4 ms·

Rosatom's new plasma engine could potentially cut Mars travel time to 60 days

25 points by LorenDB 2y ago

rasz 2y ago
[flagged]
- blacksmith_tb 2y ago
  It could be true, and still propaganda, or false and propaganda? If true, pretty interesting, but presumably we might want input on the general feasibility of such an engine from a few rocket scientists. I notice mention of fuel is conspicuously absent, I would think you'd need a lot, if your engine is producing that much thrust...
  - mmooss 2y ago
    I really assume it's unintentional but the parent comment isn't being reasonable - as most people would intitially think - it's doing exactly what a propagandist wants. It's exactly what a propagandist would say (as a shill, etc.). > It could be true That's the nature of even decent propaganda. > ... and still propaganda, or false and propaganda? If true, pretty interesting, but presumably we might want input on the general feasibility of such an engine from a few rocket scientists. I notice mention of fuel is conspicuously absent, I would think ... In fact, if it was clearly true, it would be poor propaganda. The goal of propaganda isn't to persuade people, but to consume the enemy's resources, bog them down, and confuse them - to immobilize them. You might notice a lot of immobilization in our society today. How about a discussion of climate change? Privacy? Vaccines? What, impossible to discuss? How can that be? Cui bono? - that's the clarifying, penetrating question; the assault on propaganda.
- ultimafan 2y ago
  What about the use of donkeys is strange? I've been hearing a lot of ridicule surrounding this the last few days and I don't really get it. Russian army seems to do a lot of weird, inefficient, or baffling things but why are donkeys a sticking point? US army also used donkeys in places where vehicles were inconvenient in Afghanistan and DARPA spent millions on developing a robotic donkey replacement for those kind of conditions that ultimately failed to be a replacement for the real thing. At some point it starts to feel like poor propaganda, this conflict has spawned a number of cases of ridicule along the lines of "when their side does X it's because they're too poor/stupid/corrupt to do any different, but when we do X it's because we're clever/ingenious/thrifty". It's borderline absurd to see people falling for the same kind of propaganda they're railing against.
  - rasz 2y ago
    The thing that makes vehicles inconvenient in flat as a pool table Ukraine are huge losses incurred daily by drones. The only reason to see donkeys now is because they are cheaper than Chinese mopeds and two-wheeled tractors ru troops currently use for short supply trips, not to mention loafs/hunters they were paying ~$15K/piece in 2023. They make sense due to disposable status of ru soldiers, no need to worry about survivability, no hummer/mrap/apc for the meat.
    - ultimafan 2y ago
      It's my understanding (though I'm far from an expert) that vehicles aren't convenient in a lot of places around the front because the roads aren't great (and weren't great to begin with even before the shelling/bombing started) and because the springtime mud conditions in Ukraine can be borderline impossible to drive through with both Western and Russian vehicles. There's no short supply of photos online of all kinds of tanks/transports/trucks from both sides completely stuck in (and even rescue vehicles coming in to pull them out getting stuck as well). So it doesn't really surprise me to hear news of donkeys or other animals being used taking off around the time the seasons are changing and winter is ending. It wouldn't make much sense to pay big bucks for a hummer/mrap/apc style vehicle for short hauls if it can't even make the trip without getting stuck in the mud and getting hit with a drone.
mmooss 2y ago
Is there an independent, credible source on this?
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
  Isn't straight from the horses mouth credible enough? They even link it: https://www.rosatom.ru/journalist/arkhiv-novostey/uchenye-rosatoma-zavershili-razrabotku-prototipa-plazmennogo-raketnogo-dvigatelya-dlya-dalnikh-kosmi/ https://www.rosatom.ru/journalist/arkhiv-novostey/uchenye-ro... (Yooze tränzläyshun, or something...) edding: Or use this, where you can click on EN: https://atommedia.online/en/2025/02/07/uchenye-rosatoma-zavershili-razrabo/ https://atommedia.online/en/2025/02/07/uchenye-rosatoma-zave...
  - mmooss 2y ago
    That is neither independent (it's the opposite) nor credible (unless someone knows Rosatom well and thinks they are trustworthy). IME, many companies have little regard for truth and will say anything to make a buck or ruble. In fact these days, they are proud of it - 'animal instincts'!
    - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - Apofis 2y ago
      Rosatom is a scientific and engineering agency, not a propaganda agency, they're not running a social media company. I'll wait for more test results, it's new tech, they know how to run their numbers.
deeviant 2y ago
Wow, amazing. I bet it makes french fries in 3 different ways, too.
credit_guy 2y ago
This is delusional. Even the Orion project [1] was aiming for only a 4-month trip to Mars. As a reminder, the Orion project was a concept of a rocket propelled by nuclear bombs exploding behind a pusher plate that pushed a spaceship. There are no credible alternative propulsion methods that could match or exceed the Orion mission parameters, and be anything close to being technology ready. To go into a bit more technical details. To get to Mars in 60 days you need to achieve velocities of about 40 km/s. This Rosatom thruster has a thrust of 6 Newtons. And the photos of the engine make it look like it's of the order of one ton. One ton pushed with a force of 6 Newtons accelerates by 6 mm/s every second. It would take 77 days to accelerate to 40 km/s. If you attach a spaceship to the engine, then it would take much longer. For example, if the spaceship is 9 tons and and the engine one ton, it would take 770 days. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propuls...
- sharpshadow 2y ago
  Does your calculation assume a start of 0 km/s?
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  6 Newtons?!? Color me unimpressed. I could get six newtons from a very small number of squirrels.

25 points by LorenDB 2y ago

rasz 2y ago

[flagged]

blacksmith_tb 2y ago
It could be true, and still propaganda, or false and propaganda? If true, pretty interesting, but presumably we might want input on the general feasibility of such an engine from a few rocket scientists. I notice mention of fuel is conspicuously absent, I would think you'd need a lot, if your engine is producing that much thrust...
- mmooss 2y ago
  I really assume it's unintentional but the parent comment isn't being reasonable - as most people would intitially think - it's doing exactly what a propagandist wants. It's exactly what a propagandist would say (as a shill, etc.). > It could be true That's the nature of even decent propaganda. > ... and still propaganda, or false and propaganda? If true, pretty interesting, but presumably we might want input on the general feasibility of such an engine from a few rocket scientists. I notice mention of fuel is conspicuously absent, I would think ... In fact, if it was clearly true, it would be poor propaganda. The goal of propaganda isn't to persuade people, but to consume the enemy's resources, bog them down, and confuse them - to immobilize them. You might notice a lot of immobilization in our society today. How about a discussion of climate change? Privacy? Vaccines? What, impossible to discuss? How can that be? Cui bono? - that's the clarifying, penetrating question; the assault on propaganda.
ultimafan 2y ago
What about the use of donkeys is strange? I've been hearing a lot of ridicule surrounding this the last few days and I don't really get it. Russian army seems to do a lot of weird, inefficient, or baffling things but why are donkeys a sticking point? US army also used donkeys in places where vehicles were inconvenient in Afghanistan and DARPA spent millions on developing a robotic donkey replacement for those kind of conditions that ultimately failed to be a replacement for the real thing. At some point it starts to feel like poor propaganda, this conflict has spawned a number of cases of ridicule along the lines of "when their side does X it's because they're too poor/stupid/corrupt to do any different, but when we do X it's because we're clever/ingenious/thrifty". It's borderline absurd to see people falling for the same kind of propaganda they're railing against.
- rasz 2y ago
  The thing that makes vehicles inconvenient in flat as a pool table Ukraine are huge losses incurred daily by drones. The only reason to see donkeys now is because they are cheaper than Chinese mopeds and two-wheeled tractors ru troops currently use for short supply trips, not to mention loafs/hunters they were paying ~$15K/piece in 2023. They make sense due to disposable status of ru soldiers, no need to worry about survivability, no hummer/mrap/apc for the meat.
  - ultimafan 2y ago
    It's my understanding (though I'm far from an expert) that vehicles aren't convenient in a lot of places around the front because the roads aren't great (and weren't great to begin with even before the shelling/bombing started) and because the springtime mud conditions in Ukraine can be borderline impossible to drive through with both Western and Russian vehicles. There's no short supply of photos online of all kinds of tanks/transports/trucks from both sides completely stuck in (and even rescue vehicles coming in to pull them out getting stuck as well). So it doesn't really surprise me to hear news of donkeys or other animals being used taking off around the time the seasons are changing and winter is ending. It wouldn't make much sense to pay big bucks for a hummer/mrap/apc style vehicle for short hauls if it can't even make the trip without getting stuck in the mud and getting hit with a drone.

mmooss 2y ago

Is there an independent, credible source on this?

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
Isn't straight from the horses mouth credible enough? They even link it: https://www.rosatom.ru/journalist/arkhiv-novostey/uchenye-rosatoma-zavershili-razrabotku-prototipa-plazmennogo-raketnogo-dvigatelya-dlya-dalnikh-kosmi/ https://www.rosatom.ru/journalist/arkhiv-novostey/uchenye-ro... (Yooze tränzläyshun, or something...) edding: Or use this, where you can click on EN: https://atommedia.online/en/2025/02/07/uchenye-rosatoma-zavershili-razrabo/ https://atommedia.online/en/2025/02/07/uchenye-rosatoma-zave...
- mmooss 2y ago
  That is neither independent (it's the opposite) nor credible (unless someone knows Rosatom well and thinks they are trustworthy). IME, many companies have little regard for truth and will say anything to make a buck or ruble. In fact these days, they are proud of it - 'animal instincts'!
  - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - Apofis 2y ago
    Rosatom is a scientific and engineering agency, not a propaganda agency, they're not running a social media company. I'll wait for more test results, it's new tech, they know how to run their numbers.

deeviant 2y ago

Wow, amazing. I bet it makes french fries in 3 different ways, too.

credit_guy 2y ago

This is delusional. Even the Orion project [1] was aiming for only a 4-month trip to Mars. As a reminder, the Orion project was a concept of a rocket propelled by nuclear bombs exploding behind a pusher plate that pushed a spaceship. There are no credible alternative propulsion methods that could match or exceed the Orion mission parameters, and be anything close to being technology ready. To go into a bit more technical details. To get to Mars in 60 days you need to achieve velocities of about 40 km/s. This Rosatom thruster has a thrust of 6 Newtons. And the photos of the engine make it look like it's of the order of one ton. One ton pushed with a force of 6 Newtons accelerates by 6 mm/s every second. It would take 77 days to accelerate to 40 km/s. If you attach a spaceship to the engine, then it would take much longer. For example, if the spaceship is 9 tons and and the engine one ton, it would take 770 days. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propuls...

sharpshadow 2y ago
Does your calculation assume a start of 0 km/s?
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
6 Newtons?!? Color me unimpressed. I could get six newtons from a very small number of squirrels.