Mars in 3 Days?

Carl in Michigan

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
64,634
Reaction score
49,480
Points
3,615
This may change my mind about the possibility of interplanetary space travel. The science comes from The Expanse sci fi series which takes place at the same time as Star Trek -- around 300 years in the future. The difference is The Expanse used realistic science and doesn't depend on folding Space Time
 
This may change my mind about the possibility of interplanetary space travel. The science comes from The Expanse sci fi series which takes place at the same time as Star Trek -- around 300 years in the future. The difference is The Expanse used realistic science and doesn't depend on folding Space Time

Our local museum of science and natural history features a 3-D movie theater showing various historical and/or educational short movies and documentaries. Not all that long ago, we watched one on space technology and they demonstrated how scientists had figured out that warp speeds in space were possible. We just don't have the technology to achieve that yet but they're working on it. And almost certainly they'll achieve super mach speeds and ways for humans to survive those kinds of extreme g-forces sooner than they'll achieve warp speeds.

So, yes, the possibilities are endless and exciting.
 
Our local museum of science and natural history features a 3-D movie theater showing various historical and/or educational short movies and documentaries. Not all that long ago, we watched one on space technology and they demonstrated how scientists had figured out that warp speeds in space were possible. We just don't have the technology to achieve that yet but they're working on it. And almost certainly they'll achieve super mach speeds and ways for humans to survive those kinds of g-forces sooner than they'll achieve warp speeds.

So, yes, the possibilities are endless and exciting.
Great thread, Bravo !
 
and they demonstrated how scientists had figured out that warp speeds in space were possible
It's not. It requires bending the universe to shorten the distance between stars. Won't happen until we have God's abilities
 
The ION Drive works also as a constant acceleration engine the only problem is it produces MICRO g's not 1/3 to 1 g of constant acceleration. The ION Drive requires months To develop any appreciable speed.

A fusion drive would probably be able to constantly accelerate for the DAYS required to make the trip anywhere in the solar system -- especially if they can fuel in orbit.
 
The ION Drive works also as a constant acceleration engine the only problem is it produces MICRO g's not 1/3 to 1 g of constant acceleration. The ION Drive requires months To develop any appreciable speed.

A fusion drive would probably be able to constantly accelerate for the DAYS required to make the trip anywhere in the solar system -- especially if they can fuel in orbit.
At the speed of light can you
navigate worm holes.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20251019_193559_Chrome.webp
    Screenshot_20251019_193559_Chrome.webp
    52.8 KB · Views: 15
Fusion is a thousand times more powerful than nuclear fission. Something like the Orion Project but using nuclear fusion instead would make travel throughout the solar system possible at a fraction of the speed of light

 
It's not. It requires bending the universe to shorten the distance between stars. Won't happen until we have God's abilities


Are you an astrophysicist?

The scientists in that educational movie and the scientist I watched the movie with--he IS an astrophysicist working at Sandia Labs here in Albuquerque-- were pretty sure it can and will be done. For certain, if we are being visited/observed by beings from other worlds, those beings have already mastered that technology and are figuratively 'light years' more advanced than we are.

I am one who believes we Earthlings are in our infancy in science knowledge, i.e. we know only a teensy fraction of all the science we still have to learn.

I prefer to imagine what is possible and don't presume to know what is not.
 
Last edited:
Would human survive the g-forces involved ...

Although something of a different subject ... the argument is the same ... no matter the propulsion, the weak link is the human ...

 
Would human survive the g-forces involved ...

Although something of a different subject ... the argument is the same ... no matter the propulsion, the weak link is the human ...


The good news is that the OP video talks about mars in 3 days with a constant acceleration of 1/3 g
 
Would human survive the g-forces involved ...

Although something of a different subject ... the argument is the same ... no matter the propulsion, the weak link is the human ...


The other benefit is constant acceleration equals gravity. It's the same as an artificial gravity
 
This may change my mind about the possibility of interplanetary space travel. The science comes from The Expanse sci fi series which takes place at the same time as Star Trek -- around 300 years in the future. The difference is The Expanse used realistic science and doesn't depend on folding Space Time

kyle hill (youtube science guy) gave the expanse great reviews for its realism
 
15th post
One big thing that most junk science clips like this ignore is what has to be done at the other side.

When talking about traveling at speeds like this, it's very much like operating a car. It's not just enough to speed up, you also have to slow down at the other end. And when talking about in space which is a frictionless environment, you are going to need to spend as much time slowing down as you are speeding up. So if it takes you X number of days to reach velocity, it is also going to take you X number of days to decelerate on the other end.

We can even see this in our own lunar program five decades ago. Achieve orbit, then do a burn to gain speed to leave earth's orbit to travel to the moon. Then another burn on the other end in order to enter orbit around the moon instead of overshooting it. Then once again doing a burn to gain enough velocity to leave the orbit of the moon, then slowing down to not overshoot the earth and another burn to leave orbit and land.

Videos like this talk all about acceleration, but never seem to bother to mention the deceleration at the other end. Now deceleration on earth is much easier, as we have a lot of things like gravity and friction to assist. In space, you can only use the same engines you used to accelerate to decelerate. And at the same speeds.
 
One big thing that most junk science clips like this ignore is what has to be done at the other side.

When talking about traveling at speeds like this, it's very much like operating a car. It's not just enough to speed up, you also have to slow down at the other end. And when talking about in space which is a frictionless environment, you are going to need to spend as much time slowing down as you are speeding up. So if it takes you X number of days to reach velocity, it is also going to take you X number of days to decelerate on the other end.

We can even see this in our own lunar program five decades ago. Achieve orbit, then do a burn to gain speed to leave earth's orbit to travel to the moon. Then another burn on the other end in order to enter orbit around the moon instead of overshooting it. Then once again doing a burn to gain enough velocity to leave the orbit of the moon, then slowing down to not overshoot the earth and another burn to leave orbit and land.

Videos like this talk all about acceleration, but never seem to bother to mention the deceleration at the other end. Now deceleration on earth is much easier, as we have a lot of things like gravity and friction to assist. In space, you can only use the same engines you used to accelerate to decelerate. And at the same speeds.

The video talked about accelerating to the half-way point and then decelerating.
 
How would you stop?
 
Back
Top Bottom