Nasa finish engine test after continuous 5.5 year test!
Why doesn't my car get this kind of fuel economy again? LOL
Wow!
Nasa finish engine test after continuous 5.5 year test!
Why doesn't my car get this kind of fuel economy again? LOL
Wow!
I wonder what that cost us?
spitfirebill wrote: I wonder what that cost us?
Who cares?
I'm all for funding NASA and future/experimental technology.
In reply to z31maniac:
Ditto.
"The future is now!"
z31maniac wrote:spitfirebill wrote: I wonder what that cost us?Who cares? I'm all for funding NASA and future/experimental technology.
I wish the government spent more money on research thru NASA and groups like that and less on propping up people who are to lazy to work. / flounder.
ugh.. ever read the comments whenever nasa is in the news... people seem to -hate- that the government spends any money on space exploration
Its some cool tech to be sure.Maybe DiLithium crystals are next 
Since its solar powered tho, I wonder if a mission would be forced to travel "star to star", similar to terrestrial travel requiring gas stations for cars? I guess you could pack some hefty batteries into whatever vehicle the engines were propelling for extended distances between stars?
Still pretty awesome! I bet there are other potential frontiers for this tech? What is the exhaust from a Xenon engine comprised of? If the stuff is cleaner than carbon based fuels, then thats a huge plus. Use the engine to power a huge (potentially clean energy) generator? Xenon replacing jet fuel to reduce costs for air or sea travel options here on earth? Powering a large continuous operation manufacturing plant without taking a toll on a coal or Nuke power plant? Depending on how small they can make this tech, perhaps car or home power options? There could be a lot more applications for this tech than just space travel...
93EXCivic wrote:z31maniac wrote:I wish the government spent more money on research thru NASA and groups like that and less on propping up people who are to lazy to work. / flounder.spitfirebill wrote: I wonder what that cost us?Who cares? I'm all for funding NASA and future/experimental technology.
Yes
That is a wicked awesome way to spend my tax money! 
Better use of money than Reagan Phones (the phone for welfare recipients [The programs actual name is Life Line Assistance] actually started with Ray-gun. I just want to give credit where credit is due. Why give the credit to the black guy because he is a dam-o-crat you know?)
I think the NEXT engine is a huge leap forward for many techs. Screw a VW titty (say the letters TDi as a word) gimme a NEXT drive.
But I am 3 drinks in on a vodka rum thing I madee. Good stuff.
What I don't get, and I know I'm no rocket scientist, is this.
An object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by another(outside) force right? There is no atmosphere in space, the only drag you should encounter is from an outside gravitational body. Why burn an engine all the way there? Save that energy for maneuvering, and slowing down. Theoretically you should be able to get to insane speeds in space then shut it down. Is that not what we do now with the shuttle?
The range of a radar dish is directly correlated to the speed of its rotation, no rotation, pointed directly ahead of us should theoretically give us plenty of time needed to "hypermile" our way around obstacles.
Anyway, pretty Damn cool! /threadjack
Am I the only one who thought that surely there have been engines ran longer than 5.5 years continuously?
I'm probably wrong, but it seems like I remember hearing that the gen sets at the polar laboratories are never shut down.
Spinout007 wrote: What I don't get, and I know I'm no rocket scientist, is this. An object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by another(outside) force right? There is no atmosphere in space, the only drag you should encounter is from an outside gravitational body. Why burn an engine all the way there?
More speed, without carrying more mass to get that speed. Ion engines don't provide a lot of thrust, but they provide steady thrust (and constant acceleration) without having to carry tons of exotic fuels & oxidizers.
Spinout007 wrote: Save that energy for maneuvering, and slowing down. Theoretically you should be able to get to insane speeds in space then shut it down. Is that not what we do now with the shuttle?
You're still thinking about energy as it's expressed in chemical rocket engines, dude. As far as the Shuttle goes, yeah you're on the right track..the difference is the way in which the thrust is generated. Yeah, the Shuttle got to orbit..but with big blasts of chemical energy to overcome the density of our atmosphere. Like you mentioned, it takes a bunch of power to overcome aerodynamic drag..and the speed to stay on orbit isn't nearly close to the speed needed to explore our own planetary system in a single human lifetime. Take a look at Voyager 1. She's almost out of the Solar System..but launched in 1977 or so. The only reason the mission continues is because they had the funding to keep the damn thing going--just because the instruments still work. Most of the folks who worked on that project during the "Grand Tour" of the outer planets have retired. I'll wager that half of the people who now record the data from those instruments weren't even born when the thing was launched.
Spinout007 wrote: The range of a radar dish is directly correlated to the speed of its rotation, no rotation, pointed directly ahead of us should theoretically give us plenty of time needed to "hypermile" our way around obstacles. Anyway, pretty Damn cool! /threadjack
Being able to use less thrust once free of the atmosphere is why an Ion engine would burn so long. Steady increase of acceleration. Getting up to those "insane" speeds you're talking about (much faster to get out of orbit than to get into orbit, IIRC), without having to pack the tons of liquid or solid chemicals to get the thrust on.
NASA actually has a probe flying with an Ion engine:
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/ion_prop.asp
Spinout007 wrote: The range of a radar dish is directly correlated to the speed of its rotation, no rotation, pointed directly ahead of us should theoretically give us plenty of time needed to "hypermile" our way around obstacles.
You're assuming that the spacecraft is driving through a field with stationary obstacles. But out there, everything's moving. Staring straight ahead won't necessarily see what's coming.
But yeah, very low acceleration for half the trip makes for ultimately a very high speed. You need high speed if you want to get anywhere. Then you flip around and decelerate until you reach your goal.
Spinout007 wrote: The range of a radar dish is directly correlated to the speed of its rotation...
I think you're a little confused. One of the driving factors in a radar's maximum useful range is pulse repetition frequency (commonly called PRF). That is a measure of pulses transmitted per second and ultimately a radar's useful range is the distance a pulse can travel to and from a return before the next pulse is emitted. Rotation speed COULD potentially factor into this for very, very, very low PRF radars, when the time to pulse return is greater than the receiver's window to collect.
Power and PRF play a much larger role in in a radar's range than speed of rotation.
Keith I agree nothing is stationary out there. Considering our modern desktop computers make the old basement filling models cry with envy I'm pretty confident even moving at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour we would be able to plot a course to avoid debris.
Osterkraut, I was going off what I learned about radar from back in the day, you know back when you were still in diapers. 
You are correct, but explain to me the monster Radar building back at Beale(we joking referred to it as a toaster oven for UFO's as teenagers). Seems like amping up the power and lessening the amount of "pings" sent out, giving that signal just a little bit more time would push it out to spaceworthy ranges.
You'll need to log in to post.
