A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Technology
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nexus Rocket Engine Test Successful; 10 Times More Thrust Than Deep Space 1 Engine and Lasts 3 Times Longer (10 years)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 26th 03, 07:49 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nexus Rocket Engine Test Successful; 10 Times More Thrust Than Deep Space 1 Engine and Lasts 3 Times Longer (10 years)

Does anyone know how much this engine would cut down the time to a
Mission to Mars. If such a mission could take 2 to 3 weeks then
gentleman I'm convinced that we will have settlements on Mars in 10 to
15 years providing there is water up there.
  #3  
Old December 28th 03, 04:31 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trip time was Nexus Rocket Engine

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote in message ...
:

Does anyone know how much this engine would cut down the time to a
Mission to Mars. If such a mission could take 2 to 3 weeks then
gentleman I'm convinced that we will have settlements on Mars in 10 to
15 years providing there is water up there.


First it will not speed up trips that much, and the best trips will not
change in lenght of time, instead a more powerful engine would be likely used
to more a heavier craft.

As for the trip time tell you friend he is a fool if he thinks settlements
only took place when trip times were two to three weeks he was sleeping all
thru history. In the days of sail it was not unusual to take six months to
reach you new home and in some cases an one year trip was seen as possible.
The design, space-craft and supplies were available right now you would have
no problem finding thousands of people today to go on the trip even if the
trip time was over a year, even if it was one way only. Your friend is
making the same mistake so many other people also do. They think if they
would not want to do something then no-one else would. It is not true.

Earl Colby Pottinger




Well others have written me that DeepSpace1 would make it to Mars in
half the time or 3 months. But with these new Ion engines having 10
times more thrust than DeepSpace1 and last 3 times as long, I am
calculating it would take about 2 weeks to get to Mars.
  #4  
Old December 30th 03, 05:16 AM
Earl Colby Pottinger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trip time was Nexus Rocket Engine

:

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote in message
...
:

Does anyone know how much this engine would cut down the time to a
Mission to Mars. If such a mission could take 2 to 3 weeks then
gentleman I'm convinced that we will have settlements on Mars in 10 to
15 years providing there is water up there.


First it will not speed up trips that much, and the best trips will not
change in lenght of time, instead a more powerful engine would be likely

used
to more a heavier craft.

As for the trip time tell you friend he is a fool if he thinks

settlements
only took place when trip times were two to three weeks he was sleeping

all
thru history. In the days of sail it was not unusual to take six months

to
reach you new home and in some cases an one year trip was seen as

possible.
The design, space-craft and supplies were available right now you would

have
no problem finding thousands of people today to go on the trip even if

the
trip time was over a year, even if it was one way only. Your friend is
making the same mistake so many other people also do. They think if they
would not want to do something then no-one else would. It is not true.

Earl Colby Pottinger




Well others have written me that DeepSpace1 would make it to Mars in
half the time or 3 months. But with these new Ion engines having 10
times more thrust than DeepSpace1 and last 3 times as long, I am
calculating it would take about 2 weeks to get to Mars.


To do that you need a power supply that supplies ten times the power but does
not weigh anymore than the present power supply.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time?
http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp
  #5  
Old December 30th 03, 03:12 PM
Mike Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trip time was Nexus Rocket Engine

wrote in message . com...

Well others have written me that DeepSpace1 would make it to Mars in
half the time or 3 months. But with these new Ion engines having 10
times more thrust than DeepSpace1 and last 3 times as long, I am
calculating it would take about 2 weeks to get to Mars.


Okay, I see how you did the calculations, but you misinterpretted the
values.

Sure, the new Ion engines have ten times the thrust. However, the way
ion engines work, the new engine and its power supply are probably
(ballpark) ten times as heavy as the old one. It's unlikely that such
an ion engine will deliver 10x the acceleration - the engine is
heavier, scientists will want to use it to move more instruments,
engineers will want to add more fuel, etc. until it's pushing a much
bigger spaceship than Deep Space 1. You might only see a x2-x3
acceleration. Again, those are rough figures.

Further, that "last 3 times as long" does not mean "the new ion engine
will run 3 times as long before running out of gas." The ability of
the new engine to "last 3 times as long" is a measure of how long the
ion engine can operate before it needs a tune-up and some replacement
parts. It says nothing about how long the engine will operate before
running out of fuel (reaction mass).

The ability of a spaceship to go anywhere in a certain time is mostly
dependent on how much fuel is available, and the articles you provided
links to said nothing about how much fuel would be given to the engine
when it was finally installed on an unnamed, undesigned future space
probe. In the case of an ion engine, acceleration is so low that
acceleration actually matters, too, and a doubling or quadrupling of
Deep Space 1's minute acceleration will not get a probe to Mars in 2
weeks. To do that, you'd need a high initial velocity and/or
acceleration of at least 1/100th of a G...far more than an ion engine
will deliver.

Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
  #6  
Old December 30th 03, 08:44 PM
Alex Terrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trip time was Nexus Rocket Engine

wrote in message . com...
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote in message ...
:

Does anyone know how much this engine would cut down the time to a
Mission to Mars. If such a mission could take 2 to 3 weeks then
gentleman I'm convinced that we will have settlements on Mars in 10 to
15 years providing there is water up there.


First it will not speed up trips that much, and the best trips will not
change in lenght of time, instead a more powerful engine would be likely used
to more a heavier craft.

As for the trip time tell you friend he is a fool if he thinks settlements
only took place when trip times were two to three weeks he was sleeping all
thru history. In the days of sail it was not unusual to take six months to
reach you new home and in some cases an one year trip was seen as possible.
The design, space-craft and supplies were available right now you would have
no problem finding thousands of people today to go on the trip even if the
trip time was over a year, even if it was one way only. Your friend is
making the same mistake so many other people also do. They think if they
would not want to do something then no-one else would. It is not true.

Earl Colby Pottinger




Well others have written me that DeepSpace1 would make it to Mars in
half the time or 3 months. But with these new Ion engines having 10
times more thrust than DeepSpace1 and last 3 times as long, I am
calculating it would take about 2 weeks to get to Mars.


The new engine will be not much better than 10 Deepspace1 engines.

The new ion engine will make virtually no difference. Ion engines are
power limited - in other words, they're only as good as the power
source. The power supply will weigh much more than ion engine itself,
even if you use solar panels rather than nuclear power.

Being power limited they have low initial acceleration which makes
them slower than chemical rockets for short journeys like Earth -
moon. They do however have great potential for journeys lasting years,
such as NEO retrieval or trips to the outer planets.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.