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: Human missions » Burt Rutan » 2006-01-02 07:05:38

Anyone catch 60 minites last nigh? I heard Burt was on it but missed the show.  Anyone have any details on what was discussed?
jabe

#2 Re: Pictures of Mars » Mars underground » 2005-12-13 06:49:13

At the rexcent mars society conference in august http://www.marssociety.org/news/2005/0812.asp the movie was shown

Tizania was then followed by a special premier presentation of the powerful new two-hour documentary movie, “The Mars Underground,” (www.themarsunderground.com) making a strong case for the feasibility and vision of human Mars exploration and settlement, and keeping the audience riveted to their seats until well past 11 PM.

and if memory serves me right the web site said it would post a review shortly..but haven't seen one yet...  So not sure if that was an oversight or a sign of a bad movie..hope it is the former.  There have been enough "bad" mars movies made...

cheers

jb

#4 Re: Human missions » NASA's Moon Mission » 2005-10-10 06:23:16

SpaceRef's article http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069 illustrates a little more detail on the architecture of the moon mission that was obtained from a briefing... not sure if it has been posted anywhere.  Details are slowly coming out

#5 Re: Human missions » Packing for the moon » 2005-09-20 19:47:16

Ok,
Not sure if it has been talked about in threads..did a quick scan but it seems to deserve a thread of its own...
Now that we know how we are getting to the moon, what payload is available?  One article I read, from space.com said that similar to newtons 3rd law

for every action plan there is always an equal but opposite reaction.

so I'm not going to discuss why its right or wrong, good or bad but what now to do with it.

The plan doesn't seem to have the permanent base on the moon built into the scheme, which probably is a good thing since it will just raise the cost that may scare the politicians (and general public) from supporting it as too expensive.  Some articles seem to hint that $100 billion is too high just for the "bare bones" approach.  But the possibilty doesn't discount if someone decides to foot the bill for making the habitat/factory. i.e A "Bigelow type" project or politicians decide to say hey.. it seems to be accepted by the general public so lets pay the design and building of an outpost.

So not having found the stats on the payloads for the Lunar lander, anyone know what it can carry to the moon suface?  Be nice to see a scenario like the ability of two landers going to the moon at the same time..one carrying a rover, the other a bigelow type inflatible stucture..so when they land close to another the rover can drag the stucture out of the other lander, have it inflated and then have the rover help cover the habitat with regolith so it is an instant outpost.

I myself think its a good start to the moon.  Love to see them throw more money at it but I don't think that will be politically acceptable... so lets do what we can with what we got.

Any comments?

#6 Re: Human missions » NASA's Moon Mission » 2005-09-19 17:52:19

just curious...I was glad to see that they are using the ssme a LOT but since the ssme was been designed for multiple uses is it over engineered for the task?  would it be just as cheaply produced as another similar engine?  Anyone have stats on cost/isp etc of the ssme and other similar engines?

#7 Re: Human missions » Shuttle derived revival - Space.com » 2005-07-03 06:05:56

I'm curious on how bumpy a ride "The stick" will be.  Be interesting how this will play out in the political arena

#8 Re: Human missions » What to bring - if resources found » 2005-03-14 17:01:09

I may be wrong but I'm assuming the main reason we would want to process metals at the start is to give the ability to make larger structures. This gives them more room to do what ever they would like.  I would think the quality of the metal to start wouldn't have to be great to build rudimentary structures.  Would the DRI smelter do the job?  I saw a show on using microwaves to smelt metal sometime ago(forget what the metal was).. seemed like a good idea but is that a practical solution for this type of process?  It was a simple setup and used very little energy.

An ion engine "tug" may be a good way to ship stuff from mars to earth and back.  Since its just cargo, the time to get to mars, using the ion engine, wouldn't be a huge factor.  Or does the low thrust of the ion engine make it not practical for large payloads??

Then the question is what would you first do with the extra room.. (besides giving you larger living accomodations).

An abundant source of water makes your oxygen needs for the extra volume you've created easily done.  I guess with the limited power supply that we would have at the start..one or two nuclear power sources of some sort.. any power not being used would be used in the electrolysis of water and the hydrogen used  to make methane as your fuel source for your vehicles..I'm assuming..  So this begs the question..  What would the method of power be to drive the machinery you drive around in or do your "bulldozing".  Hydraulics are good but I'd hate to repair hydraulic hoses on mars..  smile  Is there any design around for the type of vehicle that would be used?  I've read about it but is there a "blue print" of one around?

#9 Re: Human missions » What to bring - if resources found » 2005-03-09 17:14:15

One of the reasons I ask what to bring is for discussion in my classroom.  I do a few days talking about the physics of how to get to Mars in my senior high school class (the delta v's I get are close to the "accepted" values so the kids are surprised physics makes some sense at times lol) and I figure I may add a small off shoot of what to bring..since its so expensive to ship it from earth.

You can never have enough power so the more power the better.. (hope they have the forethought to start designing that now).. never thought of a lathe myself (dam good idea)..I'm thinking half decent sized smelter.. a "high tech" blacksmith shop .. (I think a by-product of some of the chemical processes that can easily be done on mars can be used to make plastics... so maybe a "plastic" shop)  I guess it boils down to what you need to bring to make the making/repairing of structures/machinery easier.

case in point..to move "mars dirt" (or the "useless" stuff left over from your strip mine in your backyard...) you'll need a conveyor belt to cover the buildings you make from the metal from your smelter..so you make the coveyor belt from what you make from smelter and the "plastic shop".. with this bigger building you can make a bigger conveyor belt for quicker mining which gets you more raw materials for your "smith" shops...be an interesting "map" of what you should make first that will eventually make something else which can make something else and so on and so on...

any other "must haves"?

#10 Re: Human missions » What to bring - if resources found » 2005-03-08 17:57:52

what hunks of hardware will be needed...  I'm assuming some sort of earth mover..the repairability would want to be high.  Hate to fix the thing on mars.  smile
I guess one "launch" from earth would be just the hardware..and the future and or present colonists hoping the parts lands safely or two years is down the drain til the next window opens.

#11 Re: Human missions » What to bring - if resources found » 2005-03-08 16:16:25

ok,
I'm not 100% sure of this has been covered...
Lets just say that by chance a huge "iron" deposit or some other useful ore for construction/fabricating was found right beside a huge ice deposit near the surface..
What do we take to mars to use it properly?
If my history is correct when North america was first being colonized they still needed many raw materials from Europe to make all the things needed.  It wasn't for a while before the true use of the resources here was used.  This was true even when you had a few hundred people and no worries of space suits for your mining...

with a crew of lets say six..what is needed to get self sufficiency going ASAP?  How do you get at the ice wthout it sublimating off uncontrolably?  A bulldozer of sorts, processor of sorts, etc..The thought of strip mining is kind of depressing but hey gotta do what ya gotta do  smile   etc

Jabe

#12 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Vasmir update??? - any new news?? » 2004-10-21 16:27:09

Read about Vasimr a few years ago but haven't heard much of any updates on the technology.  I thought it would have come up in the news since the money seems to be there for more rocket engine development.  Any one know of any updates?  Can't seem to find any through google
cheers
jb

#13 Re: Human missions » Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative » 2004-02-09 16:12:13

Zubrins [http://www.eppc.org/conferences/pubID.2 … script.asp]Transcripts of his debate last thursday are up..
just going to read it now..  smile

#14 Re: Human missions » Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft » 2004-02-04 14:55:56

[=http://www.projectconstellation.us/news/]CEV info web site...

be interesting to see what appears on it..  non NASA  site BTW

#15 Re: Human missions » Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative » 2004-01-31 20:38:39

Zubrin is having a [http://www.eppc.org/conferences/eventID … detail.asp]debate on thursday..  Should be a good one..  too bad it doesn't seem to be televised..  smile

#16 Re: Human missions » New Space Vision - NASA's first info to general public » 2004-01-22 14:05:07

WEll,
it looks interesting.  [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11605]Space vision  now has some more "official" info...
any thought on it?
cheers
jb

#17 Re: Human missions » Bush Speech - money shuffle at NASA? » 2004-01-14 14:43:07

[=http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/14whitehouse/]Bush Speech summary seems to show money coming from moving $11 billion from with in NASA.  Should be interesting politics.....

#18 Re: Human missions » To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids... » 2004-01-14 11:33:36

well,
the [http://www.marsdaily.com/2004/040114165 … 9ehsq.html]Russian's say ..again..that they can get to Mars by 2014 and will cost $14 billion compared to the States $150 billion..
hate it when figures are pulled out of the air!!
lets see what happens with the press conference today...

#19 Re: Human missions » To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids... » 2004-01-11 17:17:06

out of curiousity...Any official response from Zubrin since this announcement?

#20 Re: Human missions » To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids... » 2004-01-09 14:41:00

Well,
here is a thought on progression for the "new exploration".  The LaGrange points are a "doorway" to inter planetary travel.  Why don't we go there!!  Set up a mini base with artifical gravity..since we have never really done artificial gravity before, might as well try it....  Check if we can move around efficiently in a, dare I use the term, "shuttle pod". Land on a few Trojans  that are orbiting the Earth/Sun L4 or L5 if one is close..not many for Earth but Jupiter has a few.  Be good practice for future mining endeavours. big_smile 
Once we have figured out how to stay in "intersolar" space safely, do the landing check out on the moon which we have done before but not with larger craft..  (if there is a "problem" at least a rescue mission is close at hand and since we don't have to worry about specific launch windows as much.)
then once we have all the bugs worked out head to Mars...


so give me a $6 billion a year for 10 years and I'll do it.   :laugh:

#21 Re: Human missions » To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids... » 2004-01-09 06:52:15

gees..
gotta hate CNN some times.. 
CNN article has a quote ..

No firm cost estimates have been developed, but informal discussions have put the cost of a Mars expedition at nearly $1 trillion, depending on how ambitious the project was. The cost of a moon colony, again, would depend on what NASA wants to do on the lunar surface.

lets just through numbers in the air why don't you....arrggghhh

I think its seems to be a good way to develop the proper technology for it.  Lets hope that following Presidents don't cancel the thing and the International community will help out to some degree...

#22 Re: Human missions » To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids... » 2004-01-08 19:17:55

seems like an interesting article...

UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
Keith Cowing is one of the writers of the article (is editor of Nasawatch)

any thoughts?

#23 Re: Human missions » Nuclear power - How much is needed? » 2003-10-06 08:22:38

Thanks guys,
Appreciate the input.  Looks like the numbers are a "work in progress" so there are no hard and fast values.  Using a thermocoupler  with the reactor for energy transfer does seem the simplest solution..no moving parts so no maintenance (makes up for the relatively low conversion process).  The excess heat could probably could be used as "heat pump" as well if push comes to shove.

Regarding

The Case for Mars appears to be inconsistent, talking about 100 kilowatts in one place and 75 kilowatts in another. One place that gives details specifies a 3.5 tonne, 100 kilowatt electrical power source. It also says the conversion will use thermocouples (thermionic conversion?) that are 5% efficient, thus the thermal power output is 2,000 kw.

So the 100 kW is the electrical output energy of the reactor after the conversion?  Makes a big difference if they improve the efficiency of the conversion process they use.  A small improvement in the energy conversion can makes a huge difference in the amount of energy output.  Almost free energy if they have a fixed reactor design and then start trying different methods of conversion.
Is there a schematic somewhere of the type of reactor that they will use?  which leads to the question...  For the 3.5 t , 2,000 kW thermal reactor, how much urnanium/plutonium is that and what is its useful life span?  Then the big question...  How can it be safely brought into orbit to satisfy the nuclearphobic?  i.e. send reactor up with out the fuel..and then carry the fuel up in small amounts on various flights in a "sealed" container so if rocket does blow up nothing is released into the Earths atmosphere.
thanks again ..
John

#24 Re: Human missions » Nuclear power - How much is needed? » 2003-10-02 09:36:35

My main reason for asking is I'm trying to develop a high school physics assignment to talk about masses needed to get to Mars and I want a range of masses to have the students discuss pros and cons of taking certain amount of mass along.  With costs obviously playing a key role.

I have done a fair amount of reading about getting to Mars and the need for nuclear power.  (both as a source of heat/power for a nuclear rocket engine and a power source when on the planet)

Since the energy available on the surface is ideal for high transmission rates and  In-Situ creation of fuels for a return trip and for fuel for a martian "buggy" when we actually get there, the  more power available the better.

So my question is kind of open ended.
Are there any specifics of what MINIMUM requirement would be needed and what amount would be good to have?
Since greater power will require more shielding, there has to be a happy medium for mass consideration. 
Any specifics or resources to read would be greatly appreciated.

cheers

John Berrigan

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB