New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#6576 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Mars Semi-Direct with Falcon » 2012-03-22 17:05:21
Here are a few more pieces of information:
The "Ares" booster for Mars Direct was supposed to put 140 tonnes in low Earth orbit (The Case for Mars, 2d ed, p. 103). The same usable cargo could be launched to Mars with a nuclear upper stage by a booster with 85 tonnes to LEO, or with a solar thermal rocket, 100 tonnes to LEO (p.118). Two Falcon Heavies can put 108 tonnes to LEO, so two Falcon Heavies plus a solar thermal rocket can accomplish the same mission as one Ares. This is assuming that the solar thermal rocket uses a series of perigee "kicks" to slowly (over a month or so) spiral the cargo to about 90% of escape velocity, and the remaining delta-vee is accomplished by a chemical stage. This is necessary to avoid gravity losses. If you know anything about solar thermal rockets, they basically heat up a big block of graphite (or some other thermal storage medium) over several hours time, then can thrust for a few minutes before the block cools off. The specific impulse (or exhaust velocity) is in the same range as a solid-core nuclear, in other words, about 900 seconds (double the performance of LOX/LH2). I have seen thermal rocket designs on the web with Isps in the 850 to 1200 range (the latter being rather futuristic and untested). You can't have astronauts on board during the spiraling to a highly elliptical orbit because they'd pass through the Van Allen belts repeatedly and get heavy radiation dosages. So you launch the astronauts in their capsule, with the Trans Mars injection chemical stage, separately later.
With a system like this--a solar thermal rocket wouldn't be expensive to develop--the Falcon Heavy could be quite sufficient for a Mars mission, as near as I can tell.
Solar thermal sounds interesting but I think starting from here with a Mars Mission plan we should stick with tried and tested technologies.
We should also remember that we can send much smaller loads to Mars - perhaps 3/4 tonne loads in a series of robot missions over several years to help prepare for the arrival of humans. I'd like to see maybe up to 10 missions like that delivering supplies to the surface in the target zone (with guidance from transponders on the ground and orbiting satellites).
#6577 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Mars Semi-Direct with Falcon » 2012-03-22 16:34:29
I'm glad to be back, after 3 or so years. I am surprised no one has been discussing Zubrin's idea, discussed in last May's Wall Street Journal and elaborated on since, of using three Falcon Heavys to send a crew of two to Mars. The Dragon capsule would be outfitted with a 200 kg inflatable that would rely on the Dragon's life support equipment but would provide adequate housing space for the interplanetary cruise. Before aerobraking into Mars orbit, it would be stowed or discarded, and either reinflated or another hab would be inflated on the surface. The mision would rely on solar panels for power and would bring the methan and oxygen along for the launch from the Martian surface.
I gather that it had some pretty thin safety margins, but I don't recall what the criticisms of the idea were.
--RobS
Probably because such ideas have been aired by others - including me - well before Zubrin came out with that proposal. I'm glad to see he's dropped the completely unnecessary proposal for artificial gravity (or it sounds like he has from your description).
I would add in a pretty obvious element: over an 8 year period one could deliver a series of supplies to the target zone in robot craft. You don't need to load everything on to one mission.
I feel we are in a post-Zubrin age really. Elon Musk has a plan to get people to Mars. I don't think he's announced it in full detail yet, but it's pretty clear he knows how to do it and that he's determined to win the prize. So, Zubrin's pronouncements have far less impact. This is Musk's era.
#6578 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » First settlements » 2012-03-19 17:08:26
Josh -
So - it would be somewhere just north and a bit to the east of Aeolis?
#6579 Re: Unmanned probes » Weather reports for Mars » 2012-03-19 07:41:29
I hadn't seen that before, that's really interesting. I have an app on my phone that gives the time at different locations on Mars (There is also a program that can do it for your computer, I direct anyone interested to Google, a search for "Mars Time Program" or something similar should yield adequate results.
Edit: I stopped being lazy and googled it myself. It can be found here.
Thus far it appears that my proposal to abolish time zones (as well as daylight savings) on the Red Planet has not gained much traction, though I still hold out hope
Timezones really just make it more difficult to live in a global system; For example, what would be wrong with the US keeping time on UTC? The only difference would be that work (on the East Coast) might technically start at 14:00 instead of 9:00, even though it would still really be the same time.
Contractual relations might be a bit trixy. Let's say you had a burger bar franchise operation. You might want to say "all premises shall be open between the hours of 7am and 9pm" for your franchise holders. But with universal time you couldn't do that. You'd have to research the time for each specific location and write in specific hours.
But, I think for Mars it might make sense.
#6580 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » First settlements » 2012-03-18 18:41:20
I always liked the idea of building a colony somewhere near Elysium, say at 0 latitude by 150 longitude (155-160 longitude would be a little better). There is a giant frozen sea there, about 800 km by 900 km, 45 m deep, and I gather not very far below the surface. It is located within 5 degrees of the equator. This is also an area high in Iron, relatively high in silicon (with the oxide Silica being vital for glass production). Given its proximity to Elysium, there will definitely be basalt around. So, we have Water, Iron, Basalt, and Silicon. I think that's a pretty good start. That article also mentions volcanic ash, which should have a good variety of different resources that can be harvested within it.
Sounds good to me.
A frozen sea is an object of interest in itself.
#6581 Exploration to Settlement Creation » First settlements » 2012-03-17 19:34:38
- louis
- Replies: 36
Good locations for early settlements...does anyone want to give some suggestions?
(There was this list at the old Red Colony site - http://www.redcolony.com/art.php?id=0008150 )
I think the prerequisites will be safe landing sites, access to water and iron ore and interesting objects of research.
Somewhere near the Valles Marineris has got to be a prime candidate in terms of object of research, but I am not sure how far it meets other criteria.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/martia … 70820.html
Does anyone know the location of equatorial glaciers on Mars?
#6582 Unmanned probes » Weather reports for Mars » 2012-03-17 19:14:05
- louis
- Replies: 13
Perhaps you all know about this site...but I haven't come across this before.
Weather reports for Mars from the orbiter.
#6583 Re: Planetary transportation » Trains on Mars - Could a rail system provide martian need » 2012-03-17 19:11:39
The problem I have with any rail system at an early stage is you are straight away into maintenance - even with simple guideways.
Much better to stick with road. All we need to is identify firm ground and then have machines clear the boulders out of the way. In some parts we may need to erect dune barriers. Of course the routes might have to be quite circuitous, given the cratered terrain but as has already been noted vehicle speed is not a huge issue in the early colony - steady security of supply is what is required.
#6584 Re: Life support systems » Mars Colony Cement & Concrete » 2012-03-16 16:51:32
Well, steelmaking is a little more complicated than just a hot fire. Although that is exactly how one makes small wrought iron nodules: in a campfire with decent ore and a positive air blast.
Once made, these nuggets can be forged together into a useful-sized ingot, for fashioning various items, but it's still wrought iron. Very high in both carbon content (like cast iron) and slag inclusions (which make it easily formable, hence the name "wrought").
To make real steel, you have to remelt a big pot of this stuff (about 3000 F, 1650 C), then blow oxygen through the puddle, to burn out the carbon to just the right trace amount for steel. The slag floats to the top as a thick layer, rather like the scum floating on overheated hot chocolate. Then, you decant the steel through the bottom, out from under the slag layer, and cast it into ingots (usually about half the size of a diesel submarine battery cell).
Cast steel still has lousy properties, variable all through the ingot. You have to reheat it to just below melting (about 2800 F, 1540 C), and forge it, usually with repeated hammer blows and roller-forming operations, both measured in multiple tons for a typical ingot. This operation produces the typical shapes coming from the steel mill as product, and these shapes have the structural properties we are used to (for mild steel around 36 ksi yield, 80-100 ksi ultimate, in tensile, with a Young's modulus near 30,000 ksi, and a Poisson's ratio near 0.3).
The alloy steels are made similarly, they just add things like nickel and vanadium in the initial melt after carbon burnout. Some of these are heat-treatable after manufacture to very high strengths, others (like 300-series stainless) are not.
To make these materials in industrial quantities requires a pretty big plant. It did in a relative sense, even 300 years ago, when railroads were first attempted here on Earth. Cast irons and wrought irons were usually just not suitable for rails and boilers. It took real steel, just like that used in sword- and gun-making, only just a whopping lot of it. Ship-building did a lot better by the beginning of the 20th century, once steel became available in 10,000 ton+ quantities.
How one would do all this on Mars, I dunno. Certainly not in some analog to a campfire, or even in an analog to a 17th century puddling furnace. But it certainly needs to be done, especially once we start planting bases.
GW
A very light rail can still carry useful tonnages in trains of freight cars. A community on Mars is unlikely to exceed 10,000 humans for many decades and will be a very frugal community in its use of materials. Its steel needs will be pretty limited I would say. A very light automated railway would serve the uses of the community if a railway were necessary (doubtful I think - I would prefer land trains using cleared paths over firm ground.
I am sure with investment for ISRU in the hundreds of millions small scale, highly automated furnaces can be developed which will produce high quality steel in appropriate amounts - kgs rather than tonnes I think.
#6585 Re: Life support systems » Mars Colony Cement & Concrete » 2012-03-13 15:15:50
Yes, I think my post went missing as well as John's.
Anyway, this certainly needs investigating. The presentation on your site GW was v. interesting.
I have my doubts about using this as a construciton material for pressurised environments. HOwever, I can imagine some other uses e.g. a retaining wall used as a barrier to drifting sand, to keep a base area clear of dust. Also, it could be used to make flat roadways. Another use might be for unpressurised buildings.
#6586 Re: Civilization and Culture » History, The Frontier and its Consequences » 2012-03-08 17:28:41
I am sure each country will interpret the Mars project through their own cultural prism.
I do think the settling of another planet by humanity will have profound cultural effects, especially once people start moving their on a permanent basis.
#6587 Re: Civilization and Culture » History, The Frontier and its Consequences » 2012-03-08 17:26:52
I wanted to start a topic about the Martian Frontier. I know this isn’t the first such thread on these boards but I believe it is a topic that shouldn’t be forgotten. The main article of reference here is
The Significance of the Martian Frontier
by Robert Zubrin
From Ad Astra September/October 1994
http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.htmlSkimming this article over on my lunch break is not going to be enough to create a significant thesis surrounding Zubrin’s conjecture but there is an immense amount of history to consider so I think it is best to start informally.
According to Zubrings paper, The Frontier was announced closed in in 1890. This is only 25 years after the end of the American civil war. A good part of Zubrins paper discusses progress in the 1900s which is after the official closing of the frontier. The 1900s were a very transformational time in America which includes the Guilded Age and half the progressive era:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_EraWhatever, cultural impact the Frontier may have had in this period of time would be due to lingering cultural effects. Well, the Guilded age is praised for progress it is also the Era when, The Rober Berron’s rose to power. With their rise to power America began the transition of America back to the corporate economic model which Jefferson and the founding fathers rejected.
Following the Guilded Age, the progressive era marked the beginning of the rise of what I will call the Institutional class in that various public and private intuitions gained power (such as the public service sector, universities, Non Profit Groups) from then until now to provide a counter force to corporate power.The growth in the concentration of power from the beginning of the 1900s until now has created a power structure where size and influence is often enough to trump merit and innovation. To completely describe the events and consequences of this period of history between the founding of America until now goes well beyond anything I’ve written in my opening post. I only hope to begin the discussion as, I don’t yet have the knowledge of history to conclude it.
#6588 Re: Civilization and Culture » Resource Allocation - What Can we learn from Carl Menger » 2012-03-07 17:47:58
You know, I think so much will now depend on whether Musk can make good his prediction of getting launch costs down to $500 per Kg. Under that scenario, settlers might be able to get there for $500k-$1 million.
Some stray points. I certainly think brick manufacture should be a priority. I believe Zubrin's idea for Roman brick arch style construction is a good one. We can dig trenches and build brick arches over. Cover in regolith. The habitats can then be pressurised.
That will allow us to focus on importation of useful machines rather than habitat material. We can bring in more robot diggers, scaled down industrial machines, more photovoltaic panels, more farm equipment and fertiliser. And more people of course!
#6589 Re: Civilization and Culture » Minimum Growth » 2012-03-07 17:28:24
I think this will be more costly though.
I don't know why you think that. Raising and educating non-productive children is very costly. They need teachers and doctors. Women in their final trimester are not very productive. On Mars they will probably have to go into an artificial gravity environment for several months of their pregnancy to ensure normal embryo development. In addition pregnancy itself will require much more investment in medicine and health facilities. Why go to all that expense in the early decades?
You say "This would be a more costly approach in that it is money spent which is not spent to towards the direct achievement of our goals." I can agree that the creation of a fully functioning human community on Mars is the objective and that must include procreation in due course. But let's not run before we can walk. Let's create the society that can support pregnant women and young children and let's learn all we need to know about embryo development in third gravity before we try it.
I think the Kibbutz are quite relevant. They were essentially moneyless mini-economies (often under 200 people) where everyone was dedicated to a common goal and they tried to be self-sufficient in what was often a hostile environment.
The Mars colony will naturally have a common objective I think, simply because of the people it will attract. I think the early Mars colony will be a cross between an Antarctic research station, a Kibbutz, a mining camp and a university campus.
#6590 Re: Civilization and Culture » Minimum Growth » 2012-03-06 18:55:03
An advanced civilization can grow at a very small exponential growth rate and sill have significant growth but an initial colony has to as a minimum replace the old generation. A generation is considered to be roughly about 20 years and without new births in that time period the population will begin to stagnate. If each couple had two kids and started having kids at 20 then an initial population of 2 would grow to about 8 over a period of 80 years but if the growth rate does not exceed that the population will cease to grow as the death rate begins to match the birth rate.
Consequently an initially guess would be that between 3-4 kids per couple would be necessary to have a reasonable successful chance at growth. On a large scale initial mission 8 people, we will have a population of 8 initial people 4 generations x 4 kids per couple / 2 people per couple =126 people
Which is on average a growth of 1.6 people per year for a period of 80 years.
I don't feel you've thought this through entirely.
1. As long as you have a source population, you don't need procreation to increase your population. Monastic colonies are examples of colonies that don't rely on procreation to grow. Other colonies (not such a nice example) such as the slave societies of the Caribbean grew exponentially as a result of importation of people.
2. You first have to address the issue of embryo development. There is good reason to believe that one third gravity will not be conducive to good embryo development. Furthermore, pregnancy will be v. resource intentive in terms of medical equipment for an infant community.
3. Wouldn't it be better to simply rely on adult incomers to grow the colony to begin with, with people gradually increasing their period of stay as we learn more about one third gravity.
If we can get to the point where in situ procreation is a real option, the colony might face an issue over encouraging women to have larger families. I have suggested before that the colony might want to encourage women to have two children early on - e.g. in their early 20s, followed by two more when they are in their late 30s. You would need to have Kibbutz style child care arrangements as well I think.
#6591 Re: Civilization and Culture » Resource Allocation - What Can we learn from Carl Menger » 2012-03-06 18:37:59
louis wrote:John Creighton wrote:I was actually thinking of using the dollar amount to import a given quantity of good to mars as the basis for price and with this metric we can measure the size of the Martian economy.
I really don't think for most goods that the dollar price on Earth (if that's what you mean) will have much relevance on Mars as part of a multi-billion dollar project. I think we need to write off the initial development costs of getting people established on Mars and then get accurate amortised costs for future transit of goods on a per kg basis.
Above I said the import cost (not the dollar value on earth) and this cost includes the transportation cost. Whatever we are willing to import must to us be worth the cost for us to import it. When we are willing to utilize one of the goods (labor, materials, machinery) imported to mars to produce another good, the value of what is produced is at a minimum worth the cost of the imported resources required to make that good.
The Martians initially do science in return for the goods required to live. When such goods grow faster than they are consumed the economy grows and when the reverse happens the economy declines. If a Martian could produce some of the goods required to carry on their science by using either their free time or as surplus payments for their work then the economy grows and this growth is either though the surplus work of the initial Martians or the surplus payments of the people supporting the missing.
The value of the surpluses production would be measured in terms of how much dollar (includes shipping cost) values of earth imports a Martian is willing to exchange these goods for. Inflation indexes could be devised to consider the growth in the well being of the Martians.
Sorry I misinterpreted you there - was in a bit of a rush earlier on.
Personally I think your analysis doesn't do justice to the complexities. I think the reality is going to be much more like the early colonisation of Australia where all sorts of motives: trade, imperialism,
raw materials acquisition, criminal justice, religious proselytising, military, scientific etc were mixed up.
You seem to imply that there is an exact match between the interests of the Mars inhabitants and the interests of colonisation. Not necessarily so. Mars inhabitants might want to enjoy the creature comforts of home rather than investing in more machinery and housing so that more colonists can join them, especially if say their bank accounts back on Earth were being lined with export earnings.
However, I think it is wrong to expect a money economy to develop on Mars for several decades. The Mars money economy will be located firmly back on Earth and it will be the consortium back on Earth making the key decisions, not the Martians (I prefer Aresians for humans!).
#6592 Re: Civilization and Culture » Resource Allocation - What Can we learn from Carl Menger » 2012-03-06 07:22:41
I was actually thinking of using the dollar amount to import a given quantity of good to mars as the basis for price and with this metric we can measure the size of the Martian economy.
I really don't think for most goods that the dollar price on Earth (if that's what you mean) will have much relevance on Mars as part of a multi-billion dollar project. I think we need to write off the initial development costs of getting people established on Mars and then get accurate amortised costs for future transit of goods on a per kg basis.
Does this mean you rejection Zubrin's concept of In-Situ propplent production?
I think it needs to be subjected to rigorous analysis. It's the opportunity cost we need to look at. Could we do other more interesting and prodcutive things with the mass and the people? If Space X can get the costs down to $500 per kg to LEO then transporting propellant direct might make more sense.
Sounds reasonable. Standardization helps make goods more substitutable and hence helps us better prepare for our future needs. Moving along. In order to know which pieces of equipment we should bring first to mars I would ask how does each of these suggestions you made provide for current or anticipated needs of future people in space. They all sound reasonable and I hope for a better analysis to follow.
I'll see if I can post something soon on this. A lot will depend on launch costs of course. Hitherto I have tended to assume a cost of something like $20,000 per kg to Mars once the initial development costs have been covered, but it could be a lot lower.
I agree with much of what you say in your general comments about learning from history and a range of theories. There is much we can learn from thinking creatively about the past and parallel experiences.
#6593 Re: Civilization and Culture » Resource Allocation - What Can we learn from Carl Menger » 2012-03-05 17:22:46
Yes, this sort of analysis is helpful, although I'm not sure we needed Menger to help us do it (I've posted similar analyses here before now without reading Menger!).
However, you don't state explicitly whether you are looking to manufacture the goods on Mars.
We need to make a mass analysis of these goods.
It doesn't always make sense to make goods on Mars in the first few decades of colonisation.
For instance, what would it take to be able to manufacture medicines on Mars? The medicines will be vital - you might even say they are first order goods - but it is better to import most of them because the tonnage of manufactring equipment and skilled personnel (plus all their life support) that would be necessary to make them on Mars would be huge.
What we need to aim for on Mars is a basic scaled down industrial infrastructure (using scaled down machines - lathes, furnaces, presses etc). We also need to aim for a stripped down economy. There's no need to use paper on Mars. People can use their imported lightweight laptops for writing. There's no need to have separate batteries and electric motors for different machines - you can swap the motors and batteries as the need arises.
Rather than try and procude a range of materials - lots of different polymers and so on - it will be better to concentrate on a few basic materials e.g. glass, basalt/fibre glass, bamboo, iron and steel and adapt our products to those materials.
#6594 Re: Meta New Mars » Increasing use » 2012-03-02 19:41:12
I do remember talking about this subject long ago but no one really responded, I guess because I'm viewed as from a "rival" group. But look, we are all in this together. Mars is in our hearts and we all want to see it happen. To give you some background, and understanding, MarsDrive has often been called a "virtual" group, and that's ok (though not totally accurate). As such, our experience is in this area.
My own history was that I started as an admin at Red Colony forums but their admins left and the spam took over so I shut it down sadly. They had a forum that was active with hundreds of members and thousands of posts. (3 times more than Marsdrive). Luckily MarsDrive had a forum so we continued on, but we also got attacked a few years back and after painstakingly building our posts to some 3000+ and members, we lost it all in an attack. We were offline for only 3 months but for a small group it almost killed us off totally. It was hard to come back, and we never quite did, but when we did I ensured we were secure and all backed up.
New Mars is much bigger though. And the time away was 3 times as bad as us. And you have lost 3 years of records and still have an unreliable login system etc. What built this place and all those elements are no longer here. The other point is, Facebook is the future of these types of discussions. Forums allow for more in depth stuff, but Facebook is where most people are at now. Most Marsdrive stuff goes on there now too. Unless you get all those elements back in place, and the lost posts (and 3 years of lost stuff in this place is bad), it's not going to come back guys. I hope it does, but I think people have moved on.
Why isn't Marsdrive's Facebook site open to non-Facebook users?
I was never very keen on the Marsdrive name myself. I don't think it projects anything and I haven't really found Marsdrive very receptive to new ideas.
I used to enjoy Red Colony because it had a very clear colonisation focus to it.
We may soon be entering on a new era in the next 2-5 years when Musk announces a specific Mars mission. At that point we can expect there to be a real upsurge in interest, but also at that point Musk will be embarking on a well resourced effort and non-professional speculation may become less relevant.
#6595 Re: Human missions » Developing the cis-Lunar economy and infrastructure » 2012-03-01 19:46:21
That is fine for cargo unmanned missions but not for men as that is extra consumables for how ever long one would take to break.....
Well I think you are probably overstating the consumables problem. Food is only 1.5 kg per person max = 90 kgs for two months. Most other consumables can be recycled to a pretty high degree of efficiency these days.
#6596 Re: Human missions » Developing the cis-Lunar economy and infrastructure » 2012-02-29 17:25:37
louis wrote:Rune - So how long is the wait? I seem to recall less than two months. Not too bad I think.
Didn't see that. Yeah, pretty much like you say. The thing is, it depends on how much velocity you shed each orbit (when your orbit intersects the upper atmosphere), which is limited by how much heat your spacecraft can handle. So no heatshield means a lot of drag passes, and the first ones are from long orbital periods, so they take longer. The decrease in precision required is because, since you are slowing in a lot of separate moments, you can make corrections after every one in case the atmospheric conditions change unexpectedly (like the atmosphere being more or less dense at that height on account of a solar storm blowing at that time, for instance).
As to real-world examples, Mars Global Surveyor took 4 months to get the high point of its orbit from 54.000km at capture to a mere 450. Mind you, they had no particular hurry, and a very fragile observation satellite with exposed instruments and such (and a bent solar panel, damaged during launch, that they weren't very sure of).
Rune. Of course, the US has demonstrated direct entry many more times than aerocapture (0, up to now) or aerobraking (a couple times). But the success rate is... let's say EDL is feared with reason.
Thanks for that - very informative.
I think it might make more sense to use more fuel/propellant to get to Mars more quickly and then do the orbital/aero capture over say a couple of months.
#6597 Re: Life support systems » Wind power : possible ? » 2012-02-28 20:21:10
Well, if ρ is about 100 times lower (and it is), then yes, you need a wind speed 100^(1/3) times bigger, or ~4.64, for the same power. The thing is, solar is about half as efficient on Mars as on Earth, and it is already dubious you would choose it over nuclear options. Plus, wind power is pretty much on the top of it's theoretical efficiency on earth already (>85% of theoretical Cp), so not much room for improvement. Some niche application is of course entirely possible.
Rune. Oh, and v^3 is much more clear (IMO) than v 3, if what you mean is velocity cubed. Made me look it up. ^^
Wind power may not be the most efficient power source but it makes sense to utilise it during dust storms when solar power is low (and when servicing of nuclear plants may be difficult).
#6598 Re: Human missions » Developing the cis-Lunar economy and infrastructure » 2012-02-27 19:25:11
Funny how this topic is being written of.
The cislunar econosphere (part 2)The article points to Lunar Oxygen
The to keep Nasascientists busy
Then again another topic of our discusions are 3D printing technology
Tieing this all up is a story on how Mining on the moon: gold, fuel, and Canada's possible role in a new space race
Some interesting ideas there and a nice concept-map.
My one criticism would be that the focus on mining underplays what will be the really big revenue generator on the moon - tourism and associated lunar services. Tourism will far outweigh the other elements in the economy, at least for the first few decades.
#6599 Re: Human missions » Developing the cis-Lunar economy and infrastructure » 2012-02-24 18:32:07
Rune - So how long is the wait? I seem to recall less than two months. Not too bad I think.
#6600 Re: Planetary transportation » Dirigibles on Mars - A practical means of transport? » 2012-02-20 09:30:50
I hate my dialup some times as post went out the window......
Did a bit of Googling to see about these as to the status of them...
The Shielded Marsballoon launcher contract was awarded
http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=27577
http://www.universetoday.com/25964/nasa … -balloon/#http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www … Cqzmb0.jpg
Shielded Mars Balloon Launcher (SMBL) deployment sequence
Interesting EDL.....
The Delft2Mars is this paper
http://www.planetaryprobe.eu/IPPW7/proc … 1/p408.pdf
This article shows what amateurs can achieve on Earth with balloon photos
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/818988-amat … -a-balloon
I wonder if you have a balloon tethered to a robot vehicle, so giving you more control.