Subject:
|
Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 21:36:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
172 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, bagheera wrote:
> Chemical Drive Engines: Expensive and impractical for long duration flights.
> Also, I would assume unreliable due to the vacuum-like nature of space. But
> that is speculative.
Huh? Standard rockets carry all the fuel they need -- no air required. That's
mostly what we've been using way up there, from the start.
> Anti-Matter Drives: Thanks to some french scientists, we have actually seen
> and recorded anti-matter. The problem is, it takes so much energy to create
> it, that it would have been better to use that energy to propel the ship in the
> first place. (plus there's that nasty bit about how anti-matter isn't stable
> and doesn't exist for very long unless you apply constant energy to it).
But rockets aren't about efficient production of energy, they are about the
efficient *storage* and *expression* of energy. If you could pack all the
energy you need for a trip to the stars in a thimble-full of material, it
doesn't really matter that it cost you 100x or 1000x times as much energy to put
it in that state.
The real problem is paying the fuel bill. I know *my* credit card won't cover
anti-protons...
> Ion Drive Engines: Currently they are impractical for any use other than small
> robotic craft. They are capable of producing near light speed velocities
> through several month acceleration cycles. They are expensive to construct,
> but this may be the cargo transport method of the colonizing era.
Rilly? Do you have quotable info on the costs (or even relative costs) of these
things?
> Nuclear Drive Engines: Messy in atmosphere, but terribly efficient in space.
> Radiation is a high concern for the crew of a nuclear powered ship, but
> residual radiation probably wouldn't even touch a candle to the radiation that
> already resides in space ambiently. I wouldn't trust a nuke powered craft (if
> the engine blows...no one can hear you scream in space)
The gaseous core stuff sounds wicked. But it is also sounding very
pie-in-the-sky.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Oddly enough most of the technology being discussed here actually exists, even though many of you would debate that fact. I would like to share my thoughts on this matter, as well as addressing the poster's original question here. Flight Time (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
119 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
