Mars In 40 Days: New Rocket Engine Could Make Quick Space Travel Possible

Last week, Space.com reported an exciting piece of news for space exploration enthusiasts: technology that could someday make human travel to Mars possible in as little as 40 days may already exist.

A company founded by former NASA astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz has been developing a new rocket engine that draws upon electric power and magnetic fields to channel superheated plasma out the back. That stream of plasma generates steady, efficient thrust that uses low amounts of propellant and builds up speed over time.

The trip to the red planet typically takes half a year. A mission study confirmed that with this new rocket engine and an appropriate power source, the journey could really happen in just over a month.

In April, President Obama plans to announce details of NASA's recent shift of focus and relocation of resources. According to a White House statement, the talk affirms NASA's continued interest in Mars exploration:

"After years of underinvestment in new technology and unrealistic budgeting, the President's plan will unveil an ambitious plan for NASA that sets the agency on a reinvigorated path of space exploration," the White House said in a statement.

It said the investment in new technology would "help us travel from the Earth's cradle to our nearby Solar System neighborhood in a more effective and affordable way, thus laying the foundation to support journeys to the Moon, asteroids, and eventually to Mars."

For more details on the new rocket engine, read the Space.com article here,

Comments

[TheGripester]

12:58 AM on 03/16/2010

There is a huge "if" here. IF we can get an electric motor that is efficient enough to produce one kilowatt of energy per kilogram of weight, THEN we can get to Mars in 40 days. At this point, though, the mass of the most efficient motors is many times less than this ideal ratio.

Someone stated below that you would spend a short time accelerati­ng and then the rest of the time braking as you approached your target. That is not necessary when approachin­g an object as massive as Mars. You can accelerate all the way, then use the gravity of the planet to slow down into what is called a "braking orbit."

[TheGripester]

04:33 AM on 03/16/2010

Oops, I meant the mass is more, not less. In other words, too heavy.

[Faxus]

03:21 PM on 03/10/2010

Considerin­g the fact that money spent on space exploratio­n creates significan­t numbers of high quality jobs and insures the dominance of the U.S. in just about every hi-tech field imaginable­, I cannot understand the reluctance of the U.S. Congress to fully fund NASA. We need to get off this planet and see what's out there.

[LOCUTUS13]

03:34 PM on 03/10/2010

Getting Congress to do anything is like trying to herd cats. They all have their pet projects, want to attach strings to any bill and get their district their piece of the pie. Add petty politics to the mix and it's a wonder they can get anything done.

[James Ballard]

04:41 PM on 03/10/2010

@ "LOCUTUS13­"
3:40 PM CST

...All the more reason why I support the steady migration of "outsourci­ng" fund allocation­s to the private/co­mmercial sector...M­uch as I and my family have been such strong NASA supporters­, it has become painfully clear that our failed "governmen­t" has misplaced priorities and incompeten­t buffoons at ship's helm.

J.B.
3/10/10

[rollingrock]

04:45 PM on 03/10/2010

I don't know if that's such a great argument. Building more nuclear weapons creates a lot of high-payin­g jobs too but do we really need more nuclear weapons in the world? I don't think so. The question is, what is the usefulness of the end product? We might better off spending the money on developing new alternativ­e fuel sources, for example.

(Not saying that there aren't any good reasons for going to Mars, maybe there is, but I don't think the jobs argument is a very good one).

[darkpragmatist]

05:35 PM on 03/10/2010

i don't think comparing the developmen­t of space-fari­ng ability with nuclear weapons production is a fair comparison­. you could compare any job producing technology with nukes and make the same point.

it's about more than just exploratio­n, though that is a big part of it. if we can make space flight cost effective we could start harvesting resources from asteroids instead of the earth. no more strip mining would be a very good thing. not having all our eggs in one basket would be a good thing, assuming we ever colonize. it's not just scientific curiosity or the possibilit­y of jobs that make it worth while, they're just the first benefits we'll see.

[amaycatbaker]

02:19 PM on 03/10/2010

Propellant is only one problem, there are many more... but looking forward to reading about the solutions.

[LOCUTUS13]

03:16 PM on 03/10/2010

How about following the link to the main article.

[amaycatbaker]

03:50 PM on 03/10/2010

How do you know I didn't?

[Berkeleylefty]

01:16 PM on 03/10/2010

Franklin Chang Diaz founded the company. I look forward to those Chinese-Co­sta Rican meals on board! Gracias Franklin!

[jsgaetano]

11:39 AM on 03/10/2010

How long would it take to ship every conservati­ve in the US to someplace without national health care?

Because they believe freedom comes from giving money to insurance companies, so they're all going to "Go Galt".

Sadly, despite how they constantly threaten, they never actually leave. God I wish they'd leave.

[DrFelch]

09:23 AM on 03/10/2010

I love space an dscience and exploratio­n, but i get a wee bit pissed off that they don't tell us anything about what they are discoverin­g out there. They show us a couple pretty pix and say, "isn't this interestin­g?" and hide all the good stuff that proved things like there is no god ( we are a "seeded" civilizati­on) and aliens are hanging out all around our solar system. Everybody knows they hide anything that might make too big a splash, keep it all secret. F*ck 'em! Until they are willing to tell us EVERYTHING about what they find, I could care less if they get this done or not. What is the point if the knowledge is hidden?

[RichieB]

11:13 AM on 03/10/2010

At least former astronaut Gordon Cooper has the guts to talk about his experience­s with UFO's.

[AirViceMarshalPark]

04:27 AM on 03/10/2010

Still, there is no practical way to defeat the radiation hazard on the way to Mars.

[OregonDoug]

03:26 PM on 03/10/2010

I have no doubt that they'll be able to develop something that will block most of the ionizing radiation. Same with micro meteors. Deciding to go will be the catalyst.

[InspiredByTruth]

02:46 PM on 03/12/2010

One advantage of this rocket is it creates an magnetic field that blocks radiation, very much like the one protecting the earth now. I read it in another article about this engine.

[WorkhelpWorkhelp]

01:13 AM on 03/10/2010

"There are no gas stations in space?"
How do YOU know?

[ilovecandy]

12:29 PM on 03/14/2010

Since the moon has water, they were saying they could use it as basically a gas station. I don't remember the details but some guy was saying the waters there, so they could use the moon as a jumping off point for Mars and further space exploratio­n.

[Phalanxman]

12:36 AM on 03/10/2010

Right. You'd spend the first week accelerati­ng, and the rest of the time trying to slow the thing down. I'll take the local, thanks.

[rollingrock]

12:02 AM on 03/10/2010

I wonder if there would be enough fuel to get back to earth, or would it be a one-way trip? (There are no gas stations in space).

[FerrisValyn]

12:08 AM on 03/10/2010

There would. And we are working on changing it, so there are gas stations in space (google propellant depot)

[rollingrock]

12:30 AM on 03/10/2010

I guess if there was a nuclear power source, it could run for a few months.

[Hoonieman]

04:12 PM on 03/10/2010

No gas stations in space??

Find a need and fill it I say ;)

[Aldo Rodriguez]

11:47 PM on 03/09/2010

Please.

Mr. Scott will have them eating his space dust at just Warp Factor 1.

[Aldo Rodriguez]

11:51 PM on 03/09/2010

On second thought, he probably wouldn't even have to go at Full Impulse, either.

[czs5056]

09:20 AM on 03/15/2010

are you sure he wouldn't need to tap the auxiliary power. remember the possible Romulan/ Klingon photo from last month?

[PaulAdams]

05:42 PM on 03/24/2010

Actually, this IS full impulse. Think about it. Nuclear powered engines that eject plasma.

[hibeam]

10:44 PM on 03/09/2010

Obama can go there, apologize, and be back before anyone notices he is gone.

[farmilyman]

11:12 PM on 03/09/2010

It's one of the few places, O doesn't need to apologize to because Bush wasn't there.

[WYHKTai-Tai]

06:20 AM on 03/10/2010

OOOH! SNAP!

fanned.

[hibeam]

10:41 PM on 03/09/2010

We should only send republican­s. It would not be fair to contaminat­e Mars.

[Phalanxman]

12:37 AM on 03/10/2010

Mars is far too short a trip for Republican­s. How's 'bout we shoot 'em into the Sun?

[LibDrummer]

04:04 PM on 03/10/2010

Repuclican­s don't beleive in science. They would argue the whole way there that what they are doing is just a liberal media creation.

[James Ballard]

04:48 PM on 03/10/2010

...I long for the day when Repelicans become an obscure esoteric artifact..­.so obscure everyone's forgotten even how to spell the "R" word...!!.­..

[brooklyncitizen]

09:46 PM on 03/09/2010

can we pick the humans we send?

[tonylinc]

08:54 PM on 03/09/2010

This is Great news. Now, can we send Sarah Palin to mars on the next flight? One Way.

[FerrisValyn]

08:58 PM on 03/09/2010

I don't want TEH STOOPID in this solar system. I wanna keep it clean.

She's gotta go out of the solar system, at least