Mars "Reference Mission" illustrated

James Cameron's and Mars:

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules...rder=0&thold=0

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
James Cameron's and Mars:


http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules...rder=0&thold=0

So if I understand correctly they're going to land in a giant dune buggy? It
does have its advantages (i.e. you could rove around looking for the rest of
the habitats etc., there's less 'dead weight' in the mission) but most
likely they'll opt for a more 'conventional' approach.

I like the spinning wheel kind of spaceship, though. I'm a vehement
proponent of artificial gravity creation instead of taking ages to find a
medicine against muscle and bone wastage. We KNOW artificial gravity is
going to work at least as good as excercise (probably much better) and we
KNOW that developing medicines takes decades. Why can't NASA just listen to
me and develop a spinning wheel? What's the problem with a spinning wheel?

Dr. O wrote:

Why
can't NASA just listen to me and develop a spinning wheel? What's the
problem with a spinning wheel?

It's big. It's heavy. It's not necessary. A conventional "Earth
house/building"-style spaceship with a long tether fastened to the "roof"
and a counterweight in the other end, all spinning, would do just as well,
and be much simpler - and cheaper. In the unlikely event that the tether
snapped, you'll just have to do your mission in zero-g. But it shouldn't
snap.

/steen

"Steen Eiler Jørgensen" wrote in message
. ..
Dr. O wrote:

Why
can't NASA just listen to me and develop a spinning wheel? What's the
problem with a spinning wheel?

It's big. It's heavy. It's not necessary. A conventional "Earth
house/building"-style spaceship with a long tether fastened to the "roof"
and a counterweight in the other end, all spinning, would do just as well,
and be much simpler - and cheaper. In the unlikely event that the tether
snapped, you'll just have to do your mission in zero-g. But it shouldn't
snap.

No problem with that as it's conceptually the same thing. Besides, the
'tether' could simply be a solid truss which would elliminate the snapping
problem. But, NASA has been doing research for DECADES to counter zero-G
effects and it looks like they're going to continue this Pavlov reaction
with the new setup as I read somewhere that they're going to intensify
research on ISS concerning zero-G effects. They're simply set in this state
of mind and no one can change their course. Maybe it's time some influential
Congressman steps in and starts asking some pointy questions.

Dr. O wrote:

No problem with that as it's conceptually the same thing. Besides, the
'tether' could simply be a solid truss which would elliminate the
snapping problem.

Yes, a more solid approach. But not as "handy" as a tether.

But, NASA has been doing research for DECADES to
counter zero-G effects and it looks like they're going to continue
this Pavlov reaction with the new setup as I read somewhere that
they're going to intensify research on ISS concerning zero-G effects.

Well, considering that the ISS is there, now, and that that's about all it's
good for, I see that as a very natural thing. After all, that was the whole
point with the ISS, microgravity research. That we don't need all that
microgravity research is something else...

They're simply set in this state of mind and no one can change their
course. Maybe it's time some influential Congressman steps in and
starts asking some pointy questions.

Well, that would certainly be appreciated ;-)

/steen

Could a ship like a vasimr derived one that provides long duration low
thrust even use a tether-type gravity system? As in: wouldn't the
thrusting of the main engine cause the tether to vibrate and "sway"
somewhat possibly causing a break? And if im not wrong a break in
this type of system would mean that the crew module seperates from
the thrusting module. Any ideas?



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
James Cameron's and Mars:


http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules...rder=0&thold=0


This is the Best plan I have ever seen.

Nathan

----------
In article , "Blurrt"
wrote:

James Cameron's and Mars:

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules...file=article&s
id=813&mo
de=thread&order=0&thold=0

This is the Best plan I have ever seen.

There are some really serious problems with it. For starters:

-the inflatable hab modules are supposed to bounce when they hit the ground.
No soft landing. These are not airbags like those used on MER. What
happens to all the stuff that is inside them? It gets smashed.

-the inflatable hab modules are supposed to be towed along the ground by the
vehicle. What happens to all the stuff inside of them? How well do they
hold up rolling over a rocky surface?

-the vehicle is supposed to be powered by solar cells. Is it realistic to
power something that big with solar panels? Note that we do not even have
normal size solar-powered cars today. Some other power source is necessary.

There seem to be some holes in the reference mission, such as no ascent
vehicle. At least it was not in the images that I saw.

And somebody really needs to tell the people at astrobio.net to lay off the
links inside their text. They need a simpler and easier to understand
layout, and something more consistent and focused (for instance, some of the
links take you to things that are not even related to Cameron's reference
mission). This is a common problem with bloggers as well--every time you
come across highlighted text your brain stumbles over it and you lose your
train of thought.



Elden

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:35:00 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Elden"
made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

-the vehicle is supposed to be powered by solar cells. Is it realistic to
power something that big with solar panels? Note that we do not even have
normal size solar-powered cars today.

That's because cars require much higher power than planetary rovers.
The latter don't require high speed, or acceleration.

----------
In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

-the vehicle is supposed to be powered by solar cells. Is it realistic to
power something that big with solar panels? Note that we do not even have
normal size solar-powered cars today.

That's because cars require much higher power than planetary rovers.
The latter don't require high speed, or acceleration.

Although this is true, it may be irrelevant here. The vehicle that is
depicted here is _big_. Not only would the solar power have to provide life
support, heat, electronics, etc., but it also has to move that vehicle
around. Even if the top speed is only a few miles per hour, it is a
sizeable vehicle. Add to that the fact that one of the illustrations shows
it pulling around the hab vehicle, and that increases the power
requirements.




Elden