New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#2451 Re: Liberum Olympia » New Ideas on the Wiki » 2007-12-04 11:27:37
see the weitian calender at http://www.newmars.com/wiki/index.php/T … n_Calendar!
oops, that's the talk page, but whatever
#2452 Re: Liberum Olympia » New Ideas on the Wiki » 2007-12-04 08:29:52
OK then, thanks
#2453 Re: Liberum Olympia » New Ideas on the Wiki » 2007-12-04 07:42:05
If I am working on a new system for martian timekeeping (The section is two stubs and variants of the darian calendar, for gods sakes) can I put it there? Considering that calendar systems are somewhat simple to make, I don't think I can use the disputed research template. I'll post it here when I finish it.
Also, there can't be any sources because there are no sources to give.
Is all of this okay?
#2454 Re: Life support systems » Greenhouses » 2007-12-04 06:57:57
I agree. The sp-100, which seems the most likely choice, only generates 100 kwe of energy. (is that a lot? The goal for it was 300 kwe. I've heard that the first expeditions will need 1-200 kwe.)
#2455 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming Venus » 2007-12-02 18:13:32
Welcome to Newmars, Eyas. It was a very good idea, but according to this phase diagram
The temperature would have to be ~ 300 degrees lower to ever accomodate water on venus (10^6 Pa, 735 K). If the temperature could be lowered to 400 K, then this would be perfect. So maybe the CO2 sunshade in conjunction with this would work very well.
#2456 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Un- conventional ways to LEO » 2007-12-02 16:27:26
And if you say that we'll use monatomic Hydrogen (H) instead of Diatomic Hydrogen (H2), then I will tell you that (in case you didn't know) At temperatures higher than abs. 0, hydrogen only comes diatomically.
#2457 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Un- conventional ways to LEO » 2007-12-02 15:00:43
I have some actual info for you about atmospheric pressure:
fraction of 1 atm average altitude
(m) (ft)
1 0 0
1/2 5,486 18,000
1/3 8,376 27,480
1/10 16,132 52,926
1/100 30,901 101,381
1/1000 48,467 159,013
1/10000 69,464 227,899
1/100000 96,282 283,076Or you can see it more clearly at [url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheri … _variation [/url]
so 4 km below the kamaran line, the air pressure/density averages 1/100,000th of that at sea level. This is from wikipedia.
Hydrogen and helium are the most commonly used lift gases. Although helium is twice as heavy as (diatomic) hydrogen, they are both so much lighter than air that this difference is inconsequential. (Both provide about 1 kilogram of lift per cubic meter of gas at room temperature and sea level pressure.) Helium is preferred because it is not combustible.
So, at 96 km, you will need ( assuming that the material you use to enclose it has no mass ) ~100,000 square meters of ambient-temperature helium/hydrogen for every kilogram, or a box of about 47 m x 47 m x 47 m to lift one kilogram. If you can find something airtight, that weighs 1 kg for every ~ 13,500 m2, Kudos to you, but you still have no lifting power. Of course that is a cube, but I believe that these figures show the infeasibility of using a balloon to go anywhere near space.[/url][/list]
#2458 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Un- conventional ways to LEO » 2007-12-01 16:20:15
As you go further and further from the surface of the earth, the atmosphere gradually fades until it’s difficult to notice any air around you. No physical boundary clearly separates space from the atmosphere – even thousands of miles away from the planet, a few air molecules zoom around. As a result, it’s difficult to put a precise total on the number of travelers who have tasted space.
The line distinguishing spaceflight from ordinary flight evolved from the efforts of Theodore Von Karman, a Hungarian-American physicist and engineer, in the 1950’s. In ordinary flight, an aircraft relies on the atmosphere to create lift. Without air, the wings of an airplane and the helium or hot air of a balloon are useless.
Von Karman knew that as the earth’s atmosphere became thinner and thinner, an airplane would have to fly faster and faster to generate the same lift, because there is less air for the aircraft to push against. At some critical height, the plane would need to travel so fast to generate lift that its motion would be more like a satellite, which orbits the earth in perpetual free-fall — without additional thrust or lift — due to the earth’s gravity.
More proof. And I would prefer if you didn't say that the article says helium, so Hydrogen would be fine, because that doesn't really make sense, don't you think?
#2459 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Un- conventional ways to LEO » 2007-12-01 16:14:19
The Karman Line is an internationally designated altitude commonly used to define outer space. According to definitions by the Fdration Aronautique Internationale (FAI), the Karman or Krmn line lies at a height of 100 km (about 62 miles) above Earth's surface (ie. in technical terms 100 km above mean sea level).
Around this altitude the Earth's atmosphere becomes negligible for aeronautic purposes, and there is an abrupt increase in atmospheric temperature and interaction with solar radiation.
It was named after Theodore von Krmn (May 11, 1881 - May 6, 1963), an engineer and physicist who was active primarily in the fields of aeronautics during the seminal era in the 1940s and 1950s. He is personally responsible for many key advances in aerodynamics, notably his work on supersonic and hypersonic airflow characterization
I've told you over and over. YOU CANNOT USE A BALLOON TO GET ANYWHERE NEAR ORBIT.
#2460 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming techniques to combat global warming » 2007-12-01 12:55:46
and
I hope that satisfies your majesties need, King Terraforrmer :shock: 
#2461 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming techniques to combat global warming » 2007-12-01 08:16:31
compared to
The numbers on the right are ppm of CO2, the ones on the left are average temp. anomaly. Although it's down half of the time, that is because they're using the average temperature on this graph as the no change point, when it should, in my opinion, be right at 1880, where the temp. has the same average for a few years.
#2462 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming techniques to combat global warming » 2007-12-01 08:06:47
the industrial revolution started in 1850, i's say 70 years would be a sufficiently long time to have sea level rise, let's compare that to a picture of CO2 levels.
#2463 Re: Interplanetary transportation » New ERV (earth return vehicle) idea » 2007-11-30 15:51:19
Actually, it is possible. The thermite reaction will do well, it's exothermic, and who knows how much iron there is around?
#2464 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Gravtity not present throughout the Universe » 2007-11-28 15:33:16
#2465 Re: Terraformation » Map of the Earth with 140m higher ocean? » 2007-11-27 14:37:24
You 2 (Terraforrmer & Tom Kalbfus) are now officially renamed the TKT duo. Stop spamming (my opinion, among the most civilized spam, but still) your ideas. If you want to say something, make a thread, and say itt there ONCE. Refrain from killing threads as you have killed this one.
#2466 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming techniques to combat global warming » 2007-11-27 14:27:21
What happens when we use up all of the metals to build the boats with?
What happens when we can't build giant docks b/c we've cut down all of the forest?
What happens when we run out of fresh water and crude oil?
We can't puriify ocean water b/c that is fairly energy intensive.
By my caculations, the biological carrying capacity (the amount of people the biosphere can sustain forever) of a civilized earth, pre industrial revolution was, 500 million people. The industrial carrying capacity (How many people we can feed, clothe, etc, at today's standards) is about 4 billion. The current population of the earth is almost 7 billion. If that doesn't at least ring bells in your head, than something is wrong. This isn't the time to panic, no, but it is the time (or maybe past time) to start doing something. We can't, by any means, transport 6.5 billion people anywhere, and even if we could, it would be the same problem.
But no need to respond to this part of the post by saying (ONCE AGAIN) don't panic.
Just try to answer the questions. Since you seem to have missed everyone else's, I'll put them in giant, bold, underlined letters below, to reinforce it.
What happens when we use up all of the metals to build the boats with?
What happens when we can't build giant docks b/c we've cut down all of the forest?
What happens when we run out of fresh water and crude oil?
We can't puriify ocean water b/c that is fairly energy intensive.
Maybe that got through.
#2467 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming techniques to combat global warming » 2007-11-25 16:07:01
I have read that the carrying capacity for a civilized earth is 2-3 billion. According to the CIA World Factbook, the current (estimated) population is 6.611 billion. We've overshot by a large (2x- 3x) Margin.
I have heard that with no CO2 in the atmosphere, the average temperature would be -18 C (-4 F). The average temp. with 280 ppm CO2 was 12 C (56 F) According to my figures, the temperatures at 380 ppm will average 22 C (74 F) This doesn't seem so bad, but imagine every temperature 10 C higher. Antartica would melt. But at this rate, we'll be at 800 ppm by 2057. Then the average temp. will be 64 C, or 130 F. This will, in turn, reduce the oxygen in the oceans, and will probably end in a mass extinction the likes of which has never been seen before on this earth. a 99.9% extinction of all earthly species.
Earth has a carrying capacity. We've overshot.
#2468 Re: Space Policy » Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first » 2007-11-25 14:54:25
Wo wants to sign up for building an orbital shuttle (corner cutting of course).
:?:
That isn't really the idea. We can't be afraid to increace funding, we have to go with new ideas and new designs, we can't be afraid of failure, we need to take a few risks, if a few astronauts die, due to 'slightly' less knowledge of the kinks in the new systems, we're just going to have to deal with it.
Congress (specifically) can't reevaluate (lower) Nasa's funding every time someone gets a bruise at the ISS
#2469 Re: Unmanned probes » Dust Blowers on Probes » 2007-11-25 09:36:52
"A radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) is a simple electrical generator which obtains its power from radioactive decay. In such a device, the heat released by the decay of a suitable radioactive material is converted into electricity by the Seebeck effect using an array of thermocouples. RTGs can be considered as a type of battery and have been used as power sources in satellites, space probes and unmanned remote facilities. RTGs are usually the most desirable power source for unmanned or unmaintained situations needing a few hundred watts or less of power for durations too long for fuel cells, batteries and generators to provide economically, and in places where solar cells are not viable."
from wikipedia
#2470 Re: Mars Gravity Biosatellite » Where does this stand now? » 2007-11-19 15:42:36
What is the translife project exactly?
#2471 Re: Interplanetary transportation » New Fuel » 2007-11-19 15:36:57
What percentage is H2O2 in the regolith?
How could it be extracted?
#2472 Re: Life support systems » Water on Mars » 2007-11-19 15:33:30
despite the topic name, I believe that this is in the right forum:
Where would the first few expeditions on mars get their water? Water can be recycled, especially if you have a 'biosphere', and not a hab running on canned air, but only up to a point. It's not economical to bring 3 years of water from earth. So where can an early colony get some water on mars?
Is it a good idea to get it form the atmosphere? I know that that isn't a good source of H for fuel, but what about for biological uses
Or would it be a good idea to use permafrost mining?
Or what about using the h2o2 in the regolith to make o2 and h2o?
I'm assuming that they are near the equator, for max sunlight etc, so it's really pointless to get water from the PIC's
#2473 Re: Life support systems » Heat » 2007-11-19 14:49:43
It didn't work
#2474 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Lighter than Air Suborbital Craft » 2007-11-18 13:02:04
blimps can't get anywhere near suborbit, but bringing a suborbital craft a high as a blimp can go and then launching from there has already been suggested. The problem is that blimps use the air to rise, and there is, by definition, no air in space.
#2475 Re: Life support systems » Heat » 2007-11-18 12:53:57
Okay, but what about themps in the rovers (w/ people in them) besides, I'm sure the rovers work to temperatures where the plants would freeze/burn, and humans would die.