New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations by emailing newmarsmember * gmail.com become a registered member. Read the Recruiting expertise for NewMars Forum topic in Meta New Mars for other information for this process.

#1 Re: Human missions » New Vehicle? We already have one. - Why not use the ISS for Moon/Mars? » 2004-02-08 22:05:46

Well, I guess that's good enough for me. Thanks for answering (in my mind at least) my question.

#2 Re: Human missions » New Vehicle? We already have one. - Why not use the ISS for Moon/Mars? » 2004-02-07 18:15:39

From Space.com

The ions travel out into space at 68,000 miles (109,430 kilometers) per hour. But Deep Space 1 doesn?t move that fast in the other direction because it is much heavier than the ions. Its cruising speed is closer to 33,000 miles (53,100 kilometers) per hour.

The thrust itself is amazingly light -- about the force felt by a sheet of paper on the palm of your hand.

"If you want a mission in which you want to reach your destination in a hurry or accelerate quickly, ion propulsion's not for you," Rayman said. "It takes four days to go from zero to 60 (miles per hour). I like to say it's acceleration with patience."

But once ion propulsion gets going, nothing compares to its acceleration. Over the long haul, it can deliver 10 times as much thrust-per-pound of fuel as more traditional rockets. Each day the thrust adds 15 to 20 miles (25 to 32 kilometers) per hour to the spacecraft's speed. By the end of Deep Space 1's mission, the ion engine will have changed its speed by 6,800 miles (11,000 kilometers) per hour.

That means the ship could gain 500MPH every month. If a ship started out at 10,000mph we could be up to 16,00MPH within 1 year. 24,000mph in two, etc. That's cruisin!

#3 Re: Human missions » New Vehicle? We already have one. - Why not use the ISS for Moon/Mars? » 2004-02-07 17:54:20

OK, that begs two questions

1) since the progress modules are already used to raise the ISS to higher orbits, then I assume the station can handle certain stresses. Why not use a derivitive of the progress to propel the station out of orbit and to such a speed that the IONs can take over once the Progress is depleted?

2) I read that the ION is not a good choice for short hops (the moon) for the very reasons you mentioned. However, the same article noted that longer planetary missions would benefit due to the extreme distances. The ION gets up to a speed greater than conventional methods after a certain time. Let me research this.

#4 Re: Human missions » New Vehicle? We already have one. - Why not use the ISS for Moon/Mars? » 2004-02-07 14:46:03

But wouldn't the stress of something as subtle as an that of an ION engine be barely noticeable?

#5 Re: Human missions » New Vehicle? We already have one. - Why not use the ISS for Moon/Mars? » 2004-02-07 11:08:28

I apologize if this has already been posted here. I am new to this board. Of course I am no scientist and I am sure that you have already considered this, but I feel it is my duty to bring it up anyway.

The President is interested in creating some "Crew Vehicle" to go to the Moon and/or Mars, etc. Since funding is being cut on the space station, my question is this:

Why not use the space station as your spaceship? You already have HAB modules and other pieces that could make the station even more useful in this endeavor. For instance, why couldn't NASA prepare some of the following modules to assist them in this endeavor?

Propulsion: One or more modules connected to the station which would propel it to its destination. The propulsion would have to be gentle and be able to run for extended periods. Obviously, the ION engines we already employ would be the first to come to mind.

Habitat: You already have designs for this.

Longevity: Add storage for supplies and necessities. The Italian-named modules do this already.

Command and control: This module would be new. It might be located at the front of the station and would essentially be used as the "Cockpit" including enhanced telecommunications, an excellent view, and complete control over the craft's navigation and movement.

Descent Module: This would also be new and would probably be duplicated a few times so as to offer multiple descents. I would envision a Lander with some cargo capability attached to the station for planet or moon landings.

So, to summarize. You add some of the logistic modules, a propulsion module, a cockpit module, a couple of Lander craft and a habitat module (already designed) and voila'! You have your spaceship. It just seems silly to put all of this money into a whole new breed of craft (Especially considering funding for ISS science missions is decreasing) when you can simply add the appropriate modules to an already good design!

Although I'm positive there are some very good reasons why this cannot be done, my hope is that I can do whatever I can to help NASA's endeavors. Even in my very tiny way.

Thanks for your consideration.

Ryan Mcmillen
ryan@mcmillenonline.com

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB