metallithrax Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/te...eam_041020.html This will be cool if they can do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiegel Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 ok im not a physics buff but.... distance from earth to mars = 7.8e10 time = 90 days = 7776000 seconds velocity = distance (in meters) / time (in seconds) thats gonna be 10030.8642 m / s :omg: wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallithrax Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 In the article I read yesterday, they did quote that they are hoping for 11 km/s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypoxiaicon Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 :woot: Fast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPaul Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 What would scare me is if the MagBeam orbiting Mars failed, how the hell would you stop. You'd just continue to accelerate indefinitely until you hit something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiegel Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 ^i think they would have a contingency plan maybe use jupiter's orbit to go around i dont know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiagosilva29 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 A few years ago, they said the same time, but, with nuclear propulsion! (~_~) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jelly2003 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Wow, sounds pretty cool. Mars and back in 90 days definatley sounds better then 2.5 years. Of course it will probably be years until manned craft are propelled using this method, but its still exciting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKtron Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Shame they will still have to put a plasma stream emitting satelite in orbit around Earth to accelerate you and Mars to slow you down. So you have to postpone your travels for a good few years. :blink: Oh and we'll have to wait for them to build the aformentioned Plasma Power Plant. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiegel Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Shame they will still have to put a plasma stream emitting satelite in orbit around Earth to accelerate you and Mars to slow you down. So you have to postpone your travels for a good few years. :blink: Oh and we'll have to wait for them to build the aformentioned Plasma Power Plant. :laugh: 584810950[/snapback] spiegel has no idea what you just said please explain :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Veteran Posted October 26, 2004 Veteran Share Posted October 26, 2004 spiegel has no idea what you just said please explain :| 584810976[/snapback] You need one plasma beam in orbit around Earth to push you to Mars. Also you need one at Mars to slow you down when you get there, and also to push you back again. Without the second one you keep moving until you hit something. Which would suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiegel Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 so something like this..... earth -->O |)----------------------------------(| O<-- mars ---------------------^ plasma beam ^------------------- right? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Veteran Posted October 26, 2004 Veteran Share Posted October 26, 2004 Yes, but the satellites would not fire the beam at each other, or they would push each other out of orbit and into space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e4ymod Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Yes, but the satellites would not fire the beam at each other, or they would push each other out of orbit and into space. 584811006[/snapback] Ultimate Suckage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xer34 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Heard about this a couple days ago. Definitley looks promising :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdodson Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I saw a thing about this last year. I think it was NASA that built a plasma propulsion engine on some little satellite. They used regular boosters to get it into space and started on its journey. Then they started the plasma drive and it failed after like 5 mins and they lost the satellite to the depths of space. It would be cool if they could redesign it and get it to work, but it's probably just wishful thinking for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallithrax Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 By my calcs, we could get to Pluto in just over 4 years :blink: 16 years 5 months at current speeds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiegel Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 OT: do you think humanity will eventually achieve light speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallithrax Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 Don't think so, but I ain't no physicist. Would be cool if they did though Would still take 4.2 years to get to the nearest (except ths sun) to get to the nearest star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keito Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 OT: I think NO because when traveling at light speed mass because infinite... and I guess us humans can't really cope with that :p My own idea however is that when we reach light speed we'll start dematerializing because the particles we're made of are heaveier and bigger then light so they probably can't go that fast or something and we'll dematerialize.. (i'm SO wrong on that one :p) Anyways, this is cool news... :D This could eventually lkead to better things and we'll get to like, other solar systems!:woot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiegel Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 ^ mass is infinite at light speed? or is it zero i thought mass was zero at light speed and thats why it would be possible at some point in humanity i read an article on this, then again i might be wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keito Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Einsteins relativity theory hasn't been proven wrong I guess, Spiegel. And his theory stated that the faster an object travels, the heavier it gets. Because lightspeed is the greatest speed possible (provable with a very simple experiment actually :p) the mass would be infinite... I'm SURE it was something like that. As a matter of fact I'm reading it on a dutch wiki :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Wat bout just under the speed of light? like 0.99999999999 the speed of light... cud still reach the nearest star in a decent time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Einsteins relativity theory hasn't been proven wrong I guess, Spiegel. And his theory stated that the faster an object travels, the heavier it gets. Because lightspeed is the greatest speed possible (provable with a very simple experiment actually :p) the mass would be infinite... I'm SURE it was something like that. As a matter of fact I'm reading it on a dutch wiki :p 584811173[/snapback] You've got it pretty much right. As a moving body travels faster and faster, it becomes both shorter and heavier, thus requiring even more energy to accelerate it further. That's why the speed of light is like a big giant wall. At the speed of light, a moving body becomes a singularity. It becomes an infinitely massive object of zero size and would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it further. I won't get into it now, but this means no body travelling slower than light will ever travel faster than light. However, this does not prevent a body from travelling faster than light, it only prevents an object from accelerating past the speed of light. Basically, if we ever hope to reach the stars in any decent amount of time, it's going to require some warping of the space half of the space-time continuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allfive6 Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 thats gonna be 10030.8642 m / s 584810874[/snapback] WOW :o :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts