You are not logged in.
GW Johnson, I think asteroids as "fluffy" as you are describing can't be spinning very fast because they'd spin themselves apart. I think they are looking for a chunk of rock (up to 7 meters across, too) that they can engulf in a kevlar bag. Presumably that will spin the entire automated vehicle, but the vehicle can then despin itself and the asteroid in the bag. It does sound very tricky.
And they are spending billion for an heavy lift launcher only to get a 7 meter rock?
I believe that the lack of effort toward long-duration flight is why "going to an asteroid" got subverted into "let the robot bring the asteroid to the moon, where we can go". Under such conditions, a private outfit has a better chance of sending men to Mars successfully in the next half-century than any of the government agencies. At least they have some motivation. The government quite clearly does not.
GW
And even bring an asteroid in Moon orbit is not so easy for the robot, unless it has some kind of Jedi superpower: we need to develpoed an appropriate unmanned vehicle able to dock the asteroid, despin it, and move it with some kind of high efficient electric propulsion. All this hardware will not magically apper clapping the hands, but it need to be founded, projected, developed and tested.
A cheeper propellant with a lower ionization energy dosn't exist?
Ah, they are using xenon. Right now, no one can produce 40 tonnes of xenon; the world production is too low. Furthermore, the cost of xenon is astronomical; $10 per liter is what I just found. A liter has 5.9 grams of xenon, so that equals about $1.8 per gram and $1.8 million per tonne. The Falcon Heavy should be launching chemical propellant to orbit for $1 million per tonne, less if the outer cores prove reusable. So this system won't be economic, especially after the development cost of a 300 kilowatt power system and ion engines are considered.
I couldn't realize why they pretend to use xenon, when argon is more and more abundant and cheaper. An electric propulsion using xenon is doomed to reamain forever on the paper.
Hard to tell what the electrical propulsion is achieving when they have a chemical stage along as well.
I found the solution in this article ( http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/workshops/s … Propulsion )
The Tug reachs an high orbit spiraling out with electric propulsion, then performes a close lunar approach using Moon's gravity to low the perigee to LEO
The problem of compress gas engines is that douring adiabatic expansion temperature drops very much, so if there are some traces of water vapor inside, the ice blocks the tubes. So the gas has to be completely water vapor free.
The reason is Falcon 9 now has a taller core, so larger fuel tank.
Using mass ratio for landing using ADEPT for aerocapture, parachute, subsonic retrothrust, terminal descent and landing, a single Falcon 9 Heavy could land 6.77 metric tonnes on Mars.
Using Falcon H the only possibility is using orbital docking to build a bigger spaceship: a surface hab has to be 5 x 13 meters and has to dock with the ADEPT and with the TMI stage before leaving. The same for the ERV.
Another possibility is using belly lander slander body biconc vehicles.
For example, with three launch of Falcon H, we can put an ERV in low Mars orbit:
1) biconic ERV, 12 tons of dry mass and 40 tons of N2O4-MMH (pressur feed rockets 3.175 km/s Vex like Astrium Aestus) delta-V = 4.6 km/s
2) reusable I stage: 2 tons of dry mass 50 tons of N2O2-MMH
3) reusable II stage: 2 tons of dry mass 50 tons of N2O2-MMH
1) ERV, I and II stages dock in LEO
2) I stage fire, insert ERV and II stage in a 5000 km apogee elliptical orbit (delta-V = 1 km/s), detatch and return in LEO via aerobraking
3) II stage fire and isert ERV in a 100000 km apogee HEO (delta-V = 2 km/s), detatch and return in LEO via aerobraking
4) ERV fire and isert in a MTO (delta-V = 1 km/s), aerobrake and insert in LMO.
This appears to be low lunar orbit, not L1. Stopping at L1, refueling, and heading back to Earth for trans-Mars injection seems to add about 0.6 to 1.0 km/sec to the total trip, and you'd do it only if lunar fuel were cheap enough at L1. I doubt that is possible, since you could aerobrake it to low Earth orbit and avoid the extra stop.
Or reaching L1 slow spiraling with a cheap solar electric propulsion, and then the crew reach the spaceship and leave for Mars.
They use the chemical rocket only for the final inserction in trasfer orbit. I suppose they achive an HEO using SEP turning on SEP for half orbit and turning off for the other. As the orbit will elongate, SEP firing period will became shorter.
A viable alternative may be to use a reusable LOX-LH2 chemical stage that put the spaceship in a HEO with the apogee at 100000 Km and came back in LEO via aerobraking. From a 100000 km HEO, the inserction into MTO is just 1 km/s.
I this article, NASA thinks to use SEP to achive an higly elliptical orbit ( http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_lrg/so … brid-2.png ) and chemichal for depart from perigee.
but I dont know how a HEO can be achived with a continous SEP, that theorically have to spirally out, as you said.
Obviously there were many very accurate dockings without GPS, but I suppose nowadays they use it to some extent.
How can be obtained an high elliptical orbit with a continous solar electric propulsion? Turning on the ion thruster only when the spaceship is near the perigee and turning it off for the rest of the orbit?
For the departure to Mars from an HEO, the long axis of the HEO has to be perfected oriented in the direction of the apogee of the Hohmann trasfer orbit?
If the cargo truck is unmanned, why not using an electric engine powered by a 100 KW SAFE 400 nuclear reactor?
It may be simpler than develop a new technology for an ICE adapt to Mars environment.
So on Mars, where aren't GPS, obital rendez-vous may not be very easy, even in low circurar orbit
You could also save time and propellant using a solar electric or solar thermal engine to move most of your assets into a very large elliptical orbit, then move the people and the earth return capsule there quickly, rendezvous above the Van Allen Belts, loop back in, and perform trans-Earth injection.
.
Rendez-vous in higly elliptical orbits are difficoult or can be performed without trouble?
Doable, I'd say, and probably the best option. We may want to consider Ammonia as a fuel, because it is more efficient from an energy perspective: chemical to chemical efficiency with Ammonia displacing Methanol is 57%, so electrical to chemical will probably be about 45%. Ammonia also has a lower flame temperature than Methanol; With NO2 used instead of pure Oxygen I would expect the flame temperatures to be far below your 2500 K (4000 F) limit.
Is N2O4-NH3 hypergolic?
It would not be difficoult to performe some tests, mixing duricrete and fiberglass, or duricrete and sawdust, or duricrete and iron mosquito net.
Mars appears to have a lot of caliche. When the regolith gets wetted (as it does every few million years when the tilt of mars's axis gets very extreme and the poles get more sun than the equator, so the equator gets snow and ice) the water perculating through the regolith causes salts to accumulate on the surface, cementing the surface materials together. You can take the caliche, crush it, add water, and it will set again, making duricrete. It is not as strong as concrete, but apparently it isn't bad.
Can it be reinforced with steel rebar or glass or basaltic fiber producted locally from regolith sands?
Agreed, though it is my understanding that by giving astronauts arthritis medicine bone losses were reduced to very low levels
Diphosphonates reduce bone mass loss, blocking osteoclast activity, but this "frozen bone", even if it has a good mass, may also be fragile because trabeculae may not be perfectly oriented to counteract the loads. This effect may be particulary critical in high stressed zones like the Ward triangle of the femour neck. So we have still very few data to realy on this kind of drugs in a long term space mission.
Considering also that bone mass loss is not the only negative effect of microgravity on human body: there are also retinal damage for fluid body shift ocular hypertension, anemy, cardiac hypotrophy...
You could use bottled compressed gas storage on the rover without swapping out welding gas bottles. Just build the gas tanks into the rover, and fill them at your gas plant when you drop by to fill up. That reduces manual labor in a spacesuit, at the expense of higher pressures and storage volume required of your stationary gas plant. This is true for both plain compressed gases, and for pressurized liquids like propane. Just different storage pressures.
GW
How much range of autonomy can have a fuel cell powered rover with internal gas tank of reasonable size?
There's no reason why the crew have to be at 1g *all* the time. Can people tolerate going from 3rpm to 6rpm, so that we could stick a gym on the "lower" (outer, highest g) deck at 1g, and spend the rest of the time at half a g?
It may also be possible to use a short arm internal centrifugue for high gee cicles of exercise in a microgravity travel, but we have no data. So we need a space centrifugue for testing and exercise protocol optimization.
By the way, one way that SAFE-400 was so much better than SP-100 was use of a Brayton cycle electric generator.
Safe-400 is a very usefull devicie: it may be used even for propulsion, to feed a NEXT ion engine to bring the spaceship in L2 before the mission. Douring the trasnfers, it can be keep far from the habitat via an extensible truss and may contribute to counterweight the habitat for artificial gravity, while powering a mini-magnetosphere for radiation shielding.
I like it.
RobertDyck wrote:Um, no. NASA found humans can tolerate a maximum of 6 RPM.
Actually, the research in this area is generally contradictory and it's not really possible to obtain a maximum value for acceptable RPM with any degree of certainty.
We have very few data and we absolutely need an artificial gravity module in space to test and verify the RMP limits, the ability to adapt at high rotation rate and the long term effects of a reduced gravity environment.
At this time, the only well prooved evidence is that microgravity is very unhealty and it has to be avoided in a more than two years Mars mission, because it would be very dangerous for an astronaut to break the thighbone during a surfare excursion. So, if you compare the risk of some drizzle douring trasfer for an high rotation rate to the risk of a femour fracture or a vertebral collapse douring exploration, the second is more and more mission critical.
The real trick is not mounting stuff on your pressure shell wall, whether you are inflatable or not. Leave the gear in a fold-out core. That way you can find and seal punctures quickly, before the module can depressurize. That's one of the lessons from Mir, by the way. They could never find the leak, too much crap in the way. So they lost the module. They're lucky they didn't lose a crewman.
GW
It's the same for sail boats: in a well projected boat, all the hull has to be free from crap to find and fix any possible leak before sinking.
Hmm. Copernicus. That's the one with the rigid truss used for artificial gravity. Fairly short truss, but a truss. Big, heavy. At least not as heavy as some other designs. Rotation arm is rather short, so getting astronauts dizzy is a danger. But still interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. … 003776.pdfFound another document. This one shows the long rotation arm that was previously mentioned.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/_docs/NE … tories.ppt
The best compromise is one gee with 56 m radius and 4 RPM, but astronauts can adapt even at shorter radius and faster rotation (i.e. 35 m and 5 RPM and probably up to 20 m and 7 RPM) if RPM increment is gradual. Probably some drugs like scopolamine will be necessary in the first days, but it's still better than six months in microgravity.
Even a low cost 4.5 m radius internal centrifugue, that can be easly fitted in a 10 m diameter SLS launced module, may be an interesting tool of study adaptation at high RPM rate, body modification in low gravity environment and may be useful to optimize training protocols.
All that would be nice. But we can go now with existing technology. The SAFE-400 nuclear reactor was developed in 2007. It's off-the-shelf.
The NTR of Copernicus are the old Rover-Pewee rockets developed tested and qualified in Los Alamos, plus a Stirling electric generator. I think there are no problems on rebuilding it if we want. On Mars we can go well also with chemical rockets, but if we want to go beyond, we need nuclear.
The other is the aquaculture pond habitat, which is an ice-covered pond, in turn buried under regolith to prevent ice sublimation. The overburden weight pressing on the water provides water pressures such that a pressure suit is not required to swim around, only thermal insulation (wet suit or dry suit). You put light and heat under the water to do photosynthetic aquaculture. This concept is not limited by strength-of-materials / square-cube law effects. How many square miles do you want? I documented this concept in "Aquaculture Habitat Lake for Mars", dated 3-18-12, same "exrocketman" site.
GW
I suggest you to farm giant gourami ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_gourami ) and/or catfishies: both are herbivore fish that are very easy to farm and can be feeded with the wastes of cereals and legumes from the greenhouse.