New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations by emailing newmarsmember * gmail.com become a registered member. Read the Recruiting expertise for NewMars Forum topic in Meta New Mars for other information for this process.

#1 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Electric powered engines. » 2003-07-15 03:54:31

With the ION engine, would it be able to work in an atmosphere infinitely? (assuming infinity power of course.)

#2 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Electric powered engines. » 2003-07-05 23:32:45

So, RobertDyck, what you are saying is that VASIMR is electric powered, it just needs alot of it?
Perhaps that could be a goal, create an extremely efficieant power source that is small enough and strong enough to survive a trip on a ricket whilst producing power.

#3 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Electric powered engines. » 2003-06-27 06:24:57

I asked this about a year ago and I was never able to check the reply and I can't seem to find the thread (forgot where I posted it!)
I'm just wondering if there are any engines that are currently available, or on the horizon, that are electric powered and could be used to either get from Earth into space and/or get from Earth to Mars?
Power supply isn't a problem, I'm just wondering if the actual propulsion is there.
Also, I heard that ION engines are electric powered but in one report I heard that they still require fuel, albeight very little.
Anyway, thanks for any help.

#4 Re: Human missions » MarsFund - Nonprofit fund » 2002-10-19 01:55:46

Something you may have overlooked in the pricing of the elevator. The actual cost to use the elevator would be close to nil, but there is still and investment of 10-20 billion dollars. I suspect that for the first few decades it will still be rather costly to send objects into space. It will no doubt be cheaper than by rocket, but expensive none the less.

On the topic of a 700 tonne counter weight, perhaps the US and/or Russia could follow the idea in Red Mars where small boosters are attached to the BIG space shuttle boosters to lift them into orbit. (a booster booster???)

#5 Re: Human missions » Getting there » 2002-10-07 01:31:04

Does anyone know if any of the Mars missions are planning on travelling to Mars through the paths where the gravity wells of the different planets cancel each other out. I just took a crash course in movement of satellites etc in physics class today (I had to miss THE most important 2 days last term!)
my teacher mentioned that it is now possible to map where these areas of zero gravity are and that they allow space travel with a fraction of the energy.
Anyway, hope someone can make sense of my ramblings.


Only 13 days of classes left before I have to study for my end of SCHOOL exams, oh joy!

#6 Re: Human missions » Mars 24 Project - To Mars with Existing Commercial Rockets » 2002-10-02 04:48:47

you could always hope and pray the HighLift Systems gets off their bums and makes their elevator a reality. It would drop the cost of your mission dramatically.

http://www.highliftsystems.com/

#7 Re: Human missions » Interior Layout of the habitat » 2002-09-25 06:48:59

umm, I haven't read EVERY reply to this topic, but couldn't they just package a third floor in a crate and just build it on top? I'm sure it could be used as some team-building thingo that the big companies all seem to love. I believe that the prototype has a crane attached, this could be put to use by lifting equipment and pre-fab building materials up to the third floor.


Also, a rocket could be sent up with a large prefab set of load-bearing walls that, when put together, would look pretty much like shipping containers. You could dig a pit, build this larger hab, and cover it in regolith (If it weren't for the Mars trilogy I wouldn't have a clue what that word is smile ) This new underground area wouldn't take too long to complete and I'm sure that in training they astronauts (mars-o-nauts) could practice building one.

#8 Re: Planetary transportation » Rover Navigation - How should it be done? » 2002-09-01 23:53:42

IRIDIUM went bankrupt and was purchased by GlobalStar for about 200 million US. Considering it cost about 5 billion to set up, this is a considerable saving.
Getting a Titan booster would allow you to launch more satellites at once. The payload area on an ICBM is only about 2 cubic metres.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/makeyev.htm
this website lists the ex-Soviet missiles that are now available for purchase (minus nuclear warheads). The planetary society used an ICBM to launch their prototype solar-sailor into orbit.

#9 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Electric drives for surface to space travel - are there any? » 2002-09-01 05:13:54

So, as the topic asks, are there any electric drives that would work for surface to space flight and what are the approximate payloads that could be carried with them?

If there are any that can take large payloads, perhaps an investment in creating a fusion (or is it fission) reactor on the moon would be in order. The idea is that the energy is beamed directly to the ship as it is flying, therefore it doesn't have to carry any fuel and there is no danger of nuclear explosion from an engine or whatever.

Anyway, maybe the question could be answered.

#10 Re: Planetary transportation » Rover Navigation - How should it be done? » 2002-09-01 05:10:16

Why not launch the satellites now? There are thousands or Russian ICBMs that are available for the launching of small satellites. The satellites would have an ION engine and would have about 20 years to reach Mars. I think that the cost of an IRIDIUM satellite was only a few million dollars. A launch is about a million. I think that you could have a very good, budget, GPS and communication system for around 100 million US (Iridium put up HEAPS of satellites and spent about 5 billion US, but this would only need them on about half the planet, which is smaller anyway). It would be a good investment because they could also be used for sending data from the surface to an orbiting station or even Earth. Of course, relay satellites would have to be put in place.

#11 Re: Human missions » Pres. commission wants ambitious space program » 2002-09-01 05:01:25

3 years travel??? I don't think it will take that long. From what I've read the entire journey with a month on the surface could be done in 1.5-2 years.
I could be wrong of course but 3 years a tad excessive.

#12 Re: Terraformation » Martion containment » 2002-08-17 02:15:28

well, just remember that a landing on Mars is at least 20 years off. I'm sure there will be better or safer nuclear power by then.

#13 Re: Terraformation » Martion containment » 2002-07-20 19:07:00

about the spent uranium rods, why not just launch them into the sun. I'm sure the people on mars wouldn't mind and I can't see it doing damage to the sun

#14 Re: Terraformation » Martion containment » 2002-07-20 07:29:23

It is my belief that colonies and camps should be built in low areas and over an area with a diameter of approximately 30 kilometres. This allows more than enough expansion should there be a nuclear power plant etc. Once the technology becomes available, the camps should be moved into tented canyons and craters. Roads should be built (or paths cleared as the case may be) and should be followed unless off exploring which would probably do negligible damage to the environment.

Well, that's my $0.02 on the topic

#15 Re: Planetary transportation » small, high speed buggies » 2002-07-20 07:18:43

you may not have noticed but I did say AROUND THE BASE. It would be common sense to clear the area in which the base is and also roads between colonies.

#16 Re: Interplanetary transportation » The proposed UR-700M launch vehic750 tons to orbit - Most powerful chemical rocket designed? » 2002-07-20 07:08:40

well, the advantage of using somewhere like Christmas Island (Australia) or French Guinea is that the launch sites are in very unpopulated ares (well, Christmas Island isn't unpopulated but if the rocket stuffs up it will hit the Indian Ocean). I believe StarChaser industries are using Christmas Island, or maybe some other company. Australia also has Woomera, a place where the British conducted their nuclear tests. It is used these days for SCRAMJET tests, you may have heard about the Japanese one that blew up upon launch.

Anyway, Australia would be a great place to launch this super rocket.

#17 Re: Human missions » Should we  return to the moon  first? » 2002-07-20 06:52:19

ummm, I believe that the moon should be revisited for the reason that it can be used to mine water and possible fuels for space craft to go to Mars. The same thing should happen to one of the moons around Mars. This would allow more trips to Mars due to the drastically reduced prices of fuel and water because they don't need to be flown into space.

#18 Re: Human missions » Should we  return to the moon  first? » 2002-07-20 06:50:30

ummm, I believe that the moon should be revisited for the reason that it can be used to mine water and possible fuels for space craft to go to Mars. The same thing should happen to one of the moons around Mars. This would allow more trips to Mars due to the drastically reduced prices of fuel and water because they don't need to be flown into space.

#19 Re: Human missions » Mars Orbit Space Station » 2002-07-18 05:06:06

hmm, maybe just dropping a fuel station to phobos and then having a space station would be best. It would also be a LOT easier and smaller.

#20 Re: Human missions » Mars Orbit Space Station » 2002-07-17 04:42:27

Several question are required before I can go ahead.
1) What are the approximate dimensions of Deimos?
2) Are there any mineable minerals to be found on Deimos?

Now onto the idea, but please realise this would be HIGHLY impractical for the first mission unless several more were definatly in order.
If Deimos, or even Phobos which is probably to big, were thin enough, a large taurus could be arranged around it, connected in several places. The moon could be spun up to create the artificial gravity while on the surface, fuels could be mined for docking ships. It could be powered by nuclear or solar power.

This is only an IDEA so don't winge about it.

#21 Re: Planetary transportation » small, high speed buggies » 2002-06-24 04:09:39

A possible mode of transport could be the use of small one or two man buggies. They would be open air and would effectively be just a roll cage with with wheels and an engine.

A base design would be something like the US Navy SEAL desert attack vehicles.

Does anyone know what is the most likely fuel source to be mined on Mars during a visit? Are there any effective hydrogen engines available at the moment or in the short term future (5 years max.)

Electric buggies would be OK, but I'm assuming that a hydrogen or LPG engine would be better because of speed and power.

Does anyone know if it would be possible to convert motorbikes (2 wheel) to electric?

These are basically ideas for use around the main base area and for short scout trips. They could also be trailed behind a rover and used further afield.

#22 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Transfer of energy - HOW? » 2002-06-18 00:45:25

Does anyone know of the transfer of energy by waves (radio, microwave etc.). I heard that the chinese want to create a base on the moon and generate electricity and beam it back to earth. IS THIS POSSIBLE?
If so, it would make sense to create a large solar array situated in permanent sunlight around mars and have a chain of satellites to relay the energy to a base on one of the moons or the surface of mars itself.
Any thoughts?

#23 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Space Train » 2002-06-13 04:24:57

ha ha, as would I.
One possible means of returning could be to use the suns gravity to pull the ship back closer to the Earth. (I'm not sure about this but it would probably be, like the sail, slow).

I get the feeling that this thing would just be used to go to Mars orbit and stay there as a space station.

#24 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Space Train » 2002-06-13 01:12:25

my actual plan was that the sail could be used transport the equipment to Mars orbit. If a rotating Taurus were implemented then when the whole thing arrives in Mars orbit, it could be used as a space station for people to get reconditioned to Earth gravity. I'm sure that it wouldn't be too hard to attach the station to a moon.



edit

Shaun, ever gone sailing in a boat? Sailing towards the sun would be similiar to sailing into the wind I guess. You would probably have to aim just off the sun and overshoot your course, or just aim VERY far in front of your target which would almost certainly be around the 45 degree mark, depending on the position of Earth etc. I don't think it would be all the hard to get back to Earth, just slower.

#25 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Space Train » 2002-06-12 23:24:40

I've read snippets of info on the use of Solar Sailors and I was wondering if it would be possible to use one as a type of train. The idea is that you have a large sail with attached crew compartment. You could possibly have a rotating taurus to create gravity if the money or need was there.
The carriages on this would be loads from shuttles or rockets.
The advantage of this design is, the sails could have solar cells spread through them and, because the sails must be in sunlight, permanent power. It is also a reusable vehicle that could be stationed in Mars orbit acting as a space station. The fact that the vehicle requires no fuel means that is can carry larger payloads and can easily be slowed down which means that you won't have to wait for a launch window to head off for Mars.
I believe that the biggest drawback to a sailor is that it is rather slow compared to rockets (this is an assumption, comparing a yacht to a powerboat). If people could please reply with comments it would be appreciated as it could well prove to be a useful item in interplanetery travel.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB