|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |