You are not logged in.
Hello all,
Gibbon, sorry for my bad english, i think i miswrite somewhere soi was not understood. I wanted to say that when the vehicle is en route for Mars and something wrong arrives, it could take 3 years so that this vehicle is able to come back on Earth because the positions of the planets and the trajectory of the vehicle.
The 1 year travel for one month on Mars is described in a novel from Baxter, sStephen, Voyage. I would not go there.
I think that the more time you are in space (not on a planet) the less chances you have to survive. So this project is just bad because:
- We will never 'colonize' Mars if we need 1 year to go there just to stay 1 month... (and don't forget the year to come back).
- I think this 'bad' project is here just to show how difficult it is to go to Mars and so to abort all and any project of 'colonization'.
- It is like the Apollo project, just to go there and forget it after...
So I do not subscribe to this project, this is not a Human Mars Mission because I even think that the selected people will not survive to this. (My mother in law was a russian engineer working on space safety in Energia company, she think that this kind of mission has a very little probability of success...)
So I wait for a real Human Mars Mission...
Just a word about Nuclear energy in space, a new 'stopped' nuclear reactor IS NOT radioactive because to avoid the reaction, the 'graphite bars' (material used to control the reaction) has to stop all the neutrons. So if it is shielded, in case of mission failure and crash on ground, there are no risks (remember that when the shuttle exploded, the crew survived, so a reactor should too). But a used reactor become really radioactive so it has to be 'far' of all humans beings and electronics stuff. And if this reactor come back to Earth, we have to avoid any possibility to it to come 'too' near of it.
The real problem with nuclear reactor, is that the 'wrong' education given to people make them be afraid. (Add to this that greenpeace and other forbid the 'cleaning' of nuclear waste, we know how to do it in France, but the 'cleaning' reactor was stopped because of 'greens'...)
CC
Hello all,
Adrian my joke was just to illustrate this :
"The lesson of this anecdote is a valid one, that we sometimes expend a great deal of time, effort, and money to create a "high-tech" solution to a problem, when a perfectly good, cheap, and simple solution is right before our eyes." (comment from the site you quoted).
And if NASA is able to get us in Mars, why don't they do it? Their first planning to do so is 40 years old... (russians ones too).
I agree with the fact that Shuttle would be more economically efficient if it flies, but it doesn't. Why? I think because NASA has no projects else than survive.
And I agree too that NASA ineficiency is probably due to politicians. (It's true that develop so much X.. costs a lot. Maybe it's better to spend the money on old technology programs with results than in X.. programs with no effects but lost money.) So what? Politicians don't want to move, NASA doesn't move and Mars is allways empty of Men.
So, only two solutions:
- Manifest to the White House who want to go to Mars. But the White House is just working to go to war...
- Hope (or act) to create a private foundation which could make all these agencies move...
Last thing: I don't think that now, Bush considers Europeans, Russians and others like 'friends', so I don't hope that NASA will be able to launch such a space program with them.
And it's make me really sad...
CC
Hallo,
I agree with Merp, water is a good radiation shield, i think the walls of the hab (i don't remenber the english word) could be made from tank which could be filled of water on Mars before the crew arrives.
There could be windows made from the same kind of glass material used in nuclear plants.
Another point is that it is better if living places (rest rooms, bedrooms, kitchen...) are at the ground (at the lowest possible level) level since all the hab will then play the role of a shield.
After a time on Mars, crew could:
1 cover the hab with mars ground
2 try to build an underground hab (or a safer place) if a good place could be found (like a cave or good ground).
CC
Hello Cindy and all,
Cindy, I am sorry, I don't know anything of that castle... I visited much others but not this one....
All, I am glad to see that Euro/Russian team is welcome here, but I'd prefer Euro/Russian/USA/CHINA... team (in the order you want), so much I think another planet should not be the property of a country...
About talents in NASA, I read that 30% of their people an Europeans... so just have to call them back with big money and good Mars projects.
Bill, don't compare US army and US NASA, it's the same US administration which buy hammer 20000$ and toilets 50000$ !!! So statistics says that Euro spend 10 times less for the same results that US, and Russians 20 or 50 times less...
I heard a joke (?) about the space fountain-pen: NASA people arrives in space, the fountain-pen does not work, so NASA spend 10 M$ to develop a space fountain-pen. Russians arrive to space and the fountain-pen does not work. They just take a pencil at 10 cents... What a good ratio !
Just for info, ESA is building a pad for russian rocket (proton, I think), but I don't know the price they quoted...
So hope they will go to Mars...
Hello everybody,
I see where you are now, you are far from a Mars direct Mission... And I agree with you.
1 why do we need to take a 3 ton Earth reentry vehicle when we can stop on orbit and rendez vous with ISS or a shuttle ?
2 Why do we need to use the Mars Hab as a space vehicle since their use is really different (environment, labs...).
3 When you spend $20 billion, you can hope that the technology was tested, what is a better test than to send a complete set of stuff to Mars, land the Hab, refuel the MAV...
So, when you send a second vehicle with a crew, you are sure that every thing should be OK (as said robertDick, it's a win or die gamble for the crew, the 'abort' scenario will always be to spend 2/3 years in the space vehicle)...
4 I personnaly think that we need at least 100 tons (for 20 people and all the needed toys) to Mars ground, so we should use 3 Energia and slow way (12 to 18 months) to send a maximum of stuff to Mars and then 1 energia to put the Earth-Mars transport vehicle on orbit and then use a fiable rocket to send the crew in it.
(for info: russians planned to launch 40 energia/year and to improve energia to energia-M for 150 tons on LEO, but they don't have funds).
5 I think it is a good idea to have a fully fueled (kerozene/H2O2, not cryogenic) 'return vehicle' sent from earth on Mars orbit as a test, because it at least garanties that if your fuel stock get lost between the time you go and the time you want to go back, you will always have a spare vehicle to do so...
6 General consideration about cost of the R&D: when I look to military stuff, it seems to me that design costs 3 to 10 'objects' ( e.g: planes ). So if the MAV design costs 100 M$, buy ten should cost only 200 to 400 M$. The price of the launches could be reduced if we were able to order 10/15 per year, because the people is the same if you do 1 or 10, the design is paid so at the ultimate end, you only pay the materials, the work made on them, transportation to launch site and fueling. And right now, I think that RKK Energia (the company which build energia rockets) would like to make a special price to someone who wants 10/15 launches/year...
And to finish, it is obvious that the Mars direct scenario was made for very low quality systems, where space rendez-vous are forbidden and i don't think even Zubrin would go in it (too dangerous).
CC.
I don't agree with Shaun,
1 Mars
2 Mars and the Moon
3 Moon
Moon has only scinetific interest, i think cheaper to make fuel on Mars and make it come back to LEO than to make it on the moon and i think the same for all other matters when we speak of return on investment.
Why? Moon water in on the pole, in very rocky places without light. So:
- you need to change rocket orbits from equatorial to polar around the Moon, it is 50% more expensive than to ground to equator (one time for landing on, and again when landing off).
- No sun, so you need a nuclear power supply.
- Rocky places so a small problem with landing computers = a lost rocket.
...
On Mars, you have free energy:
Sun and wind (when a storm with 600 km/h wind = a 40km/h wind on Earth) so when air is steady, use sun, when there is a storm, use wind.
Water and air (CO2 and some water) on equator so no extra cost.
From this we can do automatic plants, with human intervention only to refuel tanks.
And more, we have a lot of volunteers to stay 1.5 years or more on Mars, how much do we have for Moon ?
So i don't want moon, i want Mars.
CC
I'm sorry Mark, don't dream about nuclear rockets from the Earth ground...
At best (for now), we could use nuclear generators like the ones of the Pioneers (in fact bigger i hope) to generate energy on board for Ion propulsion and then on Mars for sabatier reactor and station power supply.
This said, i don't think NASA will be able to do anything since US gov has a war to do in Irak, and some big problems with the budget and the nasdaq crack...
But it's a good sign that someone at least speak about really going to Mars at Nasa, since that mean they will maybe be open to a join with others to achieve this goal. Others are ESA, Russians, Chinese and Japanese space agencies.
I think we will all go or none will go, it's too much expensive to really colonize another planet.
OK, a agree that for a 1 month on Mars time with 3 years travel, maybe they can. But who cares?
NASA spent 200 b$ to on on the Moon... and what ? Nothing !!!
NASA spent 100 b$ for ISS for what? nobody knows !!!
So if we go to Mars, it's to stay, not just for a visit...
I hope so.
I hope so...
In fact, i think about that since the MIR station was destroyed because of NASA which could not stand competitors...
I though it was possible to find private funds to finance 200 M$ a year for it... With all the advantages evry body nows...
About Mars though, we are not playing at the same level, it's a 10/12 years and 2 b$ per year effort.
I think about a kind of 'societal cooperative'. i explain:
- Create a cooperative/association where private individuals put (loose) money.
- Find company as sponsors for a maximum of secondary needed products (E.g. a food company for food, a beverage company for liquids, a transportation company to pay plane tickets...), make some TV programs or even a Mars channel to show common informations and all the process of preparation of the project...
- Locate and use as much from the shelves componants (we are not a research company)
- Sub contract to the cheapest on the base of auctions (who is the cheapest company to send 10 times 100 metric ton on LEO?)
If and when the first crew is on Mars, begin to SELL TV programs, stones from Mars (moon stones are at 10 000 $ a gram!!!), make mail stamps from Mars... and sell our 'image' to Cola companies...
At the end, convert this cooperative/association to a 'space company' based on Mars with taxes paid on Mars... and if there are dividends, pay them. Open capital on stock exchange of all the planet to draw money...
We are then a new 'multi planetary' civilisation.
So, what do you think of this dream?
(oh, don't tell i'm crazy, i now this allready)
hey Phobos, it's a good idea, take an accordion (but electric so it will be small and silent and shaun will not kill you)... I think i would take a piano (electronic one).
Think at he other advantage of music instruments, it makes you do some sport since 'all the body' plays you have to contract all your muscles (particulary when there is no gravity), so it's a very good thing for a 'good mind in a good body'.
I didn't think about divorce... May be we should have two tuna cans on Mars (one km one from the other) so when you can't stand someone, change address!!!
I think in fact, there will be two tuna cans, because a first one will be sent for testing before the crew come on the second one.
And maybe better again, take two or three 50/60 year old people, because their are more stable, and because they (maybe) have less sex constraints, they could be some kind of confident for all the crew, and probably, they could keep the home when a lot of members of the crew have to go on a trip...
So it's OK.
Hello all,
I am French and i really think NASA will not go to Mars because it is too big and lazy. I hope ESA and Russians and China and Japan will go on and after, NASA will maybe wake up. Spend 100 B$ to do ISS is just an insult to the face of the world... russians would have done it for 5 b$ (50% for ISS 50% for their pocket ?), but they'd have done this in 5 years. So i think you (americans) and we (europeans) should not hope in NASA. Open your pocket, and prepare yourself to give 100 or 1000$ per month to some private association who want to go there. We need from 1 to 3 million people to finance a 20 b$ program (over 12 years) to do this. Don't you think we can find these people?
So continue to hope, but not with NASA...
CC
PS: Phobos, any remaining thing form the moon program is outdated and rusty now. But if we can get the drawings, we may be able to make copies (even better ones) of these rovers.
Hello,
I think that in space, we should create a 'society', that mean a 'lot of' people (i personnaly think about 20), men and women (married).
An other important thing (aften ignored) is the need for people to break 'routine' (is it an english word too ?), i mean to change their mind: celebrate birthdays, christmas, drink champagne (i'm french!!! i need champagne), eat caviar... Stop the job for one day or two, make concerts (i think each people should have an 'artistic' hobby)...
With all that, 3 month travel to Mars will be soon passed and time on Mars will be animated with something else than job.
In fact, let people feel like at home, have privacy and a 'social life' and i think every one will be able to go on Mars.
(Don't forget two or three psys to look over all this and cool down the conflicts)
Have a good trip to Mars...
CC
Hi all,
This is a very good idea to manufacture (build) objects on Mars but, about plastics, the only way i see to use them at the first time is underground as a kind of concrete. Why?
Because the 'simple' plastics are very sensitive to cold and to UV, both things very common on Mars. Another point is the machnery needed to form 'correct' objetcs from raw plastic. You will need press, for example, to make a seat, you need a 1000 Tons(pressure) press which weigh 10 tons (i saw one working) and need a lot of energy.
But because plastic molecules (methane, propane...) will be created during the sabatier reaction needed to make rocket fuel, we can consider them as 'free' and if we can use them to seal underground structures, it would be fine to be able to use them.
So It is a good and 'easy' to use idea. I'll continue to think about practical details...
CC
Hi,
For information, because methane (CH4) becomes liquid at -161.5?C, night temperature on some places on Mars could be low enough or nearly to liquify it. The problem of LPG in the sabatier reaction could be not a problem because all these gas will become liquid before methane, this mean that they could be easily separated during the cooling (in fact they will become solid, and methane will probably stay gaseous).
ethylene C2H4 -103,7
ethane C2H6 - 88,5
propylene C3H6 - 47,7
propane C3Hv8 - 42
iso-butane C4H10 - 11,7
butane C4H8 - 6,2
butane C4H10 - 0,5
From this mix, we can do fuel from a ground vehicle which could use them by first heating them before burn them with LO2 (or i think it better H2O2).
So you can see that the storage will be probably easy to acheave at low energetic cost.
I spoke before about H2O2 because it presents advantage to not need cryogenic process and it is known as a good comburant for rockets. The draw back of it is that it is corrosive, but I think we could keep oxygen at standard temperature and pressure (about 10 bars) and make H2O2 just before the flight.
From all this i think all the related problems are small enough to consider the sabatier conversion as solved (at our level at least).
CC
Hi all,
for your information, i read that a 600 km/h wind on Mars is equivalent to a 40 km/h on Earth, so no problem for a dirigible and no problem for the men. But what about the dust which is dry and so could be really abrasive for the envelope and the thrusters.
CC
Forget about H2/O2 and maybe about fuel cells in ground vehicles:
1) liquid hydrogen needs heavy tanks: i saw for cars 300kg of tank for 30 kg of H2.
2) To obtain H2 from H2O is very unefficient, it's not better than the best space batteries (30%/40%).
Nota: efficiency of a fuel cell is approx 40%, so, crack h2O to obtain H2 and O2, cool them, compress then, carry an heavy (and leeking) tank for H2... if probably not efficient.
I think the first thing is to know haw much energy you need. So if we talk of a 2 metric tons(vehicles for 4 people with sas, 1 week autonomy... , you need approx 40-50KW/h on Mars to drive at 50 Km/h, if you want a 500km autonomy, you will need 500KW of energy. So just find how to store this amount of energy in the minimum volume and weight!
1st idea: it is better to use fuel (carburant and comburant) liquid at standard (Marsians) temperatures (-30 ?C) with no need for pressure of big cooling and 'easy' to synthetise on Mars. H2 and O2 are the worst for this first idea. Methane (CH4) and H2O2 are possible choice.
2nd idea: don't use fuel... Pioneer 1 and 2 uses a small nuclear generator which give a few KW and works 20 years after. No mobile parts, but i don't know about radiation, but since the amount of plutonium they use is small, radiations should be small too. The biggest problem is politics and greens...
3rd idea: don't use fuel again,
Store a non burnable energy:
- compress some gas in a bottle and just use it to run the vehicle just look ther http://www.mdi.lu/acceuilgb.htm for a workable vehicle which be sell in France very soon. The problem with this is you need a source of heat to obtain a better efficiency.
- Store movment:
Uses a flywheel to store energy (look at http://rhlx01.rz.fht-esslingen.de/project....el.html or better to http://www.upei.ca/~physics/p261/projec … eel1.htm). I saw some time ago a company which made very efficient ones for car propulsion...
This is just to open new paths, please think about it and answer...
CC
No!!!
Mars is not for ESA or NASA or Russians !!!
It's for every one!
If we were really clever, we'd take best thing from every where to do the best.
No one has the monopole of good ideas, good stuff and staff...
For example, Russian have the best rockets and good experience for long duration in space, ESA have the good place and experience in design, USA have good experience in labs, high tech, organisation...
If people make a cooperative (a kind of company where every one put money, and in which each one will win if one day there's something to win) to send missions to Mars ? This would be very clever.
No ?
CC
Hi again,
Information for those how wanted to buy parts from the energia rocket, it's garanty time is passed by 5 years.
(My mother in law was safety engineer at Energia for 20 years and worked on this rocket, i just ask her about this and she gave me this information).
So they have to rebuild it. But be happy, they kept the drawings...
CC
Hello every body,
You will find on this site the calculations to use a superconducting Maglev to send freight and spacecraft on LEO (they talk of 200 Metric tons).
http://www.newworlds.com/startram.html and http://www.newworlds.com/reports/PUR-19.PDF
I made some checks on it and it seems OK, even if in fact, it is may be not possible to build it easily. The first problem is the 1000 Km tunnel, but if you build it in africa, exactly on the equator (or very close to), it's not impossible the second problem (the biggest) is the 200 km pipe to climb to 20 km altitude(...). But their document seems to address all the problems aith solutions. After the infrastructure built, the price to LEO should be some $.
CC
Note: my english is bad...
Hi,
your project seems very interresting. I think you are creating a new way to fly, but if i don't think you will go in space this way, i think that it could be a good first stage for a rocket.
I'll try to explain my view of the thing:
If you don't do a tube but a kind of 'flat tube' where the shape is like a plane wing, you will get a vertical force with the speed to lift it, if the lower part is black to heat the inner gas (increase pressure so maintain the shape with less gas, release the 'in excess gas' and make the all thing lighter: 1 liter air = 2,7 grams) , the side are mirrors (to concentrate light to a central pipe) and the top is clear, you could create a pipe in the middle of the wing to guide the light to your rocket(thruster?) (like in optical fibers) and then concentrate a lot of power on a small surface and heat something to exhaust (it is good to concentrate all the light on a small surface to get a high temperature and get a high exhaust speed because of e=mv^2 ). I think CME could get more than me from this design. To fly, this wing should make long s trajectory so that the mirrors always send the light to the central pipe and then to the rocket(thruster?) and there, you can put water to create thrust. If you can get a small compressor on board, what about condensing water from the air which goes through the wing?
Sorry that my english is too poor to express what i think, i hope this can help?
Continue on your work and good luck...
Christian COMMARMOND
Nota: i am a newbie and my english is not good...
I'd like to tell you that the price of the launcher is not in the parts but in the design (so it's not a problems if they were crunshed). It is cheaper to buy or use the design of energia (i.e. buy parts built by Energia sub contracters, buy Energia engineers...) and do the launch from equator (Kourou (France), Brasil...) where the capacity will be 30% or more bigger.
The 'easy' way to do it is two launches, one with the rocket and propergols used to go to Mars, the other one with the Mars Lander / or Mars station (but no people) and the propergols needed to land on and then land off. Do a 'rendez-vous' on Earth orbit(Don't forget that Russians are specialists of space rendez-vous (look about Mir and the automatic vehicles used to refuel), so they can connect the two big parts of 100 Metric tons or more together on orbit.), separate on Mars orbit (and drop empty tanks to Mars for reuse ?), land on, work..., land off, rendez vous on Mars orbit (with the lighter rocket used to come), stop on earth orbit. Use US shuttle to 'lift' people to the Mars assembly and use one or several cheap return vehicle(s) to take people back.
This 'easy' way will have a low cost if you do this 10 time as in the Zubrin planning (5 launches for Mars stations, 5 launches with crews).
I think that:
- set up a launch pad in Kourou: 500 M$
- have a contract for 5 rockets/year with energia 1 b$/year for 10 years.
- each launch (50) have an (say 20M$ ) extra-cost in Kourou
so 11,5 b$ for 20 Mars travels (+ 10 for failures,tests, extra launches... )
- It gives you 10,5 b$ to design the Mars station (build 10), the 'transfer rocket' (build 20) and the 'transfer shuttle' (build 10 or reuse?). And build them.
And i think there are ways to save lot of money in this...
Total 22 b$, 3b$ per year for 5 years, then 1.5 for 5 years .
Less than 1/5 of ISS
3b$ is 100$ / month for 2.5 million people... Is it possible to find 2.5 million people able to pay 100$ per month for this project?
This is not a problem of money, it's a problem of politics. They spend the money to do 2 or 3 times the same thing. They don't want this to be done on public funds... The only way is to do it on private...
Ok, I hope this has been a good reading... and i wait for your replies.