You are not logged in.
I will start this out, by saying what I am. I am a moderate to liberal Democrat. I voted for Gore, who won the majority, lost the electoral college(I am not a conspiracy theorist). And I am in the United States Air Force. Which probably boggles the hell out Earth First. I don't particularly aprove of G.W. for my own reasons. These reasons include the following points.
- His abuse and neglect of the UN.
-- While he has not regressed to a Laissez-Fair attitude, we do live in society where we depend on other country for a variety of reasons. Among the more important highlights is the money we recieve for Exports and important imports we recieve to maintain our quality of life.
- His misunderstanding of the terms Oil-Reserve.
-- It's been my opinion that the two Oil Reserves(Alaska and Texas) were for extreme emergency use only, not to keep gas prices down 5 cents a gallon. The is a National Security issue in my eyes. The reason for the reserve is if all imports are cut off and we need to have a buffer so we don't run dry of Black Gold. (I believe his Dad did the same thing)
- Cutting Taxes
-- Ok, I do like more money in my pocket. I am an E-4, which means I don't make that much money. But, one fact that will remain, this tax cut will not be that big of a cut for the people that need it most. These will be the lower class and the lower portion of the middle class. These will be the classes that are hurt when states have to cut services or raise taxes due to the lack of support from the federal government in lieu of the tax cut.
- Federal Policy
-- I personally don't mind the way he does the foreign policy in the simplest of manors, but one word. TACT!
Ok, I am done for the moment. I tried to remain somewhat benign, doubt I did it, oh well. ???
Electrolysis. Clean burning and the exhaust is water which could be recycled as drinking water. The vehicle would have to stay within range of the hydrogen supply but on the up side it could share the same reactor the colony uses for electricity.
Well, if it captured it's exhaust, and had a solar cell on it, couldn't it also be able to perform electrolysis on that in case of emergencies, ie ran out of fuel, camp for a bit and let it build up more fuel, or need more oxygen for the crew. Just a thought.
The other thought would be battery technology, a small two or four person All-terrain rover on mars would not be that heavy. You could run a rover with probably a very nice range from a nuclear powered charging station. If the vehicle is going to be using a nuclear power source, I doubt it would be large enough to warrant a huge amount of shielding. I doubt 40 hp at the wheels would require a huge power requirement. consider the Martian G. I doubt much more then 100 bhp and 100 lb.ft of torque would be required. The reactor for that would be pretty small and the shielding required would fit in a nice package.
The Tag Board, D-21 program was classified because a hypersonic UAV/DRONE with a camera has but one purpose, flying over the Soviet Union. But the reason I expressed interest is the SR-71 was launching these at over 80,000' at Mach 3, which would definitely help you get into orbit a little easier. And the SR-71 is fifties technology and D-21 is sixties technology(Also a ramjet)
while smoking a cigarette a question popped into my head that shows my lack of knowledge with physics. If a force is applied to one side of an object how long does it take for the force to reach the other side of the object. I was thinking, with tensile strengths and other things that must be taken into account.. but lets say for arguement at absolute zero.. how fast could the force transfer from one side to the other?
Thanks
http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/srbowl001.html
in the late 50's early 60's the Sr-71 was setup to launch a hypersonic UAV that would carry a wetfilm camera. The UAV would be launched from over 60'000 feet in which altitude the Ramjet could be effectively started. I know the M-21(modified SR71)D-21 combo was thrown out for a launch from a B-52 with a rocket assist to proper altitude(another famed vehicle shared this launch platform, The X-15) Just wondering if anyone thinks with 21st Century technology this could be done less expensively. Seems similiar to Space Ship One concept.
could we be trading one problem for another..? I thought I remember something about being next to Electromagnetic fields, and it leading to Cancer/tumors. don't quote me on it. But might we be fixing one problem with another. I know there is a proxmity issue but I may be completely off base.
i suspect it is because of that 1967 no governments establishing themselves on another planet treaty)
Well, Flash I do agree with you, and I believe that maybe some form of ammendment could possibly be added, like, lets say through the UN, that would allow for small land grants to countries. But make it impossible for a planet to be owned by a single body/country/company. I am all for any realistic plan that would help garnish support for a manned mission to Mars, with the eventual goal being a semi-permanent or permanent base. (I just finished Entering Space by Zubrin)
The other thing that really needs to be hammered home is the fact that even though Mars Direct and other similiar projects use 'off-the-shelf' materials, over time, the trickle down effects of technology would be noticed. this and other little things could defer a fraction of the cost of such a mission. but by and large it will be something that does cost a lot of money and sometimes it's hard to get when the 'public' does not see Mars as something that is a pressing issue. So, I am worried about how soon we will see an ambitious effort to goto Mars.
I do like the way it was designed, and judging some(not all) of the companies previous ventures, I do have faith in it. I just hope that after the X-prize momentum does not wane. I think it would be vital for someone to come forward and give a similiar or slightly higher price for maybe flying 6 people or going to a higher altitude. just my two cents.
There is one problem that has always bugged me about rotating a ship itself. it would work perfectly if it is counterbalanced perfectly, but otherwise I would think that it would be subject to a not so perfect spin.. I may be wrong though..
As far as the rubber shattering, the tread compound would have to be softer. In my own opinion, something like rubber, suited to the appropriate temperature would be the best due to it's friction coef. It would not have to be rubber, Also, tires could be heated internally. I am sure there are plenty of ways to make a vehicle that will fit the bill for transportation, using existing technologies, that would be inexpensive.
I agree, simplistic navigation would work better, maybe a really simple inertial system in a rover coupled with an on board map may be much cheaper and just as effective as GPS.
Also there is over 24 GPS satellites in orbit with a cost of over 200 million a pop. I think a 7 1/2 minute map and a good Brunton Compass will get you pretty far and also initial going to far from base camp is a bad idea. I think the K.I.S.S. idea works best here.
I take the approach of go anywhere over speed, also, with a light enough vehicle and a strong enough tire, there are methods to attach a tire(Bead locks) that will allow you to run it uninflated, as long as you can keep the tire seated and from spinning, I vote simplicity for transportion. Rock Crawlers work, can go decently fast, but can also go over extremely rough terrain and won't require any expensive engineering.
-Nav satellites are typically not in geo synch orbit. Yes you could run a relay in space from geo synch to geo synch back to earth. For any kind of b-width you will use lots of power. I do not know if you could run a full time master slave over such a distance such that you could distribute timing so that you could use a 32 or 64 psk to save on bandwidth(teachers always say I was bad with run-on sentences). Once an intial bandwidth was decided upon or a number of digital voice channels then we could sit down and calculate how much power a satellite would need. I know that one would need less then 5 watts with a 50+dB gain dish for a 10-20mhz b-width. But the power consumption of a system like that is fairly high. Atleast 20 K-watts. Think of a Medium Terminal. I imagine with less b-width you maybe able to knock power consumption down to 5k-watt, still keeping reasonably priced sat terminals.
The two frequency GPS is for keyed or P-Code GPS operation. It is much more accurate then the single frequency GPS operation. So, it can be done with one frequency, but if your doing one you might as well do two or three for increased accuracy.
I have some information on GPS, but I don't know whats public knowledge and whats not, but I do know that there is various ground locations that when a GPS Satellite passes overheard, it pick up all the ephermis (spelling) Data and gives corrections. I also imagine that it maybe possible to use a different system to determine distance from the satellite. I'll have to think on that one. I guess I need to read a Case for Mars. I also imagine that one could use different frequencies maybe a wider separation to ensure more accuracy? like something in high vhf and something in High UHF. Push it up a little higher just under the skin effect issue. I think it maybe possible to use a terrain following system, or an inertial system similiar to advanced gyroscopes used in Pre-GPS Avionics coupled with a few satellites that have very short periods that could actively lock in on a target and send it Lat. Long and Alt updates. If you could manufacture a simple fairly accurate guidance system, and then have one or two satellites, it may be less expensive. Then have one ground station that would send updates and check Satellite ephermis data.
I am looking at either physics or an EE that leans towards communications.
Might minor in Geology
The main refraction of the two frequencies, separated by about 300 mhz, occurs in the ionosphere. Then the difference in time of the reception of the signals allows for the calculation of a distance from each satellite. Also GPS is used for distibution of UTC timing, which is similiar to WWV/WWVH Timeing distribution, only WWV/WWVH is through NIST and GPS is Done through USNaval Observatory.
This timing would be key for highspeed communications.
Some basic GPS info. To truely triangulate with GPS, ie Latitude, Longitude, Altitute you need atleast 4 satellites, the satellites are at around 10,00 miles, I want to say there period is 12 hours, there is currently in the neighborhood of 25-30 in orbit, they work by transmitting two frequencies and the two frequencies refract differently. The difference in refraction means one signal takes longer to reach the reciever then the other giving it a distance from the satellite. I imagine you could do it with three but for realistic accuracy you need four, also, I don't know if there is enough atmospheric refraction in the L-band to allow fo the use of GPS, something someone may want to check out.
We are trained on GPS operation, falls under my Air Force career field.
Well, I would ask people to look at rockcrawlers here on earth. they are capable of relatively high speeds and properly setup for weight they can go over just about anything and could be assembled easily, and most importantly, for very little money.
keys to crawler are
- four wheel drive with hi and low and maybe super low gears
- duribility over power
- SOLID AXLES!!! solid axles have much more strength and endurance then Independent suspension setups, plus they can articulate, so when one wheel is going over a rock it pushes the other wheel down.
-Suspension could be air sprung, coil sprung or leaf sprung.
I would recommend air sprung for adjustable load
capability.
-Tires could be specially designed, if at all possible I would recomment against auto adjusting inflation of tires, it could be done manually and leave one less thing that could break and leave you stranded if far from base.
many trucks have intricate roll cages and winches, onboard welders things that could be put on them for fixing them away from a mechanic.
While not high tech, they are very functional, very safe, driven and maintained properly they are reliable, and if materials could be obtained on Mars and someone had some fabrication equipment, a MIG welder and a CNC machine, many of the components could be fabricater or repaired to ensure a long life
http://www.allprooffroad.com/pics/solidpics/4443.jpg
http://www.allprooffroad.com/pics/solidpics/2906.jpg
Here a couple pictures of capabilities of near stock trucks, with no body work, less gravity, All terrain Firetruck tires, thes trucks could go anywhere carry a load of around 1000-2000 lbs or more if desired (plus the Martian G factor.)
Also tires not need as many plys, so a C load tire could carry a lot of weight on Mars. I am sure some sort of weigh to fabricate a tire could be though up in lieu of the weight of larger tires.
Another plus factor would be if steel could be used in construction on Mars it would be much easier to work on, and Rust would not be that much of an issue with the lack of Oxygen in the atmosphere. Synthetic lubricants could most likely be produced from the environment and even an electric power plant would work, emergency solar cells could be kept in the rear of a vehicle for an emergency recharge or power source.
if anyone is interested could look into matter further if anyone know what they would want to carry and how many passengers and such.
While I hate to say it.. a modified FlowBee might work quite well for cutting hair and taking care of most of the stray hairs, equipped with some sort of HEPA or micron filter it should function well.
Just a thought.
I am currently an E-4 in the Air Force, I work on Satellite Communcitions Equipment and have about 3 years worth of college. I plan on staying in another 4 years to get bills paid off, then trying to get into a halfway decent school. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I may be able to lend a hand or educate myself (or finish my BS and start work on my grad degree in about 5 years)?
Also looking for good informative books to read. They do not have to be easy to understand, I want to learn all the math behind the theory so I don't feel like an idiot when I read some of the posts.
right now I have a begining level knowledge of Geology, I had my in major requirement about halfway done, and I am a Journeyman level Communications maintainer.(actual career field is Satellite, Wideband, Telemetry, Instrumentation, and Space Systems Maintenance and Operation, say that three times fast.)
Well. Thanks in Advance!
Also. I like what Mark said. Unfortunately I think we need to wait till the budget is there to go foward with a Sample return(ducks from possible objects being thrown). I wish public opinion on the subject was higher but it is not. Being that the tax payers are paying for it, I think that it may need to wait till after the terrorist hunting is over with. Then we maybe able to garnish some more support to help further our space program. Also, I like the idea of multiple site sample return. That may be more helpful geologically; yet, the true scientific study afforded by such a mission does not seem to be as much as maybe a public support. I don't know. There is so many different places to go on Mars with so many different terrains that makes it like a lottery.. I don't know..
Unless you can do a multiple sample, I think then the true scientific ability will overpower the cool factor of "Oh Wow, we got some rock from Mars!"
With the Advent of Tablet Computers I think That they 'could' be the next format for books, about the perfect size and will probably be the most succesful form of computer yet. Was going to get a PDA but am waiting til Tablets get more like my laptop. http://www.viewsonic.com/products/table … ad1000.htm Yes, there is ruggedized versions that are better sealed and shock resistant. but they are more in the 4-5000$ range
well hmm.. remember, it wasn't voice, it was data. I was thinking like 200-300 bps at 30 Watt would make it recievable at a DSN Antenna (see "the Dish" with Sam Neil, good fairly accurate movie) the power will increase proportionally with with band width. I know it is not over 4kbps (kilobits per sec) cause of the age, and timing issues. So, lets say it was 4 kbps, if we were to sent a E-1 STD or a 2 Mbps signal with 8psk, so an approx 500 kilohertz bandwidth if we uses 8/8 encoding. if it's 7/8 encoding assume aroun 750? Khz. so we will be pushing over 3.7 kW of power at the Antenna. pending noise floor issues. maybe some gain or loss by different frequency and or modulation. I would assume would take more power in lieu of need to transmit in SHF. may consider 40 + ghz from Mars to Earth Clark belt then SHF downlinks in the Ku band. If anyone want a basic explanation of PSK BPSK QPSK 8PSK 16PSK etc. and the requirement please ask. If properly engineered the communications for this project could be relatively inexpensive or insanely expensive! CVSD encoding can be used to reduce B-widths to 16 kbps instead of the the 64kbps standard for PCM(8 bit 4000 hz sample ranged at twice max sample frequency) A fairly large Antenna(SHF Range) Could be installed inexpensively in orbit on most craft with minimum of effort and minimum impact. I need to learn more on Antenna Desigins, I can quote existing systems but need to learn how to figure net gain of an antenna.
