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."

59 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 Rattencremesuppe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      With a space elevator, of course ;)

    3. 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
    4. 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
    5. 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.
    6. Re:This is fine and well, but... by 2names · · Score: 5, Funny
      Rumors are not fact.

      That's not what I heard.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    7. Re:This is fine and well, but... by G00F · · Score: 5, Informative

      We actualy have from 3-5 moons. The Moon that you know of is the fifth largest in the whole solar system. Kinda big, infact it is more of a planet with a shared orbit than it is a moon. It is to big, and affects earth to much (1/3 the size of earth) to be considered a satalite. However, since people have the "earth is flat" syndrome, people will always know earth has one moon, etc.

      http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsyste m/ second_moon_991029.html

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    8. Re:This is fine and well, but... by Cat_Byte · · Score: 4, Funny
      a spaceship that is made on the moon (or in the surrounding space).

      Oh SURE. Outsource that TOO.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    9. Re:This is fine and well, but... by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've never understood why a shuttle takes off from a completely vertical position. I mean, doesn't it take the greatest amount of force to set an object in motion, rather than keep it going?

      I'm not sure where this idea comes from.

      Any given acceleration requires the same amount of force no matter how fast you're going. F = ma.

      When you're moving in an atmosphere, you have to add force to counter air resistance as well, which goes up roughly as the square of airspeed.

      The shuttle boosts upwards to get out of most of the atmosphere as fast as it can. Then it thrusts sideways, because it's sideways velocity that puts you in orbit. Taking off at an angle would just mean there'd be that much more atmosphere to plow through.

      Aerodynamic craft with air-breathing engines _might_ be able to derive benefit from being in the atmosphere, but the shuttle's a brick strapped on to a bigarsed rocket booster, so it doesn't.

    10. 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
    11. Re:This is fine and well, but... by roystgnr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Any given acceleration requires the same amount of force no matter how fast you're going. F = ma.

      That would be true if it wasn't for gravity and aerodynamics adding to F. Imagine a spaceplane with wings and with engines that can indefinitely deliver 1G of acceleration: If it tried to launch straight up, it would never make it off a launch pad, but taking off from a runway it could reach orbit, because it's lift to drag ratio (even hypersonically) could be much larger than 1.

      This doesn't apply to the shuttle, though; the shuttle's L/D ratio is larger than 1, but the L/D for the stack as a whole is pretty much zero.

    12. Re:This is fine and well, but... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 4, Informative

      We have three moons.

      The first moon is the largest, aka Luna.

      The second moon is named Cruithne and has roughly a 5km diameter.

      The third moon hasn't gotten a cool latin/celtic name name and is known as 2002AA29. It's only about 100m in diameter.

      My thinking is that we could move Cruithne into an orbit that would suit our needs for a space elevator.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    13. Re:This is fine and well, but... by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 4, Informative

      It comes from the myth of "escape velocity". People figure, hey, why not just fly horizontally until you hit escape velocity, and then up you go, instead of trying to reach escape velocity vertically.

      Actually, thrusting horizontally is the perfect way to reach orbit (and this is largely what the shuttle does now). Orbital velocity is tangential; an escape trajectory is a very different beast (can be thought of as the limiting case of a parabola or a hyperbola as perigee (backtracked along the course) approaches the centre of the earth).

      What puzzles me is people who think flying horizontally is free, or lets you climb for free, or magically reduces by some large fraction the delta-v required to reach orbital velocity.

  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 Jedi+Alec · · Score: 5, Funny

      for 1 moment there an image of a callcenter full of indians located on the barren sands of mars crossed my mind...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    3. 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???
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. Re:Sign me up... by tgd · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, thats not actually why DeBeers is so keen to do that.

      Diamond is one of the most common gemstones in the world. It would have virtually no value if a) DeBeers hadn't pulled the greatest marketing spinjob in history convincing people today that diamond rings are a centuries old wedding tradition, not a decades old one and b) they didn't warehouse them.

      DeBeers has warehouses of bins, floor to ceiling of diamonds they keep off the market to artificially inflate their value. By controlling access to virtually all the mines that are econimical to exploit, they ensure competitors with access to diamond deposits will not flood the market with cheap ones.

  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.

    1. Re:New Method? by Professeur+Shadoko · · Score: 5, Funny

      You forgot the best:
      Press 'H' to jump into hyperspace.

    2. Re:New Method? by pragma_x · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nuclear Salt Water (this seriously needs to be developed!)
      I had to look it up. Looks like a good candidate for in-space propulsion. If its as cheap as it is simple, then its definately worth looking into. I doubt it'll get the go-ahead for launchpad stuff... all that plutonium spewing out the back would freak people out.


      A nuclear salt-water rocket is a type of rocket designed by Robert Zubrin that would be fueled by water bearing dissolved salts of plutonium or U235. These would be stored in tanks that would prevent a critical mass from forming by some combination of geometry or neutron absorption. The rocket would be powered by a nuclear-thermal reaction when the water was injected into a reaction chamber.

      Calculations show that this rocket would have both very high thrust and a very high specific impulse, a rare combination of traits in the rocket world.

    3. Re:New Method? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cassini
      Apollo 12
      Apollo 13
      Apollo 14
      Apollo 15
      Apollo 16
      Apollo 17
      Pioneer 10
      Pioneer 11
      Voyager 1
      Voyager 2
      Galileo
      Ulysses
      Viking 1
      Viking 2
      Nimbus
      Transit
      Les

      All of the above carried highly radioactive Plutonium into space. The above list does not include Russian launches, nor does it mention missions (like the Mars Exploration Rovers) which used plutonium heaters to prevent mechanical damage from low temperatures.

      Linky

  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. Phooey by geordie_loz · · Score: 5, Funny

    I poo-poo your silly idea Philleas Fog.. It's impossible and I'll wager my reputation that you won't make it from the Gentleman's Club in London to Mars and back within 90 days!

  6. Why send people to Mars? by colmore · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hate to be a buzzkill, but is there ANY realistic reason why sending people to Mars is good science?

    It seems that if we spend the money that it would take to develop the spacecraft & lifesupport required to send people that far on better and more reliable robots, a lot more actual research would get done. Heck, we might even have enough left over to fix the Hubble.

    Let's work on practical reasons to send people into space at all... then maybe the moon. Billions of tax dollars shouldn't be blown on a project of little scientific validity just because "it's cool."

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    1. Re:Why send people to Mars? by josh3736 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Billions of tax dollars shouldn't be blown on a project of little scientific validity just because "it's cool."

      I'm sorry sir, but you must now relinquish your Slashdot UID and turn in your geek card. Someone will escort you to the exit.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
  7. Article Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I barely got the page to load... here's the article text: 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. Currently, using conventional technology and adjusting for the orbits of both the Earth and Mars around the sun, it would take astronauts about 2.5 years to travel to Mars, conduct their scientific mission and return. "We're trying to get to Mars and back in 90 days," Winglee said. "Our philosophy is that, if it's going to take two-and-a-half years, the chances of a successful mission are pretty low." Mag-beam is one of 12 proposals that this month began receiving support from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Institute for Advanced Concepts. Each gets $75,000 for a six-month study to validate the concept and identify challenges in developing it. Projects that make it through that phase are eligible for as much as $400,000 more over two years. Under the mag-beam concept, a space-based station would generate a stream of magnetized ions that would interact with a magnetic sail on a spacecraft and propel it through the solar system at high speeds that increase with the size of the plasma beam. Winglee estimates that a control nozzle 32 meters wide would generate a plasma beam capable of propelling a spacecraft at 11.7 kilometers per second. That translates to more than 26,000 miles an hour or more than 625,000 miles a day. Mars is an average of 48 million miles from Earth, though the distance can vary greatly depending on where the two planets are in their orbits around the sun. At that distance, a spacecraft traveling 625,000 miles a day would take more than 76 days to get to the red planet. But Winglee is working on ways to devise even greater speeds so the round trip could be accomplished in three months. But to make such high speeds practical, another plasma unit must be stationed on a platform at the other end of the trip to apply brakes to the spacecraft. "Rather than a spacecraft having to carry these big powerful propulsion units, you can have much smaller payloads," he said. Winglee envisions units being placed around the solar system by missions already planned by NASA. One could be used as an integral part of a research mission to Jupiter, for instance, and then left in orbit there when the mission is completed. Units placed farther out in the solar system would use nuclear power to create the ionized plasma; those closer to the sun would be able to use electricity generated by solar panels. The mag-beam concept grew out of an earlier effort Winglee led to develop a system called mini-magnetospheric plasma propulsion. In that system, a plasma bubble would be created around a spacecraft and sail on the solar wind. The mag-beam concept removes reliance on the solar wind, replacing it with a plasma beam that can be controlled for strength and direction. A mag-beam test mission could be possible within five years if financial support remains consistent, he said. The project will be among the topics during the sixth annual NASA Advanced Concepts Institute meeting Tuesday and Wednesday at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Seattle. The meeting is free and open to the public. Winglee acknowledges that it would take an initial investment of billions of dollars to place stations around the solar system. But once they are in place, their power sources should allow them to generate plasma indefinitely. The system ultimately would reduce spacecraft costs, since individual craft would no longer have to carry their own propulsion systems. They would get up to speed quickly with a strong push from a plasma station, then coast at high speed until they reach their destination, where they would be slowed by another plasma station. "This would facilitate a permanent human presence in space," Winglee said. "That's what we are trying to get to." Love, Tripptdf

  8. Re:High Speed? by Bandman · · Score: 4, Informative

    after actually /reading/ the article, they have a plan in place to "slow down" the approaching spacecraft...namely another plasma shooter at the other end. I don't know how I feel about that. Maybe if there was a conventional backup solution like thrusters or something...I dunno. Thrusters might slow you down enough to navigate into orbit, but a highspeed orbit would probably be dangerously close to the atmosphere...

    W.W.K.D

    What Would Kirk Do?

  9. Waving by hummassa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wave a plan near congress and they're sure to kill it before breakfast.

    Sure they will. The aliens don't want our crap in outer space at least until we can handle our problems like adult persons instead of reacting emotionally to every single difference between us. So, what's better than keep tabs in the govment of the only country that can fund such stuff?

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:Waving by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 5, Funny

      you're suggesting congress is being ran by Vulcans? Which is nowhere near as funny as actually being moderated interesting for it ;-)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  10. Re:thoughts by mirko · · Score: 5, Informative
    OK, this was slashdotted but I eventually got through and it answered some other questions... Here's the text for the less lucky people...

    Oct. 14, 2004 |

    Science and Tech
    New propulsion concept could make 90-day Mars round trip possible
    FROM: Vince Stricherz vinces@u.washington.edu206-543-2580
    John Carscadden, University of Washington In this artist's conception, a plasma station (lower left) applies a magnetized beam of ionized plasma to a spacecraft bound for Jupiter.

    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.

    Currently, using conventional technology and adjusting for the orbits of both the Earth and Mars around the sun, it would take astronauts about 2.5 years to travel to Mars, conduct their scientific mission and return.

    "We're trying to get to Mars and back in 90 days," Winglee said. "Our philosophy is that, if it's going to take two-and-a-half years, the chances of a successful mission are pretty low."

    Mag-beam is one of 12 proposals that this month began receiving support from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Institute for Advanced Concepts. Each gets $75,000 for a six-month study to validate the concept and identify challenges in developing it. Projects that make it through that phase are eligible for as much as $400,000 more over two years.

    Under the mag-beam concept, a space-based station would generate a stream of magnetized ions that would interact with a magnetic sail on a spacecraft and propel it through the solar system at high speeds that increase with the size of the plasma beam. Winglee estimates that a control nozzle 32 meters wide would generate a plasma beam capable of propelling a spacecraft at 11.7 kilometers per second. That translates to more than 26,000 miles an hour or more than 625,000 miles a day.

    Mars is an average of 48 million miles from Earth, though the distance can vary greatly depending on where the two planets are in their orbits around the sun. At that distance, a spacecraft traveling 625,000 miles a day would take more than 76 days to get to the red planet. But Winglee is working on ways to devise even greater speeds so the round trip could be accomplished in three months.

    But to make such high speeds practical, another plasma unit must be stationed on a platform at the other end of the trip to apply brakes to the spacecraft.

    "Rather than a spacecraft having to carry these big powerful propulsion units, you can have much smaller payloads," he said.

    Winglee envisions units being placed around the solar system by missions already planned by NASA. One could be used as an integral part of a research mission to Jupiter, for instance, and then left in orbit there when the mission is completed. Units placed farther out in the solar system would use nuclear power to create the ionized plasma; those closer to the sun would be able to use electricity generated by solar panels.

    The mag-beam concept grew out of an earlier effort Winglee led to develop a system called mini-magnetospheric plasma propulsion. In that system, a plasma bubble would be created around a spacecraft and sail on the solar wind. The mag-beam concept removes reliance on the solar wind, replacing it with a plasma beam that can be controlled for strength and direction.

    A mag-beam test mission could be possible

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
  11. 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

  12. Why dont we by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just send a diplomat to Mars, establish a trade agreement and an alliance with them and build a road.

    Then we can quickly invade when they least expect it. When you play enough Rome Total War these things become soooo obvious.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  13. 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. -
  14. 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
  15. 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?

  16. Shipping the fuel to Mars = $T by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The big "breakthtrough" here is to decouple the propulsion system (the plasma beam) from the spacecraft. That makes the craft smaller and lighter since it doesn't have to move all that fuel around.

    HOWEVER...

    This system requires having another plasm beam generator to "catch" the spacecraft and slow it down with another plasma beam. That means not only sending the generator platform to Mars, but also all of the material from which to make the plasma (most likely nitrogen or one of the heavier noble gases). The generator platform needs a power source capable of sustaing the creating and acceleration of the plasma beam, which means nuclear, and a fission nuclear reaction, not radiothermic generation. All of that means a technically complex space station, with people to keep it running. To have such a system in Earth orbit would be tough enough. 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 man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    1. 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]
  17. Re:Yeh but... by CmdrTostado · · Score: 4, Informative

    Early space related centrifuge tests performed at WADC

    In 1952, E. R. Ballinger, leader of the research program at Wright-Patterson, conducted one of the earliest series of centrifuge tests directed expressly toward the problem of g forces in space flight. Ballinger found that 3 g applied transversely would be the ideal takeoff pattern from the physiological standpoint, but he realized that the rocket burning time and velocity for such a pattern would be insufficient to propel a spacecraft out of the atmosphere. Consequently he and his associates subjected men to gradually increasing g loads, building to peaks of 10 g for something over two minutes. Chest pain, shortness of breath, and occasional loss of consciousness were the symptoms of those subjected to the higher g loads. The tests led Ballinger to the conclusion that 8 g represented the acceleration safety limit for a space passenger.

    They will have to spread the acceleration and deceleration down over a few miles

  18. Re:increased speed equals drastically increased ri by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Informative
    Not really. Micrometorites would be on the surface of the Earth. Now as for Micrometoriods... they are mainly a hazard to orbiting spacecraft, and mainly because mankind has been dumping stuff into orbit for 50 years. Sure, there are elevated risks of micrometeriod collisions around comets and such, but the little buggers are already moving at such a fantastic speed that the added velocity of the spacecraft is negligable.

    And no, spacecraft right now are NOT beer cans. They contain an outer shell, and several layers of different material to prevent micrometeriods from penetrating the pressure hull. Windows are specially designed, and if you pay attention to photographs from spacecraft you would see tons of scratches on the outer surface.

    Guess what they are from?

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  19. Re:High Speed? by TykeClone · · Score: 5, Funny

    What about wrapping around the screen though?

    --
    A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  20. I'll tell you what Kirk would do by The+I+Shing · · Score: 5, Funny
    What Would Kirk Do?
    I'll tell you what Kirk would do... he'd let Spock & Scotty worry about getting the plasma whoosiwhatsis working while he took off to go seduce the high priestess, that's what Kirk would do.
    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
  21. You are not protected! by Quinn_Inuit · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do not trust the pusher satellite. Pushing will protect you from the terrible secret of space. Do you have stairs at your house?

    --

    Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
  22. This just in... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientists have come up with a cheap and reusable method of getting to orbit and traveling about the cosmose. Utilizing the effect of slashdotting a website, we beam those hits against a reflective matterial on the space craft that will allow network packets to propell it in to orbit and beyond. To slow down a craft ariving at it's destination, a special set of mirrors will be setup to redirect traffic to the front of the ship where another reflector will slow down the craft...

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  23. Re:At what speed? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative
    To provide a clue for the clueless. That speed mentioned , if that speed is the hyperbolic excess speed, is about about 98% of solar escape speed. Not fast enough to follow Voyager without a gravity assist somewhere, but sufficient to reach any planet in the solar system except Pluto (sometimes you can even reach Pluto - it's pretty close in right now) directly.

    A NERVA, starting from LEO could match that speed with a mass ratio of 2.7 or thereabouts.

    In other words, it's not really terribly fast by the standards of the solar system.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  24. 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...
  25. Re:Energy by Gil-galad55 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not quite. It is in fact the kinetic energy of the plasma that is being transferred to the spacecraft; the electrical interaction is just the transfer mechanism. So, yes, the space station will be pushed back in a fashion more or less prescribed by Newton's 3rd Law. However, as mentioned above, the acceleration produced by the conservation of momentum is proportional to the mass, so if the space station is massive enough, this won't be a problem. Plus, I'm sure some corrective measures can be taken with orbits to minimize the effect.

    --

    To follow knowledge like a sinking star, / Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. ("Ulysses", Tennyson)

  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. Re:I am so tired of this ridiculous logic by benzapp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not going to analyze every single item on your list...

    But the Printing Press? Did you think this through? Do you really think Johann Gutenberg's motivation was profit??? Have you ever read Henry Ford's writings on business organization? He was a far more ardent critic of international finance than me.

    I think you need to read a little more about the people who invented the items you are discussing. Most were invented by men who followed their dreams and were hardly concerned with financial gains. More importantly, financial concerns did not dictate whether or IF they pursued that dream.

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts
  29. Nasa page has same info and DOES respond by museumpeace · · Score: 4, Informative

    NASA has this page explaining the physics and why it granted the money to the UWash research team. And the NASA page responds...The UWASH page pointed to by the article is somewhere behind a cloud of smoke coming out of their poor slashdotted server. 350 comments later, I still cant raise it.

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
  30. Action/reaction - am I missing something? by radiumsoup · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am ignorant of the forces used in this technology, but if I am correct...

    You have a space plasma generator orbiting the sun that will push payloads into a Mars-intercepting trajectory. OK, fine and dandy.

    Now, if it's shooting all this high energy plasma out one end, won't there be a reaction of its own in the opposite direction, effectively causing the force on the payload to be cut in half, while also shooting itslef way the heck out of the original "stationary" orbit? I'm sure someone smarter than me has already thought of this, I just can't see the solution.