New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#1 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » SpaceX - Starlink Internet » Yesterday 18:14:04
Starlink satellites are falling daily, worrying Musk
Elon Musk’s Starlink network was built to blanket the planet with low-cost internet, but a growing number of its satellites are now falling back to Earth every single day. As I look at the data and the scientists raising alarms, the story is no longer just about connectivity—it is about whether the world is sleepwalking into a new kind of environmental and safety risk in the sky.
The scale of the Starlink project means that even a small design trade-off can have global consequences once multiplied by thousands of spacecraft. With experts warning that deorbiting satellites are already altering the upper atmosphere and could threaten aircraft and people on the ground, Musk faces a new set of worries that can’t be solved with launch capacity alone.Starlink’s rapid growth meets a new kind of gravity
When I step back and look at Starlink’s trajectory, the sheer speed of its expansion is staggering: thousands of satellites launched in just a few years, with plans for tens of thousands more. That aggressive cadence has turned low Earth orbit into a dense shell of hardware, and now the return journey—those satellites falling back down—is starting to define the next phase of the story. Earlier this year, reporting showed that up to four Starlink units are in the process of reentering the atmosphere on any given day, a rate that transforms what might have been a rare event into a routine part of the global environment.
What makes this shift so striking to me is that the falling hardware is not a surprise glitch but a built-in feature of the system: the satellites are designed to operate for only a few years before burning up in the atmosphere. A detailed analysis of the constellation noted that the spacecraft are intentionally placed in low Earth orbit so they will naturally decay and disintegrate rather than linger as debris, yet that same design choice means the planet is now being showered with a steady stream of artificial material. One investigation into how Starlink satellites are falling to Earth daily underscored that this constant turnover is happening at the same time as more and more units are being sent to orbit, raising questions about how sustainable the model really is.Daily reentries and the warning from space experts
As I dug into the numbers, the idea that “a satellite fell somewhere” stopped feeling like a rare headline and started to look like a daily background condition. Spaceflight specialists now estimate that up to four Starlink satellites are in some stage of orbital decay at any moment, each one gradually spiraling down until it hits the thicker layers of the atmosphere and breaks apart. That means dozens of reentries every month, and because the constellation is spread around the globe, the fallout is distributed over many regions rather than confined to a single corridor.The concern I hear from experts is not just about the spectacle of streaks in the sky but about what those streaks are made of. One space analyst described how the satellites’ aluminum and other metals vaporize as they burn, injecting material into the upper atmosphere that was never there in such quantities before. In a focused warning that Starlink Satellites Keep Falling, a Space Expert Warns that this daily rain of debris is happening at the same time as more satellites are being launched, creating a feedback loop where the more Musk builds his network, the more material ends up burning in the sky.
Scientists flag environmental risks in the upper atmosphere
What troubles me most is how quickly the conversation has shifted from abstract orbital mechanics to concrete environmental impacts. Earlier this year, Scientists documented that 120 Starlink satellites fell from space in a single month, a figure that turns the upper atmosphere into a kind of industrial exhaust pipe. Each disintegrating spacecraft releases metallic vapour as it burns, and researchers are now trying to understand how that plume interacts with ozone chemistry, cloud formation, and the delicate balance of radiation that keeps the climate stable.In their warnings, Scientists have emphasized that the satellites are designed to burn fully, leaving no large debris to hit the ground, but that doesn’t mean they vanish without a trace. Instead, the material is redistributed as fine particles and gases at high altitude, where it can linger and potentially alter atmospheric processes in ways we are only beginning to quantify. A detailed report on how failing Starlink satellites worry scientists highlighted that 120 fell in Jan and that the environmental risks from this metallic vapour are not yet fully understood, underscoring how Musk’s orbital strategy is now entangled with planetary-scale questions.
Avi Loeb’s “new threat from the sky” and the numbers behind it
Among the voices pushing this issue into the mainstream, astrophysicist Avi Loeb has been unusually blunt, describing Musk’s falling satellites as a “new threat from the sky.” When I read his comments, what stands out is not alarmism but a sober recognition that the system is working exactly as designed: the satellites have an average lifespan of about five years, after which they are expected to reenter and burn up. Loeb has argued that this predictable churn means we can no longer treat each reentry as an isolated event; instead, we need to think of it as a continuous industrial process happening overhead.Loeb’s concerns have been amplified by coverage that tracks how quickly the reentry rate is rising. One report by Zach Kaplan noted on Oct 10, 2025, and then Updated on Oct 11, 2025, that the number of satellites falling back to Earth could rise by 61% each year if current launch plans continue, a projection that turns today’s daily reentries into tomorrow’s constant shower. That same analysis pointed out that 37 satellites had already come down in a recent period, illustrating how fast the tally can climb. In that context, Loeb’s description of Elon Musk’s falling satellites as a “new threat from the sky” is less a rhetorical flourish than a summary of the math, and it is why I link his warning directly to the data on Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites falling to Earth.
Design choices: five-year lifespans and complete burn-up
From a purely engineering standpoint, I can see why SpaceX opted for short-lived satellites that burn up completely. By giving each Starlink unit a lifespan of about five years and placing it in low Earth orbit, the company reduces the long-term risk of dead hardware clogging space and triggering catastrophic collisions. The idea is that when a satellite fails or reaches the end of its mission, atmospheric drag will eventually pull it down, where it disintegrates before any large fragments can reach the surface.The trade-off, however, is that this design pushes the environmental burden from orbital debris to atmospheric pollution. A detailed account of how Starlink satellites have a lifespan of about five years explains that they are specifically designed to burn up completely in the Earth’s atmosphere, with some researchers warning that the resulting particles could contribute to warming the atmosphere. In other words, Musk has solved one problem—space junk—by creating another, and the question now is whether regulators and scientists can keep up with the pace of his design decisions.
“Already falling” and why the trend will only accelerate
When I compare early Starlink launches to the current phase, the most striking change is how normal falling satellites have become. SpaceX’s orbital internet fleet is no longer a static constellation; it is a conveyor belt, with new units going up as older ones come down. Analysts tracking the orbits have concluded that the satellites are already falling out of low Earth orbit at an increasingly alarming rate, and that the trend is baked into the architecture of the system rather than being a temporary glitch.Some observers have gone further, arguing that the pattern of failures and reentries points to a design problem as much as a planned lifecycle. They note that as the constellation grows, even small reliability issues can translate into dozens of extra reentries each year, compounding the environmental and safety concerns. A close look at how Starlink satellites are already falling suggests that the rate will only get worse as more spacecraft are added, raising the possibility that Musk will have to revisit core design choices if he wants to keep the system politically and environmentally viable.
Balancing global internet access with risks from above
For all the worry, I don’t want to lose sight of why Starlink exists in the first place. In remote villages, disaster zones, and war-torn regions, the network has become a lifeline, delivering broadband where fiber and cell towers either never existed or have been destroyed. That humanitarian and economic upside is real, and it explains why governments and consumers have been willing to tolerate a certain level of orbital clutter and reentry risk in exchange for connectivity that would otherwise be out of reach.The challenge for Elon Musk now is that the trade-offs are becoming harder to ignore as the numbers climb. With up to four satellites falling toward Earth on any given day, 120 recorded in a single month, and projections that the reentry rate could rise by 61% each year, the burden of proof is shifting: it is no longer enough to say the satellites burn up harmlessly. As I weigh the evidence from Oct 8, 2025, Oct 9, 2025, Oct 10, 2025, and Feb 6, 2025, and read experts like Loeb warning that Starlink’s falling hardware represents a new threat from the sky, it is clear that Musk’s next big challenge is not just launching more satellites—it is convincing the world that the daily rain of metal and vapour above our heads will not come back to haunt us on the ground.
#2 Re: Unmanned probes » Blue Origin Unmanned Missions » Yesterday 18:08:59
Blue Origin Lands New Glenn Stage at Sea, Escalating SpaceX Rivalry
Could a single rocket landing redefine the balance of power in commercial spaceflight? Blue Origin’s New Glenn has just completed its first operational mission, delivering a payload to low-Earth orbit and returning its first stage to a drone ship matching capability that, until now, belonged exclusively to SpaceX.
The mission carried NASA’s ESCAPADE twin satellites, Blue and Gold, which Rocket Lab built to study how Mars lost its atmosphere. Each spacecraft, roughly the size of a copy machine, will fly in tandem around the Red Planet to capture a stereo view of how the solar wind strips away atmospheric particles. This dual-satellite approach, enabled by miniaturization trends in spacecraft engineering, offers redundancy and higher data resolution while keeping mission costs to a modest $80 million.
New Glenn’s success is rooted in years of engineering development. The rocket stands at 320 feet, nearly a third taller than SpaceX’s Falcon 9, and can lift up to 45 tons to low-Earth orbit almost double Falcon 9’s capacity. Its BE-4 engines, fueled by liquid natural gas and liquid oxygen, power a first stage designed for at least 25 reuses. In returning to the drone ship Jacklyn positioned 375 miles offshore, precise guidance, navigation, and control systems were needed to manage reentry dynamics, aerodynamic loads, and landing leg deployment on a moving platform.
Recovery of drone ships for orbital-class rockets is a complicated choreography: Jacklyn’s station-keeping thrusters hold position against ocean currents, while onboard tracking systems guide the descending booster onto a reinforced landing pad. This capability enables recovery from missions without fuel margin for a return-to-launch-site landing, increasing operational flexibility while lowering per-launch costs.
The destination of the payload adds another layer of technical achievement-the planet Mars. ESCAPADE will follow an innovative trajectory, first traveling to the Sun-Earth L2 Lagrange point to collect solar data before slingshotting back past Earth for a gravity assist toward Mars. This route reduces propellant mass to about 65% of the spacecraft’s total, compared to the 80-85% typical for direct transfers, and offers more flexible departure windows than the traditional Hohmann transfer.
While this mission demonstrated New Glenn’s orbital delivery and sea-based recovery, the next challenge for Blue Origin will be the Blue Moon Mark 1 lunar lander. The uncrewed Mk.1 will be powered by BE-7 engines burning liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen and is designed to take cargo to the surface of the Moon on a single New Glenn flight. Already, the company is stacking the aft, mid and forward modules of the Mk.1 in Florida in preparation for thermal vacuum testing at NASA’s Johnson Space Center. Future variants, such as the crewed Mk.2 lander, would need orbital refueling via a Lunar Transporter technology which will require mastery of cryogenic propellant storage and transfer in space.
hat development comes as NASA has reopened its Artemis 3 Human Landing System contract, which awarded a noncompetitive contract to SpaceX over a year ago, due to delays in the Starship program. The over-50-meter-tall Starship HLS must still demonstrate orbital propellant transfer, targeted now for 2026, before carrying astronauts to the lunar surface. Blue Origin is positioning itself as a credible alternative with its proven New Glenn launch vehicle and advancing lunar lander program.
From a manufacturing standpoint, scaling reusable rocket operations will be crucial. The SpaceX Falcon 9 has executed a high operational tempo with its 516 landings and 484 reflights to date. To compete with SpaceX on price and cadence, Blue Origin must first ramp up production of New Glenn first stages, refine refurbishment workflows, and integrate rapid turnaround processes. The economics of reusability depend on minimizing inspection and repair cycles without compromising safety-an engineering challenge that will define the next phase of this rivalry.
With New Glenn’s first operational mission complete, Blue Origin has moved from proof-of-concept to active competitor. The ability to deliver payloads to orbit and recover boosters at sea is no longer a SpaceX monopoly, with implications for launch pricing, government contracts, and deep space missions that are immediate. We’ve entered a new era in the reusable rocket market, one in which the contest for dominance will be fought not just in the skies, but in the engineering labs and production lines that make these feats possible.
#3 Re: Human missions » Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo. » Yesterday 15:36:02
Leaked Document Shows Elon Musk’s SpaceX Will Miss Moon Landing Deadline. Here's What To Know
According to the original Artemis plan, we should have already put people on the Moon. Artemis III should have gone and come back by now. Instead, it is currently tentatively scheduled for no earlier than mid-2027. However, the mission is almost certain to be delayed again. The reason for the delay lies with SpaceX's Starship rocket: a leaked memo states that the vehicle won’t be ready until mid-2028, at least.
During the first Trump administration, the mission to bring humans back to the Moon was christened Artemis. It was going to involve the already-in-construction Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion capsule, as well as a privately built Human Landing System. Orion and SLS were tested with Artemis I in 2022.The original selection for the Human Landing System spacecraft was SpaceX's then-planned Starship. This actually created legal troubles for NASA. Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin, a rival space company, filed a complaint in federal court against NASA, escalating its original complaint that NASA unfairly awarded the lunar lander contract to Elon Musk’s SpaceX.
At the time, the legal trouble seemed to be a major delaying factor. Issues with the spacesuit designs and problems with the heatshield of Orion added to the delays of both crewed missions: Artemis II, which will launch next year and travel around the Moon, and Artemis III, the mission that is going to bring the first woman and first person of color to the surface of the Moon. The next Moon landing was first envisioned to happen in 2024, then this year, and then it was postponed to next year. At the end of 2024, a mid-2027 date was put down, which remains the currently agreed target.
Before that agreement, an analysis published over a year ago by the US Government Accountability Office was skeptical that it would be possible to make that date, and posited it would be pushed to 2028. The major delaying factor now is Starship. The vehicle suffered multiple explosions this year. Despite the most recent successes, the vehicle is well behind schedule to safely carry astronauts from lunar orbit to the Moon's surface and back.
A few weeks ago, acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy went on TV to announce that the space agency was open to other companies to provide a lunar landing system. “[SpaceX and Musk] push their timelines out, and we’re in a race against China,” Duffy told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” at the time. “So, I’m going to open up the contract. I’m going to let other space companies compete with SpaceX.”
The only company that is ready to compete is Blue Origin. The company has not been advertising what they have been doing with their Blue Moon human lander, but it is expected that an actual space test will happen in the first half of next year. Blue Moon is supposed to be delivered in 2030 for Artemis V
Elon Musk did not take the news of NASA shopping around well. He turned to social media to post school-yard insults regarding Duffy (called him “Sean Dummy”) and wrote that: “The person responsible for America's space program can't have a 2-digit IQ.” Duffy retorted that “great companies shouldn’t be afraid of a challenge.”
In the leaked memo reported by Audrey Decker at Politico, SpaceX will be ready to land humans on the Moon in September 2028, more than a year after the mid-2027 goal of NASA. Before that, Starship needs to demonstrate in-space refueling, currently scheduled for June 2026, and an uncrewed landing on the Moon in June 2027.
To make that schedule work, nothing can go wrong. While Starship has achieved certain success as defined by the specific tests from SpaceX, it has yet to demonstrate the capabilities of flying to space and landing back on Earth safely. To state the obvious, a safe landing is the crucial part of a Lunar Human landing system.
NASA’s plans for the Moon missions continue to shift. The Trump administration’s budget has proposed canceling SLS, Orion, and the Lunar Gateway – the next-gen international space station currently under construction to replace the ISS – that is supposed to orbit the Moon to help facilitate both Moon landings nd further space travel. The administration's goal is to rely more on commercial partners, but it's an ever-changing race which ones they will be.
#4 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Brick on Mars » Yesterday 15:18:51
For SpaceNut re link to topic about buried domes...
Just FYI ... I have tried to bring up bedrock, but so far I haven't seen any mention of the importance of setting the base of a massive building on bedrock. At present, we humans have very limited ability to know where bedrock is on Mars. There may be some data collected by satellites that could be helpful, but I'll bet no one has sifted that data looking for bedrock.
(th)
The depth of Martian bedrock varies, with the crust reaching up to \(23\) miles (\(37\) kilometers) in some areas and potentially being multi-layered, while the shallow subsurface is about \(200\) meters (\(656\) feet) deep in certain plains. The deepest bedrock layers can be up to \(37\) kilometers thick and contain water in some regions, with a shallow sedimentary layer sandwiched between solidified lava flows just below the surface.
Crustal and shallow subsurface depth Crust:
The overall thickness of Mars' crust is estimated to be between \(12\) miles (\(20\) kilometers) and \(23\) miles (\(37\) kilometers), depending on the number of sub-layers it has.Shallow subsurface: Studies of plains like Elysium Planitia have revealed a shallow subsurface about \(200\) meters (\(656\) feet) deep, which includes a layer of basaltic rock (cooled lava flows) and an intermediate layer of low seismic velocity.Layered subsurface:
The shallow subsurface is not a single layer of bedrock but appears to be multi-layered, with a sedimentary layer between lava flows in some locations. Deeper bedrock and water Deepest crust: The deepest parts of the crust are estimated to be as deep as \(23\) miles (\(37\) kilometers).Water in the crust:
Some models suggest that the mid-crust, around \(10\)-\(20\) kilometers (\(6\)-\(12\) miles) deep, may be porous and cracked, with enough water to form a global ocean \(1\)-\(2\) kilometers deep if collected.Other depths Surface layers:
The very top layer of the crust (first \(5\) meters) is thought to be a porous granular material, while the next layer down, from \(5\)-\(180\) meters, could be porous volcanic/sedimentary rock or consolidated volcanic rock.Polar deposits:
In the polar regions, layered deposits of CO2 and water ice extend to a depth of \(1\) kilometer (\(0.6\) miles).Bedrock on Mars generally refers to the underlying solid rock of the planet's crust, which varies significantly in depth depending on location and local geology.
The Bedrock Depth on Mars
Varies by location: The depth to bedrock can be very shallow in some areas, potentially just a few meters or less from the surface, especially in specific crater rims or outcrops.
Deep in other areas: In other regions, particularly where significant layers of regolith (soil and loose rock) have accumulated, the bedrock may be much deeper.
Crustal Thickness: The overall Martian crust (which is all bedrock) ranges in thickness from about 6 to 30 miles (10 to 50 kilometers). Data from the NASA InSight mission at its landing site suggested the crust was approximately 20 kilometers or 39 kilometers thick in two potential layers.
Scientists study the depth and composition of the bedrock using data from orbiters, landers, and rovers, which employ tools like ground-penetrating radar, cameras, and drills to analyze the surface and subsurface
#5 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Brick on Mars » 2025-11-18 17:14:06
Found the oth4r topic which is related Buried geodesic domes
#6 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Brick on Mars » 2025-11-18 15:29:20
I was not adocating for the use of Rebar but we may need to think about a substitute.
here is the brick types that are currently employed in building.
Class A construction bricks are a type of engineering brick known for their high compressive strength and low water absorption. These durable bricks, often called Staffordshire Blues, are used in demanding civil and commercial projects requiring extreme resistance to water and frost, such as retaining walls, sewers, and tunnels.
They have a compressive strength of over \(125N/mm^{2}\) and a water absorption rate of less than 4.5%.
Characteristics and specifications Compressive Strength:
Greater than \(125N/mm^{2}\) (approximately over \(18,000\) psi).Water Absorption: Less than 4.5%.
Composition:
Typically made from clay that is fired at very high temperatures to create a dense, strong, and non-porous material.
Appearance:
Often a dark blue color due to the high-temperature firing process, though other colors may be available. Aesthetics are less important than their physical properties.Common applications
Below-ground structures exposed to high moisture and frost.
Retaining walls.
Sewer systems.
Manholes.
Tunnels.
Damp proof courses.
Severe exposure applications and contrasting detailing in brickworkClassification/Grade: Class A construction bricks
Key Properties:
[] Compressive Strength: High (typically around 125 N/mm²)
[] Water Absorption: Low (typically less than 4.5%)
Typical Applications:
[] Structural applications
[] Foundations
[] Tunnels
[] Below-ground work
There is no established "Class A" construction brick for Mars, but scientists are developing several promising alternatives to build habitats using in-situ resources. These methods include using Martian soil (regolith) compacted under pressure, with iron oxide acting as a natural binder, or creating binding agents from organic materials like potato starch, or through synthetic biology with biominerals and fungal mycelium.
Methods for creating Mars bricks
Compacted Martian soil:
Researchers have found that Martian soil simulant, when compacted under pressure alone, can form durable, strong bricks.
The iron oxide in the soil acts as a natural binding agent, and the bricks are reportedly stronger than steel-reinforced concrete.
This method is compatible with additive manufacturing, where layers of soil are compacted to build structures.
Starcrete (starch-based binder):
A material called Starcrete uses potato starch, salt, and Martian soil as a binding agent.
This method allows for the on-site production of building materials, avoiding the need to transport them from Earth.
It is stronger than regular concrete.
Biomineralization:
This method uses self-growing blocks created by agents like cyanobacteria and fungi to produce biominerals (e.g., calcium carbonate) and biopolymers.
These agents bind the regolith particles together to form building materials.
This is a "living bricks" concept where the materials are self-creating and require no human input for production, as discussed in SciTechDaily.
Other binding agents:
Scientists have also explored using protein from blood as a binder for Martian soil, similar to a concrete, as described in Stanford University's news.
Research has been conducted on using human blood, urine, and feces to create construction materials.
Sulfur cement and other types of cement substitutes are also being considered for use on Mars.
Key takeaway
While no official "Class A" designation exists, the primary goal is to use in-situ resources to create a sustainable building material for Mars habitats, with many different methods being explored and developed by researchers worldwide
#7 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Brick on Mars » 2025-11-17 15:44:36
For walls that are on earth the bricks are limited to just about 15 m height without rebar in them with concrete as the binder to hold a wall upright.
This will not only need lots of trial and error just to get a process for any design.
#8 Re: Business Proposals » Business Opportunity - Mirror in orbit » 2025-11-17 15:41:14
I believe musk was wanting to use them in orbit to control global warming a few months ago.
#9 Re: Meta New Mars » Housekeeping » 2025-11-17 15:39:32
I have 20 sheets of this product Advantech 23/32 in. x 4 ft. x 8 ft. T&G OSB Underlayment Panel and additional 10 sheets to complete the roof surface with 23/32 in. x 4 ft. x 8 ft. Dry Guard Oriented Strand Board to which it is not as good for quality as the advantech product.
The wind was so strong over the night that the tarp was ripped off and is now on the ground.
#10 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Brick on Mars » 2025-11-16 17:35:51
The 2 drawings give me the impression that the buildings are also tied into the actual dome for support and strength with each wall contact of vertical rise.
#11 Re: Home improvements » Misc. Home Projects » 2025-11-16 17:32:33
I had to put a tarp over my roof to save it from having rain coming through it into the house. It has been lifting several 2x6 8 ft planks from the surface into the air. I am thinking of the types of use of the windmills for the particular use of it.
#12 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Brick on Mars » 2025-11-15 18:59:32
No single "epoxy" product exists for Mars temperatures,
but
researchers are developing specialized polymer composites using epoxy resins mixed with simulated Martian soil (regolith) and other local materials. These composites are designed for high physical properties and thermal stability in extreme Martian conditions, with some examples including modifications with tetraethoxysilane (TEOS) or the use of thermoplastic polymers for enhanced durability and UV resistance.
Epoxy and polymer composites for Mars
Polymer composites:
Researchers are creating polymer composites that use local regolith as a filler in epoxy resins.
High physical properties: These composites are being developed to achieve high physical properties, including mechanical strength and thermal stability, for use as building materials.
Modified fillers:
Chemical modification of the Martian regolith filler, such as with TEOS, can significantly enhance the properties of the final composite, notes this study from Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
Other considerations
Thermoplastics:
In addition to traditional epoxy, advanced thermoplastics are also being explored for their UV resistance and recyclability, which are crucial for space environments, according to this article from SpringerLink.
Sulfur concrete:
Another research avenue is the development of sulfur-based concrete, which uses sulfur as a bonding agent and is recyclable, notes this article from ScienceDirect.
Waterless concrete:
Given the lack of liquid water on Mars, many of these new building materials, including the epoxy-based composites, are being designed to be waterless.
Geopolymer cement:
Other research is focused on creating geopolymer bricks by mixing Martian soil with a high-pH solution to create a strong, cement-like material, according to University of Delaware.
#13 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2025-11-15 14:18:28
#14 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Brick on Mars » 2025-11-15 14:03:24
Asking AI for Mars is not what we need first as we need to understand the difficulties of building first on earth where man does this manually. Mars will not allow this which means mars needs new machines and processes. Lack of materials for bricks is an issue, there is no commodity shop for other materials to bind or to make them adhere to the made bricks. That is why you develope within a chamber with the conditions that you would use on mars once you have methods to try.
#15 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Brick on Mars » 2025-11-14 17:56:12
A none clear dome could be done with brick of course.
Building a 200-meter diameter brick dome is a massive engineering challenge, a project that would surpass the scale of the world's current largest masonry dome, the Florence Cathedral dome, which has a diameter of approximately 42 meters.
Such a structure would require advanced engineering, modern materials science, and innovative construction techniques to ensure stability and durability.
Key Considerations for a 200m Diameter Brick Dome
Structural Feasibility:
A 200m dome is possible in theory, but traditional unreinforced masonry techniques (like those used in historical domes) might not be sufficient at this scale due to the immense weight and stress. Modern construction would likely involve reinforced masonry, steel, or concrete elements.
Foundation:
A robust and secure foundation is essential to handle the massive load of a 200m dome and transfer it evenly to the ground without settling.
Construction Techniques:
Formwork:
Unlike smaller domes that can sometimes be built with minimal or no formwork using specific "tricks" like sticky mortar and specialized tools, a dome of this size would likely require extensive temporary support structures (centering or formwork) or innovative construction methods.
Geometric Design:
The geometry is critical. Engineers would need to select an appropriate profile (e.g., a hemisphere, which might not be practical for the internal space usage, or a different curve).
Material Science:
The bricks would need to be strong, and the mortar would play a critical role in bonding the massive structure.
Engineering Expertise:
Collaboration between structural engineers and architects is vital to ensure all aspects of the design and construction are feasible and safe.
Modern Alternatives:
For a dome of this size, modern construction methods like those used for Monolithic Domes (using an inflatable membrane, foam, rebar, and shotcrete) are more common and potentially more practical and cost-effective.
Seismic Considerations:
If built in an earthquake-prone region, specific reinforcement and design considerations would be critical to ensure the structure's integrity.
Summary
A 200m diameter brick dome would be a monumental architectural and engineering feat, far exceeding existing examples of masonry domes. Its construction would require substantial engineering innovation, modern reinforced techniques, and extensive structural analysis to overcome the challenges posed by its unprecedented scale.
#16 Re: Meta New Mars » Housekeeping » 2025-11-14 17:52:27
Of course all changes in scale as bricks are small and blocks are just larger ie cinder blocks. so what come next to build something larger?
#17 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Brick on Mars » 2025-11-14 15:20:39
sure we can build using a system of bricks or blocks.
For building arch shapes, you can use either tapered/wedge-shaped bricks or standard rectangular bricks. Tapered bricks are specially designed for arches to create uniform mortar joints, while rectangular bricks can be used for a flatter arch, sometimes called a soldier arch. Special shapes like double-tapered arch bricks or bricks with a specific angle (like a 70° skew-back angle for flat arches) are also available for curved elements.
Types of bricks for arches
Tapered or wedge-shaped bricks:
These are the most common for rounded arches. They are tapered to ensure that the mortar joints are of a consistent thickness throughout the depth of the arch.
Double-tapered arch bricks: These are double-tapered in either width or length to form curved features, like an archway or a circular window.
Rectangular bricks (cut or full-size):
Soldier arches:
These are created by placing standard rectangular bricks on their ends, with their long sides set vertically. This type is more of a flat arch and requires support like a lintel or frame.
Flat arches:
Flat arches are often constructed with standard rectangular bricks that are the same size and have parallel sides, sometimes with a specific skew-back angle.
Specialty and pre-fabricated arches: Modern technology allows for pre-fabricated brick arches built to specific dimensions and designs, which can be a cost-effective solution.
Key considerations for size and shape
Uniformity:
The key for most arches is achieving uniform mortar joints for structural integrity. Tapered bricks achieve this, while flat arches often use standard rectangular pieces with a consistent, small mortar joint.
Angle:
For flat arches, a 70° skew-back angle is common for the voussoirs (the wedge-shaped stones used to build the arch).
Customization:
If your design requires specific angles, curves, or a certain rise, you may need to specify custom dimensions or use pre-fabricated arches
#18 Re: Life support systems » Dust Mitigation Mars Solidified Regolith or Artificial Lichen » 2025-11-14 14:57:29
ArtificialLichen is to change the soil to somewhat more like earths in that decade plant life creates topsoil which if enough water is present makes the soil not blw and become part of the atmospheric abrasve to breathing and static electricity cling.
Mars at one time did have it but with the loss of water and a much warmer planet the process stopped making clay and good topsoil.
#19 Re: Meta New Mars » Housekeeping » 2025-11-11 17:02:03
Sounds like its in good hands.
My last couple of days have been up on the roof in the rain and wind covering the roof with a tarp since the rain was coming down through it.
#20 Re: Human missions » Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE » 2025-11-10 18:21:22
SpaceX and Musk called on to rescue China's Shenzhou-20 crew
Technical and political obstacles block collaboration following suspected space debris strike on craft
SpaceX and Elon Musk are once again being called upon to rescue spacefarers — this time, the Chinese crew of Shenzhou-20, delayed on China's Tiangong space station after suspected space debris damage.…The three-person crew including Chen Dong, Chen Zhongrui, and Wang Jie, arrived in April and were supposed to return in November after a handover with the Shenzhou-21 crew. That return has been postponed while engineers assess potential damage from what reports describe as "a tiny piece of space debris."
SpaceX fans quickly began calling for a rescue mission. Earlier this year, US President Donald Trump instructed Musk to "go get" the crew of Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, whom Trump claimed were "virtually abandoned" by the Biden administration. Rather than correct the misunderstanding, Musk pledged SpaceX would bring back the "stranded" astronauts.
A Chinese rescue mission is improbable as the Shenzhou-20 crew faces no immediate danger and China could simply launch Shenzhou-22 earlier as a replacement, if needed.
The situation is not without precedent. In 2022, a Soyuz spacecraft attached to the International Space Station (ISS) was struck by a micrometeor, and an uncrewed replacement vehicle was launched to ferry the 'nauts back to Earth. At the time, NASA explored the possibility of bringing the Soyuz crew back on a SpaceX spacecraft, but the option was deemed unnecessary.
Is a rescue mission for the Shenzhou-20 team using a Crew Dragon even feasible? The next Crew Dragon launch is currently scheduled for around March or April 2026 - the NASA Crew-12 mission to the ISS. The following one, set for June 2026, is to service the Vast-1 space station. One of those missions would need to be rescheduled to free up a spacecraft, as SpaceX does not have a fleet on standby in case of an emergency.
Then there is docking. Despite claims China copied the docking system used by SpaceX and the ISS - published international standards are readily available - China's orbital implementation likely won't mate with Crew Dragon hardware.
So a spacewalk then? SpaceX demonstrated EVA capability in 2024 when Jared Isaacman exited through Crew Dragon's nose. However the Chinese crew's launch suits aren't spacewalk-rated, and while Tiangong has Feitian EVA suits, they're incompatible with SpaceX systems — and might not even fit through Crew Dragon's hatch.
Then there is the whole political heat such a mission would generate. It is difficult to imagine a US rocket company and China cooperating in this way.
If Shenzhou-20 can't fly, it is more likely Shenzhou-22 will be launched as a replacement. The Tiangong space station was not designed to host a crew of more than three for extended stays.
The incident, which comes less than a year after SpaceX's "rescue" of the Boeing crew, underscores two increasingly critical issues: spaceflight systems need to be standardized to enable cross-nation rescues, and space debris is becoming impossible to ignore.
The irony wouldn't be lost on Reg readers if the debris that - possibly - struck Shenzhou-20 originated from a Chinese anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) test years ago.
#21 Re: Meta New Mars » Housekeeping » 2025-11-10 18:15:43
Its been raining now for a couple of days and had to go up on the roof to pull a tarp over it to stop the rain from coming in.
I was scared the whole time I was on it to the point of being ill to the stomach but its on until wind tears it off.
#22 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Pedestrian Martian Cities » 2025-11-09 18:14:07
US cities are also very far appart requiring speed to travel the 30 minute to 1 hour of dsistance.
Walking speed of 2.5 mph is sort of typical for how unfit most are.
Myself I live 4 to 5 miles to the near by city and towns so a rould trip take half a day.
#23 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Rocket Engine Design » 2025-11-07 17:42:23
SpaceX's Raptor Engine Vs. Blue Origin's BE-4 - What's The Difference In These Rocket Engines
The Raptor engine is designed to create a thrust of 507,000 pound-force (lbf).
The SpaceX Raptor engine operates on a sub-cooled mixture of liquid methane (CH4) and liquid oxygen, which has a high boiling point and is neither toxic nor corrosive, making it safer and more straightforward to store than conventional fuels
The Raptor engine has possibly the highest chamber pressure of any rocket engine. In 2019, the engines achieved a chamber pressure of 257 bar, equivalent to over 3,700 pounds-force per square inch (psi). In 2023, that record was obliterated by the Raptor V3, which achieved 350 bar (over 5,000 psi).
Raptor engine's specific impulse was 350 or 380 seconds, depending on the nozzle,Meanwhile, the Blue Origin BE-4 is produces 550,000 lbf.
The Blue Origin BE-4, in contrast, uses a liquified natural gas (LNG) and liquid oxygen combination.While a single BE-4 engine outperforms an individual Raptor engine, the SpaceX Super Heavy first-stage booster has more overall thrust because it uses 33 Raptor engines to provide an explosive 16.7 million pounds of thrust.
Comparatively, the BE-4 lags behind by an ever-widening margin. In 2016, the BE-4 achieved a pressure of 134 bar (1,950 psi).
In contrast, the New Glenn's comparatively scant set of seven BE-4 engines produces 3.85 million pounds of thrust for its booster.
whereas Jeff Bezos stated that the BE-4's specific impulse was around 340 seconds.The Raptor engines utilize a full-flow staged combustion, and the BE-4 an oxygen-rich staged combustion. Both are forms of "staged combustion," where the propellant travels through several chambers and combusts in stages. This method is mechanically complex, converting space fuel into astonishing levels of thrust, along with highly pressurized and searing exhaust. Oxygen-rich combustion cycles burn a small amount of fuel along with a large amount of oxidizer in the preburner. In contrast, a full-flow engine has multiple preburners: one for the oxygen-rich combustion cycle and another for burning a small amount of oxidizer with a lot of fuel. While more complex than oxygen-rich staged combustion engines, full-flow staged engines operate at cooler temperatures and lower pressures, resulting in a longer lifespan.
#24 Re: Meta New Mars » Housekeeping » 2025-11-07 17:23:17
The shutdown is doing a number on those that are still working but not getting paid. Sure once a budget gets passed all will be corrected but it hurts now for many that are living paycheck to paycheck.
160 hrs worked but zero pay does where on many, sure far I am ok but that last until I need more than the money set aside for house construction.
#25 Re: Not So Free Chat » Zaanse Schaanes Windmill Museum, Holland. » 2025-11-06 17:19:27
The only place that even comes close in my state is in Portsmouth down near strawberry bank.