Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-01-02 17:56:52

I've always accepted as a given that Callisto would be the best place for a manned mission to Jupiter to set up shop (not Europa as is often referred to, Callisto is the only large Jovian moon outside the primary radiation belts.

Likewise, Titan is often seen as the best moon for a mission to Saturn and Triton for Neptune.

But what would be the best moon around Uranus for a manned mission to land on and why?

Sorry for mispelling "expedition".

My computer screen is acting up and making out the words is difficult.

C M Edwards · 2006-01-02 19:34:18

That depends. The boldest landing target for a manned expedition to Uranus is probably Uranus itself. The planet's gravity is low enough that the orbital velocity range is about the same as Earth's, and its magnetic field is about the same intensity as Earth's. An airship in the Uranian atmosphere would probably survive quite nicely.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-03 09:28:39

I'm not too thrilled with the whole "balloon lander" idea. The whole idea doesn't sound good to me, first and foremost because there isn't any good reason to send people down. If its just one big uniform ball of frozen gasses and liquids, then you really don't need people at all. On Mars or the Moon or other solid bodies you could make a case that you need the speed, resolution, and "hey, whats that?" of a human to efficently explore. Or, you need to use people to build/service machinery since we are so much more capable.

But on a gas giant? Its a formless ball of gas, you don't need humans to explore it, and machines are really better suited. And, thanks to a lack of a solid surface to stand on, using people to service balloon craft would be much harder. Launching from a gas giant would also be a trick, since you would have to leave the balloon behind... but if your engine fails or something? Thats right, you plunge into the abyss.

Radiation isn't a big issue around Uranus I don't think, so landing on any of the solid moons shouldn't be hard. The larger moons (Titania and Oberon) also have signifigant amounts of water ice on their surface, so Uranus as a "Hydrogen mine" doesn't make much sense either. The extremely low gravity of the moons would be much easier to escape than Uranus's surface too.

Then there is that little problem of keeping warm while your airship is bathed in cryogenic gasses as opposed to a nice, snug vacuum. About the only redeeming factor about Uranus is that it has gravity, and if we are going all the way out there we will have vehicles big enough for artifical gravity anyway.

Edit: Oh! And another thing, since the atmosphere of Uranus is mostly Hydrogen to begin with, your balloon would have to be either truely monsterous to take advantage of the small lift from 100% hydrogen, or else a "hot air" balloon that will be an energy hog in the frozen atmosphere.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-01-03 11:46:06

What is the estimated surface gravity of Titania and Oberon?

For that matter, what is the estimated gravity on Titan and Triton?

I know form the HOPE website that the gravity on Callisto is about 1/8th G.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-03 12:24:41

Quite low unfortunatly, both bodies are about the same, around 0.04G.

Titan weighs in at 0.14G

Triton around 0.08G

Earth's Moon is about 0.17G

Commodore · 2006-01-03 19:27:47

I don't think Titan will be our first target in the Saturian system. The atmosphere complicates both landings and takeoffs.

Rhea would be a better choice as it builds directly on our past Lunar experiences.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-03 20:09:55

Why? The atmosphere shouldn't be any problem then launching and landing from Earth with a little fog. The real problems are building a spacecraft that can handle being in such a powerful heat-sapping environment, and that engine nozzles optimized for a vacuum won't work as well. Titan is a good destination because its the most interesting, and has lots of water.

Commodore · 2006-01-03 20:31:45

How much of HAB weight will have to be devoted to heat shields or control surfaces?

A atmospherericless moon is a much safer place to gain a foothold in system. From there we have a fallback position.

And Rhea has plenty of water too.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-03 20:38:00

Again, the sheer uniqueness and the similarities to primordial Earth make Titan so interesting, that we will definatly want to spend considerable time there reguardless if its a little harder.

With an onboard nuclear reactor with shielding, the vehicle ought to keep warm enough. Your fallback position would be orbit, not a place that you would have to go through the trouble of orbital transfer and precision landing if there was trouble.

Commodore · 2006-01-03 21:28:30

Not saying it isn't the most interesting target, just that its the toughest nut to crack.

The deployment of your surface installations has to go like clockwork to be deployed properly. Unless each segment is self sustaining (unlikely), your interdepenent peices are going to have a limited time to come online before it becomes a frozen relic. Dropping a crew down to try to put things together while the clock is ticking is risky at best. The best way would be robotically.

Much like the theorized HOPE mission to Callisto, and then Europa, setting up shop on one of the other large Saturian moons would allow us to teleoperate the robotic elements needed to deploy a human ready HAB long before the first crew ever leaves Earth. And if something goes wrong on Titan with the crew on route, the worst that happens is they can do a whole lot of science on Rhea or other moon we've put home base on. Thats a whole lot better than waiting for years in orbit waiting for a return window or on some long route back.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-03 22:54:22

NASA places entirely too much emphasis on this "deployment" business.

I am talking about sending down a smaller medium-term HAB with a small nuclear reactor much like Mars, but with one big noteable difference: the reactor will be shielded such that it can operate while attached to the HAB vehicle. There won't be any "deployment," you'll land and turn the reactor up a notch to keep warm.

RedStreak · 2006-08-20 17:20:19

We ought to rename this topic the "Best Outer Planets' Moons To Send Crew".

Ok I'll make my list up:

Jupiter: Callisto, dull as it is but I have to admit the low-radiation threat can't be ignored.

Saturn: Titan - I don't see the atmosphere as a burden but a blessing. It could be used for aerobraking which can't be done on the airless moons, you get methane fuel from the air itself w/o processing, it doesn't have the huge radiation threat the Galilean moons of Jupiter bear (at least not to my knowledge), and outside the rings of Saturn it is itself the biggest science target here.

Uranus: Tough choice. Miranda is the science moon but those canyons aren't good landing spots, so I'd vote for Titania since its the largest.

Neptune: Triton since it is pretty much the only major moon.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-08-27 18:29:32

Given its retrograde orbit around Neptune and geysers on the surface, Triton is probably the most interesting.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-08 22:17:16

You know, I really hate the sound of that planet, it leads to many bad jokes.

What is the best moon for a manned trip to Uranus?
Answer: Why a full moon of course.

Commodore · 2006-09-10 14:50:14

You know, I really hate the sound of that planet, it leads to many bad jokes.
What is the best moon for a manned trip to Uranus?
Answer: Why a full moon of course.

You'll be glad to know that in the 2620 the name will be changed to get rid of that stupid joke once and for all.

The new name: Urectum.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-01-02 17:56:52

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

#2 2006-01-02 19:34:18

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

#3 2006-01-03 09:28:39

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

#4 2006-01-03 11:46:06

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

#5 2006-01-03 12:24:41

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

#6 2006-01-03 19:27:47

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

#7 2006-01-03 20:09:55

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

#8 2006-01-03 20:31:45

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

#9 2006-01-03 20:38:00

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

#10 2006-01-03 21:28:30

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

#11 2006-01-03 22:54:22

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

#12 2006-08-20 17:20:19

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

#13 2006-08-27 18:29:32

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

#14 2006-09-08 22:17:16

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

#15 2006-09-10 14:50:14

Re: Best Moon For A Manned Expecition To Uranus?

Board footer