You are not logged in.
Why are we arguing about soviet rifles? Firstly, as of right now, you can't stake a claim to anything higher that mt everest. So you can say that ceres is yours, just like I can say that the USA is really Jumpboy11jania, with me as supreme overlord. If you want to claim ceres, send a probe w/ a flag there. Then you will, in my opinion, have claimed everything within the horizon (~2 km) of that flag. I believe that given area on mars/moon and elsewhere should be a population center based thing. Ex: Nation x makes a town of 1000 people on mars. Because this town has more than y amount of people, they get a radius of z km around the base. If part of that is already used, then you get a replacement area somewhere else. If you have valid claims to make a base, then you get 1/2 the radius (~1/4 the area) in advance that's yours to use, and ungettable by another company/nation.If you actually land, then you get the full distance. For asteroids, it should be by volume.
what about mars? and we would be most of the way to done if we took 94 bar of co2 off of the veusian atmos. then we wouls speed rotation-how-and preferably reduce insulation.
Why b go to venus at all? It seems like trying to force something that wouldn't work. There's no reason to land on the planet (except scientifically) and for orbit, EO or SO seems far more economical.
nebulae, if I understand correctly, aren't very dense. Also, we could only travel to nebulae, and we could never return.
How much energy would it take to accelerate a spacecraft big enough to support however many people for 10 years. An how do they return to earth?
A benefit is that you wouldn't need any power generation systems, as I'm sure something simple could be attached for that. Also, you would need less sheilding, as it emits much lower energy gamma rays then a proton, antiproton annihilation
It must have been my browser- I use netscape to post now.
It seems like it's more whether we're going to get there in this or that than where we land. Mars is a whole planet, an there are many places to land there. We could land in the hallas basin (i think) the biggest obvious impact basin in the solar system. We could land at the north or south pole and look for water. We could land in vallas mareneris, for the thick (relatively) atmosphere) and areology. We could land on olympus mons, for the shorter ride to orbit. Where do you suggest?
Ok, I've got a full replacement for chemical rockets:
You solidify CO2 and put it in the fuel container. Then you get sodium 22. It's half life is about 2 years 7 months. After prodiction off sodium 22, you bind it with oxygen to produce Na2O. You put this in the bottem of the ship. It decays, as far as I can tell, mostly by positron emission. If you run an electric current through the place where it is, there should be significant heat yeilds, due to somewhat high speed interactions between electrons and positrons. It would produce a lot of energy for about one year, and after that, slowly slow down. I believe that it wouldn't suffice for missions longer than 5 years, and there would be extreme difficulties with that.
Questions remaining to be seen:
How much Na2O would you need?
How much money would it cost to make that much Na-22?
How long would it take to go to mars?
Would it make sufficient heat?
I've thought of another fuel- Ammonium Nitrate. It decomposes to N2O and H2O extremely exothermically when put in water. It's a solid, w/ a melting temp of either 169 or 191 celcius, and decomposes around 210, so once the reaction is started, you might ot even need a catylist. It's pretty simple to synthesyse, for more information go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NH4NO3
Well, it's not really CO2 fueled, more like Nuclear Thermal except I'm working on another way to generate heat (any ideas, preferably non-chemical).
What are the main variables involved for mass?
I do have a new idea for a heat shields, posted below.
http://groups.msn.com/HSLD/shoebox.msnw … &PhotoID=1
it's at the link. There's nothing else at te website, I put it there so you can see the picture. How would I post it at newmars?
just another general alternative, mostly to fill my time
and haha, i'm working on a CO2 fueled rocket right now.
I'm trying to think up another possible mars plan- anyone have figures for mass breakdowns?
Oh, and what power source is suggested for the astronauts on mars?
As you threw the particles out the front, woudn't the spacecraft move backwards from the reaction, just like our rockets do now? It sounds to me like the relitivistic rocket in reverse.
No, more thrown out the sides than the front, or moved in a circle, like CERN.
And I was thinking solar system out to ~ saturn or so, maybe a little farther.
Tetrafluoromethane is a gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect. It is very stable and lasts a long time in the atmosphere and is a very powerful greenhouse gas. Its atmospheric lifetime is 50,000 years and global warming factor is 6500 (carbon dioxide has 1).
Inhalation of tetrafluoromethane can cause, according to concentration, headache, nausea, dizziness and damage of cardiovascular system (mainly heart). Long-terming exposure can cause heavy heart damage.
Because of its heavier density, it can fill up ground area and in non-ventilated places can cause asphyxiation.
from wikipedia
As it's denser than the Earth Atmos, Hopefully it will sink to where it can be captured. If not, some sort of valley, artificial or real, may be used, or this can be used in space
How about this-
instead of burning hydrogen with oxygen, as is done in regular liquid rockets, fluiurine and carbon. Fluorine is a liquid at ~85 k, which is 3 or 3 degrees cooler than Oxygen. However, carbon is a solid, from, I believe, 1700 C. There's definitely an advantage there. F2 could be burned with crushed graphite (C2), to ge the product, CF4, Carbon Fluoromethane, a gas at normal temperatures. Because CF4 is Polar Covalant (1.45), while F2 and C 2 are covalent, and will go to the lower energy bond CF4.
If the heim drive doesn't work, this might:
Let's pretend for a second that we have unlimited energy, and very small (and good) particle accellerators.
I've read thatt it would take infinite energy to push something up to light speed, because at that speed it would have infinite mass. Lets say we push 1-2 thousand protons up to .99999 c in a particle accelerator in the front of a spacecraft. If their mass is increaced due to speed, then they have gravity. Because they are very dense, they might get up to say mars gravity. Put these in 1500 proton groups evenly around the spacecraft, and you have artificial gravity. This could pull the spacecraft along. Would it work?
That's a good idea. Also, if the H-3 is saved, it could surely be used for something. Fission? H-3+He-3 = Li-6 Here are some other ideas of mine.
____________________________________________________________
Maybe N-14? It's readily available, in large quantities on both earth and mars (more on earth). It decays into either Li-7 and Be-7, which undergoes electron capture and gamma decay, and ends up as li-7. It might also decay to Li-6, and Be-8, which I don't know how it decays. The only stable isotope of berillium is Be-9. ____________________________________________________________
Also, maybe Be-9 itself. It would probably decay to He-5 and He-4. He-5 decays by Alpha particle emission in a very short amount of time. The Neutron could be what is used to cause fission elsewhere. The Neutron will make be-9 into be-10, which will fission to He-5 and He-5, releasing more neutrons. Is it supposed to go like that? two neutrons released for every one that hits something? Control rods will be needed. Apparently the binding energy is ~6.5 MeV. I think Lasers (specifically HEX [high energy X-ray] lasers), can achieve that. If not, neutron bombardment will work, but maybe a particle accelerator, or chemical means. What do you think?
who would have thought. well, maybe the future lies in micronations. That would be very interesting to see.
it isn't conclusivley spam, but check out this link www.geocities.com/micronations
Maybe radon? or americum?
ok so you get to mars, right? but getting back is important too. This is how it might be done. (this is to return some mars dirt to earth. not people.)
OK. there are 1 or 2 or 3 landers. Their contents are: Solar panels (as many as possible), for power & battery charging. A small exploratory rover (only has camera and spectroscopher and rock/dust holding area). Main job local rock collection. smelter type thing. Turns Fe(III)O (common on mars) into Fe. Fe used to build spaceship. possiblywrought iron. Carbon from CO2 in atmos. Coated w/ graphite or other compound to reduce damage in building time. Air seperator & compound maker (specifically fuel & iron covering) makes fuel. Hydrazine, H2O2, or other monopropellant due to simplicity. Engine for rocket, b/c cant be built on mars. Solid CO2 to pus fuel towards nozzle. freezer to keep cold while in storage. Freezer for fuel if needed. can bring back up to 5-10 kgs w/ a ~15 ft rocket. When in space, or suborbit, attaches w/ orbiting satellite. Orbiting satellite brings to HEO, brought down by best current method.
Sorry for being completely off topic, with absolutely no relation to anything anyone is saying here at all, but:
Do you want to join the Area of Ptyxur? It is a micronation, which means a small and unrecognized nation. Our website is www.ptyxur.co.nr . to e-mail us, email areaofptyxur@hotmail.com. Consider it this way: in our country, you will have up to 25,000,000 times the say in your government that you do in your home country.
On my computer I can log in fine and everything, but I can't post anything. Is there anything I can do about this? :[
Here's my idea:
You strip the electrons off of xenon, to get the same fuel used in most ion engines. You start the fission. You start with Xenon-129 You (hopefully) end up with tin-121, and some beta particles. The Beta particles start the fission in the other xenon molecules. The Xenon decays to tin-121, and two beta particles (helium nuclei). The heat is used to violently turn water into steam and expel it out the back. It would also be used for power generation.
:arrow: As for methods to start the fission, I was thinking lasers, which would heat them up so they hit each other and broke apart. Are there any other ways?
:arrow: There are two reasons why this is good for mars. 1) the two fuels, Xenon (atm.), and water (permafrost, n. pole, some in air, other plases of which I am unaware.) are available on mars. 2) One of the products is tin. I can imagine that this would be useful somehow. Also, there is the helium which would be good for dirgibles, or some sort of floating device.