PRACTICAL fusion device by Princeton physicist suppressed

metamars said:
Do you know of any fusion physicists, who do not have a vested interest in some other fusion technology, who have properly reviewed Bussard's work and pronounced his claim re spacecraft to be unsound?
Click to expand...
something tells me you will pronounce any fusion expert (other than bussard himself) as having a "vested interest" in some other technology
 
metamars said:
So, don't be surprised when China not only leaves the US in the dust economically, but furthermore leaves the US still piddling with kerosene fueled rockets while they zoom throughout the solar system on fusion powered systems.
Click to expand...
My first grade class has left you in the dust in knowledge. And if you are a US citizen, you may give most Chinese the false impression nut case ideas are normal for Americans.

But alas, the Chinese will leave us in the dust if you were indicative of the education our kids are getting. Did the Chinese invent capitalism; they are not slackers at capitalism. Ironic, ain't it …
 
metamars said:
You're not too bright, are you?
Click to expand...
i think beachnut is saying 1g of acceleration isnt going to get you off the earths surface

however i would assume a fusion-powered spacecraft would probably be lifted into orbit via conventional rockets, then accelerate from orbit

however my question is, can a fusion powered spacecraft maintain 1g of acceleration? what is it using as a propellant? i would figure it would be more akin to ion propulsion (very low acceleration, but virtually no upper speed limit and little to no fuel requirements other than an electric power source, such as your fusion reactor)
 
beachnut said:
In space you can get 1 g and go places. Go for it. 1 g space travel from earth? We are sitting at 1 g. Good luck.
Click to expand...
Well read what metamars posted and he said travelling to Mars. He didn't say staying seated on earth like you decided to pick on. If 1 G acceleration is impossible just prove it or stop being a damn spoiled brat.
 
metamars said:
Wrt the Navy funding situation, I completely agree. Wrt having to go to the Navy, instead of the DOE, I think it's reasonable to characterize Bussard's statement that he was told that DOE would kill his project as "suppression".
Click to expand...

Only to a paranoiac.

metamars said:
Why do you say "miniaturized"? Certainly, all of his prototypes were small. You must mean that you expect a model big enough to power a spacecraft to be enormous. Do you have any firm basis for such a belief?
Click to expand...

Dr. Bussard himself describes the "break even" requirement as one of scaling. There's no reason to expect it to downsize well, and in fact Dr. Bussard despaired of building anything less than a full production model even before demonstrating practicality.

The technology also requires enormous field generators, radiation shielding, and startup power. You won't be able to cold-start something like this in space without monstrous auxiliary power supplies.

metamars said:
Do you know of any fusion physicists, who do not have a vested interest in some other fusion technology, who have properly reviewed Bussard's work and pronounced his claim re spacecraft to be unsound?
Click to expand...

Academic. Until a practical model exists on the ground, there's no value at all to speculating what it "might" do in spaceflight. There are numerous special difficulties with spaceflight. Why make your life harder? Tackle one problem at a time.

I'm reminded once again of Samuel Pierpont Langley, who might have been the first to achieve powered, controlled flight, had he not also insisted on launching from a houseboat, thereby requiring development of a catapault launch system as well as the first heavier-than-air aircraft. I repeat: Tackle one problem at a time.

And leave the paranoia at home.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
however my question is, can a fusion powered spacecraft maintain 1g of acceleration? what is it using as a propellant? i would figure it would be more akin to ion propulsion (very low acceleration, but virtually no upper speed limit and little to no fuel requirements other than an electric power source, such as your fusion reactor)
Click to expand...
You're concerned about whether the ship could carry enough reaction mass? How much reaction mass you need depends on how cheap the energy is. If you accelarate the reaction mass to a very high speed you can get away with a very small mass of it, but the energy requirements go up non linearly.
 
ellindsey said:
Actually, the Bussard fusion reactor is currently being actively funded by the navy.

http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2007/10/its-official.html

The WB7 reactor has been built, and is currently being used for fusion tests.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/09/566532.aspx
Click to expand...
Well, sure: now they're funding it, but obviously they had to kill him so they could steal his technology.

Earth calling all metamartians: probably best not to comment on the intellectual deficiencies of others here!.
 
Corsair 115 said:
I think what metamars means is that the spacecraft accelerates at 1g (that is, 32 ft/s²) for half the journey, then turns around and decelerates at 1g for the other half of the journey. This means for the duration of the trip the crew would feel as if it was under normal Earth gravity.

I assume he meant the ship would depart from orbit, not the Earth's surface.
Click to expand...
Yes I hope he meant that otherwise the abrupt stop definitely would cause at least one problem. Unless that one problem was fatal, there would be more :)
 
~enigma~ said:
Yes I hope he meant that otherwise the abrupt stop definitely would cause at least one problem. Unless that one problem was fatal, there would be more :)
Click to expand...
that was my first though as well, but i did some rough calculations on his 49.5 hours figure and seems to be consistent with accelerating at 1g halfway there, and decelerating at 1g for the second half
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
You're concerned about whether the ship could carry enough reaction mass? How much reaction mass you need depends on how cheap the energy is. If you accelarate the reaction mass to a very high speed you can get away with a very small mass of it, but the energy requirements go up non linearly.
Click to expand...
well my question was more with how the acceleration of the reaction mass is to be achieved, a fusion reactor doesnt provide any kinetic energy on its own, the problem i see is the ability to translate the heat/eletrical/whatever energy produced by the fusion reaction to kinetic energy to move the space craft

my initial thought was ion propulsion, but that i dont think that would provide near enough kinetic energy to accelerate at 1g

i also thought of mass drivers, but that may require a prohibitive amount of fuel mass (also this seems an ineffecient way of translating energy)
 
~enigma~ said:
Yes I hope he meant that otherwise the abrupt stop definitely would cause at least one problem. Unless that one problem was fatal, there would be more :)
Click to expand...
Well, you could accelerate at 1g for the entire trip and get there quicker. But of course when you reach Mars you won't have much time to admire it before you zoom past. :)
 
Corsair 115 said:
Well, you could accelerate at 1g for the entire trip and get there quicker. But of course when you reach Mars you won't have much time to admire it before you zoom past. :)
Click to expand...
well as enigma pointed out zooming past isnt the only option :D

of course that would result in an acceleration quite a bit higher than 1g
 
Corsair 115 said:
Well, you could accelerate at 1g for the entire trip and get there quicker. But of course when you reach Mars you won't have much time to admire it before you zoom past. :)
Click to expand...
Or zoom through their newly dug tunnel :D

Now that would be an interesting exercise. Calculate how far through Mars would a 7500 Kg spaceship that accelerated at a constant 1 G after leaving Earth orbit plunge during a crash landing?

ETA - This really isn't a CT but it's a fun thread.
 
Last edited:
My name, my name is… … i want to be an astronaut

~enigma~ said:
Well read what metamars posted and he said travelling to Mars. He didn't say staying seated on earth like you decided to pick on. If 1 G acceleration is impossible just prove it or stop being a damn spoiled brat.
Click to expand...
What was the energy required for the flight? He never said he was in space either. Go fly with M man, he has a way with science. I doubt he knows where he is departing from.

I doubt he is slowing down. Just how far is mars on this 1 g trip to enter orbit? Who is the navigator? Who is the pilot. You may have enough energy for 1g acceleration, I do not know, no body has spoiled this brat with numbers, distance, reality, energy, initial points, end points, failure modes, orbital mechanics. The energy is how much on this flight with WTC nuke man who see CT everywhere. I have always dreamed of these things, and in 1964 these things were our science goals; still are. I listened to Kennedy say it much better. So spoiled I am, as I went to be an engineer because we were going to the moon. If I am spoiled so be it, but I have sat though solving the equations of motion in many reference systems, and it is not trivial. I have almost flunked and lost my job taking courses taught by a person who finds new moons on Saturn. I am spoiled because I had the opportunity to fail and beat it to pass. I have seen on the board the terms for lift due to flying to the east due to the earths rotation negligible unless you are traveling at Mach 3. Spoiled I am. Thank you for reminding me how spoiled I was.

I did not talk about flying at 7.33 gs,, I went to UPT and flew 7.33 gs. I do not talk about space travel, I worked with future astronauts. Sorry, if I assumed M man was starting from earth, he has no clue on the OP he started himself. I must be a brat. And spoiled, in that I am going to the weightless simulator that is doing 1 g right out side under the stars and see how far into space I can get in my 1 g weightless simulator commonly know as a …

Sorry, but I have seen this in 1964, it is called space flight. It has been a dream for thousands of years. I have tried to help in a small way. So where is M man taking off from. Numbers now please. Off to the simulator. Good night and thanks for reminding me how spoiled I really am. I had front row seats for some great fire works too. All expenses paid.

/random thoughts on that
 
Last edited:
defaultdotxbe said:
well my question was more with how the acceleration of the reaction mass is to be achieved, a fusion reactor doesnt provide any kinetic energy on its own, the problem i see is the ability to translate the heat/eletrical/whatever energy produced by the fusion reaction to kinetic energy to move the space craft
Click to expand...
Well, the fusion product is a plasma of high velocity particles. It could be exhausted through a magnetic nozzle.

Magnetoplasmadynamic drives are basically scaled up ion drives.
 
beachnut said:
What was the energy required for the flight? He never said he was in space either. Go fly with M man, he has a way with science.

I doubt he is slowing down. Just how far is mars on this 1 g trip to enter orbit? Who is the navigator? Who is the pilot. You may have enough energy for 1g acceleration, I do not know, no body has spoiled this brat with numbers, distance, reality, energy, initial points, end points, failure modes, orbital mechanics. The energy is how much on this flight with WTC nuke man who see CT everywhere. I have always dreamed of these things, and in 1964 these things were our science goals; still are. I listened to Kennedy say it much better. So spoiled I am, as I went to be an engineer because we were going to the moon. If I am spoiled so be it, but I have sat though solving the equations of motion in many reference systems, and it is not trivial. I have almost flunked and lost my job taking courses taught by a person who finds new moons on Saturn. I am spoiled because I had the opportunity to fail and beat it to pass. I have seen on the board the terms for lift due to flying to the east due to the earths rotation negligible unless you are traveling at Mach 3. Spoiled I am. Thank you for reminding me how spoiled I was.

I did not talk about flying at 7.33 gs,, I went to UPT and flew 7.33 gs. I do not talk about space travel, I worked with future astronauts. Sorry, if I assumed WTC nuke man was starting from earth, he has no clue on the OP he started himself. I must be a brat. And spoiled, in that I am going to the weightless simulator that is doing 1 g right out side under the stars and see how far into space I can get in my 1 g weightless simulator commonly know as a …

Sorry, but I have seen this in 1964, it is called space flight. It has been a dream for thousands of years. I have tried to help in a small way. So where is M man taking off from. Numbers now please. Off to the simulator. Good night and thanks for reminding me how spoiled I really am. I had front row seats for some great fire works too. All expenses paid.

/random thoughts on that
Click to expand...
We are talking about your wrong assumption that 1 G acceleration isn't possible. This has nothing to do with his woo beliefs on any other subject. That is your hang up. I hope you wear it proudly.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Well, the fusion product is a plasma of high velocity particles. It could be exhausted through a magnetic nozzle.

Magnetoplasmadynamic drives are basically scaled up ion drives.
Click to expand...
still, even that doesnt provide a lot of actual thrust, just high velocity, so 1g still seems unlikely
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom