Mars by 2020?

Rubecula · 09-10-2017 3:46am

what does Sol 4766 mean? days (earth) days (mars) or days (sun???) ?

Capt'n Midnight · 09-10-2017 10:23pm

Rubecula wrote: »

what does Sol 4766 mean? days (earth) days (mars) or days (sun???) ?

A sol is a local day.

The ground crew for many of the Mars lander missions work on "Mars time" , special watches that run slow to match.

Fathom · 10-10-2017 1:13am

Rubecula wrote: »

what does Sol 4766 mean? days (earth) days (mars) or days (sun???) ?

"A Mars solar day has a mean period of 24 hours 39 minutes 35.244 seconds, and is customarily referred to as a "sol" in order to distinguish this from the roughly 3% shorter solar day on Earth."

Rubecula · 10-10-2017 1:43pm

so an extra fortnight in earth days?

Rubecula · 10-10-2017 3:48pm

Fathom · 12-10-2017 3:35pm

Large solar storm sparks global aurora on Mars.

Fathom · 13-10-2017 3:44pm

Mars Study Yields Clues to Possible Cradle of Life. a-view-of-a-portion-of-the-eridania-region-of-southern-mars.png?rect=0%2C106%2C1382%2C461&auto=format%2Ccompress&w=650

a-view-of-a-portion-of-the-eridania-region-of-southern-mars.png?rect=0%2C106%2C1382%2C461&auto=format%2Ccompress&w=650

Capt'n Midnight · 14-10-2017 12:17am

Fathom · 14-10-2017 3:27pm

Ion Thruster Sets World Record. Send Humans to Mars?

Fathom · 15-10-2017 3:54pm

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk gives major update on his plans to colonize Mars.

Fathom · 18-10-2017 4:12pm

Falcon 9 has completed 16 successful landings on Earth. Baby steps towards Mars landing by SpaceX?

Rubecula · 19-10-2017 5:16am

Fathom wrote: »

Falcon 9 has completed 16 successful landings on Earth. Baby steps towards Mars landing by SpaceX?

just spent a few hours watching documentaries like this, excellent stuff Fathom, thank you for posting.

Fathom · 20-10-2017 7:41pm

Rubecula wrote: »

just spent a few hours watching documentaries like this, excellent stuff Fathom, thank you for posting.

Feeling is mutual. Thank you for posting too!

Rubecula · 20-10-2017 8:24pm

Fathom · 21-10-2017 9:56pm

HD Documentary 2017 Interstellar Flight

Rubecula · 24-10-2017 1:56am

good post Fathom

Fathom · 25-10-2017 4:07am

Rubecula · 05-11-2017 5:51am

Fathom · 08-11-2017 4:54pm

Prospective SpaceX Mars rocket? Too small?

Rubecula · 09-11-2017 6:50am

not sure I could live in that without going mad for the time it would take to get to get anywhere, let alone Mars

Fathom · 09-11-2017 6:22pm

Mars and Earth's orbits are not perfectly circular. Time it takes to travel between them today varies from 6 to 8 months. SpaceX spaceship small space for journey?

Capt'n Midnight · 09-11-2017 10:46pm

Fathom wrote: »

Prospective SpaceX Mars rocket? Too small?

42 engines is a plumbing nightmare.

Ask the Russians about the N1 and it's 30 engines.

Rubecula · 10-11-2017 6:09am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

42 engines is a plumbing nightmare.

Ask the Russians about the N1 and it's 30 engines.

the rocket may be big enough, but you need somewhere for the crew that is big enough to live in.

Fathom · 10-11-2017 8:31pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

42 engines is a plumbing nightmare. Ask the Russians about the N1 and it's 30 engines.

Still old tech thinking? Alternatives?

Rubecula wrote: »

the rocket may be big enough, but you need somewhere for the crew that is big enough to live in.

Roomy Star Trek?

Capt'n Midnight · 12-11-2017 11:59pm

Fathom wrote: »

Still old tech thinking? Alternatives?

Yes and No.

Yes, old tech.
If you've ever heard of single stage to orbit, remember that the original Russian Soyuz launch system was a stage and a half to orbit. Main engines tested just before launch and fired all the way up.

No, no alternatives
Soyuz has seen off many replacements and is now used by the USA for all manned flights, the Europeans for satellite launches and the Russians for both.

In theory there alternatives, the US has thrown away loads of them, I wouldn't be surprised if Soyuz outlives yet another US launch system.

Because we live at the bottom of a gravity well a rocket would have to provide 1g of acceleration just to stay still , this rules out any existing technology except chemical rockets.

The fuel pumps on the Saturn 5 rocket were fifty five thousand horsepower, each. Or 205 Megawatts in total. On take off the engines put out as much power as France, as in the entire French electricity network.

Most of the power and energy was used to accelerate the remaining fuel that was later used to accelerate what was left of the remaining fuel and so on

There two other ways to get to orbit.
The first is speed. Easy peasy. You just need to be going fast enough and in the right direct. If you use an external mechanism for power and thrust you can save a lot of mass.
If your craft had a frontal area of 1m squared then at sea level you'd need to push 1Kg of air out of your way for every meter per second you were travelling at. So figure out ten tonnes of, superheated by compression, air in the first second.

The other is to climb up a ladder. We don't quite have the material to make a space elevator. And the power transmission distance and strain on the cable limit the speed you can go up the elevator. At 100km/hr you'd climb past Everest in under 5 minutes but you wouldn't get to GEO until a fortnight later. Also the total mass climbing up or down would have to be counter balanced by a massive weight past GEO.

Rubecula · 13-11-2017 10:19am

No no no you have it all wrong :eek:

Have to go to medical appt. now be back later.

Rubecula · 13-11-2017 2:20pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes and No.

Yes, old tech.
If you've ever heard of single stage to orbit, remember that the original Russian Soyuz launch system was a stage and a half to orbit. Main engines tested just before launch and fired all the way up.

No, no alternatives
Soyuz has seen off many replacements and is now used by the USA for all manned flights, the Europeans for satellite launches and the Russians for both.

In theory there alternatives, the US has thrown away loads of them, I wouldn't be surprised if Soyuz outlives yet another US launch system.

Because we live at the bottom of a gravity well a rocket would have to provide 1g of acceleration just to stay still , this rules out any existing technology except chemical rockets.

The fuel pumps on the Saturn 5 rocket were fifty five thousand horsepower, each. Or 205 Megawatts in total. On take off the engines put out as much power as France, as in the entire French electricity network.

Most of the power and energy was used to accelerate the remaining fuel that was later used to accelerate what was left of the remaining fuel and so on

There two other ways to get to orbit.
The first is speed. Easy peasy. You just need to be going fast enough and in the right direct. If you use an external mechanism for power and thrust you can save a lot of mass.
If your craft had a frontal area of 1m squared then at sea level you'd need to push 1Kg of air out of your way for every meter per second you were travelling at. So figure out ten tonnes of, superheated by compression, air in the first second.

The other is to climb up a ladder. We don't quite have the material to make a space elevator. And the power transmission distance and strain on the cable limit the speed you can go up the elevator. At 100km/hr you'd climb past Everest in under 5 minutes but you wouldn't get to GEO until a fortnight later. Also the total mass climbing up or down would have to be counter balanced by a massive weight past GEO.

back again

Soyuz was not a rocket launch system, the rocket booster was never called Soyuz, Salyut or whatever.

Because we are at the bottom of a gravity well a rocket has to provide 1g of acceleration to stay in on place??????????? no this is so wrong, the Earth has a gravity of about 1g at sea level. we are already using 1g of force by pushing down on the planet. Notice I said about 1g at sea level. this is because gravity does vary.

this bit does not make a great deal of sense to me, dunno why but somehow it does not flow properly, sorry : "If your craft had a frontal area of 1m squared then at sea level you'd need to push 1Kg of air out of your way for every meter per second you were travelling at. So figure out ten tonnes of, superheated by compression, air in the first second"

finally your figures on the space elevator, areyou certain? I think accelerating for a fortnight would have you a bit further than GEO even at less than 1g.

Fathom · 13-11-2017 6:43pm

Once beyond Earth's atmosphere, how about photonic propulsion? System would use lasers to propel a giant sail. Claims to reach Mars in 3 days rather than months.

Capt'n Midnight · 13-11-2017 9:41pm

Rubecula wrote: »

Because we are at the bottom of a gravity well a rocket has to provide 1g of acceleration to stay in on place??????????? no this is so wrong, the Earth has a gravity of about 1g at sea level. we are already using 1g of force by pushing down on the planet. Notice I said about 1g at sea level. this is because gravity does vary.

A rocket that generates thrust equal to it's mass will accelerate at 1g in free space, but here on Earth it will just sit there.

So can't use ion drive or solar sails to get to orbit.

And yes gravity drops off as you climb out of the well , it also drops as you accelerate because , to dumb it down centrifugal force.

this bit does not make a great deal of sense to me, dunno why but somehow it does not flow properly, sorry : "If your craft had a frontal area of 1m squared then at sea level you'd need to push 1Kg of air out of your way for every meter per second you were travelling at. So figure out ten tonnes of, superheated by compression, air in the first second"

The atmosphere is kinda like having 10 meters of water above you.

If you accelerate horizontally then you have to go through more of it.
Say roughly 10Km/s to get to orbit , so 10,000 meters of air

finally your figures on the space elevator, areyou certain? I think accelerating for a fortnight would have you a bit further than GEO even at less than 1g.

Ah, but you aren't accelerating. If you were then you would need a humongous counterweight above GEO and stronger tethers.

Fathom · 20-11-2017 6:39pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A rocket that generates thrust equal to it's mass will accelerate at 1g in free space, but here on Earth it will just sit there. So can't use ion drive or solar sails to get to orbit.

Still Earth bound by old tech. When will this change? Any theoretical probabilities that might reach fruition someday?

Capt'n Midnight · 20-11-2017 11:55pm

Fathom wrote: »

Still Earth bound by old tech. When will this change? Any theoretical probabilities that might reach fruition someday?

You can leverage some things.
To escape the Earth's Gravity you need twice as much energy as Low Earth Orbit. So to get to Mars you send the fuel to LEO with rockets and then use ion driver or mirrors to get it to a higher orbit. This would save you up to half of the number of rockets. Humans would still have to up with chemical rockets because otherwise any savings in fuel weight would be spent on food and oxygen.

Nukes will get you to orbit if you don't mind the political fallout and the fallout itself.

Space elevator is still far in the future and too slow for humans but fine for fuel and nuts and bolts.

Fathom · 21-11-2017 4:29pm

NASA's space elevator concept.

Capt'n Midnight · 21-11-2017 8:36pm

Fathom wrote: »

NASA's space elevator concept.

So the goal is 2Km and the previous best was about 1.5Km ?

Mars and the Moon aren't that different for a space elevator , they just need to be very long.

www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/1032Pearson.pdf

Black Swan · 25-11-2017 6:04pm

Doubtful that the Republican controlled US Congress or the Trump administration will fund substantial research for space elevators.

Rubecula · 25-11-2017 10:53pm

can't say I have any particular liking for space elevator schemes
I prefer ground to space vessels

Capt'n Midnight · 25-11-2017 11:35pm

Space elevators are slow.

You'd have to send people up with months worth of food for the journey.

So for now people would still go up strapped to giant fireworks

Sligatrons and rail guns and superguns and stuff could also send up things like Ice and nuts and bolts and fuel, but nothing fragile like people, electronics, or delicate mechanicals. But to get from LEO to Mars takes a lot of delta-V so every Kg you don't have to haul up on a rocket is worth it.

Rubecula · 26-11-2017 11:05pm

Could a maglev work with a power boost?

Capt'n Midnight · 27-11-2017 12:05am

Rubecula wrote: »

Could a maglev work with a power boost?

In a vacuum there's no air resistance and it's probably possible to build one on the moon. Just needs to be very long or have very high acceleration. You then need a rocket to circularise the orbit once you get up there.

Down here air resistance doesn't help at all.

Rubecula · 27-11-2017 2:30am

that is pretty much what I meant, sorry my fault for not speaking plainly

dr.fuzzenstein · 27-11-2017 2:07pm

I doubt anything will happen this century. All those videos about space elevators or even "warp drive" are nothing more than fan fiction created by well meaning nerds.
It's all about money. The US spends a stupendous amount on the military

So all that money is badly needed to buy stuff to blow <snip> up.
Private enterprise has the cash, but the golden rule is that it has to have a return. And no risk. Everything else can <snip> off.
So money will be spent on 2 things. Bigger bombs and shinier gadgets.
What will happen after that? I only see it getting worse.
Why did humans land on the moon anyway? It wasn't for exploration or the betterment of mankind. It was purely spite and malice. Just to get one over the other guy.
If someone told Trump the Mexicans were building a base on the Moon or Mars, trillions would be made available within 5 minutes.
So the only way to get the funding is to appeal to greed, spite and malice. Outside laziness, those are the biggest driving factors for any kind of human achievement. Because we will only do things to make our future lives easier, make more money or get ahead of the next guy.

Fathom · 27-11-2017 4:59pm

If the "Military Industrial Complex" could profit from Mars. It would happen. Otherwise?

dr.fuzzenstein · 27-11-2017 7:59pm

Fathom wrote: »

If the "Military Industrial Complex" could profit from Mars. It would happen. Otherwise?

Bigger bombs and shinier iPhones.

Capt'n Midnight · 27-11-2017 11:07pm

Fathom wrote: »

If the "Military Industrial Complex" could profit from Mars. It would happen. Otherwise?

Jim Hacker: "Math has become politicized: If it costs 5 billion pounds a year to maintain Britain's nuclear defences and 75 pounds a year to feed a starving African child, how many African children can be saved from starvation if the Ministry of Defence abandoned nuclear weapons?"

Sir Humphrey: "That's easy: none. They'd spend it all on conventional weapons."

Capt'n Midnight · 27-11-2017 11:46pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I doubt anything will happen this century. All those videos about space elevators or even "warp drive" are nothing more than fan fiction created by well meaning nerds.
It's all about money. The US spends a stupendous amount on the military

A lot of the NASA budget goes to the military-industrial complex.

IIRC there's about €4Bn in the NASA budget for overruns and projects and pork barrelling and so on.

Fathom · 01-12-2017 5:08pm

1958 t0 2012: NASA's declining budget as a percentage of federal budget. NASA-Budget-Federal.svg_.png

Valerie Matthews · 04-12-2018 1:55pm

I can hardly believe in it

Fathom · 08-12-2018 2:13am

NASA budget. "Follow the money." Not speeches or tweets. "Money talks and ..."

AMKC · 08-12-2018 1:42pm

Well I think we all now know that humans will not be on Mars by 2020. It will be more like the 2030s. Anyone here watch the national Geographic show ''Mars' that was out a couple of years ago? Its on Netflix now. I am watching it now and must say its very good.

Fathom · 08-12-2018 7:11pm

Mars One. Specifies several unmanned first. Structures. Resources. Shipped first. 2020 doubtful.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-12-2018 11:47pm

Mars 2020 ? Try 1952.

Von Braun's enormous expedition approaches Mars. The three winged landing boats are accompanied by seven cargo/passenger ships.

http://www.astronautix.com/v/vonbraunmarpedition-1952.html

Mars by 2020?

Comments