New Mars Forums

A bit off-topic, but does this only be the case for a distance of 1 AU from the sun? Is a farther distance (eg Mars, 1.52  AU) give lower power/mass ratio´s? Can you simply calculatee this by dividing by the  quadrature of the distance in AU?

What I  don´t understaand about the  Shuttle is that problems appear that have been there  during all the launches, eg revverse-monted  brakes. The problems with the tiles were there from the first launches of Columbia. It´s IMO merely an organizational rpoblem than something teechnical.

OK, a resuable shuttle asks more technics than a put-away Soyuz. But then I come to the question if reusability is the right filosofy.  Itt makes sense, nobody can deny, but calculating things through, the costs of extra mass, costs  of recovery and technical support, far much  more cost of engineering, I really ask myself if this is better.

I think a 6-person-soyuz Russia is talking  about is a better idea than a type of Shuttle.

Once sombody told most of launching costss are not the rocket, but merely person-cost (launch-centr, technicians eg) and the cost of the  launch-complex.

What I know about von Braun, he was a technical in the first place and a Nazi in the second. Keep in mind much people were Nazi, without very explicitly have choosen for it. That he has designed rockets for destroying London is undeniable. If he had the chance, he would have made rockets that could hit New York!

However, I think he was a soldier who fought for his country, however with wrong ideologies. He was also some time stopped by Hitler, who didn't think hios rockets were very good weapons, but later a friend of von Braun made it possible to continue the project. When the Russians came near from the East, he desided to go to the Americans and work for them. He was taken to America, at first there was some reserveations, but when Vanguard failed (nov or dec 1957) he was given the task to make Juno to send Explorer 1 in orbit.

About his Mars-projects: His old project was very ambitious (70 man and 12 ships) but later he made a plan with the NERVA-engines, 12 men and 2 ships.

I have one book of him: He writes very clear, even for non-technicians.

I agree. At first glance, spinning seems the egg of Columbus, but working it out, problems arise. People moving from lower to upper parts of the ship undergo difference's in g. Course-corrections and navigation, even shielding are tough jobs with such a thing. Beside that, it should be stopped when preparing for decent.

A good part of the problems of zero-g arise at the first days of experiencing it. Vomiting, water-regulation of the body, that things. This can also have effect on the mental aspects of the astronauts.

Further, I think the zero-g problems are over-estimated. Muscle can be kept strong by excersising. The problem is more that cosmonauts refused this as much as was possible, so they came sometimes in troubles. Polyakov, a doc, who also co-designed the excersise-scheme of the cosmonauts, declared he did his two stay's without physical problems. About the decalcifying: As far as I know, their are reasons to assume this would stop after some months. One of the reasons to stay longer in space is to make data of that. Radiation has to be shielded, so there's no problem.

The only that remains are psychological aspects. A crew, together and also alone, no possibilitie to return immediately to a safe environment and no real-time communication with anybody outside the space-ship. Beside that no privacy, cramped space and, during a big part of the trip, even when they are some weeks on the martian surface, a very boring task.

This last aspect has to be researched with long-time submarine expeditions, IMO, because much of the aspects mach. Maybe a mission on the back of the Moon is an idea.

GCNRevenger: I didn't want to say staying long in space is practical or even physical not heavy. Smiling cosmonauts..... more and more becomes clear about what they went through. But all this said, long stay's are not a real problem. Much cosmonauts, and even NASA's Michael Foale do long stays for the second time.

I think all the modifications that will take place with eg the ISS before it is possible to fly with it to Mars, advancing life-support, I think, structural modifications, it must withstand forces for delta-v, beside that the safety of ISS is yet also guaranteed by adding a soyuz to it so that flight is immediately possible. This possibility can't be considered when going to Mars.

All said, it's better to launch a new module of about 40 ton.

What about KSR's moholes?

Sorry, I didn't know you made this point already. I made a reply on another thread (When will the shuttle fly?).

But I didn't realize the landing -site of Soyuz, which is traditionally land. I've looked on the world-map and come to some options, namely Australia, Namibia and eventually Mexico. Don't know what is best, but I think Australia. Their desert kcan be reached better than Namibia, I think, annd Mexico is maybe to dense-crowded.

In case of an abort, Soyuz has to land in the Atlantic.

What are your opinions?

I don't know really much about poker, but I agree that long-stay's are one of the best things America (and the other partners as well) can do. I don't see what extra facilities are needed to support a 1-year stay when a half-year stay is yet possible. The medical or bio-scientific reasons don't sound very essential to me. I think there are a lot of astronauts hoping to make that 1-year stay.  (BTW I'm nearly sure 'my' Andre will do this!!)

The only reason I can imagine is then the loose of a flight because of that space-tourist (but also a US inhabitant).

But the sound NASA makes is to much from above, not new of course. With Mir, this was also the case, just paying 400 million dollars for 7 stay's, doesn't seem much to me. This can make things worse for NASA. Keep also in mind that most of the orbiting ISS-modules are yet Russian.

When we like to go to Mars, we have to support long stays. This is in particular a subject that asks a lot of time!!

So, what's NASA's point? If there are no problems with long staying in space, I don't see why NASA doesn't go on. When they like to go to Mars, long duration is essential.

Semyonov said: "We need a program which is optimal for Russia and it's European partners." I totally agree with that. When we have to wait first for a flying Space-Shuttle this becomes a problem. NASA can't go on with putting forward their 'take it or leave it' strategy. Cooperation is more than that.

Interesting, this last topic. I found the Niehoff VISIT 2 scenario by calculating. I assumed some resonance and calculated the deviation with the real situation. Mars and Earth resonate in a 8:15 with a deviance of .3 %. When a cycler is placed in this system with a resonance of 10 this solution is found. It resonates with Earth as 2:3 and with Mars as 5:4. Because of the regression of the apsides the whole period is not 15 year, as could be assumed from the 15, but 14.9464 year. Then I come to a regression of 3.86 degree retrograde each Earth-flyby, close to the 4.4 mentioned by Hop.
Every 10 orbits of the cycler, there is one fast 'to' one slow 'to' one fast 'from' and one slow 'from' , the slow taking about 21 months, the fast just 9.

BTW: I didn't realize 10 resonates with 8 until I read this last reply

What is your problem with this? Every post is my own opinion, even as every post of you is your own opinion. I just explain what I think and defend what I believe. That's all. When somebody like it to make some comments on a web-page explaining creationism, then I just tell you what I think about it. That's a consequence of starting such topics.

BTW Maybe you where heavily surprised such Phyllis-like ghosts even were interested in Mars :laugh:

I'm afraid from this time, the shuttle will fly as often as Buran  :laugh: