New Mars Forums

I would include direct drive with "automatic" in this case.  Without that, I would have to change my vote: standard transmissions tend to be lighter, are simpler to build, have larger working tolerances, and are easier to repair than an equivalent automatic transmission.  If you plan to ship one to Mars, fix it when it gets there, or make one from scratch, then choose a standard.

Neither standard nor automatic automobile transmissions can beat direct drive in any of those categories, though.  Direct drive, golf cart style, is what we should use.

Opportunity is edging closer to Victoria Crater.  We should be peering in over Duck Bay within the next couple of weeks.

There are already a few features of interest in the panoramic camera images.

I have to repeat:

This scheme would not be limited to ion rocket propulsion.

As for the whole waverider thing, yes, I agree that hypersonic aerodynamics are an important consideration even in rarefied gases, and nothing released by JP Aerospace or their competitors indicates that they plan to use a variable wing configuration to keep the wings pulled inside the Mach angle all the way up.  But keeping everything behind the leading shock is merely the optimum condition for hypersonic flight, not the only possible condition. 

Also, I actually got curious enough to try to model this thing once, and I have to ask: What makes you think they aren't trying for a waverider?

PS - *GASP!* You just tried to kick my pet!   

It's probably just the old delta drive scam all over again, but...

I wonder where the measured force is coming from in his apparatus? 

We're assuming it's Shawyer's thumb on the end of the balance, but it doesn't have to be.  This could be a case of inadequate experimental design or the deliberate obfuscation of proprietary information.

Microwave cavity Lorentz forces are a real enough phenomenon, and it is theoretically possible to use them to transfer angular momentum.  If he is really measuring something and not just having us on for fun and profit, it might not be a thrust, but a twist.

A solid state "flywheel" would still be worth having, and quite useful on a spacecraft.  There could still be something to this, even if the fluff piece cited isn't realistic.

Other groups likely to publish to higher standards than New Scientist are getting involved.  If it's a sham, we'll probably hear from them shortly.  I say we wait for the big reveal.

I wish that wasn't true.  Being christian is no excuse to leave your brain in the church coat room.  But unfortunately, this insidious idea is coming back into favor with many religious sects of all flavors.  The only defense I can offer is that atheists aren't the only people who have to deal with it.

I agree.  If you would like to see some, I direct you to the churches and museums of modern day Rome where 2000 year old examples are on display and they are still making new statues and pictures of the fellow in question. 

Being a dyed-in-the-wool deist, I won't go into discussion of what a god should or should not do, and you've already indicated your preference on being forced to believe.  But I have to disagree with the assertion that we're all going through hell on Earth because of Jesus.  We're going through earth on earth. 

We've been warned of hell, and told of heaven, but we haven't been ordered to go to either one and won't get there for some time even if we go.  IMHO, heaven and hell should not be anyone's deities.  If hell even looks at you funny, turn your back on it.  If heaven blocks your path to God, burn it.  We suffer here, but Earth isn't all that much worse than heaven - God is with us in both places.  If service to God is worthwhile, then it will have value right here on Earth.  Heaven isn't a cosmic paycheck for services rendered, and is only worthy of respect because it is a gift offered by God.  If He were not with us there, too, heaven wouldn't be worth the trouble.

Personally, I don't think Socrates ever existed either.  He never published anything more than Jesus did, and like Jesus, the only record of him is in books and plays written by his buddies. 

I suspect Plato and Aristophanes got together over a beer one day and made him up.

Actually, that's a good point.  Take Christiantity, for example.  Centuries of Christian theologians have insisted that spirituality is not static.  Virtually the entirety of christianity claims their religion came about as a consequence of a new covenant, in which God essentially renegotiated his contract.  As a religion, it has been evolving since its formal inception, and there is a great deal of theology and philosophy acknowledging and exploring this fact.  It's not difficult to argue that the religion that spawned the first christians was evolving even before that.

And there are also the offshoots of Christianity that refuse to acknowledge this.  They do not know the history of their religion; neither do they care.  They have as much contempt for history as they do for creation.  They make an easy target for folks like your "Infidel Guy" - but that's all right.  They need someone to take potshots at them once in a while, IMHO.  Such evolutionary pressures keep the meme pool strong.

Here's video of a smaller strike on the Moon, released yesterday.

Are you sure we don't need Harry Stamper and his roughnecks?   

How did General Orbital's proposal for that old airship hangar in California ultimately turn out?

I've discussed the idea earlier in this thread, on pages 6 through 10. I've also got some comments in this thread on a similar deposit discovered by the Spirit rover.  (Takes a while to dig them out, though.)

My reasoning regarding the Purgatory dune deposit being an indication of water comes down to three speculations: 

1. The process that created the purgatory dune deposit probably involved freeze drying.  (This explains why Opportunity displaced so little dust digging itself in; and why simply using a fine - but loose - powder as a soil simulant was only adequate for modelling the rover's ability to dig itself out, not its tendency to dig itself in.)

2. Dust deposition patterns indicate that the high albedo duricrust patches observed around Purgatory Dune are very recent - possibly younger than a year, certainly less than a decade.  Examinion of other soil targets using the microscopic imager indicates that they would likely have filled in otherwise.

3. The pattern of cracking in those high albedo duricrust patches indicates outgassing.

It's all speculation at this point.  But I'll keep watching.

That's logical.  After all, a Scout IV can't compete with the Space Shuttle any more than the other way around, despite the fact that they both employ similar technology.  So, "alternative" would be a better choice of words.  It does seem that prior art must still be an important consideration for you, though.  The technology is so new, it's difficult to say where the USPTO would draw the line.

You've got a much better understanding of that situation than a randomly selected blogger like myself, so I'll leave that to your good offices, and proceed to the next important question: 

Do you think this thing could carry a manned Mars mission?  There and back?

Hello Al.

Thank you for your responses on this topic, and congratulations.  Inflatables have great promise for manned space exploration.  I hope General Orbital takes off. 

After your comments here and a clarifying comment you posted earlier in the New Mars wiki, I would like to ask you something else:  Does General Orbital plan to pursue any competing designs for airship-derived spacecraft?