Subject:
|
Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 Dec 1999 01:08:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
237 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:16:12 GMT, "bagheera" <bagherra@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> 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 to Mars: I would estimate at 1G constant propulsion you should
> reach there between 24 hours and 48 hours depending on when you start the
> trip. That seems like a short amount of time, but consider that once you get
> there, you need to slow down to land. Inertia has a nasty way of being like
> that.
Yeah. But that's not the problem - 1G constant acceleration is utterly
impossible with current tech.
> 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.
Quite possibly.
> 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)
And when the Shuttle solid-fuel-booster blows, you get what?
I don't think any of us are going to forget that day very soon.
> Solar Sails: and you thought nuke radiation was bad!!! wait till you get a
> healthy dose of solar radiation that is trapped with you as you travel outward
> from the sun. (sorry, no return trips)
So? You put your craft _before_ the sail. That means that radiation at
your craft is less than without the sail..
> Transporter Beams: Currently Impractical for solid objects (but great for
> particles!). I think it is more likely that we will see communications
> applications of transporter technology before we are able to beam ourselves up.
> Current technology has proven that we can send light beams from one location to
> another using "spooky action". This has interesting applications for deep
> space travel, and remaining in communication.
I sincerely hope you're not talking about faster-than-light
information communication. It Does Not Exist. And it -certainly_ isn't
on the horizon.
> Gravity Well Engines: your basic "fold space" method of travel. More rumor
> than actual show, it is purported that both an American and a Russian venture
> have independently designed gravity well engines and are planning for
> commercial deployment by 2006. Travel from Los Angeles to Tokyo in under 4
> seconds! Now I don't know much about the technology, but it seems to me that
> if you dropped a gravity well near a planet that it would do serious damage.
> Maybe they have that worked out? The cool part about gravity wells is that
> they provide inertial dampening gratis! It just happens to be a side effect of
> the engine :)
Yeah. Sure. How, exactly, are you going to create enough gravity in a
compact enough area of space that you can use it to accelerate your
craft? Micro black holes have never even been seen, let alone made.
Neutronium is also unlikely to be made in anything approaching that
timeframe.
> plasma engines: a super heated chemical engine. I only read a short snippet,
> and it wasn't very descriptive.
Plasma itself isn't a new technology. At best, you might be able to
make a bit more efficient chemical engine.
At likeliest, you'll put way more energy into maintaining and
containing the plasma than you get out of it. Much like the fusion
reactors of today spend twice as much on maintaining the toroidal
plasma as they get out in energy (which actually is already a giant,
and I do mean giant, leap forward from just a few years ago).
>
>
> There are others, but they are too fantastic for me to list here.
Even more fantastic, huh? ;)
> In general, I have found that items reported take about ten years to show up
> commercially from the date I first read about them. Case and point, air cars.
> I first heard about air cars on Lifestyles of the rich and famous in 1991. In
> 1997, there was a special about them on Beyond 2000, and most recently CNN has
> run an article on them that included the introductory price tag ($1,000,000
> USD). They have a cruising speed of 300mph and can fly as slow as 120 mph
> (well actually, in all three incarnations of the report, they show it hovering,
> floating out of the garage, executing a VTOL, and cruising at a height of about
> 500-1000').
Air cars, or rather, the particular air car we're talking about here,
were first announced in the sixties/seventies, and they're not going
to show up anytime soon yet. The kinks just haven't been ironed out
yet, and also interesting to note may be that _never_ has anyone
independent even come close to verifying the statistics claimed for
it. To the best of the knowledge around, mileage is about a factor 10
worse than claimed, top speed by a factor of 2-3, altitude same,
etc.etc.
> I figure you should start seeing the air cars as early as late 2000, early
> 2001. Pilot license IS required.
No way. Tell you what, I'll bet you a $25 box of Lego of your choice
that this aircar won't turn up with the currently claimed stats before
1 December 2000.
Jasper
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
