What does a 22,000,000 HP engine look like?

Robert Hallock 11 Sep, 2009 at 2:06am ET Article published in Tech

Comments

1. 
   11 Sep 2009 ~ 2:14am Thrax To think that baby might never fly is... Depressing.
2. 
   11 Sep 2009 ~ 2:34am pseudonym I despise how our government craps on science research and gives out no where near enough money for it. Instead they think that supporting useless endeavors will continue scientific advancement when in reality, to continue scientific advancement, one must EXCITE the learner. THIS excites the learner. FMUSG.... Guess what that means.
   
   How does one advance the species? I'm not sure, but I'm sure hoping this is part of it.
3. 
   11 Sep 2009 ~ 2:41am Thrax In that regard, America was plotting to build a particle accelerator beneath the sands of Texas during the Clinton administration. Called the Superconducting Supercollider, or SSC, it would have been three times the size of the Large Hadron Collider at 87km. Its collision energy of 40 TeV would have nearly tripled the LHC's pants-shitting maximum output of 14 TeV.
   
   Congress canceled it in 1993 after cost projections exceeded $12 billion.
   
   What could have been...
4. 
   11 Sep 2009 ~ 2:45am primesuspect But yet we're kicking so much arab ass! It rocks!
5. 
   11 Sep 2009 ~ 2:50am pseudonym

   primesuspect wrote:

   But yet we're kicking so much arab ass! It rocks!

   
   Dear god, have you been drinking!!?!?!?;D
   
   Understood. There were some things that needed to get done, and some things that needed to not be neglected...
   
   and some things that G. Bush Sr. should have done in the first place.
6. 
   11 Sep 2009 ~ 3:21am primesuspect Stone sober
7. 
   11 Sep 2009 ~ 8:23am Ryder The incredible link claims it is Private, no can view
8. 
   11 Sep 2009 ~ 8:30am _k are parts of the SSC still up for sale.
9. 
   11 Sep 2009 ~ 8:33am Snarkasm You can see it on NASAtv somewhere, Ryder - and supposedly it's better quality there.
10. 
    11 Sep 2009 ~ 8:49am Thrax The link was public last night, those assholes. I'll see if I can get a mirror.
11. 
    12 Sep 2009 ~ 7:37am Zuntar You peaked my interest Rob, hope it can be found!
12. 
    12 Sep 2009 ~ 9:33am GnomeWizardd http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=ares%20I%20rocket&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#
13. 
    12 Sep 2009 ~ 10:09am Hawk Heh,
    Very cool. Or should I say Hot!
    Interesting new way to cut tunnels through mountains. Hehehe
    Boils steel and makes glass out of sand.
    There's some interesting ideas there.
    Awesome, just awesome.
14. 
    12 Sep 2009 ~ 10:20am GnomeWizardd i swear if our stupid Idiot of a president cuts funding I am gonna lose it
15. 
    12 Sep 2009 ~ 11:24am Snarkasm So Mars is more important than healthcare, education, and energy independence?
    
    /politics
16. 
    12 Sep 2009 ~ 11:26am Annes

    Snarkasm wrote:

    So Mars is more important than healthcare, education, and energy independence?
    
    /politics
17. 
    12 Sep 2009 ~ 1:33pm Thrax Nope, but I'm pretty sure the $3 billion/year NASA needs can come from blowing people up, or mothballing any one of DARPA's many mind control projects.
18. 
    12 Sep 2009 ~ 2:08pm Preacher Fellas,
    There is only so much of the 762 Billion allotted to the Military to go around, although there may be some fat on the bone of the other 250 Billion for "defense related purposes". Everyone thinks a trillion dollars is really a lot of money when it isn't. All the rest of the nation's priorities need to wait until our battle fleet is larger than the next 15 navies combined, we outspend the entire world (very, very close), and we have an F-22 for every man, woman, and child in America.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
19. 
    12 Sep 2009 ~ 2:09pm Thrax I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE.
20. 
    12 Sep 2009 ~ 2:12pm Preacher Post an easy, simple Wiki link with some sarcasm swirled in for good measure?
21. 
    12 Sep 2009 ~ 3:40pm primesuspect I love you preacher
22. 
    13 Sep 2009 ~ 2:28am ardichoke Preacher amuses me... even if he and his son do pwn my ass at TF2 far too easily
23. 
    13 Sep 2009 ~ 1:55pm GnomeQueen

    ardichoke wrote:

    Preacher amuses me... even if he and his son do pwn my ass at TF2 far too easily

    
    Suck less.
    
    Also, do love the preacha man.
24. 
    13 Sep 2009 ~ 2:28pm MAGIC

    Preacher wrote:

    Fellas,
    There is only so much of the 762 Billion allotted to the Military to go around, although there may be some fat on the bone of the other 250 Billion for "defense related purposes". Everyone thinks a trillion dollars is really a lot of money when it isn't. All the rest of the nation's priorities need to wait until our battle fleet is larger than the next 15 navies combined, we outspend the entire world (very, very close), and we have an F-22 for every man, woman, and child in America.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

    
    But when ANY country gets in ANY sort of military shit who do they ask for help first? When the USA has to be the defense for the entire world, its not cheap. But, a trillion clams is a lot of money.
25. 
    15 Sep 2009 ~ 9:12pm Preacher Much Love to y'all, too!
    
    While Wiki is the informational crack for the internet masses, that link is very accurate.
    

    MAGIC wrote:

    But when ANY country gets in ANY sort of military shit who do they ask for help first? When the USA has to be the defense for the entire world, its not cheap. But, a trillion clams is a lot of money.

    
    Magic,
    I am all for a strong military. However, the military-industrial complex (which General/President Eisenhower warned us about in the 1950s) has taken over our country's finances and focus to the detriment of most else. The current DoD leadership has already started slaughtering the sacred cows...TSAT, F-22, FCS, etc. The irony is that while everyone worries about 880 Billion over 10 years for healthcare and 3 Billion a year to explore our solar system, we spend nearly a Trillion a year on Defense. It has to be reduced at some point to reasonable levels. The Soviet Union has been gone for 20 years.
26. 
    15 Sep 2009 ~ 9:48pm primesuspect In my mind:
    
    Active, career military person's opinion > armchair quarterback
27. 
    16 Sep 2009 ~ 1:36am Leonardo Awesome video. Thanks for the link, Gnome.
    
    The first link brought me a bunch Kanye West crap (who CARES!!!).
28. 
    16 Sep 2009 ~ 9:41am mirage The largest rocket engine and amount of fuel are used to carry the vehicle near the edge of space. Does anyone know why NASA does not use anything like this or that. How about floating to space instead of shooting up?
29. 
    16 Sep 2009 ~ 3:16pm GnomeQueen I don't think that floating will allow you to break through earth's atmosphere and gravitational pull.
30. 
    16 Sep 2009 ~ 6:21pm ardichoke

    Gnome Queen wrote:

    I don't think that floating will allow you to break through earth's atmosphere and gravitational pull.

    No, however it can get you close enough that you don't have to expend as much fuel to make it the rest of the way into space. I think that's the argument mirage is trying to make. It's an interesting idea.
31. 
    16 Sep 2009 ~ 8:24pm mirage

    ardichoke wrote:

    No, however it can get you close enough that you don't have to expend as much fuel to make it the rest of the way into space. I think that's the argument mirage is trying to make. It's an interesting idea.

    
    Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for clarification.
32. 
    16 Sep 2009 ~ 8:42pm shwaip I think you can float a couple of people just fine, but once you talk about needing to float equipment or something that would propel you further, you'd need too many balloons to make it viable. The balloon to take 2 people and a gondola (don't know the weight) is going to be the size of a skyscraper when it gets them that high.
33. 
    16 Sep 2009 ~ 9:27pm Snarkasm If you need to haul a rocket to the edge of space, why not put in a little extra fuel and just boost it from here?
34. 
    16 Sep 2009 ~ 10:44pm ardichoke Ah yes. Seems I forgot my basic physics. The same amount of energy is required to actually get the rocket into space, the only difference is in the efficiency of getting it there.
35. 
    16 Sep 2009 ~ 11:35pm mirage

    shwaip wrote:

    I think you can float a couple of people just fine, but once you talk about needing to float equipment or something that would propel you further, you'd need too many balloons to make it viable. The balloon to take 2 people and a gondola (don't know the weight) is going to be the size of a skyscraper when it gets them that high.

    
    Baloons are not the only option. Saturn V reached 42 mile height in 2-3 minutes by burning 4.4 million pounds of fuel with the first stage. Just like Scaled did in a much smaller scale, a giant carrier plane could help lifting the vehicle. Without the first stage, the size of the rocket is almost half. See Saturn V's first stage separation here. I don't claim this is the way to do it but I thought it would be much cheaper if the first stage of the rocket could be replaced with a reusable launch vehicle.
36. 
    16 Sep 2009 ~ 11:38pm ardichoke The major problem would be this: What would you construct the reusable launch vehicle out of? It would have to survive the output from the stage 2 engines. I'm not aware of anything that could do that and survive, much less stay flying.
37. 
    16 Sep 2009 ~ 11:48pm mirage Yep, it looks like a problem. So there must be a solution
38. 
    16 Sep 2009 ~ 11:54pm ardichoke The existence of a problem doesn't imply that there is a solution to it.
39. 
    17 Sep 2009 ~ 9:48am Zuntar I'm sure NASA never thought of any of this.
    
    We (the world) need to put far more emphasis on alternate fuel sources AKA getting away from fossil fuels.
40. 
    17 Sep 2009 ~ 10:32am mirage The X-prize competition has been an excellent event to bring private companies into space. As soon as winning the competition and demonstrating their technology, Scaled received the investment of Sir Branson. After several decades of unbelievable achievements and discoveries, NASA appears to be too big and inefficient now. Termination of the Space Shuttle program in absence of the next generation technology does not look good at all.
    
    @ardichoke: I don't agree. Every problem does have a solution waiting for someone to find.
41. 
    17 Sep 2009 ~ 1:36pm ardichoke

    mirage wrote:

    @ardichoke: I don't agree. Every problem does have a solution waiting for someone to find.

    
    Tell that to a mathematician. They can not only give you some unsolvable problems but will explain to you why they are unsolvable.
42. 
    17 Sep 2009 ~ 2:24pm mirage Come on! This is just rocket science
43. 
    18 Sep 2009 ~ 1:05pm Preacher You'd think with the looming demise of the Space Shuttle there would be a great impetus to find new solution for space travel.
44. 
    18 Sep 2009 ~ 1:07pm Thrax Why bother? Space is boring when there are nausea guns to invent!