Ready for some interplanetary exploration? We've had the
force shields,
currency, and
refuel stations all sorted out for a while, and now here come the ion thrusters we've been missing to make manned trips to Mars really viable. Currently, a return journey to Mars can take up to two years, with crew members having to wait a full year for the planets to realign, but with ion propulsion -- which uses electricity to accelerate ions and produce small but longevous thrust -- ships can get there within a reasonably tight 39-day window. Ion propulsion rocket engines were first deployed successfully by NASA in the Deep Space 1 probe in 1998, and the latest iteration's successful Earth-bound testing has led to plans for a flight to the moon and use on the International Space Station as test scenarios for the technology. It's all still very much in the early stages, of course, but should all that testing, checking, and refinement bear fruit, we might finally have a whole new world to colonize and sell sneakers on.
[Thanks, Davis]
posted Oct 20th 2009 10:31AM
get your ass to mars!
is that a little man on your belly, or you just happy to see me?
39 days?? Screw that. We need it in two weeks. Twoooooo Weeeekkkks
"Data, take us to Warp speed!", Cpt. Pacard
Mom, are we there yet?!
You mean Mr Data.
How long until we get full on TIE Fighters?
I was thinking half-impulse....
And I want to go to Mars why? Don't tell me it's the last place I will find a virgin for a wife.
Come on, Cohaagen! You got what you want. Give those people air!
damnit...i was just thinking that. hahah, get your ass to mars part 1 is the BEST
PEW PEW.
sell sneakers on mars? lmfao xD
I actually hope humans are selling sneakers on Mars by 2020. It will soon become necessary to start mining minerals outside earth to maintain (preferably increase) the rate of improvement in human standard of living. Solar energy stations in space, space elevator, etc. are much required.
Before sneakers we'll need sunglasses
http://www.oakley.com/pd/1275
I believe it is referring to a popular Japanese-only rhythm DS game - Ouendan 2. There is a stage there where a guy got rich selling his handmade sneakers to aliens on mars.
It's actually a fantastic concept. It uses the acceleration of a single molecule to add propulsion. It just becomes cumulative and with no outside forces on the craft it can get to incredible speeds.
What about ludicrous speed?
FYI: Plasma is not made up of molecules.
It's not really any different than what we've been doing for a hundred years or more; dump mass in one direction to move in the opposite.
It's just that this version is much, much more efficient than the old "explosively expanding gas".
Ugh. Explosively expanding gas. I had that. No fun at all.
The problem is we're dealing with high velocity, low mass propellants. So it works great if you have something very low in mass to accelerate, but horribly if your spacecraft is has a lot of equipment.
This means Ion thrusters are great for small deep space probes, but horrible for large human missions where lots of support systems, structures, and test equipment would have to be carried.
What we really need is a very small light craft (Ion propelled) to carry the crew and a massive traditional chemical rocket / nuclear rocket to carry the equipment out a year before. That would work...
did someone say thrust?
oh man..
Back of a napkin (*cough* Excel) says constant 0.013 m/s/s acceleration in order to reach mid way (say 20 mil km) in 20 days. Way less than gravity. Speed at that point is about 23 km/sec. Then you 180 and start slowing down at the same rate.
@cocoviper: Momentum is momentum is momentum. The last I checked, very nearly all of our deep-space probes have weighed quite a bit, and are PACKED with gear. The only reason you think an ion engine isn't suitable is because the crew wouldn't notice any perceivable movement for 15 of the 39 days it takes to get there. Given time, however, the acceleration will be noticeable.
If you are not happy with waiting that long, you are certainly free to adopt a hybrid solution: an expensive chemical rocket to get the ship going to some velocity, then switch to ion propulsion to continue the trip. It'll be like changing gears in a stick-shift car. However, at what point does this become more time efficient versus more fuel efficient, versus (again) more cash-flow efficient?
See, this is the major beef I have with people who use the term "efficient". "Capitalism encourages efficiency!" No it doesn't -- at least, not on the global scale. It encourages FISCAL efficiency, but that's it. "Using chemical rockets is more efficient for big payloads!" No it isn't -- at least in terms of fuel economy. But it is in terms of time efficiency. And so on.
Please, when you use the word "efficient", remember that it implies you're comparing at least two things against each other. Be specific in what you're comparing; it'll help you avoid the trap of making blanket statements that prove to be false.
something people are forgetting is that only half of that 39 days is spent accelerating... the other half is spent decelerating. they way it works is you go at max acceleration for the first half (maybe slightly more if the ship is going into orbit first), turn the ship around 180 degrees, and fire the engines at the same max acceleration, otherwise, well, i think you can figure out what happens.
@ cocoviper,
That's a pretty smart plan. But if we give it time, I'm sure NASA or someone will be able to improve or even modify the design to work with heavy ships in the future. But until then, your plan sounds perfect. I actually think I saw a documentary stating that NASA was thinking something along these lines anyways...
"FYI: Plasma is not made up of molecules."
Sorry to nitpick. Plasma IS made of molecules. Plasma is when some of a molecule's electrons are disassociated from the nucleus.
Propulsion...pfft.
Tell me when they invent hyperdrives or starslips or teleportation or whatever they call it.
@ Pingles
Molecules don't have nuclei, but atoms do.
Plasma is not made of molecules. It is made of atoms striped of there electrons. Molecules are made of many many atoms. On a completely different scale of things.
On the other hand my sister who is a nurse has fit's every time I use the term 'plasma'. She thinks the medical field has some sort of proprietary right to the word.
Sorry, but responding to a few earlier comments.
Plasma CAN be produced from molecules along with single atoms.
I worked for ten years on Ion Implanters which created plasma from a variety of gases and accelerated molecules such as BF2 (Boron Diflouride). Although the dopant needed was only the Boron atom the BF2 atom is accelerated (as individual ions pulled from the plasma) so that the much larger molecule does not "channel" as deep into the wafer.
To recap: A plasma can be created from a group of multi-atom molecules and those molecules can be pulled intact from that group for acceleration.
What a great job that was. I now work on Epi Reactors which, while fascinating, pale in comparison to the technology and headache-producing problems associated with them.
awesome
I
I love NASA
Do you also love the part that NASA has conducted more secret missions than public ones. Do you also love the part where NASA is sitting on tech way beyond anti gravity and fooling the public with their hydrogen rockets. Or maybe you love the part that NASA has overwhelming proof of ET's but doesn't feel the need to tell the tax paying sheeple.
@broli
Your tinfoil hat is loose.
Someone has been watching too much history channel...
You have a lot more faith in NASA then I do. You must believe that they are (secret) miracle workers.
Do you really believe that if NASA had "antigravity" technology, that we would still be limping along with decrepit space shuttles? Do you really believe that NASA would continue to keep this sort of thing a secret as they get castigated in public about their plan to "retrest from space" for 5-7 years until the "next generation" rockets are available.
And by "next generation rockets, I really mean pre-last generation.
Unfortunately, NASA isn't sitting on these type of scientific advances. I wish they were.
Lol broli, if that turned out to be true, I'm pretty sure I'd just love NASA a whole lot more!
But there IS a top speed in space, which is less than theoretical speed of light - space is not a perfect vacuum and there is friction. It's minute, but it's still there. Not to mention gravitational effects. The faster you go, the harder is to keep up the speed - it's the same on the Earth as in in space - the cap is just much bigger on the later...
I don't get the "space isn't a perfect vacuum" thing. So what there is friction? Perfect vacuums limit the speed something can travel to the speed of light; outside of a vacuum (i.e. in atmosphere) object can travel faster than the speed of light.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that's idea behind Cherenkov radiation.
@broly
Oh I really wish that what you say was true. I've read a lot of that stuff but have never seen anything convincing enough. If that was true it would mean that there would be a chance of that technology being uncovered, and put into use during my life time. It also would mean that I would have a chance of standing on Mars during my life time. As it is I remember as a very young child staying up all night in 1969 and watching all of the moon landing and knowing for a certainty that I would have the chance of living either on the moon or on Mars during my life. Now 40 some odd years latter I know that with current technology and the current ongoing lack of progress in spaceflight I hardly stand a chance of ever going to space. Even if I was in perfect health I would have to be a multimillionaire to even spend an extremely brief time there.
From that night in 1969 till now at the age of 47 I have woken up at night literally 100's of times right in the middle of a dream. A dream where I am in a space suit navigating along a triangular type spar (like a radio tower is made of). I have a canvas bag of tools and I'm checking connections as I go. I tilt my head up and Mars hanging there about 1/2 the apparent diameter of the moon from earth. And I'm thinking to myself "only two more weeks and we will be there". Then I wake up. I still regularly wake up to this same dream. Why I don't know but it still seems like I've been cheated.
Hah, funny. I just put that image up as my background yesterday. LOVE Mass Effect!
Just hope we don't run into any Geth on Mars...
@Brokinarrow
We wont, but we will find the Prothean Technology and jump our tech 200 years forward.
If we used 2, could we get there in 20 days?
It doesn't work that way. Multiple engines is for faster acceleration, top speed is top speed no matter what.
Ah, is that because it depends on the maximum velocity of the particles out of the arse of the engine? I wasn't sure if speed in space was theoretically uncapped provided you could continue to provide thrust due to a lack of friction?
Excuse my confusion, I'm a biochemist.
@7egend: If you accelerate to top speed faster you will arrive at your destination faster, no?
@tosk04
Doesn't work that way either, using this sort of engine and the speed it is capable of producing the acceleration would have to be gradual. Human body has certain tolerances that have to accounted for.
If the spaceship could negate all G force that would be exerted onto the passengers of said vessel, then yes, more engines would create faster acceleration meaning you would reach your destination faster. But, till we figure out how to counter the effects of G force acceleration is our biggest obstacle. I don't know how G force is in space, never been, but if there are minimal to no effects, then once the vessel broke out of earth's gravity then, theoretically, you could accelerate using both engines to the top speed faster, but not enough to shave a whole 19 days off the trip.
More isn't always better though.
Are you suggesting twin ion engines? Twin Ion Engines? TIE?