1.5 Years to Mars? Russia Could Do It in 1.5 Months

[Calista241]

Source: Motley Fool

In a recent address to the Federation Council (Russia's Senate), former Prime Minister-turned-nuke-exec Kirienko proposed an ambitious project to cut the time needed to travel to Mars by 92%. For some years, Rosatom has been working on the development of a megawatt-class "thermonuclear battery" for use in powering spaceships. Declared the former PM: "Installing a nuclear engine will allow [a spacecraft] to fly to Mars in a month and a half and to come back."

What's more, the spacecraft could make course changes en route if necessary, and even turn around and fly back to Earth, because with nuclear power, "the spacecraft would retain the ability to maneuver."

...

Last year, we learned that privately held space contractor Ad Astra is developing a prototype nuclear engine for NASA. Like Rosatom's invention, the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket, or VASIMR, would use a nuclear reactor to heat and ionize propellant, then emit it through electromagnetic thrusters to propel a spaceship between planets. And although the technology sounds similar, Ad Astra believes its VASIMR engine will take a spaceship from Earth to Mars in just 39 days -- faster than Russia's rocket.

Nuclear research lab MNSW is looking into even farther-out options -- everything from nuclear fusion reactors to "plasmoid thrusters" and "electrodeless Lorentz force" (ELF) engines. And other NASA researchers continue to explore the ionic "EM Drive" concept, converting electricity directly to impulse power, potentially cutting travel time to Mars down to just 10 weeks.

Read more: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/03/15-years-to-mars-russia-could-do-it-in-15-months.aspx?source=yahoo-2&utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=yahoo-2

---

Interesting science here.

[forest444]

1. Maybe so.

But I doubt our off-world friends would allow humanity to do so (and who could blame them).

[Babel_17]

3. I thought all the Solar system was ours,

except Europa?

[forest444]

21. But then Dubya happened.

Who knows: that may have been actually been the case when Arthur Clarke wrote that (in 1983).

[longship]

2. Ad Astra is a very cool outfit.

Note: these propulsion advances are not sufficient to put things into orbit. We'll still need chemical rockets for that. The advantage of nuclear propulsion is that they are extremely efficient. The engine is going all the time, just like in the book, "The Martian".

But the thrust is low on these, so they cannot be used for blasting off Earth.

R&K

[n2doc]

4. All great until they suffer a catastrophic launch failure

Then it is a unguided dirty bomb.

[Volaris]

5. If you put that engine in space and leave it there

And just keep docking new spacecraft/mission platforms to it,
You only need to run that risk once.
I trust NASA not to be overly incompetent with stuff like that.=)

I understand however, if you don't.

[n2doc]

13. We are talking about Russia, not NASA

And if you haven't noticed, there have been a few launch failures over time.

I'm not saying that we should not consider it, I would just say that alternatives should be considered as well. Space flight remains a very understudied area.

[Volaris]

18. In that case I agree with you I would rather not do it, either

[24601]

39. Russia also has some successes we just don't talk about very much. Starting as the Soviet Union,

they have more launches with just the SL-4 booster than we have in our entire space program.

[uhnope]

30. NASA's two exploding shuttles & Russia being Russia makes me trust neither

to fly a gigantic dirty bomb into the earth's atmosphere

[LongTomH]

14. The VASIMR engine doesn't really need a nuclear reactor.

The article was incorrect, as is much 'popular science' journalism these days.

The Ad Astra page for VASIMR lists both solar and nuclear power as energy sources for the VASIMR engine.

[Gregorian]

20. It's like a supercharged microwave oven.

Thanks for posting that. I was very curious about the internal works.

[PeoViejo]

6. Welcome to New Austrailia, Penal Colony for Earth.

Inmates that die on the way, will be used as fuel.

[Sancho]

7. With Zefram Cochrane as the lead engineer, Mars is only a day away!

[NobodyHere]

8. Doesn't it take only 6 months right now with current technology?

Where does the 1.5 years come from?

[FailureToCommunicate]

10. The scenic route?

[Calista241]

17. It changes based on each planets orbit around the sun.

Mars takes 687 days to orbit the sun, while Earth takes only 365. Mars and Earth's distance from each other varies drastically based on their orbits.

The closest that Earth and Mars would approach each other would be when Mars is at its closest point to the sun (perihelion) and Earth is at its farthest (aphelion). This would put the planets only 54.6 million kilometers apart. When the opposite occurs, with Mars at its aphelion and Earth at its perihelion, they are about 401 million kilometers apart.

This distance variable is constantly changing, and the closest and furthest distances only happen on indescribably rare occasions. For the most part, Mars and Earth are separated by an average distance of 200 - 250 million kilometers

[roamer65]

24. Venus will make a good gravitational "slingshot" for the longer trips. N/t

[bananas]

22. SpaceX will get to Mars in 3 months with chemical rockets.

6 months is a minimum energy trajectory,
Musk wants the rockets to go to Mars and back in 6 months,
3 months each way.

[daleo]

26. Maybe there and back

via minimum energy Hohmann Transfer orbits.

[Person 2713]

37. I was just at NASA in October.I believe the way they termed it on our tour was less than 2 years

So the 1.5 yr. right now seems more in line vs 6 months

[Bayard]

9. SOOO Exciting!

With Impulse power, Warp 8 can't be far behind, Scotty!

[awoke_in_2003]

34. But this starship goes to 11. nt

[mac56]

11. Sounds like Trump.

[tclambert]

27. And the Martians will pay for it!

[uhnope]

31. Remember, Trump & Russia have a mutual admiration society going on

that's the first thing I thought too--sounds like Trump-level fantasy boasting

[burfman]

12. Better method - recycle nuclear weapons to run around the solar system

Heard a lecture at NASA back sometime around 1980 by Dr. Dyson talking about project Orion. Back in the 1960's there was a seriously looked into idea - government funded - to use the blast from small atomic bombs - lots of them - to jet around the entire solar system in a big space ship - think really big - maybe ship size and fast too.. There used to be a prototype they built using TNT to demonstrate the concept in the Air and Space museum - I don't know if it's still there. The nuclear test ban treaty with the USSR (Russia) put an end to the idea.

But it would have been awesome.....people could have visited some of the planets some time in the 1970's instead of thinking of Mars a decade or two from now.

And a much better use for all those nasty bombs that we and Russia have.

Burfman.............


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

[LunaSea]

28. More on Orion

Short vid-

Full doc-

[burfman]

41. Love that video of the TNT powered rocket!

Thanks!

Didn't know about those videos.

Burfman.....

[NonMetro]

15. Gee. At that Rate It Would Only Take 13,000 Years To Reach The Nearest Star!

Of course, there is nothing at the nearest star, and it would probably only take another 13,000 years to reach the next one. But since I'm not doing much else right now, sign me up. See ya in 52,000 years! Be back in another two or three ice ages!

[keithbvadu2]

25. You might be coming back to the Eloi and Morlocks.

Pick a side, quick!

[Victor_c3]

16. Science and a space race - such a better investment than a bloated military

Those are the things we should be having parades and national holidays for, not Memorial Day and Veterans Day. When I look back at our history and think of what I'm most proud of, I have to say going to the moon. Does it make our lives better on our planet? Doubtful, but it's so much better for all of us than any war we've wasted countless lives and dollars on over the last several decades.

[freebrew]

19. One thing for sure...

if NASA does it, it will cost a WHOLE lot more than the Russian model.

I mean, private enterprise has to profit, right?

[uhnope]

32. did you forget that Russia is now a kleptocratic capitalist system?

[freebrew]

42. Didn't forget...

they don't have anything like the US, though.

Fer instance, the MIG 29, faster, more maneuverable than the yet to be flying F-35, costs 1/4 of the latter.

The costs for any government project is over-blown so much by corruption or just too many fingers in the pie.

Gotta pay for the shadow gov't.

[roamer65]

23. Problem is with Mars's orbit.

It is elliptical and therefore at superior conjunction the distance between Earth and Mars is somewhere in the ball park of 200 million miles, depending on the positions of the two planets.

Travel times will vary greatly based on it. One thing I read is that they may use Venus as a gravitational "slingshot" on those larger journeys.

[Sunlei]

29. Do it now Putin

[LeftyMom]

33. The technical barrier to Mars isn't the wait, it's not being killed by solar radiation.

Robots can take their sweet time arriving.

[olddad56]

35. Trump could in 15 days. He would just negotiate a better deal.

[dembotoz]

36. or dick cheney and the martians will welcome us as liberators

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_the_Martian

[DavidDvorkin]

38. I wish they would

I wish someone would.

Another space race would be a wonderful thing for all of us.

[whistler162]

40. Well in the 1950's we had a man

who could send his wife to the moon in less than 30 minutes.

[sofa king]

43. If I can't do it in Kerbal Space Program...

... it cannot be done.

Gamerscircle might be able to do it, though.

https://www.twitch.tv/gamerscircle