WE COULD BE GOING BACK TO PLUTO!!! Oh, and 2 other massive mission concepts, but whatever

[Spaceception]

Sry nt sry for all caps

Anyway, we could be going back to Pluto WITH A FUSION SPACECRAFT!!! #PlutoLove #MakePlutoAPlanetAgain

It should be skipped ahead to 3:10, when he begins talking

Oh, and you can talk about the other missions too, but the FUSION SPACECRAFT TO PLUTO is much cooler.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/fusion-enabled-pluto-orbiter-and-lander/

Edited June 14, 2016 by Spaceception

[Astrofox]

Oh, I hope we do...

I also hope to see Sedna within my lifetime, if we can rack up the money to do so.

[PB666]

Still working on how to get the engine . . . .= vapor ware.

[cantab]

Of the three discussed, I think in some ways the Pluto one is the least interesting and furthest away. We haven't even made fusion work in a huge facility on Earth, never mind on a spaceship. I don't see it offering any advantages over fission power, and fission reactors have *already* flown in space.

My favourite is the cryovolcano plan. It's so simple, elegant, and obvious: why drill a hole through the crust when you can use one that's already there! It's also completely awesome. The most obvious difficulty I see, what if the vent is too narrow further down?

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, cantab said:

The most obvious difficulty I see, what if the vent is too narrow further down?

Or if the vents do not exist permanently, but open from time to time, here and there, to release a portion of (water? magma? wagma) and to disappear back.

[Streetwind]

I cannot watch the video with sound while at work, so I need to ask:

Who's proposing these missions? Did Hank Green make them up when he was bored, or are these ideas from actual scientists? Though admittedly, from the looks of the fusion spacecraft presented there, the "actual scientist" part may be questionable...   I mean, no offense, but it reads like a sci-fi author's wishlist, not like something that could actually fly within any reasonable timescales. Even if we got news of an unprecedented breakthrough in sustained nuclear fusion today, it would still be over a decade to develop (much less build) the spacecraft in question.

Also, why Pluto again? We learned so much about it already that there are much more rewarding targets out there. Sedna is hitting perihelion in 2076, and will not do so again for something like 11,400 years! And that's just one example among many.

[Spaceception]

4 hours ago, Streetwind said:

I cannot watch the video with sound while at work, so I need to ask:

Who's proposing these missions? Did Hank Green make them up when he was bored, or are these ideas from actual scientists? Though admittedly, from the looks of the fusion spacecraft presented there, the "actual scientist" part may be questionable...   I mean, no offense, but it reads like a sci-fi author's wishlist, not like something that could actually fly within any reasonable timescales. Even if we got news of an unprecedented breakthrough in sustained nuclear fusion today, it would still be over a decade to develop (much less build) the spacecraft in question.

Also, why Pluto again? We learned so much about it already that there are much more rewarding targets out there. Sedna is hitting perihelion in 2076, and will not do so again for something like 11,400 years! And that's just one example among many.

There was a NASA link below the video This isn't some random mission off the top of his head, it's part of the NIAC program.

So it may not happen, but it's got some money behind it, so it could get off the ground someday.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Spaceception

[Streetwind]

Aaah right, the NIAC program. That makes sense. It often explores ideas that are considered fairly "out there".

Still think Sedna is a better target

Edited June 15, 2016 by Streetwind

[ProtoJeb21]

A fusion-powered Pluto mission will be quite the challenge. Not that going nearly 10% the speed of light would make the journey to Pluto hard, but just one teensy little issue:

Spoiler

WE CAN'T CREATE NUCLEAR FUSION YET

 

[Spaceception]

14 minutes ago, ProtoJeb21 said:

A fusion-powered Pluto mission will be quite the challenge. Not that going nearly 10% the speed of light would make the journey to Pluto hard, but just one teensy little issue:

  Hide contents

WE CAN'T CREATE NUCLEAR FUSION YET

 

We can, in pulses, and that's how it'd be propelled, instead of sustained fusion, it's pulsed fusion, so we can use solar, or small nuclear fission power sources for it

[wumpus]

Except that this is almost certainly the ideal mission for ion propulsion (biggest problem: you have to use RTGs instead of solar power, so maybe next to certain complicated mercury missions).  From memory, when people were wondering if Far Horizons could have orbited Pluto, I noticed that early NASA ion propulsion systems were just coming on line.  It turns out that they could have likely deposited the spacecraft in Pluto orbit, but would be betting on yet another untested (at the time, tests were just starting) system.  Remember: if anything goes wrong with that spaceship, all the people you saw cheering New Horizons are out of academia and looking in industry for a new career.

I'd also expect that an ion propulsion system would take a bit longer.  It might get faster as the spacecraft slowly inches [is mm up to speed an idiom yet?] up to speed, but then it has to start slowing down years before it gets to Pluto to have a chance for a capture burn.  I'm not sure how much we would get beyond seeing the unknown side (and presumably poles and other barely perceived areas).  Don't expect a high priority, and remember that you need a team in for the long haul (somewhere between 10-20 years).

And forget about fusion.  You don't need it for this mission, and it needs more time in the lab.

[vger]

Wow, a lander? Really?
I remember one of the big problems with doing that before was that the probe was going so insanely fast to cut down on travel time that trying to get caught by Pluto would've been an exercise in futility. Now they think they can get there in half the time, AND get into a stable orbit?

...wow.

[UmbralRaptor]

8 hours ago, ProtoJeb21 said:

A fusion-powered Pluto mission will be quite the challenge. Not that going nearly 10% the speed of light would make the journey to Pluto hard, but just one teensy little issue:

  Hide contents

WE CAN'T CREATE NUCLEAR FUSION YET

 

Sure we can. We can even get a Q value well above 1 if we use a fission initiator.

 

More seriously, I would assume any KBO orbiter this century would use a fission reactor and an ion engine, sort of like JIMO would have.

[cantab]

19 minutes ago, UmbralRaptor said:

Sure we can. We can even get a Q value well above 1 if we use a fission initiator.

Yes, but good luck using that to power a spacecraft, at least one massing less than several hundred tons.

[LordFerret]

If they expect to get to Sedna they'd better get moving, the window will be here before you know it.

[Streetwind]

15 hours ago, Spaceception said:

We can, in pulses, and that's how it'd be propelled, instead of sustained fusion, it's pulsed fusion, so we can use solar, or small nuclear fission power sources for it

Well, the mission proposal presented in that video uses a deuterium/tritium fusion engine (see 3:40 onwards) of some description. That's not comparable to MSNW's solid lithium fuelled fusion pulse rocket, and the reason why people are calling the idea far-fetched. It seems like the authors of that proposal went and said "well, let's assume we've already solved the problem of sustained nuclear fusion, then how about we..."

[Astrofox]

On 6/14/2016 at 6:17 PM, PB666 said:

Still working on how to get the engine . . . .= vapor ware.

Sir, I think you mean Vaporwave...

Anyway, I would like to see this come into light, rather than to be rejected due to lack of funding.

Sooner than later, lack of funding will be severe (even worse than today) .

However, I suppose we civilians could build (and raise money for) a spacecraft that could handle those rigors. It'd be a tough road, but it would be worth it. Just imagine the amazing images we would get back!

Oh how KBOs are interesting. I do hope we can find a new way to generate power as well.

After all, we are running really short on Plutonium needed to run spacecraft - this is one of the many reasons why NASA doesn;t simply do crazy amazing stuff like this. I hope one day a future president will provide us with the resources (and encouragement) when the time comes (personally, I would love to be a part of the team that builds a Sedna Mission...).

[crazyewok]

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 3:56 PM, ProtoJeb21 said:

A fusion-powered Pluto mission will be quite the challenge. Not that going nearly 10% the speed of light would make the journey to Pluto hard, but just one teensy little issue:

  Reveal hidden contents

WE CAN'T CREATE NUCLEAR FUSION YET

 

Actually  wrong.

 

We have been able to do fusion  since 1952.

 

The problem  is controlling  it.

 

The biggest  huddles have been:

1)Sustained Fusion  as reactors  have a habbit of burning  out due to the high temperatures.

2) being engery  positive  as currently  even when we do sustain  the fusion it takes more  energy  than it releases. 

 

With a engine problems  1 ans 2 are reduced as:

1) A fusion  engine  doesnt have to be on continually. It can pulse in bursts  of seconds reducing  the temperature  strain. 

2) As a engine  it does not have to be engery  positive.

 

[wumpus]

7 hours ago, crazyewok said:

2) As a engine  it does not have to be engery  positive.

???  If it isn't energy positive then you are creating fusion for the sake of fusion (which makes sense for researchers with tokomaks, but not spacecraft), and just slowing your spacecraft down.

Fission works.  Fission is old-school when it comes to space (Voyager used NTGs).  And whatever delta-v limits you have aren't dictated by fission (but typically by how low you are willing to keep your thrust for the efficiency you want).

 

[Bill Phil]

20 minutes ago, wumpus said:

???  If it isn't energy positive then you are creating fusion for the sake of fusion (which makes sense for researchers with tokomaks, but not spacecraft), and just slowing your spacecraft down.

Fission works.  Fission is old-school when it comes to space (Voyager used NTGs).  And whatever delta-v limits you have aren't dictated by fission (but typically by how low you are willing to keep your thrust for the efficiency you want).

 

He means that the fusion reactor doesn't need to produce any extra energy, I think. You can have a fission reactor powering the ship, and a fusion propulsion system which doesn't produce any extra energy. It still gives the exhaust very high velocity, relative to other methods.

Voyager did not use fusion. Radiothermal generators use the decay of radioactive substances to get power. That's not fission.

[Astrofox]

Er. Fission if the splitting of particles, fusion is the combining of particles.

Fusion: 2 hydrogen atoms fuse into a helium atom

Fission: Splitting Uranium (or Plutonium) atoms