Interesting article about a new Ion Engine the boffins are working on that could theoretically allow a space craft to reach Mars in record time.

http://www.gizmag.com/ad-astra-ion-engine-mars-39-days/12342/

Looks like they finally worked out how Facemans ufo wreck in Area 51 got around.

On that site the LRO's pic of the Apollo 14 landing site is pretty amazing.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9453/1228320070963433.jpg

while the current engine can run entirely on solar power – making it perfect for moon trips and other near-earth duties – for a deep space mission, it would need more like 200MW of power. And only an on-board nuclear reactor could provide that.

I've heard this before from space futurists etc.

The only way we are going to do anything interesting in manned space adventures in the forseeable future is to get reactors up there - which is a tough sell. There's a lot of political will to keep space 'nuclear free' whatever that means (hi Sol!).

last edited by Hogfather at 11:21:50 30/Jul/09

What about fusion?

space adventures in the forseeable future

Sustained fusion is the grail of modern science, and would change everything.

Plain old dirty fission is what we have to work with now :)

Yeah getting fission approved for space flight is pretty damm hard. Firstly you would have to be able to send up all the individual parts, so that each one of them is not dangerous if it blows up on the way and spews its load into the atmosphere (I have no idea if u can seperate a nuclear reactor into several safe bits)

Then you would have to assemble it in space, and far enough away from earth so not to cause any problems if it blows up for some reason.

Moon Nuclear base? that would be awesome.

they've been talking about the ion engine for a while now & i believe from memory they did have a trial in space but it failed. i'll be a lot more interested when they have a new prototype to test in space. i don't see nuclear power being a problem though as all the deep space probes from the 70s (voyagers & pioneers) are powered by rtg's (radioisotope thermoelectric generators).

radioisotope thermoelectric generators

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not a reactor is it? Its just getting power from the relatively slow decay of an isotope..

The article in the OP describes an ion drive powered by an active fission reactor. The amount of fissile material that would need to be "hanging up there" to generate the energy needed is a lot more than what's powering those small probes.

If it was an easy problem to safely get a reactor into space we'd have done it already. Nuclear fuel is awesomely compact - in an environment where mass and efficiency is king this would be a no brainer.

get the f*** out of this thread faceman.

You are like a creationist posting in a thread happily discussing evolution.

UFOs seem to be able to move at great speed sometimes at right angles.
Thats not possible.

So maybe, just maybe, those UFO's aren't actually real.
So with all the UFO sightings in the entire world, they are always grainy or blurred, or have some other dodgy factor to them. Why can't they ever be crisp?

Because they are reflections or echoes from higher dimensions ?
They look impossible to us just as a Ball would look impossible to a person in a 2d universe.

^
ffs please just ban him already! He's poisoned this otherwise good thread now and is just a f***ing troll account anyway imo.

All in favour of banning creationist trolls say "I"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not a reactor is it? Its just getting power from the relatively slow decay of an isotope..

you're not wrong. however the issue is launching radioactive material into space... the hippies complained about it in the 70s with pioneers & voyagers & nasa launched them anyway, without mishap. i reckon they'll do the same with larger nuclear devices.

Because they are reflections or echoes from higher dimensions ?

why always go for the least likely explanation that has no evidence to back it up when there is a perfectly normal explanation that requires no evidence? that question is rhetorical though as i know the answer... real science is pretty boring & lacks ninja dragon aliens from dimension x (which are more entertaining to childish intellects). :D

real science is pretty boring

Well Physics is cool, at least.

A ______ has 4 dimensions ____

...Euclidean universe ?

(I just finished reading Hawking's A Brief History of Time. My head still hurts.)

i cant wait until we accidentally make portals to parallel dimensions

science without imagination is just religion.

no it's not.

science without imagination is just religion.

that sounds like something pithy you read somewhere and are regurgitating

I think you'll find it's actually more like, "religion is just imagination without science"

where do you think theories come from ?

divine inspiration, clearly

Science by non-religious people is science.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

- Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

where do you think theories come from ?

f***ing seriously? If you consider yourself some kind of intellectual because you read all kinds of horses*** on the internet, at least learn something useful.

Theories come about as a result of f***ing intense scrutiny and rigorous adherence to the Scientific process.

If you think the only footage of a UFO is blurry/wobbly, stop watching lame handcam vids on youtube.


You need to see the video's of NASA tests in space.

Before you jump on the skeptic boat you should actually have a look around.

last edited by JakeG at 17:36:33 30/Jul/09

A straight line has 1 dimension _
A square has 2 dimensions |_
A cube has 3 dimensions |/_
A ______ has 4 dimensions ____
A ______ has 5 dimensions ____
...
A ______ has 9 dimensions ____

http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

watch out maxe that sort of controversial stuff gets deleted

It gets deleted when the person who posts also says the government has secretly researched it and is waging an inter-dimensional war with hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings.

plus i never get banned, ever

They should try some experiments with Gateways between Mar's moons, what could possibly go wrong.

Zy (and all other people who seem to get confused about the word "Theory" as applies to science), there is a difference between a hypothesis (research question) and a theory. Imagination may lead to the creation of a reseach question but theories are born from the Scientific Method.

Scientists (except for pretend scientists like Intelligent Design adherents) don't create theories and then set out to prove them right. They have a hypothesis that they then test with appropriate experiments the results of which are then peer reviewed to s*** and back, if it holds water then it becomes a theory but, and this is important, theories are always left open to review. Unlike religious dogma.

There is no scientific theory so well established that scientists won't come along and re-examine it if something seems not to fit anymore. They have relatively recently launched probes into orbit as part of an experiment to re-test special relativity, for example.

StopShootingMe makes a very valid point.

Re: OP - http://www.gizmag.com/spaceport-america-breaks-ground/12081/ from that site is awesome - while thinking about flights to mars are cool and all, I'm all for making space a tourist zone - awesome way to earn money to further space research!

There is no scientific theory so well established that scientists won't come along and re-examine it if something seems not to fit anymore.

Except anthropogenic global warming - question that theory and you're a f***ing pariah.

What you don't seem to understand is that a scientific theory comes about as the result of observation, hypothesis and experimentation.

Scientific method aims to find the reason behind what's observed. Religion creates theories then tries to prove them.

That said, I could be wrong

You are.

Zy - the whole aim of scientific research is findings through objectivity, everything is aimed towards that, scientists who allow their own wishes or preconceptions to color the outcomes (and I acknowledge it's basically impossible for a person to not apply thier preconceptions) will get hammered through the process of peer review. The peer review process is sciences recognition of human fallibility. And, as I already said and you may have missed, theories are always open to scrutiny no matter how long they have been working nicely for. They always remain theories, never dogma.

Except anthropogenic global warming - question that theory and you're a f***ing pariah.

Excellent point, there have been a number of comparisons drawn between the AGW movement and religion, with scientists who are most vocal on the consequences of AGW a sort of "green preisthood" who oppose anyone, even other scientists, who wants to question the theory (the term "heretics" is also used a lot). It's bad science.

Is that clearer?

Yes but it has zero practical implication. Its a more question of the philosophy of science than hard science itself. To be honest the questions raised have been done to death in this field.

Scientists can only operate within the observable universe, and what can be logically deduced from those observations. Observation is a fundamental to good science. It may well be (is probably likely) that our biology and physical nature restricts the range, type and completeness of our understanding of the universe.

But speculation on matters that we can't observe even indirectly isn't really hard science.

last edited by Hogfather at 14:28:49 31/Jul/09

so 39 days is still far too long. call me when its down to 3 hours so its a viable holiday destination

Observation is a fundamental to good science.

Yet when trained miltary pilots see UFOs perform gravity defying moves science refuses to explain it. It crawls back into its Denial hole just like Religion.

Yet when trained miltary pilots see UFOs perform gravity defying moves science refuses to explain it. It crawls back into its Denial hole just like Religion.

Oh for f***'s sake you are getting annoying. They're called UFOs because they are unidentified. Science doesn't "refuse" to explain anything you twit, there isn't enough evidence to explain the sighting.

The observation is not repeatable so any hypothesis about the sighting cannot be verified. Do you see how science works? Isn't it great?

FaceMan.Ban();