A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dragon landing on Mars video



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 1st 11, 06:42 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Dragon landing on Mars video

On 1/05/2011 3:08 PM, Sjouke Burry wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote:
On 1/05/2011 12:31 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 4/30/2011 12:43 PM, Val Kraut wrote:
NASA also had teams studying electric fields to protect bases on the
Moon.
There's always the Caviate about power source
It would obviously require a powerful nuclear reactor be mounted on the
Mars ship.
Getting rid of the heat from that could be a real problem for the
designers, as it would require some very large radiators.

Pat


PV (photo voltaic - solar cells) can still be used on Mars.

Why does everyone seem so intent on using nukes?


Power per KG .
You need lots of power and a minimum of weight.
The choices are very limited.


Not necessarily a mass limit - just build a bigger vehicle. It won't be
launched from Earth in one, big piece like Apollo was; it will be
assembled in LEO first from smaller modules. Even the Ares V would not
have been big enough for a manned landing mission to Mars. So, instead
of two launches (one for the vehicle and one for the Earth Escape
stage), you launch three or four. While this doubles the launch
expense, it also increases the options by... four.

Payload is quadrupled and there would be sufficient mass for solar
power. As for Fred's suggestion of using some kind of 'force field'...
Just bury the entire vehicle under the Martian surface as you would on
the Moon. Two metres of soil and that's all the protection a crew would
need.
  #12  
Old May 1st 11, 12:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Dragon landing on Mars video

On 1/05/2011 4:07 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alan wrote:

On 1/05/2011 3:08 PM, Sjouke Burry wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote:
On 1/05/2011 12:31 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 4/30/2011 12:43 PM, Val Kraut wrote:
NASA also had teams studying electric fields to protect bases on the
Moon.
There's always the Caviate about power source
It would obviously require a powerful nuclear reactor be mounted on the
Mars ship.
Getting rid of the heat from that could be a real problem for the
designers, as it would require some very large radiators.

Pat

PV (photo voltaic - solar cells) can still be used on Mars.

Why does everyone seem so intent on using nukes?

Power per KG .
You need lots of power and a minimum of weight.
The choices are very limited.


Not necessarily a mass limit - just build a bigger vehicle. It won't be
launched from Earth in one, big piece like Apollo was; it will be
assembled in LEO first from smaller modules. Even the Ares V would not
have been big enough for a manned landing mission to Mars. So, instead
of two launches (one for the vehicle and one for the Earth Escape
stage), you launch three or four. While this doubles the launch
expense, it also increases the options by... four.

Payload is quadrupled and there would be sufficient mass for solar
power. As for Fred's suggestion of using some kind of 'force field'...
Just bury the entire vehicle under the Martian surface as you would on
the Moon. Two metres of soil and that's all the protection a crew would
need.


It wasn't my suggestion. It was Val Kraut and it was what was being
discussed. It requires lots of power both for the transit and once
you get there in order to do that.

Hard to bury your vehicle under the Martian surface until you get
there....


I thought you meant surface radiation. OK, got it now.

It will be difficult, but not insurmountable.
  #13  
Old May 1st 11, 07:43 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics
Val Kraut
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 329
Default Dragon landing on Mars video


Around here
education is getting slashed so the next generation wouldnt know how
to go to mars.

This present generation doesn't know many of the details of how we got to
the moon - there were many articles on today's NASA staff removing Apollo
Hardware from museums to understand how it was done back then. The old teams
are gone or disbanded and there is no master repository of Apollo data,
orany other old program data. Not only are we slahing funds - but we're
dumbing down the text books so more wil graduate. There are undergraduate
text books that actually start with intros like - we've made the present
edition more friendly by removing all the problems that require Calculus, or
replaced many mathematical problems with discussion questions. Other
countries pride themselves in science and math education - we pride ouselves
on turning out business majors and sports.


Val Kraut


  #14  
Old May 2nd 11, 12:29 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Dragon landing on Mars video

On 1/05/2011 10:16 PM, bob haller wrote:
Hard to bury your vehicle under the Martian surface until you get
there....


you send robotic vehicles ahead unmanned...... land the base camp
probably a group of trans hab inflatables, and have the robots
execvate assemble inflate and bury the base camp..

install a landing pad with comm system for auto land.

around mars communication and GPS satellites are placed in permanent
orbit so communication will always be possible.and location info will
be exact. no matter where on the planet. a secondary base camp is
installed on a pole

the entire planet has rovers looking for areas of interest, the rovers
are AI some will be lost to accidents, but enough will be sent losses
wouldnt be a issue. astronauts may be able to salvage some once they
arrive

a few mini bases, are deployeed too. just like base camp but smaller
used for exploration and in a emergency a place to hole up, in case
base camp somehow got destroyed

need a bunch of crawler transporter excursion vehicles, with living
quarters for astronauts

the transit vehicle must have nuke engine to minimize transit ttime to
decrease raiation exposure. These should go in pairs one unmanned or
minimally manned in case a transit vehicle had a problem. 2 vehicles
each sufficent to support the entire crew might help with boredom and
social issues. Hey I will go visit bill and sharon at transit 2 and
get away from harry who is irritating me.

a return pair of flyers should be on station at mars just in case the
outbound vehicles have issues and cant get back.

a prototype transit vehicle should make a few laps back and forth
before sending a crewed one. it could bring back samples to a mars ISS
isolation lab, so a mars virus cant somehow wipe out mankind

this isnt flags and footprints its a permanent base



This is getting to be a bad habit, but I agree with Bob on most of this.
I'm still not convinced that nuke is the best way, especially for the
comparitively small power needed for an initial outpost/base. What
about wind technology combined with solar and fuel cells (wind when it
blows and combined solar for day and fuel cells at night [just like what
could be done on the Moon])?
  #15  
Old May 2nd 11, 02:41 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Dragon landing on Mars video

On May 1, 7:29*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 1/05/2011 10:16 PM, bob haller wrote:





Hard to bury your vehicle under the Martian surface until you get
there....


you send robotic vehicles ahead unmanned...... land the base camp
probably a group of trans hab inflatables, and have the robots
execvate assemble inflate and bury the base camp..


install a landing pad with comm system for auto land.


around mars communication and GPS satellites are placed in permanent
orbit so communication will always be possible.and location info will
be exact. no matter where on the planet. a secondary base camp is
installed on a pole


the entire planet has rovers looking for areas of interest, the rovers
are AI some will be lost to accidents, but enough will be sent losses
wouldnt be a issue. astronauts may be able to salvage some once they
arrive


a few mini bases, are deployeed too. just like base camp but smaller
used for exploration and in a emergency a place to hole up, in case
base camp somehow got destroyed


need a bunch of crawler transporter excursion vehicles, with living
quarters for astronauts


the transit vehicle must have nuke engine to minimize transit ttime to
decrease raiation exposure. These should go in pairs one unmanned or
minimally manned in case a transit vehicle had a problem. 2 vehicles
each sufficent to support the entire crew might help with boredom and
social issues. Hey I will go visit bill and sharon at transit 2 and
get away from harry who is irritating me.


a return pair of flyers should be on station at mars just in case the
outbound vehicles have issues and cant get back.


a prototype transit vehicle should make a few laps back and forth
before sending a crewed one. it could bring back samples to a mars ISS
isolation lab, so a mars virus cant somehow wipe out mankind


this isnt flags and footprints its a permanent base


This is getting to be a bad habit, but I agree with Bob on most of this.
* I'm still not convinced that nuke is the best way, especially for the
comparitively small power needed for an initial outpost/base. *What
about wind technology combined with solar and fuel cells (wind when it
blows and combined solar for day and fuel cells at night [just like what
could be done on the Moon])?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Well if they are using nuke for transit craft propulsion a base camp
nuke plant wouldnt cost much extra, the transit part would make it
affordable and the power could be used to make fuel for the return to
orbit vehicle, saving weight and complexity.

why have fueled vehicle sitting on mars soil if liftoff for eturn is a
couple years or more away?.

given mars low pressure windmills may not be effective and dust storms
can muck up solar panel systems
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dragon landing on Mars video Pat Flannery Policy 36 May 2nd 11 07:05 PM
...Mars Science Lab Rover... entry, descent and landing video Jonathan Policy 0 October 13th 07 03:51 PM
Mars Landing Tomorrow: NASA-TV Video Stream RoNoNFT Policy 1 January 24th 04 07:15 PM
Mars Landing Video Stream Ronald Norman History 2 January 23rd 04 11:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.