Top Comments
All Comments (67)
-
most energy is lost when accelerating aka fuel.I still hold out for a saucer shape combined with solar sail but feel like slow take off would be better to save fuels for space using like a giant inner tube filled with helium with a control valve on it. if the inner tube expanded to a degree the farther away from earth then the release valve could be opened and then a booster could then be fired in burst for orbit
-
@HRage No actually it is much harder in space because of the mass of reactors. However, you are right in one way; we do not need to generate net power in space, just to shoot matter out of the back at high speeds. But the weight problem is still a huge one. Our fusion on earth tends to use things like football field sized lasers, or tokamacs as discussed above, and those do not seem ready for space.
But I agree that fusion is one of the best propulsion choices out there. Some day.
-
@HRage yes, all we need is to get a tokamac (giant doughnut shaped reactor) up there.. they dont weigh much at all..
-
Fusion power is the way to go. Once sustained fusion is possible by containing the plasma by electric fields, leaving a small gap for this plasma to escape would be an awesome and efficient means of propulsion.
Should nuclear fusion become viable for terrestrial power generation, we're pretty much there in terms of space propulsion.
-
1.21 gigawatts!
-
Agreed ! If all else fails throw another terawatt at it.... Ha Ha..
-
haha would take a while )
-
soviets and us scientists already did the math.
the project was too complicated. but yeah the idea is good for autonomous drones with no human beings on board.. i guess
-
using gravity? ;(
-
Actually a Solar sail would out perform a nuclear rocket, by a factor of 100.
Nothing can compete with solar sails of any kind.
A dusty plasma sail would get you to Pluto in 5 months.
WE MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS!
zomgomgomgz 3 years ago 12
FULL POWER TO ELECTRON GUN!
psychomelody 3 years ago 8