Curiosity
-
What does this stupid ass thread have to do with politics ???
It should be moved to the barbershop. Oh, wait, if I had posted it,
Zomblow the hypocrite would have moved it.
What does this stupid ass thread have to do with politics ???
It should be moved to the barbershop. Oh, wait, if I had posted it,
Zomblow the hypocrite would have moved it.
To me its a welcome change, even if my ideas are cockneyed, from talking about how Obama will make us all slaves.
In that note, woody, what's a better idea for getting humans to mars?
-
And it seems that most every one of these "non-political topics" have a way of turning into more interesting talks if you will!
I like em, and I think Steve has the right idea of allowing all posters a chance to have a say!
-
What does this stupid ass thread have to do with politics ???
It should be moved to the barbershop. Oh, wait, if I had posted it,
Zomblow the hypocrite would have moved it.
To me its a welcome change, even if my ideas are cockneyed, from talking about how Obama will make us all slaves.
In that note, woody, what's a better idea for getting humans to mars?
To me its a welcome change, even if my ideas are cockneyed, from talking about how Obama will make us all slaves.
In that note, woody, what's a better idea for getting humans to mars?
Here's an abstract from a paper out of Princeton that discusses the propulsion options to Mars.
In this paper, high-power electric propulsion options are surveyed in the context of cargo and piloted missions to Mars. A low-thrust trajectory optimization program (RAPTOR) is utilized to analyze this mission. Candidate thrusters are chosen based upon demonstrated performance in the laboratory. Hall, self-field magnetoplasmadynamic (MPDT), self-field lithium Lorentz force accelerator (LiLFA), arcjet, and applied-field LiLFA systems are considered for this mission. In this first phase of the study, all thrusters are assumed to operate at a single power level (regardless of the efficiency-power curve), and the thruster specific mass and powerplant specific mass are taken to be the same for all systems. Under these assumptions, for a 7.5 MW, 60 mT payload, piloted mission, the self-field LiLFA results in the shortest trip time (340 days) with a reasonable propellant mass fraction of 57% (129 mT). For a 150 kW, 9 mT payload, cargo mission, both the applied-field LiLFA and the Hall thruster seem reasonable choices with propellant mass fractions of 42 to 45% (7 to 8 mT). The Hall thrusters provide better trip times(530-570 days) compared to the applied-field LiLFA (710 days) for the relatively less demanding mission.
Here's the full paper.
http://alfven.princeton.edu/papers/Astrodyn-Final.pdf
To be honest, I have no idea what the hell any of these technologies are, and I'd only heard of ion thrusters on the Discovery channel maybe a decade ago. But it appears that your magnet proposal does have some application
-
All the technologies that have changed the world had plenty of detractors. Magnets may easily not be the answer but at least I didn't go full Retard
-
Announcing a tragic development with the Mars rover...
-
Watch out, some of our members may actually think that is a real picture.
-
Watch out, some of our members may actually think that is a real picture.
Watch out, some of our members may actually think that is a real picture.
I blame Obama
-
There you go, woody, bumped. The magnet propulsion is MPTD.
-
gracias
-
woodpecker = bunker
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login