https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/01/nasa-and-darpa-will-demo-a-nuclear-thermal-rocket-engine-in-space-by-2027.html

NASA and DARPA are working on a nuclear thermal rocket.

Movement in the correct direction, but NASA needs to get a move on.  Zefram Cochrane is supposed to successfully test the Earth's first warp drive engine in 2063.  That's just 40 years away!  😁

3 hours ago, stans said:

Movement in the correct direction, but NASA needs to get a move on.  Zefram Cochrane is supposed to successfully test the Earth's first warp drive engine in 2063.  That's just 40 years away!  😁

Only in real life, a super AI will design it, and mere humans will never be able to figure out exactly how and why it works....

50 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Only in real life, a super AI will design it, and mere humans will never be able to figure out exactly how and why it works....

...and it certainly isn't about to tell them.

Edited January 29, 20233 yr by dmwalker

4 hours ago, stans said:

Movement in the correct direction, but NASA needs to get a move on.  Zefram Cochrane is supposed to successfully test the Earth's first warp drive engine in 2063.  That's just 40 years away!  😁

 

Makes lots of sense. 41 days to Mars instead of 6 months. Less exposure to cosmic rays. Less time  in a spacecraft sniffing fellow astronauts BO. Fewer provisions. Much easier. 

And not a new idea. Pretty obvious solution. 

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

Less time  in a spacecraft sniffing fellow astronauts BO.

That, and poorly digested food that generates a lot of gas...

...they'd best remember to carry "Tums for your tummy" along on the trip.

Q: How many gravities of acceleration would this conceptual engine generate?

19 hours ago, n4gix said:

How many gravities of acceleration would this conceptual engine generate?

 

Oh, not many to be honest. Not required. In the frictionless medium that is space, you simply accelerate at a reasonable rate, and then once at the predetermined velocity, no more thrust is required. In a frictionless environment a body remains in motion unless an opposing force is applied to it.

No reason why you couldn't accelerate at 1G until sufficient velocity is attained. If enough fuel remained, you could turn around and use reverse thrust to decelerate. More likely they would use a fancy trajectory in order to use orbital mechanics to decelerate though, I would have thought.

I'm no expert, but I would imagine that having the benefit of greater thrust, brings with it multiple options. 

22 hours ago, martin-w said:

More likely they would use a fancy trajectory in order to use orbital mechanics to decelerate though, I would have thought.

That would involve a complex calculation for a Hohman transfer orbit I believe.

One of my pet peeves with script writers is their assumption that nearby explosions would cause transfer of blast energy to the spaceship being targeted, as seen constantly in Star Wars, Star Trek, et cetera.

26 minutes ago, n4gix said:

One of my pet peeves with script writers is their assumption that nearby explosions would cause transfer of blast energy to the spaceship being targeted, as seen constantly in Star Wars, Star Trek, et cetera.

 

In terms of nukes in a vacuum, the damage to the target would be from radiation transformed to heat when it hits the target.

In terms of conventional explosives, no air molecules to transmit the blast energy, so you would be left with shrapnel and radiation. Radiation in terms of electromagnetic radiation. Your explosive would need to be close enough to transfer its EM (infrared) to the target.  

Better solution would be particle beam I would have thought. X-Ray laser etc. 

That's my non-expert take on it anyway.

2 hours ago, n4gix said:

One of my pet peeves with script writers is their assumption that nearby explosions would cause transfer of blast energy to the spaceship being targeted, as seen constantly in Star Wars, Star Trek, et cetera.

Also, something I hadn't thought of is:

"if a spacecraft blows up, the explosion should have the same velocity as the craft did (possibly altered by the velocity of whatever hit it). I.e., the boom should keep moving. Many movies and shows have a fast-moving craft turn into a stationary explosion (relative to the camera)."

2 hours ago, dmwalker said:

Also, something I hadn't thought of is:

"if a spacecraft blows up, the explosion should have the same velocity as the craft did (possibly altered by the velocity of whatever hit it). I.e., the boom should keep moving. Many movies and shows have a fast-moving craft turn into a stationary explosion (relative to the camera)."

 

Any shrapnel, bits of spacecraft, would have the same velocity. The explosion itself, fierey if the explosion contained oxygen to burn, or any emitted EM, would be generated from the moment of the explosion and propogate in all directions. So not retain the spaceships velocity.

12 hours ago, martin-w said:

Better solution would be particle beam I would have thought. X-Ray laser etc. 

I like David Weber's* main weapon: a bomb-pumped laser. Using a nuclear bomb as the initiator, enclose in a system of magnetic shaping directors, focus the resultant energy through a number of lasing rods. A single hit is guaranteed to ruin the enemy's day.

* Weber, David - author of the Honorverse series. Think of a female version of Horatio Hornblower.

7 hours ago, n4gix said:

David Weber's* main weapon: a bomb-pumped laser. Using a nuclear bomb

 

Yep, an old idea. It was one of the planned weapons from the US Star Wars program.

Love the Honor Harrington Series! Read them every year or so.

20 hours ago, Penzoil3 said:

Love the Honor Harrington Series! Read them every year or so.

Sue, have you read the "prequels" outlining the origin and history of the Star Kingdom of Manticore?" Such as "House of Steel," "A Call to Duty," and "A Call to Arms" for example.