|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Planning A New Mars Rover
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message ... bob haller wrote: On Dec 11, 9:34 am, Fred J. McCall wrote: Bobbert, please go read up on various proposals for manned Mars missions before you defecate further on the newsgroup... yep they are mostly minimalist ideas, but growth must occur for mission safety Your ideas are not 'minimalist', Bobbert. Your ideas are 'stupid'. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn Besides "stupid," I'd throw in the following: lunacy, unrealistic, and idiotic. Better yet, Fred: all of the above. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Planning A New Mars Rover
In sci.space.policy message , Mon, 10 Dec 2012
18:39:42, Wayne Throop posted: A quick botec, assuming the ion engine can manage 1/1000 g continuous acceleration for at least a couple weeks, suggests several months rather than a few centuries. Botes are not needed; try http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/astron-3.htm#DAT ff. At a guess, Mars is typically at about 1.25AU from Earth; try 3 months, with turnover, 0.001g, reaches 1.02 AU, Allow another fortnight, get about 1.40 AU. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Planning A New Mars Rover
On 12/11/2012 12:12 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Wayne Throop) wrote: ::: How you plan on getting it there? It's around five times more ::: massive than even the Curiosity spacecraft. :: it doesnt have to go fast, even a realtively small ion engine could :: get it there given time. : Sure, if you can wait a few centuries. A quick botec, assuming the ion engine can manage 1/1000 g continuous acceleration for at least a couple weeks, suggests several months rather than a few centuries. What are your assumptions that lead to centuries? That you have to use something close to what actually exists. To get travel time down to what you're talking about requires continuous thrust at 0.001g for the entire trip. And 0.001g out of an ion drive is a preposterously high level for anything that exists (where thrust levels run in the milliNewtons); not "a relatively small ion engine" at all. What are you talking about using for a power source for this (relatively) huge ion drive you're talking about? Here are a few computations: A small ion thruster: NSTAR http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/ion/past/90s/nstar.htm (to which we must add a 2.3 kW power source): Thrust = 92 mN The mass of the thruster including propellant etc. should be about 100 kg. I don't have the mass of the NRO telescopes, it should be in the same ball park as that of Hubble: 11,100 kg. I'm not sure whether a NRO telescope has a 2.3 kW power source, but if you have to a few kg for power, it doesn't change the overall picture much. So a total mass of about 11,200 kg, together with a thrust of 92 mN gives an acceleration of 8.2 micro-m/s. So, how much delta-V do you need from LEO to reach Mars with an ion thruster? Well, technically one could use a Hohmann minimal delta-V transfer orbit by firing the ion thruster only for short periods of time near the perigee. Fred's estimate of centuries to reach Mars, would then be an understatement. If the ion-drive is used in the normal continuous operation the delta-V is greater. I integrated the equations and I get that from a circular orbit with orbital velocity V0, one neads to add V0 delta-V to escape (that is at the limit when the thrust of the ion drive tends to 0). So from LEO, at 8 km/s one neads the ion-drive to add 8 km/s to escape Earth's gravity well. You could do it with a little less using lunar gravity assist, but let's keep it simple for now. Then from solar orbit at Earth's distance from the Sun, to reach solar orbit at Mars' distance from the Sun we compute the delta-V by first computing delta-V for escape, as above this is equal to Earth's orbital velocity, which is 29.78 km/s. But from a solar orbit at Mars' distance to escape the delta-V is 24.08 km/s, this delta-V does not need to be provided since we don't want to go beyond Mars. So from Earth's orbit to Mars' the delta-V needed is 29.78-24.08=5.7 km/s. Finally, to get to low Mars orbit, let's say an orbit with an orbital velocity of 2.6 km/s, the ion drive needs to add another 2.6 km/s. The total delta-V is (8+5.7+2.6) km/s = 16.3 km/s. With the 8.2 micro-m/s acceleration, this gives 16.3 km/s / 8.2 micro-m/s which is about 2 billion seconds, or a little less than 63 years. This could of course be reduced a lot by using lunar gravity assist and aerobraking. So Fred's claim that centuries would be needed is a little off, nonetheless, one would expect that more than a small ion thruster would be used. With a large ion thruster the travel duration becomes more reasonable. Alain Fournier |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Planning A New Mars Rover
On 12/20/2012 8:40 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... On 12/11/2012 12:12 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: (Wayne Throop) wrote: What are your assumptions that lead to centuries? That you have to use something close to what actually exists. To get travel time down to what you're talking about requires continuous thrust at 0.001g for the entire trip. And 0.001g out of an ion drive is a preposterously high level for anything that exists (where thrust levels run in the milliNewtons); not "a relatively small ion engine" at all. What are you talking about using for a power source for this (relatively) huge ion drive you're talking about? Here are a few computations: A small ion thruster: NSTAR http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/ion/past/90s/nstar.htm (to which we must add a 2.3 kW power source): Thrust = 92 mN The mass of the thruster including propellant etc. should be about 100 kg. I don't have the mass of the NRO telescopes, it should be in the same ball park as that of Hubble: 11,100 kg. I'm not sure whether a NRO telescope has a 2.3 kW power source, but if you have to a few kg for power, it doesn't change the overall picture much. Computations snipped to save space... With the 8.2 micro-m/s acceleration, this gives 16.3 km/s / 8.2 micro-m/s which is about 2 billion seconds, or a little less than 63 years. This could of course be reduced a lot by using lunar gravity assist and aerobraking. So Fred's claim that centuries would be needed is a little off, nonetheless, one would expect that more than a small ion thruster would be used. With a large ion thruster the travel duration becomes more reasonable. 63 years is most certainly well beyond the design lifetime of the components which make up such a telescope. A quick look at what failed on Hubble over the years would give you an idea of the challenges you'd face, but the task would seem to be quite daunting, especially for moving components like the gyros needed to achieve extremely accurate pointing. I agree. Also, I doubt using "lunar gravity assist" and "aerobraking" would be viable when you're talking about such a low thrust system. For aerobraking especially, you need a relatively high thrust engine to fine tune your velocity for multiple dips into the atmosphere. I seriously doubt that the ion system would have the necessary thrust. You just need to be more precise and plan your gravity assist from further away and make your dips into the atmosphere shallower. It would be a challenge, but if your foolish enough to go for a 63 years mission why not be foolish enough to ask for high precision? Finally, I'd be extremely leery of using aerobraking on a telescope that you want to keep the inside (optics) pristine. How do you keep the "nasties" of an atmosphere out of it, when you deliberately plan on subjecting it to Mars atmosphere? Any scheme to do this will necessarily add mass to the telescope. You may be right about this. But whatever atmosphere enters the telescope will vent rapidly. I'd be more wary of tempereture cycling during the aerobraking. All in all, it's just *not* a workable idea. Well, I certainly don't suggest to use an ion engine for such a mission. A 63 years mission for this is insane. I just wanted to know how much insane it is. Fred was claiming centuries for the mission. My computations say that the mission would be insane, but a little less insane than what Fred was saying. And if you drop the words "relatively small" from the phrase "even a realtively small ion engine could" and use a big ion engine you can actually get a workable mission, maybe stupid, but workable. I see no reason why one wouldn't use a chemical rocket for this. Alain Fournier |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Planning A New Mars Rover
On 12/20/2012 11:47 AM, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 12/20/2012 8:40 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... On 12/11/2012 12:12 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: (Wayne Throop) wrote: What are your assumptions that lead to centuries? That you have to use something close to what actually exists. To get travel time down to what you're talking about requires continuous thrust at 0.001g for the entire trip. And 0.001g out of an ion drive is a preposterously high level for anything that exists (where thrust levels run in the milliNewtons); not "a relatively small ion engine" at all. What are you talking about using for a power source for this (relatively) huge ion drive you're talking about? Also, I doubt using "lunar gravity assist" and "aerobraking" would be viable when you're talking about such a low thrust system. For aerobraking especially, you need a relatively high thrust engine to fine tune your velocity for multiple dips into the atmosphere. I seriously doubt that the ion system would have the necessary thrust. You just need to be more precise and plan your gravity assist from further away and make your dips into the atmosphere shallower. It would be a challenge, but if your foolish enough to go for a 63 years mission why not be foolish enough to ask for high precision? I thought about the lunar gravity assist again. Not only is it possible, but it is just about compulsory. When you get to 300,000 km, the moon will have an important effect on your trajectory. If you don't plan for that effect to be positive, you will get a random gravity push. If that random push increases your velocity, you've had a gravity assist despite not planing it. If the random push decreases your velocity, you might lose a year or two, and during that time you will probably think about how to avoid that from repeating the next time, therefore you will plan for a gravity assist. Alain Fournier |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Claims No Life On Mars and Embargos Mars Rover Data. | Thomas Lee Elifritz | Astronomy Misc | 6 | February 20th 05 06:54 PM |
NASA Claims No Life On Mars and Embargos Mars Rover Data. | Thomas Lee Elifritz | Policy | 6 | February 20th 05 06:54 PM |
NASA JPL Total Mars Rover Befuddlement | Thomas Lee Elifritz | Astronomy Misc | 2 | January 28th 05 06:44 AM |
NASA JPL Total Mars Rover Befuddlement | Thomas Lee Elifritz | Policy | 2 | January 28th 05 06:44 AM |
Mars Rover another hoax by NASA | Ejucated Republicun | Policy | 33 | January 13th 04 05:00 PM |