1.5 Years to Mars? Russia Could Do It in 1.5 Months
Source: Motley Fool
In a recent address to the Federation Council (Russia's Senate), former Prime Minister-turned-nuke-exec Kirienko proposed an ambitious project to cut the time needed to travel to Mars by 92%. For some years, Rosatom has been working on the development of a megawatt-class "thermonuclear battery" for use in powering spaceships. Declared the former PM: "Installing a nuclear engine will allow [a spacecraft] to fly to Mars in a month and a half and to come back."
What's more, the spacecraft could make course changes en route if necessary, and even turn around and fly back to Earth, because with nuclear power, "the spacecraft would retain the ability to maneuver."
...
Last year, we learned that privately held space contractor Ad Astra is developing a prototype nuclear engine for NASA. Like Rosatom's invention, the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket, or VASIMR, would use a nuclear reactor to heat and ionize propellant, then emit it through electromagnetic thrusters to propel a spaceship between planets. And although the technology sounds similar, Ad Astra believes its VASIMR engine will take a spaceship from Earth to Mars in just 39 days -- faster than Russia's rocket.
Nuclear research lab MNSW is looking into even farther-out options -- everything from nuclear fusion reactors to "plasmoid thrusters" and "electrodeless Lorentz force" (ELF) engines. And other NASA researchers continue to explore the ionic "EM Drive" concept, converting electricity directly to impulse power, potentially cutting travel time to Mars down to just 10 weeks.
Read more: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/03/15-years-to-mars-russia-could-do-it-in-15-months.aspx?source=yahoo-2&utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=yahoo-2
Interesting science here.
forest444
(5,902 posts)But I doubt our off-world friends would allow humanity to do so (and who could blame them).
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)except Europa?
forest444
(5,902 posts)Who knows: that may have been actually been the case when Arthur Clarke wrote that (in 1983).
longship
(40,416 posts)Note: these propulsion advances are not sufficient to put things into orbit. We'll still need chemical rockets for that. The advantage of nuclear propulsion is that they are extremely efficient. The engine is going all the time, just like in the book, "The Martian".
But the thrust is low on these, so they cannot be used for blasting off Earth.
R&K
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Then it is a unguided dirty bomb.
Volaris
(10,278 posts)And just keep docking new spacecraft/mission platforms to it,
You only need to run that risk once.
I trust NASA not to be overly incompetent with stuff like that.=)
I understand however, if you don't.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)And if you haven't noticed, there have been a few launch failures over time.
I'm not saying that we should not consider it, I would just say that alternatives should be considered as well. Space flight remains a very understudied area.
Volaris
(10,278 posts)24601
(3,967 posts)they have more launches with just the SL-4 booster than we have in our entire space program.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)to fly a gigantic dirty bomb into the earth's atmosphere
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)The article was incorrect, as is much 'popular science' journalism these days.
The Ad Astra page for VASIMR lists both solar and nuclear power as energy sources for the VASIMR engine.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Thanks for posting that. I was very curious about the internal works.
PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)Inmates that die on the way, will be used as fuel.
Sancho
(9,072 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Where does the 1.5 years come from?
FailureToCommunicate
(14,033 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)Mars takes 687 days to orbit the sun, while Earth takes only 365. Mars and Earth's distance from each other varies drastically based on their orbits.
The closest that Earth and Mars would approach each other would be when Mars is at its closest point to the sun (perihelion) and Earth is at its farthest (aphelion). This would put the planets only 54.6 million kilometers apart. When the opposite occurs, with Mars at its aphelion and Earth at its perihelion, they are about 401 million kilometers apart.
This distance variable is constantly changing, and the closest and furthest distances only happen on indescribably rare occasions. For the most part, Mars and Earth are separated by an average distance of 200 - 250 million kilometers
roamer65
(36,748 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)6 months is a minimum energy trajectory,
Musk wants the rockets to go to Mars and back in 6 months,
3 months each way.
daleo
(21,317 posts)via minimum energy Hohmann Transfer orbits.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)So the 1.5 yr. right now seems more in line vs 6 months
Bayard
(22,228 posts)With Impulse power, Warp 8 can't be far behind, Scotty!
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)mac56
(17,575 posts)tclambert
(11,087 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)that's the first thing I thought too--sounds like Trump-level fantasy boasting
burfman
(264 posts)Heard a lecture at NASA back sometime around 1980 by Dr. Dyson talking about project Orion. Back in the 1960's there was a seriously looked into idea - government funded - to use the blast from small atomic bombs - lots of them - to jet around the entire solar system in a big space ship - think really big - maybe ship size and fast too.. There used to be a prototype they built using TNT to demonstrate the concept in the Air and Space museum - I don't know if it's still there. The nuclear test ban treaty with the USSR (Russia) put an end to the idea.
But it would have been awesome.....people could have visited some of the planets some time in the 1970's instead of thinking of Mars a decade or two from now.
And a much better use for all those nasty bombs that we and Russia have.
Burfman.............
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
LunaSea
(2,895 posts)Short vid-
Full doc-
burfman
(264 posts)Thanks!
Didn't know about those videos.
Burfman.....
NonMetro
(631 posts)Of course, there is nothing at the nearest star, and it would probably only take another 13,000 years to reach the next one. But since I'm not doing much else right now, sign me up. See ya in 52,000 years! Be back in another two or three ice ages!
keithbvadu2
(37,041 posts)Pick a side, quick!
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)Those are the things we should be having parades and national holidays for, not Memorial Day and Veterans Day. When I look back at our history and think of what I'm most proud of, I have to say going to the moon. Does it make our lives better on our planet? Doubtful, but it's so much better for all of us than any war we've wasted countless lives and dollars on over the last several decades.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)if NASA does it, it will cost a WHOLE lot more than the Russian model.
I mean, private enterprise has to profit, right?
uhnope
(6,419 posts)freebrew
(1,917 posts)they don't have anything like the US, though.
Fer instance, the MIG 29, faster, more maneuverable than the yet to be flying F-35, costs 1/4 of the latter.
The costs for any government project is over-blown so much by corruption or just too many fingers in the pie.
Gotta pay for the shadow gov't.
roamer65
(36,748 posts)It is elliptical and therefore at superior conjunction the distance between Earth and Mars is somewhere in the ball park of 200 million miles, depending on the positions of the two planets.
Travel times will vary greatly based on it. One thing I read is that they may use Venus as a gravitational "slingshot" on those larger journeys.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Robots can take their sweet time arriving.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)dembotoz
(16,866 posts)DavidDvorkin
(19,509 posts)I wish someone would.
Another space race would be a wonderful thing for all of us.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)who could send his wife to the moon in less than 30 minutes.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)... it cannot be done.
Gamerscircle might be able to do it, though.
https://www.twitch.tv/gamerscircle