You are not logged in.
This seems to be a major breakthrough in fusion.
If it works, it will change the world.
Imagine fusion NTR.
Yeah
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only/biggest problem in fusion right now (and for the last 50 years or so) has been containment, right?
More precisely, the goal is to achieve a Q factor (energy gain) greater than 20 ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factor
We can currently contain a piece of the sun, just not efficiently enough
The 1st class team picking up from where Bussard left off is making progress ...
"We're not out trying to make a big splash on any of this stuff at this point," Nebel said. But he said he's hoping to find out by this spring whether or not Bussard's concept is worth pursuing with a larger demonstration project.
The initial analysis showed that Bussard's data on energy yields were consistent with expectations, Nebel said.
"We don't know for sure whether all that's right," he said, "but it'd be horrible for Mother Nature to give you what you expect to see, and have it all be bogus."
The only thing he's really selling is insanity, but he does need to lay off the Holocaust revisionism (which I deleted).
Power transmission cable typically masses 10-20 kg/meter. Say you can get that down to 1 kg/meter - 300 kms of cable is still going to mass 300 tonnes. That seems like some pretty serious overhead.
Maybe space elevator ribbon research will help out with this issue?
Bolonkin is a genius. You could fund the domes by using them to grow biofuel crops (e.g., switchgrass) on otherwise unusable land. We should do this.
http://www.splung.com/content/sid/2/page/gravitation
The green line shows Earth internal gravity taking into account density variation - it actually goes up before dropping linearly.
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~knill//tea … a/hell.pdf
The force due to gravity drops linearly from the surface to zero at the center (assuming constant density).
F(r) = G*(4/3)*pi*rho*r
where G is the gravitational constant
r is the distance from the center
and rho is the density of the mass in the sphere defined by r
** Edit to add gravitational constant.
I really don't know orbital mechanics, so I may be offering a useless suggestion here, but...
What about bringing a rock into Lunar orbit? Way closer than an NEO's natural orbital path, and further away from Earth than bringing it into Earth's orbit directly. Might give you more margin for error, but might not. Like I said, I don't know orbital mechanics. Anyone have a clue if Lunar orbit would make a difference in this scenario?
Actually it is exactly in significant interactions with the Earth-Moon system that the possibility of error arises (the 3-body solutions have regions of chaos where the uncertainty can not be reduced, even in principle).
The L4 and L5 points are probably more interesting for this purpose ...
But seriously, why can't, instead of sending probes to Mars, we send packages of stuff for future explorers? Concentrate them all in the same area then send the people. Sending everything in stages will reduce the weight for each launch. If there's already a greenhouse and hab on Mars it will drastically reduce the manned launch costs.
This is basically the plan outlined in Zubrin's The Case for Mars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars
How much would it cost, if it's even possible, to launch a Mars mission with the shuttle (the transfer vehicle being the payload)?
It isn't possible.
How much for a private company?
$US 1 million per pound delivered to the surface.
How much for someone unburdened by the government and law going 'oh you have to have you craft meet this safety regs' and such like?
Rocketry is a strategic technology with national security implications and thus will never by unburdened by government regulation.
Call me an idealist but this year I intend to put together an R & D team and consruct a suborbital shuttle on a small budget (hoping for £100 a week. That's roughly 200 and a bit dollars to those in the States. £100 a week = £5200 a year. Enough to do something.)
Best of luck to you.
Climate porn from ...
Cryosphere Today
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
...
"View the updated high resolution animation of this year's sea ice retreat (01/01/2007 - 09/23/2007). WARNING - This quicktime animation is very large at 200Mb, but it illustrates nicely the temporal evolution of this year's sea ice."
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere … update.mov
Regardless of its cause, this year's Arctic minimum is a seminal event, and the satellite photo animation is really a wonder of modern technology.
Hi Orionite, welcome to newmars.
Xenon?
Good thought, but where are you going to get enough Xenon?
Thanks Terraformer. I'll join you in wishing everyone a Happy New Year.
The temp. differences at Europa and other moons could also be exploited.
Possibly at Europa. I think you'll have a much harder time with any of the smaller moons ( which is most of them ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_so … _by_radius )
So the problem of where the energy would come from that far from the Sun is solved.
Well, at Io. But it's kind of a unique situation. And I don't know how you'd take advantage of it on a smaller scale with some sort of artificial generator that is powered by tidal stresses.
I think fusion (and later antimatter) is the way to go for the outer solar system. The gas giants have lots of Deuterium and He3 for fuel.
So... the heating of Io comes from jupiters rotation?
Well, the heating of Io should come from the rotation of Io in Jupiter’s powerful gravitational field. And probably early on it did, but then the internal friction that generates the heating eventually caused Io to be “tidally locked” to Jupiter (i.e., rotate exactly once per orbit so that the induced tidal bulge doesn’t have to move like it does on Earth). If Io’s orbit were exactly circular, then there would be no heating, but because it is elliptical, it still gets “squeezed” each orbit by changing gravitational forces and that is what generates the heat.
My understanding is that Io’s interaction with Jupiter’s other moons is what keeps its orbit elliptical. I’m not sure how stable that is – I’m sure it can last for millions of years, but I don’t know about billions. It’s an interesting question.
Ultimately, the energy comes from the slowing of the Earth's rotation as the Earth resists the gravitationally-induced tides.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking for details.
I think you are all jealous because you didn't think of my ideas first.
Hilarious. Have you ever even had an original idea?
How could I calculate the perihelion before they landed?
Well, just using Excel date arithmetic and subtracting 687 days from the last known perihelion date, you get ...
6/4/2007
7/17/2005
8/30/2003
10/12/2001
11/25/1999
1/7/1998
2/20/1996
4/4/1994
5/17/1992
6/30/1990
8/12/1988
9/25/1986
11/7/1984
12/21/1982
2/2/1981
3/18/1979
4/30/1977
6/13/1975
Since Viking 1 landed 7/20/1976, that was 403 (Earth) days after the last perihelion - so actually it was closer to aphelion.
The viking probes were the first things to land on mars, right?
Actually, the first human-made object to reach Mars was a Russian probe ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_2
... but it really should have slowed down a bit more before reaching the surface.
Viking 1 sent back the first images.
I sure would like to know if the suggestion I made (two posts back) that phase-synchronization between Earth and a space colony circling the sun would be possible by elongating its orbit to pass both inside and outside Earth's, after tilting it's plane to avoid crossing collisions, in order to maintain the same period as Earth?
You can have an elliptical orbit with the same period as the Earth's, but your asteroid/space station would tend to become another moon unless you locate it at one of the Earth-Sun Lagrange points (which, of course, orbit the Sun with approx. the same period as the Earth).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point
Home, home on Lagrange,
etc
blimps as launching platforms.
JP Aerospace has probably taken this idea the furthest ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace
What about rockets like, say, Pegasus?
The problem is that mere altitude doesn't get you much. You need orbital velocity and lots of it. The main benefit of Pegasus' carrier aircraft is that they can avoid some launch scrubs due to bad weather. But balloons are even more sensitive to weather.
TTP doesn't have thermite as a fuel, it is used to heat the fuel (usually Hydrogen, I suppose) as opposed to a nuclear reactor. So I guess you could say that it's nuclear thermal, only without the nuclear.
So then the problem is that you've added mass (e.g., hydrogen) and inefficiency (energy transfer to the fuel) without adding energy, so you've made your Isp even worse.
Nuclear is fundamentally different because the energy comes from a fundamentally different level - nuclear bonds vs. chemical bonds. The initial Isp with nuclear is so high, you can afford to carry extra mass and shrug over energy transfer inefficiencies. Not so when your energy is coming from mere chemical bonds.
If you are going to carry hydrogen, you might as well bake the oxygen out of the rust and just carry LOX to mix with it.
1-http://newmars.com/wiki/index.php/Therm … propulsion
What do you think?
Using thermite as a fuel is problematic for a number of reasons. The first is that it has a low specific impulse (Isp) which is the general measure of a good fuel. The second is that it burns so hot that it will destroy the rocket engine unless you use CNT composites or something. The third is that the inputs are solids, so you are limited in design - you can't pump solid aluminum. The fourth is that one of the outputs (aluminum oxide) won't be a gas, so it will coat everything, even if you use CNT composites, further limiting your design choices (basically it would have to be a big dumb booster, further killing your Isp).
There was some talk about using a tri-fuel mixture of Aluminum, Oxygen and a little Hydrogen for lunar missions that was supposed to yield an Isp of 400 seconds, so you might want to look into that. In general you want to use atoms with the smallest possible nucleus - Hydrogen if possible.
BTW, I made my own template :mrgreen:
Am I allowed to do that?
It's annoying, but you can keep it for now since you're all enthusiastic
I wonder why the Department of Navy is working on this, is there a case that says this type of nuclear reactor can only power a ship at sea? One would think this would be more the province of the Department of Energy.
Bussard claimed that the DOE was too committed to ITER to consider alternatives. Certainly, the orthodox view seems to be that IEC Fusion is not worth pursuing. The US Navy has a little more freedom to fund research that might yield strategic benefit, even if the chance of success is low.
About fuel for Fusion, would cycling H atoms aound a conventional nuclear reactor make the H atoms pick up a Neutron or two to produce H2 and He3?
Yes, but in practice it is easier to get Deuterium from seawater by chemical methods.
ITER uses Deuterium/Tritium fusion. Tritium is made commercially from Lithium-6 via neutron bombardment (you can use a fission reactor, but you don't need one, just a particle accelerator).
Although Deuterium/Tritium is easier, Deuterium/Deuterium is also possible, as is Deuterium/Helium-3. On Earth, Helium-3 is "produced" from Tritium decay, but people have long talked about mining the lunar regolith for He3 (as well as, later, the gas giants).