NationStates Jolt Archive


Dubbya might get his man on mars after all...

Hirota
20-10-2004, 16:02
Advocates of a propulsion idea for spacecraft claim that it would enable a 90-day round trip to Mars. Using current technology, it would take astronauts about 2.5 years to travel to Mars, conduct their mission and return to Earth, US scientists estimate.

It would use a space station to fire a beam of magnetised particles at a solar sail mounted on a spacecraft. This plasma beam would then make use of repulsive forces to propel the spacecraft along at high speeds.

The speeds possible would increase with the size of the plasma beam, say the team behind the concept - which is called Mag-Beam.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40196000/jpg/_40196220_plas_ess_203.jpg

Project leader Robert Winglee of the University of Washington estimates that a control nozzle 32m wide would generate a plasma beam capable of propelling a spacecraft at 11.7km/second.

"We're trying to get to Mars and back in 90 days. Our philosophy is that, if it's going to take two-and-a-half years, the chances of a successful mission are pretty low," he said.

However, to make such high speeds practical, another plasma unit would have to be stationed on a platform at the other end of the trip to apply brakes to the spacecraft.

"Rather than a spacecraft having to carry these big powerful propulsion units, you can have much smaller payloads," Professor Winglee explained.

He added that these units could be placed around the Solar System by Nasa missions currently in the pipeline. Units placed further out in the Solar System would use nuclear power to create the ionized plasma, while those closer to the Sun would be able to use electricity generated by solar panels.

Mars is an average of 77 million km (48 million miles) from Earth, although this distance can vary greatly depending on where the two planets are in their orbits around the Sun. At that distance, a spacecraft travelling at 11.7km/second would take more than 76 days to get to the Red Planet.

Professor Winglee said he was working on ways to squeeze even greater speeds out of the Mag-Beam technology so that the round trip could be accomplished in three months.

Nasa has invested $75,000 (£41,500) in a six-month study to validate the concept and identify the challenges involved in developing it. It has invested the same amount in 11 similar proposals.

Projects that make it through this phase are eligible for as much as $400,000 (£221,000) more over two years.

A Mag-Beam test mission could be possible within five years if financial support remains consistent, Professor Winglee said.

Source BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3755988.stm)
New Astrolia
20-10-2004, 16:28
Fancy!
Chess Squares
20-10-2004, 16:32
the problem is, do we even have anything capable of doing this? and even a minute calculation off means a really big kerboom into mars or a moon or a passing rock
Kryozerkia
20-10-2004, 16:35
Anything is possible.
New Astrolia
20-10-2004, 16:35
Yeah, but that could happen with any sort of thing. This is safer because the less time you spend doing something the less likely something will go wrong.

And its not exactly cutting edge tech. Solar sails are proven technologies, as are plasma engines.

but I gotta say. This whole concept of preparing a landing zone before you send humans there kinda defeats the purpose of sending humans there in the first place.
Chess Squares
20-10-2004, 16:41
but I gotta say. This whole concept of preparing a landing zone before you send humans there kinda defeats the purpose of sending humans there in the first place.
yeah cuz rocketing through space at 11.7 km a sec (if i recall) and not having a landing pad stopping you from crashing into the planet is a brilliant idea
New Astrolia
20-10-2004, 16:46
You know what I meant. Ah who cares. Its not as If the first man down will have something inspirational to say this time round.
The Mycon
20-10-2004, 16:47
That solves everything but the "man" part.

One quarter of a year Vs. 2.5 years, 1/10th the time = about 100x the accelleration. As is, we accelerate at a fraction of a gravity when in space (ergo, the near-weightlessness), but I don't think it's as low as 1/100th, so an astronaut'd still probably go splat if he had to withstand weighing a few multiples of his Earth weight for more than a few minutes. He certainly wouldn't be able to feed himself, relieve himself, et cetera, under his own power. They can't even get out of their seats during takeoff...

They could deep-freeze the guy for most of it, but that's one hell of a risk. Then again, just going out is one hell of a risk. I guess, whoever's willing to try knows what's in store...
E B Guvegrra
20-10-2004, 17:09
I can see how a solar (or laser-propelled) sail might allow fast movement in the vague direction away from the Sun (use original orbital speed and an angle to the incoming light/laser to go off at an angle), but any idea how proper 'tacking' might be accomplished?

In Earthly sail-powered pursuits (with atmospheric wind, etc) you have a medium (water, or land under a land-yacht) that allows you (by keel or wheel) to apply the forces and travel largely against the direction of the flowing medium (though not entirely), but what sort of provision is there in space for that? Coming back from Mars will involve either decelerating in solar orbit in order to then 'fall' back through the system, or be propelled quickly further out in order to fall back on a highly-elipctic tradgectory... Or so I would assume.

Any other ideas?

(Arh, ignore me, I missed the one paragraph about the deceleration (and thus home-ward acceleration) station.)