VASIMR

[Anonymous No.2626834]

Why exactly are people still hyping this? It's a fine idea, but everyone knows the claim of allowing us to get to Mars in 30 days is complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2626839]

Because it won't be bullshit when we get proper nuclear reactors

[Anonymous No.2626865]

>>2626839
public:
>Impossibru! Nucular is teh evulz!

[Anonymous No.2626870]

>>2626839
Or just use solar power, once solar panel "fabric" starts rolling off the production lines we could potentially erect stadium sized solar panels in space, like huge sails, and generate enough energy to run anything.

[Anonymous No.2626880]

>>2626834
it's not bullshit if hippies let us use a nuclear reactor

[Anonymous No.2626881]

>>2626839
Space based nuclear reactors require massive radiators. You really don't get much benefit from them unless you're operating in the outer solar system.

[Anonymous No.2626893]

>>2626870
You're a fucking moron who doesn't know anything about propulsion systems. We need HUGE amounts of energy to get VASIMIR to get people to mars in 30 days, and this one would need nuclear reactor models which we don't currently have.
Nuclear reactors could be used on electric propulsion systems which are ALREADY IN USE (see Dawn Mission) to achieve greater specific impulse.

[Anonymous No.2626902]

>send one big mission to mars with nuclear powered spacecraft
>set up nuclear powered mars colony
>?????
>life on mars

[Anonymous No.2626906]

>>2626881
We could simply build a bigger VASIMIR system

[Anonymous No.2626914]

Google Nuclear salt rocket which Zubrin designed. It could provide greater thrust AND specific impulse than normal chemical rockets.

[Anonymous No.2626924]

>>2626906
Why? You're not going to gain anything from it.

[Anonymous No.2626932]

On a slightly unrelated note, what's going on with those Scramjet things I heard were going to be so awesome?

[Anonymous No.2626945]

>>2626932
You have to go past mach 3 for them to begin working, and it's hard to keep a vehicle from overheating and/or shattering from the air. Scramjet research is still going on, but materials science will determine when and to what extent they can be useful.

[Anonymous No.2626958]

>>2626945
Well actually I fail when I say that you need to go mach 3 for them to work. What I meant to say was that the potential top speeds of vehicles scramjets is so fast that those consuquences occur, and better materials must be researched and developed to optimize their usefulness

[Anonymous No.2626987]

>>2626914
I looked at the Wikipedia article and saw this.

>In an NSWR the nuclear salt-water would be made to flow through a reaction chamber and out an exhaust nozzle in such a way and at such speeds that the peak neutron flux in the fission reaction would occur outside of the vehicle.

I'm not going to call outright bullshit, but it does make me skeptical.

[Anonymous No.2627007]

>>2626987
Why?

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2627022]

>>2626987

The man in the pic designed it. It's legit.

[Anonymous No.2627028]

>>2627007
One the nuclear fuel leaves the rocket there will be no material to reflect neutrons back, allowing them to leak out at a fast rate. This will very quickly kill the fission chain reaction.

I suppose it's possible if a high enough density can be maintained as it leaves the rocket, but I find that doubtful for something acting as rocket fuel. Making such a hard to believe claim makes me skeptical about the other claims as well.

[Anonymous No.2627239]

>>2627022
I laughed so hard I spit out all my food on my monitor and keyboard

[None !id/tRanCE. No.2627276]

i can't tell if some of the people in here are trolling or just stupid

[Anonymous No.2627302]

We'll secretly move Earth closer to Mars just before launch.

[Anonymous No.2627385]

>>2627276
A bit of both actually.

[Anonymous No.2627570]

>>2627022
I don't get it. What's the joke supposed to be?

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2627591]

>>2627239

Well, if it's not sarcasm, then fuck: I didn't expect anyone except my warped self to find it hilarious.

>>2627570

The rocket was drawn up by Nyrath, the Atomic Rockets guy, its engine is an NSWR. Zubrin designed it, and the engine has a risk of burning up due to fission: If the boron tubes (The tanks) are punctured, a runaway fission reaction takes place.

Inside your ship.

So the joke is Zubrin reassuring you of the engine's safety, by asking "Runaway meltdown? What meltdown son? I see no meltdown, that's a feature."

[Anonymous No.2627792]

>>2627591
If something has hit you hard enough to rupture the tubes, I don't think you're going to live long enough to care about a runaway fission reaction, assuming it can even take place. A proper geometry is necessary for that to happen.

[Anonymous No.2628259]

Hey guys, don't mind me. I'm just being the most awesome propulsion system that will never happen.

[Anonymous No.2628271]

>>2626870
No sunlight on the way 2 Mars.

[Anonymous No.2628292]

If you just shoot a fucking laser at the thing you could power it.

/thread

[Anonymous No.2628364]

>>2628259

You can't sit on top of a nuke and launch from 0m/s

...

No, you still can't.

[Anonymous No.2628380]

>>2628364
shock-absorbers

why not actually look into the concept of nuclear-pulse propulsion before denying it's plausibility because of incorrect gut-feeling?

[Anonymous No.2628402]

>>2628364
Yes, you can. The ships were massive. The explosions would be fighting incredible inertia just to get it moving. The big question wasn't if it could be done, but if the ship could maintain a stable trajectory.

[Anonymous No.2628574]

>>2628380 Shock absorbers

Stfu. Why don't you look up shock absorbers?

A structure large and strong enough to support itself and several almost direct nuclear blasts is far too fucking big to ever be put into production.

Nevermind the obliterated launch site.

[Anonymous No.2628598]

>>2628380

Pulse propulsion when you're in space, already at a velocity, is completely fucking different to using it to launch.