant spacecraft where it's supposed to go. Or has someone figured out how to suspend Newton's second law?

  10. Re:Shipping the fuel to Mars = $T by Zarf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The cost and difficulty of shipping all of that material out to a Mars orbit, and maintaining it so it will be ready to deccelerate an incoming spacecraft would be Absolutely Enormous.

    The article appears slashdotted. But,
    Using this system means that you can't use conventional rockets and air-breaking to slow you vessel? Why can't the craft get a massive push from Earth orbit, then slow down using another form of propulsion once it gets to its destination?

    Granted it makes coming home a major pain. Now you have to come home the old fashioned way. But, getting there isn't so bad... and sending supplies out to outposts doesn't take too much either.

    The first few trips is to Mars in 45 days, to earth in 6 months. You can send all you want out to Mars or to meet a craft in transit in 45 days or less. Going home is a bigger problem.

    Think... boot strapping... start small... build up infrastructure. Eventually when enough infrastructure is built up at a remote location you can do Plasma Jets both ways.

    --
    [signature]
  11. Re:For every action... by Plural+of+Mongoose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since the plasma is basically 'free' once the station is operational, merely direct an equal amount of plasma in the oppposite plane to the direction required for propulsion - the station would remain motionless, relatively. Mind you, I'd be carefull approaching the back door...

    --
    The last fucking thing you want is my undivided attention...
  12. Re:I am so tired of this ridiculous logic by b-baggins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because we all know that the steam engine, the universal governor, the printing press, the cotton gin, the combine, the internal combustion engine, the Model T, the airplane, the transistor, the integrated circuit, the telephone, the chemical battery, the capacitor, the steam tubine, the incadescent light, the phonograph, the film projector, the Compact Disk, and the mechanical loom are all examples of not much happening in the world because of the guiding principle of life being profit.

    --
    You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
  13. Phileas Fogg, 90 days around the solar system by tod_miller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Imagine when 80 days around the world was an extraordinary and unbelievable accomplishment, now it seems that something as odd as 80 days around the solar system may be laughed at in a 100 years time.

    In todays world, I cannot imagine how restrictive travel must have been, in tomorrows, they will pity us with our cars and segways!

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  14. Re:Why send people to Mars? by b-baggins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And there lies a lot of the problem with the space program. It's become cold and lifeless. You sound like a freaking accountant except that instead of counting dollars, you're counting quanta of scientific data.

    We send people to Mars because it would be one glorious incredible acheivement of the human spirit and human will. We send people to Mars to hold our heads up high and say: Look what we can do, universe, now get out of our way.

    And some day, the wild horses of humanity will go into space, and all the domesticated men and women they leave behind will huddle around their pathetic lives and fade away into the gray mist reserved for all mediocrity.

    --
    You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.