Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

Palomar · 2002-06-19 15:29:51

I can't recall the appropriate name for them, but they were popular in 1950s [that was before my time, mind you!] science fiction shows. It looked like a back-pack [wherein the fuel was stored] which strapped onto the shoulders, and maneuvering could be done with gadgets on the hand grips attached to the "back-pack." Maybe the US military actually even had these at one time?

Would this be a feasible way of getting around on Mars? Or is it likely you'd just get your rump toasted like a marshmallow?

Considering how it gets [according to a more learned person here than I] even colder just a meter up from the surface, and continues to get colder the higher up you go, would a properly-designed spacesuit protect from the cold? What kind of fuel would be needed for the flying "back-pack," and would it be in danger of freezing? Of course, the astronaut could stay close to the ground.

Just wondering...

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Phobos · 2002-06-19 18:59:26

I can't recall the appropriate name for them, but they were popular in 1950s [that was before my time, mind you!] science fiction shows. It looked like a back-pack [wherein the fuel was stored] which strapped onto the shoulders, and maneuvering could be done with gadgets on the hand grips attached to the "back-pack." Maybe the US military actually even had these at one time?

I think your talking about jet packs. Having such things available could help you explore those hard to get places at the bottoms of canyons, etc, and you could also use the fuel made with the reactor to refuel them. I never actually read of someone mentioning their use on Mars, but they seem practical, although dangerous, for exploring Mars. I like the idea personally. Zubrin mentioned using NIMF vehicles that could literally globally hop around the planet and refuel themselves from the atmosphere after each hop. Having a combo of these vehicles and jet packs I think Mars would be a lot more fun.

Mark S · 2002-06-20 09:57:48

The Bell rocket belts became quite popular in the 1960's after they were demonstrated at fairs, on television, and in the introduction to "Thunderball." The Army became interested in them, but the rocket belts obviously never became a standard-issue item (probably because they were difficult to fly.)

I don't see any obstacles to the use of rocket belts on Mars. The original Bell design used safe, storable Hydrogen Peroxide as a monopropellant. Because it would not be difficult to produce Hydrogen Peroxide on Mars, this would still remain the fuel of choice.

Palomar · 2002-06-20 10:55:55

The original Bell design used safe, storable Hydrogen Peroxide as a monopropellant. Because it would not be difficult to produce Hydrogen Peroxide on Mars, this would still remain the fuel of choice.

Okay...bordering on being an "obvious question":

The hydrogen peroxide you are talking about is the ::same thing:: as the hydrogen peroxide sold in grocery and drug stores, which people put on cuts and abrasions, and some people gargle with? :0

Wow, if that's so...I'm investing in shares of hydrogen peroxide manufacture on Mars!

--Cindy

Mark S · 2002-06-20 11:29:34

The hydrogen peroxide in the drug store is not the same as rocket-grade peroxide. Commercially-available hydrogen peroxide is incredibly diluted--it's approximately 1% peroxide mixed with 99% water. I have access to a small rocket engine that uses a 50% solution of hydrogen peroxide, which is quite strong, but still available through scientific supply companies. The peroxide that is used in real rockets is at least 90% hydrogen peroxide.

Another difference is chemicals called inhibitors. Because the hydrogen peroxide molecule is so unstable, chemical inhibitors are added to commercial peroxide to prevent it from breaking down into steam and oxygen. Rocket grade hydrogen peroxide doesn't have these inhibitors, so it must be stored in a specially-designed tank made of materials that won't break it down.

Palomar · 2002-06-20 15:08:16

The hydrogen peroxide in the drug store is not the same as rocket-grade peroxide. Commercially-available hydrogen peroxide is incredibly diluted--it's approximately 1% peroxide mixed with 99% water...The peroxide that is used in real rockets is at least 90% hydrogen peroxide.

Okay...thanks for relieving my very intense curiosity! [It's too bad there's not an emoticon with blushing cheeks which I could insert right here] I didn't want to assume one way or the other, which is why I asked. I figured there had to be "more to this." ???

--Cindy

Mark S · 2002-06-21 09:20:35

I'm glad that I was able to explain the benefits of hydrogen peroxide as a rocket propellant to one more person. There are a lot of people who believe that Hydrogen Peroxide was a poor propellant because it was used on the explosive Me-163. But the problem was that the Me-163 used a very poor, unrefined grade of Hydrogen Peroxide, and it used toxic hydrazine as well.

Palomar · 2002-06-21 10:59:03

What do you think will be better for powering Mars rovers: fuel cells or hydrogen peroxide ?
How could H2O2 be produced on Mars? How difficult would that be?
Wait a second, could H2O2 be used as a monopropellant?! How?

*Boy oh boy

If a person has to have a working knowledge of chemistry in order to drive a rover on Mars, I guess they'd better rig up one for me which is powered via foot pedals.

--Cindy

Mark S · 2002-06-21 14:01:08

Hydrogen Peroxide was a common monopropellant for RCS thrusters in the early days of the space program--the X-15, NF-104, and Mercury capsule all used it. Now "The Rocket Guy" Brian Gardner will use it when he attempts to launch himself to an altitude of 30 miles in 2003.

It is simple to use Hydrogen Peroxide as a monopropellant. You simply need to pass it through a catalyst to break it into H2O and O2. Because the molecule is unstable, almost any material will catalyze it at high concentrations. Silver and platinum will work extremely well. Peroxide can also be combined with a hydrocarbon like kerosene or gasoline, serving as an oxidizer.

How could you make hydrogen peroxide on Mars? For a start, the soil contains peroxide ions (don't quote me on this, as I'm not an expert in Martian geology or chemistry.) Hydrogen could be obtained from subsurface water/ice. It would also be possible to simply electrolyze the water/ice and recombine the H2 and O2 into hydrogen peroxide.

Michael Bloxham · 2002-06-21 15:39:08

I was always partial to the idea of martian landspeeders myself ;-).

Any ideas for exploiting mars' highly magnetic dust particles?

Phobos · 2002-06-21 19:41:30

Speaking of magnetic dust particles, would super-conductive magnets be a viable technology on Mars? If we have super conductors that can work at Martian temperatures, who knows, maybe we can cruise along in land speeders.

Mark S · 2002-06-24 08:08:18

Admittedly, H2O2 is not a high-performance monopropellant. It only has an ISp of 160 seconds. But it makes sense to use it for your RCS if the propulsive rocket engine uses H2O2 + Kerosene, which has an ISp of 300 seconds.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-06-26 04:44:13

Just returning to the "back-packs" briefly. I believe they were commissioned by the U.S. Army in an attempt to produce a highly mobile arm of the infantry.
Two drawbacks disillusioned the military. The first was that the fuel which could be realistically carried allowed only 3 minutes of flight. The second was that a soldier flying one of these things was a 'sitting duck' and could easily be shot by enemy ground troops as he flew over!
We assume that on Mars nobody will be shooting at us! But remember we'll already be dressed in bulky pressure suits before we get down to strapping on a 'rocket-pack'. Sounds a bit awkward to me!
But maybe something more akin to the 'flying bedstead' used in training by the Apollo astronauts would be more practicable. In any event, you'd have to head for home when your fuel gauge registered half-full because of the lack of convenient gas stations on Mars!
Just a further brief comment regarding peroxides in the Martian soil. The concept of such oxides and superoxides was hypothesised to explain the results of the life-detection experiments on the Viking craft. More specifically to explain the apparent lack of organic molecules indicated by the Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer results. Since then, more than two decades of painstaking research by Dr. Gil Levin (who devised and ran the Labelled Release experiment) has discredited the accuracy of the GCMS. The scientific community has, for reasons I am unable to fathom, studiously ignored Dr. Levin's work and still clings to the now untenable idea that the soil of Mars is full of peroxides and therefore self-sterilising.
In view of Dr. Levin's work and the fact of vast quantities of water ice just below much of the planet's surface, I'd be prepared to bet that there are no peroxides or unstable superoxides in the regolith at all. I think much of the regolith is not only amenable to life but, in accordance with Dr. Levin's interpretation of the results of his own LR experiment conducted on Mars by Viking, will be found to be teeming with bacteria and other microorganisms.
If anybody out there wants to call me a nut, go ahead! But read about Dr. Levin's work first. It's fascinating stuff!

Palomar · 2002-07-12 21:03:42

*An "update" of sorts. On ABC Nightly News this evening was featured a man [looking to be in his early 40s], retired from the military, who has spent the last 5 years attempting to re-create the "rocket belt" [the newscaster's words, not mine]. This man is calling it "Solotrek." It has a full-body frame. You place your feet on "stirrups" [for want of a better term], your back is supported against a light metal frame [and I presume strapped in], and you have hand grips with controls on them. He says it's built "like a helicopter;" it has two propellers, situated one above each shoulder, each surrounded by an open metal casing [each looks like a blue doughnut with the propeller tucked inside]. He tested it up to 2 feet off the ground, though tethered all around; this was on videotape. He hasn't actually *flown* it yet.

I'm no aerodynamics or flight expert by any means, but that contraption was *really* pulling hard against the tethers! If the way those tethering cords were wildly jogging around [and otherwise they looked strong and taut] is any indication, I think he's going to have to reduce the power of the motor, or make the propellers smaller, or SOMETHING; otherwise, he'll find himself in the ionosphere with that thing before you can say "Bob's your uncle."

It was interesting. You wouldn't get me into it, though. ???

A NASA official was checking out the mechanics of it using computer animation. Apparently the military has given a "heads-up" too.

The news segment also showed clips of the old rocket belts of the 1960s; a 30-second run on one of those, apparently.

--Cindy

Byron · 2002-07-13 07:39:10

I'm no aerodynamics or flight expert by any means, but that contraption was *really* pulling hard against the tethers! If the way those tethering cords were wildly jogging around [and otherwise they looked strong and taut] is any indication, I think he's going to have to reduce the power of the motor, or make the propellers smaller, or SOMETHING; otherwise, he'll find himself in the ionosphere with that thing before you can say "Bob's your uncle."
It was interesting. You wouldn't get me into it, though.

I wouldn't mind giving that thing a go...lol...as long as I had a parachute strapped onto my back Actually, there has been a "personal flying craft" of sorts in use for years, and it's called a para-motor. Bascially, what this is is a backback engine with a single propeller attached, and the rider wears a harness that is attached to a parachute. It costs anywhere from $4000 to $7000..practically the cheapest flight machine ever invented.

To fly, all you have to do is strap it on, fire up the motor, and run into the wind until the chute catches "air", and off you go! (I had the privilage of riding one of these things in tandem with someone...this was the closest thing to pure flight I've ever experienced. Awesome! Quite safe, too, as you have the constant protection of a deployed parachute with you at all times...

B

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-06-19 15:29:51

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

#2 2002-06-19 18:59:26

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

#3 2002-06-20 09:57:48

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

#4 2002-06-20 10:55:55

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

#5 2002-06-20 11:29:34

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

#6 2002-06-20 15:08:16

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

#7 2002-06-21 09:20:35

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

#8 2002-06-21 10:59:03

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

#9 2002-06-21 14:01:08

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

#10 2002-06-21 15:39:08

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

#11 2002-06-21 19:41:30

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

#12 2002-06-24 08:08:18

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

#13 2002-06-26 04:44:13

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

#14 2002-07-12 21:03:42

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

#15 2002-07-13 07:39:10

Re: Flying "back-packs" - Another way of getting around on Mars?

Board footer