Impluse Engines to be a reality by 2030?

Vito Corleone · October 7 2012, 08:16 PM

http://www.startrek.com/article/impl...eality-by-2030

Seems more realistic than the article I read on Fox News earlier today about NASA conducting a few table-top experiments with 'laser-induced micro spacewarps' or whatever they're going to be called.

Still I like the idea of Impulse being available by 2030. That way, I'll live long enough to see people exploring the Solar System with relative ease, possibly even large-scale colonization of Mars, Luna, et al.

Also, from the article...

“The fusion fuel we’re focusing on is deuterium [a stable isotope of hydrogen] and Li6 [a stable isotope of the metal lithium] in a crystal structure. That’s basically dilithium crystals we’re using.”

So, Dilithium all this time was a man-made substance? Some kind of curious alloy that for some reason 23rd Century Humans had trouble making even though 21st Century Scientists seem quite confident in their abilities? Okay...

sojourner · October 7 2012, 08:22 PM

Too bad the website for the real article about the engine is down.

Vito Corleone · October 7 2012, 08:29 PM

sojourner wrote:

Too bad the website for the real article about the engine is down.

Do you mean this one?

http://txchnologist.com/post/3246336...o-begin-fusion

gturner · October 7 2012, 09:33 PM

Li6 deuteride is the standard fuel for H-bombs. The first H-bomb used liquid fuel, and when the new solid-fuel weapon was succesfully tested the team sent the message "Why buy a cow when you've got powdered milk?"

In the article's picture of the test rig, you'll notice very large hex head nuts on the back of the engine. Real deep-space engines require big nuts, and that's why the Air Force seargent at Stargate Command is always walking around with the big crescent wrench.

Ronald Held · October 7 2012, 09:45 PM

Too bad after half a century that controlled fusion is still attainable.

publiusr · October 7 2012, 10:39 PM

Similar news
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/09/the...t-nuclear.html
http://www.gizmodo.com/5921673/nucle...eeks?tag=space
http://uah.edu/news/items/10-researc...-to-deep-space
http://www.universetoday.com/95991/n...ks-not-months/
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....eks-Not-Months
https://plus.google.com/u/0/105704136900260060076/posts
http://www.csnr.usra.edu/

More on the Z-pinch
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/was...-euv.html#more

gturner wrote:

In the article's picture of the test rig, you'll notice very large hex head nuts on the back of the engine. Real deep-space engines require big nuts, and that's why the Air Force seargent at Stargate Command is always walking around with the big crescent wrench.

Speaking about fasteners, who ever came up with pop rivets should have been hanged.

gturner · October 7 2012, 11:01 PM

What's wrong with pop rivets? You certainly wouldn't want to use dzus fasteners or bolts everywhere.

RAMA · October 10 2012, 10:12 PM

Not really surprising, ground-based fusion should be producing power around the same time.

RAMA

Reynolds · October 26 2012, 09:56 PM

Don't current satellites have impulse thrusters? Low power ones I think.

Bamarren · October 26 2012, 10:02 PM

Interesting to see where studies like this are going. Saw ones recently of tractor beams, transporters and warp drive.

Someone even mentioned they are considering building a "Enterprise-like" ship in some form of space-dock a bit further out from the ISS.

Actually there are plans to start building space docks on the Moon too - easier to build there, and a hell of a lot less gravity to blast off from, in the long run very plausable, just the getting the stuff there first is the only issue.

sojourner · October 26 2012, 10:28 PM

^Oh god please, not that stupid "build the Enterprise" crap again. That guy's a loon.

Where did you read about building "space docks on the moon"? Not gonna happen in any near future time frame if at all. Why build them in a gravity field when you can put them in orbit?

Reynolds wrote:

Don't current satellites have impulse thrusters? Low power ones I think.

Hall effect ion thrusters have been used on some satellites in recent years for station keeping. They're not the same as fictional "impulse engines".

publiusr · October 27 2012, 07:22 PM

Ion drive is what they used in Spock's Brain. Problem is, the impulse is actually better than ion power, so I am going to say that Scotty's mention was of I.O.N. power--with that being an abbreviation of something.

In real life, ion power is good for slowly building speed. Not useful for lifting off surfaces.

publiusr · November 10 2012, 09:52 PM

Some talk about the EM drive again. not really buying it.
EM drive and new energy
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...3020.msg977987
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Na...ction_999.html

October 7 2012, 08:22 PM	#2
sojourner Vice Admiral Location: I'm at WKRP	Re: Impluse Engines to be a reality by 2030? Too bad the website for the real article about the engine is down. __________________ Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...

October 7 2012, 09:33 PM	#4
gturner Admiral Location: Kentucky	Re: Impluse Engines to be a reality by 2030? Li6 deuteride is the standard fuel for H-bombs. The first H-bomb used liquid fuel, and when the new solid-fuel weapon was succesfully tested the team sent the message "Why buy a cow when you've got powdered milk?" In the article's picture of the test rig, you'll notice very large hex head nuts on the back of the engine. Real deep-space engines require big nuts, and that's why the Air Force seargent at Stargate Command is always walking around with the big crescent wrench.

October 7 2012, 09:45 PM	#5
Ronald Held Rear Admiral Location: On the USS Sovereign	Re: Impluse Engines to be a reality by 2030? Too bad after half a century that controlled fusion is still attainable.

October 7 2012, 11:01 PM	#7
gturner Admiral Location: Kentucky	Re: Impluse Engines to be a reality by 2030? What's wrong with pop rivets? You certainly wouldn't want to use dzus fasteners or bolts everywhere.

October 10 2012, 10:12 PM	#8
RAMA Vice Admiral Location: NJ, USA	Re: Impluse Engines to be a reality by 2030? Not really surprising, ground-based fusion should be producing power around the same time. RAMA __________________ “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”—Stephen R. Covey

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

October 26 2012, 09:56 PM	#9
Reynolds Commander Location: Coast City, WA, USA	Re: Impluse Engines to be a reality by 2030? Don't current satellites have impulse thrusters? Low power ones I think. __________________ I look out for me and mine. That doesn't include you unless I conjure it does.

October 26 2012, 10:02 PM	#10
Bamarren Lieutenant Location: Mekar Wilderness	Re: Impluse Engines to be a reality by 2030? Interesting to see where studies like this are going. Saw ones recently of tractor beams, transporters and warp drive. Someone even mentioned they are considering building a "Enterprise-like" ship in some form of space-dock a bit further out from the ISS. Actually there are plans to start building space docks on the Moon too - easier to build there, and a hell of a lot less gravity to blast off from, in the long run very plausable, just the getting the stuff there first is the only issue.

October 27 2012, 07:22 PM	#12
publiusr Fleet Captain	Re: Impluse Engines to be a reality by 2030? Ion drive is what they used in Spock's Brain. Problem is, the impulse is actually better than ion power, so I am going to say that Scotty's mention was of I.O.N. power--with that being an abbreviation of something. In real life, ion power is good for slowly building speed. Not useful for lifting off surfaces.

November 10 2012, 09:52 PM	#13
publiusr Fleet Captain	Re: Impluse Engines to be a reality by 2030? Some talk about the EM drive again. not really buying it. EM drive and new energy http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...3020.msg977987 http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Na...ction_999.html