Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

Void · 2015-10-14 13:09:54

Moon Detour:
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-weight-det … -mars.html

Launching humans to Mars may not require a full tank of gas: A new MIT study suggests that a Martian mission may lighten its launch load considerably by refueling on the moon. Previous studies have suggested that lunar soil and water ice in certain craters of the moon may be mined and converted to fuel. Assuming that such technologies are established at the time of a mission to Mars, the MIT group has found that taking a detour to the moon to refuel would reduce the mass of a mission upon launch by 68 percent.

They found the most mass-efficient path involves launching a crew from Earth with just enough fuel to get into orbit around the Earth. A fuel-producing plant on the surface of the moon would then launch tankers of fuel into space, where they would enter gravitational orbit. The tankers would eventually be picked up by the Mars-bound crew, which would then head to a nearby fueling station to gas up before ultimately heading to Mars.
Olivier de Weck, a professor of aeronautics and astronautics and of engineering systems at MIT, says the plan deviates from NASA's more direct "carry-along" route.
"This is completely against the established common wisdom of how to go to Mars, which is a straight shot to Mars, carry everything with you," de Weck says. "The idea of taking a detour into the lunar system ... it's very unintuitive. But from an optimal network and big-picture view, this could be very affordable in the long term, because you don't have to ship everything from Earth."

I will make the comment that if this indeed did help to get to Mars, it is also justified, to aid any asteroid mining plans, since if it can get you to Mars better, it should be able to get you to the asteroids better as well.

Go to the Moon before Mars:
http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/former-nas … rs-1745722

Former NASA Flight Director Says A Return To The Moon Is Necessary Before Heading To Mars

Ballistic Capture to Mars:
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/23031 … safely.htm

Belbruno claims that ballistic capture can reduce fuel needs by 25 percent. This reduction would not only save money but also enable bigger cargo such as equipment, probes and the like to be taken on future Mars missions.

Of course each of this items requires increased complexity, but that's what humans are supposed to be good at. That's how they outdo the simple minded top predators. Why not do what we do best?

:::
And then I am going to make a pitch for something I got slapped up for before.
Stored support materials in an elliptical orbit. 1) Radiation Shield 2) Centrifuge 3) Any other bulky item/consumable that makes sense.
-Yes there is a risk, where the initial mission to intercept the stored supplies is dangerous. But so is going to Mars. If you do get to the Elliptical orbit, and you have all the bulky items, plus surplus consumables, and you can use a ballistic entry to Mars, so what if it takes an extra month or two? Your good, your safe, and have lots of options because you are materials rich.

Also the trip from Earth orbit to the Elliptical supply base may have methods to abort back to Earth if intercept fails with the Elliptical. And further if the Elliptical has an electric rocket engine, in such an emergency case it could eject the bulky items, and try to travel to the stranded humans. (So, there could be options for survival, not guaranteed, but it could be looked into).
:::

But that can also be discarded if you cannot consider it. Anyway there are so many "Can't" posts going on just now, I thought I would do a "Can" post.

Just when you thought the rules for going to Mars were written in stone, you find out no, actually not, apparently.

Oh, something else;

I think that NASA could get lots of help from other countries, and economic entities to set up facilities on the Moon. Similar to the International Space Station. In fact I wonder if when it retires, it should be replaced with an international Moon base? To me that makes sense. And don't forget that such could be a jumping off point for missions to Asteroids to get real wealth, for real people on planet Earth.

So, why wouldn't you?

Oh, something more then:

http://www.space.com/30795-earth-gravit … -moon.html

Earth's Gravitational Pull Cracks Open the Moon

lobate-thrust-fault-scarps-moon.jpg?1444424189

So;
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19770059461

Recent activity in the moon; Proceedings of the Special Symposium, Houston, Tex., March 16, 1976
Author and Affiliation: Runcorn, S. K.
Oreilly, W. (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, University, New Castle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom);
Srnka, L. J. (Lunar Science Institute, Houston, Tex., United States)
Abstract: The papers review evidence for recent activity within the moon as manifested by lunar grid system, transient phenomena, moonquakes, and episodic emissions of radiogenic gases. Topics include a survey of lunar transient phenomena, possible causes of such phenomena, evidence that high-frequency seismic events may be shallow moonquakes, lunar seismicity and tectonics, a hypothesis on the nature of sites of lunar gas venting, and a search for sporadic gas emissions from the moon. Other contributions discuss the release of radiogenic argon-40 from the moon, radon-222 emission as an indicator of current activity on the moon, upper limits to gas emission from sites of lunar transient phenomena, physical processes that could produce transient changes on the lunar surface, critical-velocity gas-plasma interaction as a mechanism for lunar transient phenomena, and tidal triggering of moonquakes, transient phenomena, and radiogenic-gas emissions.
Publication Date: Jun 01, 1977
Document ID:
19770059461
(Acquired Dec 01, 1995)

Accession Number: 77A42313
Subject Category: LUNAR AND PLANETARY EXPLORATION
Document Type: Conference Proceedings
Publisher Information: Netherlands
Meeting Information: Special Symposium on Recent activity in the moon; March 16, 1976; Houston, TX; US
Meeting Sponsor: NASA;
Lunar Science Institute
Financial Sponsor: NASA; United States
Description: 153p; In English
Distribution Limits: Unclassified; Publicly available; Unlimited
Rights: Copyright
NASA Terms: CONFERENCES; LUNAR ATMOSPHERE; LUNAR SURFACE; ARGON ISOTOPES; LUNAR EVOLUTION; LUNAR MAPS; MOONQUAKES; SEISMIC WAVES; TRANSIENT RESPONSE
Imprint And Other Notes: Symposium sponsored by NASA and Lunar Science Institute Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, vol. 14, no. 3, June 1977. 153 p. (For individual items see A77-42314 to A77-42325)
Availability Source: Other Sources

Maybe some wells, to get electric rocket fuel?

Last edited by Void (2015-10-14 14:02:07)

SpaceNut · 2015-10-15 20:25:02

Another suggestion much the same from
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/To_sav … s_999.html

What comes to mind is there is no free lunch.....the infrasture and fuel needed to get the tanker to where ever it is needed is not counted in the calculations from what I can see.... Sure we want a fuel delivery and depots but lets be real about the numbers.....

Void · 2015-10-16 10:48:23

I am physically outside of my normal haunts just now, so my replies will be patchy.

I guess you have made a fair cautionary observation. I will take the absence of commentary as either you don't object (?), or you just want to focus on the most obvious weakness, or you just don't have more time for it.

I now understand that you are involved with an important function, and I suppose I will be pleased that you replied at all.

There is a lot of "Glass Half Empty" thinking around here. I guess that is because if your rocket is only half full, your travelers may have a serious problem.

Sometimes, I look at "Glass Half Full". In this case I suggest that Telepresence and the Moon were made for each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepresence

It is not likely that any of the inhabitants here need the above link to understand, but for casual visitors, it might help.

So, I have seen lots of questions here, even today, "What could we do to make things happen"?

Well, to get to that Mars banana they tied to the ceiling, you might try climbing on the Moon box.

I already know that from the ISS experiments have been conducted to run a device on the surface of the Earth.

That experiment had feedback, so the operator could detect better what was actually happening to the machine operated remotely and the test items.

This suggests that more could be done by way of feedback:
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-artificial … brain.html

Yes, I know ~3 second delay from Earth surface to Moon surface, but they are already dealing with minutes delay to operate rovers on Mars.

6 Billion or more minds on the Earth, and AI, and an emerging telepresence ability. And the Moon ~3 seconds away.

As skills that should be acquired go, I don't see why not.

As for the other two items, I guess, I will just let it all slide by if that is how you want it.

Last edited by Void (2015-10-16 11:05:23)

SpaceNut · 2015-10-16 21:20:20

Stuff to make use of

http://space.stackexchange.com/question … unar-flyby

This is a looping cyclical orbit that could be the starting that the tank needs to catch up to for refueling from the moons depot fuel creation plant.

Delta V calculator for LEO/MEO/GEO orbit injection

There are more things we will need when I have more time....

Void · 2015-10-18 12:58:35

OK, yes, you can do gravitational fly by's , you can do some orbital maneuvers, it is also possible to drop water ice onto the Moon, and recover a large amount of it.

But what value/cost to a Mars mission?

Really, the more important question should be what are reasonable values?

I might say "If I had asteroid mining, I might be able to use it to help a mission to Mars". In fact that appears to parallel to what NASA is doing, sort of.

And then I might further say "If I could do something on the Moon, perhaps I could leverage that to help asteroid mining, and a trip to Mars."

Apes on the Moon:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/30/tech/mci-robochimp/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … -MOON.html
NASA Robosimian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HFXO_qx5ZY
Driving a Car?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBsfJZ-Gixc
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4617
I am going to double post this to another thread with additional comments as you will see.

Last edited by Void (2015-10-18 14:41:06)

louis · 2015-10-18 18:29:34

Encouraging. I know some previous studies have suggested there would be little benefit from a lunar "detour" in terms of rocket fuel. But that sounds like a significant saving. Personally I feel this is v. positive. If we are going to Mars, we need to practise in hostile space environments and the moon is a good playground, being only 3 or 4 days away, to make sure we get it right on Mars.

As long as people don't think that a lunar objective should precede Mars colonisation I think this could be a positive way forward.

SpaceNut · 2015-10-18 19:58:24

Launching fuel to catch a ship to refuel before using the earth as a slingshot to mars does mean a boost too while using less fuel when trying to make it from earth all the way to mars but it comes from infrasture building on the moon to mine its surface to create the fuel.

Void · 2015-10-18 20:49:31

Very good. I shall withhold the remaining plagues. Can't do much about the normal shenanigans that happen here.

I release you!

SpaceNut · 2015-10-18 22:37:30

To go with the Moons crack here is another Mound near lunar south pole formed by unique volcanic process

The formation, known as Mafic Mound, stands about 800 meters tall and 75 kilometers across, smack in the middle of a giant impact crater known as the South Pole-Aitken Basin.

Void · 2015-11-01 12:38:18

OK Spacenut, thanks for the post on the formation.

I am afraid I am in rebellion, becoming a Moon bug. I do still favor asteroid mining and yes, attempts to access Mars, even for Humans, but I cannot ignore news that upgrades what the Moon has to offer, and I cannot fail to notice that the Mars mission looks more and more like the cartoon of the donkey with cart and carrot dangled just out of reach. It makes me feel mocked and used.

Anyway, I am not a full rebel. I feel that it was perhaps wise for NASA to point at asteroids and Mars. Bolden has said that that Moon is not forbidden. (At least not anymore).

So, there has been a vacancy where the Moon has existed, and perhaps a spot for our imaginations to build something.

So, this apparent very efficient ion propulsion system has been proposed/tested, and can offer propulsion, but since I am not afraid to take a chance once and a while, I will ask, "What if you used it backwards on the Moon as a "Matter Projector"?

http://techxplore.com/news/2015-09-ion- … iency.html

Pushing ions of metal off of the surface of the Moon. In fact, actually some type of a mass driver, but I will call it a "Matter Projector" for now.

How does it actually work? According to Neumann Space, "The Neumann Drive uses solid fuel and electricity to produce thrust. It is a "wire-triggered pulsed cathodic arc system" and works something similar to an arc welder.

I presume that ions being pushed out of the Anode, a plasma I presume.

Of course I want to figure out if it is possible to weld metal projected from the Moons surface onto a orbiting object, and I am OK with an equatorial stable lunar orbit.

OK, there now I am getting a bit weak. Don't quite know what the nature of the material is that is projected. If it is still a plasma, then it if impacts an orbiting shell, perhaps it will quench on that surface. Maybe it is harder than that. That would not stop me from looking further, but I don't have enough information yet.

But the point is although that ejected material may spread, it must be being ejected at a rather high speed. So there could be some hope that it would hold together long enough to reach the orbiting object.

There are other articles on stable low altitude lunar orbits, but this one is OK.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc … highorbit/

Stable circular lunar orbits do exist below an inclination of 39.6º, says Ely, but they spend so much time near the equator that "they are terrible orbits for covering the poles."

And of course I am aware that the ejected material will impact at a non circular angle as far as it's own orbit. However if you had a circle of "Matter Projectors" around the Moon, then the average push will be relatively circular. Well you would want at least two of them, I would think.

As for the orbiting object, perhaps it can use magnetism or electrical properties to attract the plasma. I would need to know more about magnetic reconnection to know what might be possible.

But I don't have a job where having more questions than answers will get you fired. So, I am safe in that way. Some others have to watch how careless they get in being involved in potential mistakes. And if at first you don't succeed, go ahead and invent the electric light bulb, why don't you.

I have in other posts also suggested using a magnetic linear accelerator to send frozen Oxygen to a receiver by a similar method.

So, I see large potential for hoping to develop methods to project matter into orbit from the surface of the Moon.

As for the receiver. In the case of the receiver for metal plasma, I am going to presume that I will hope that the metal might "Weld" to it.
In the case for sending solid Oxygen, I suggest a magnetic receiver, where it is covered perhaps with a fuzz o magnetic particles. The oxygen pellets impacting might vaporize but quench on the particles, if they are cold. Or it might bond chemically. However, Oxidation is probably a process which would not be desired. So the fuzzy particles held magnetically to the receiver, might have to have special coatings.

Anyway, if materials can be projected from the Moons surface magnetically or electrically, and be received into a low orbit, I think that the means to support a transport system for the solar system will in part have been facilitated.

Last edited by Void (2015-11-01 13:09:11)

Antius · 2015-11-02 06:29:18

I will reply in more detail later.

I remember Zubrin demolishing this idea in the 'Case for Mars'.

In short, if you have already invested huge amount of cash developing an O'Neill style lunar mining operation and have abundant lunar oxygen at low earth orbit, then yes it would make sense to use that resource for Mars missions. But as a first step to a Mars mission where we havn't already colonised the moon, a lunar LOX scheme would cost many tens of billions of dollars, an investment comparable to that required for the ISS. It would be a long time before it broke even in terms of the increased value of payload that could be delivered to Mars.

How about canibalising the upper stage used to deliver the transfer vehicle to orbit and using it as reaction mass in a mass-driver engine? That would achieve the same effect with far lower infrastructure cost.

Antius · 2015-11-02 06:35:59

How about an Earth orbiting platform that gathers oxygen from the Earth’s ionosphere? The nitrogen could be used as reaction mass to counteract the drag and the oxygen stored in tanks. For an H2/O2 propellant system, oxygen is 88% of propellant mass. Much cheaper than a lunar mining operation.

Void · 2015-11-02 09:58:11

Well thanks Antius. Your ideas are valued.

Without disrespect I don't care what Zubrin prefers. The Mars dream belongs to many other people than him.

Actually the Oxygen source from the Moon is now the lesser concern for me. That is if you already have a base(s) on the Moon which you may project metals to orbit from for the propulsion method I previously mentioned, you might as well want to send out Oxygen as well.

But I am most interested in "Matter Projectors" if that is possible. Of course the method I proposed is extremely vague. More or less turning an ion engine that projects metal ions backwards and using it to launch metal ions to a capture method. The capture method still has to be created/proven.

I am a Moon bug just now. I reserve the right to change my mind later, but I consider on a great deal of evidence that there has been a conspiracy to keep people involved in thinking of ways to access space, but to also prevent it from actually happening. The reason being that there are too many interests who want to profit off of the pork barrel, and who want to adapt ideas created to make money for themselves on Earth. So, I see Mars as it is presently planned as possible to happen, but more likely to have the rug pulled out from under it at various points to prolong the time that it will take for it to happen, for the reasons I have mentioned.

Asteroid mining might happen in the mean time if there is money in it for big money entities, but other than that, I see that the intent is to waste our time, but pretend to be at the forefront of human advancement, while keeping their hands in the till.

I think the Moon may provide opportunity to break that cycle because too many international interests have ideas about accessing it.
I see the likelihood that virtual reality/telepresence(Augmented by A.I) machines operated by a large number of humans on Earth may be able to support a human population on the Moon who could indeed provide support for methods to access at least the inner solar system.

I think this could happen in my lifetime. As for Mars, without delays, I might see images of people prancing around a flag on Mars, while someone is changing my diaper in the nursing home, but that is only if they don't pull one of their standard delay moves. I have been around far too long to not notice the pattern.

So, I prefer to be a Moon Bug, but will be glad to see asteroid mining, or a trip to Mars. Just believe we are being played with on the trip to Mars thing. Would also be happy to see extraction of materials from the Earths upper Atmosphere.

Just have no choice at this point but to see the "Mars Dream" as real, but it's implementation as being on the level of the Easter Bunny.

Antius · 2015-11-02 15:17:34

Perhaps the moon is a good destination in itself. According to this article there could be substantial water locked up as hydrated minerals in some craters even those far from polar regions.

http://astronomynow.com/2015/10/03/aste … er-supply/

Most asteroids are also rich in plenty of other elements, suggesting perhaps that the centre of craters would make good mining sites.

Void · 2015-11-02 18:19:02

That's major nice good news Antius. It also shows the value of having people with a different cultural perspective, or at least multiple groups look and the same problem and try to puzzle it out.

I agree with your evaluation as well.

It would be easy to criticize the current efforts to slant at Mars alone and to almost make the Moon a leper.
At the time for the information they had, their evaluation was not that unreasonable. (Not beyond question however).

I feel that even NASA is trying to update that now, as they are interested in asteroid mining, and even Bolden said the Moon was not off limits.

I myself also have a bad feeling towards what I see as an evolving "Mars Roach Motel Syndrome". Say for instance RobertDycks possible frozen sea. An outflow of melted water from underground. If there were a place to hope to find evidence of life from underground, there it is. Just prove the ice is there, and then land a probe and drop a nuclear melt device with instrumentation that can find the life.

Wait, you can't clean up your probes for a reasonable price. OK, so you did make expensive probes, you proved the water was there, and then you dug a hole in the dirt and dropped a nuclear probe in there to melt it's way through the ice to the bottom. Lots and Lots of expense if it could even be done. It does not find life. However, was the probe functioning properly? Did it look in the right places?
Send another one. Nope, no life, but does that prove that there is no life in that sea? Does it prove that Mars has no life?

Well even if the money were ever put up to do that study, 100 years later, Cyborg life extended Antius is starting to get mad, because it is still forbidden to use Mars.

And then what if they do find inconclusive or conclusive evidence of life on Mars?

And then there are the financing pork barrel upsets that happen periodically and seem to always mutate a plan into something that is half retarded, because it is something like what was originally intended but cutbacks have caused limitations on abilities to be imposed.

I am not interested in being harsh on those who made the decision to make the Moon taboo, but of course new information has indicated that that verdict should be reconsidered. I do not propose that a new pork barrel reshuffle be pushed over this, rather I propose that we should get prepared for it's inevitable arrival, and be ready to try to make the future decisions on things better.

The thing I see about the Moon that really attracts me is with the upgrades such as you have alerted readers to, it is reasonable to suppose a human/machine pyramid to the Moon.

Lets say for each person working on the surface, 900 machines run by operators from Earth and the machines own A.I. These having a 3 second time delay. Then 99 machines run by operators in a base on the surface of the Moon (Well protected). Time delays for these much less than one second. Then one person in a space suit on the surface of the Moon.

Certainly those numbers can be altered, but I think you can see where I am going. You might get lot done and not need that much in dangerous outside activity.

The Moon base(s) could be built to be pretty safe, and with lots of recycling. As for body damage from low gee, do it first find out what the problems magnitude is, then adjust the plan to compensate.

Tom had suggested somewhere in this thread that yes there could be good asteroid materials to mine. (I was not too supportive) but yes!

And with this plan, rockets can be kept to minimum use. I know that some are saying get chemical rocket fuels from the Moon for space travel, and sure do that if it makes sense. however, if you have electric rockets that propel with metals, and perhaps Mass drivers that propel with Oxygen (Or something else), well you just might be able to "Project" your propulsion mass to receivers not on the Moon.

So rockets would be to transport people, and maybe to move Platinum group metals to the Earth.

A Segway:

If the logic of asteroid dust (And chunks) being on the Moon with water and special metals is true as the article suggests, this might make it reasonable to hope that their could be minority particles in Mars dust/sand dunes that are very desirable types of non-ferrous metals.
I might fear that those would have been Oxidized, but it is worth a look. If they were there, they could be extracted by first removing the ferrous metals using steady magnetic fields, then we might hope to use an inductive magnetic field to attract the non ferrous metal particles. Maybe a pipe dream, but as I said worth a look I think.

Last edited by Void (2015-11-02 18:50:57)

SpaceNut · 2015-11-02 20:34:21

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090918/ … 9.931.html

This hydrogen is often interpreted as a proxy for water ice, although it could also be molecular hydrogen or hydrogen trapped in other molecules

Which brings me back to "DETECTING NEAR-SURFACE WATER AND HYDRATE MINERALS ON MARS FROM A ROVER,
PENETRATOR, OR BOREHOLE:" as its the only way to know what we have on the moon

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/sixthm … f/3057.pdf

Void · 2015-11-03 14:29:50

I liked both of your posts Spacenut, good stuff. Thankfully this thread has a dual topic, since we may consider the Moon to be a resource to facilitate access to Mars.

I am going to respond in reverse order, Mars first, then the Moon.
Mars: (I really feel this is a good one!)
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/ … e-on-mars/

Curiosity finds evidence of a daily water cycle on Mars
Conditions allow salts in the soil to pull water from the atmosphere

Curiosity has the advantage of carrying a Martian weather station and so is able to directly measure the conditions at Gale Crater, which is near the Martian equator. It finds that, throughout the Martian winter, the site would have a night-time relative humidity that's sufficient for perchlorate salts to latch on to water molecules. As the temperature warms during the day, the salts would give up the water to the atmosphere again, creating a water cycle. There are some indications from other sites that this cycle may create enough liquid that salts will gradually flow deeper into the soil.
This applies to the top few centimeters of the Martian surface; below that, temperatures should be cool enough for the salts to remain permanently hydrated, possibly forming an extremely salty brine. Further toward the poles, humidity should reach levels where "liquid brines are abundant," according to the authors.

Extremely salty brine may not be directly available near the equator, but it sounds like hydrated calcium perchlorate could exist a few centimeters down. This should be good news for those who might hope to make Martian cement I think???

Anyway, I am going to try to suggest how a machine might pull that moisture up from down there.

1) A cart with multiple wheels. 4? 6?
2) Wheels having a wick like electrically compatible material as the tread surface.
3) A temporary tank to store gathered liquid water in.

* I will end the numbered list now and describe a whole machine that I think has chances.

The cart will operate during the day primarily, powered from solar panels most likely.
The first thing it will do is suck in air and pull electrons from it. That electron depleted air will be heated and expelled as a positively charged plume. The heating process is intended to cause the plume to rise away from the cart, rather then to contact the carts wheels.
The electrons collected will be given a path to the wheels of the cart, so that the wick-tread will be given a negative electrical charge. Relative to the positive plume and also relative to the average ground of the "ground" itself, and the general atmosphere.

U.V. light flux can be expected to react to the surface of the soil, where it should accelerate evaporation from the soil (I am thinking of humidity clinging to mineral grains, and any salt film, I am not thinking of a soil that would be expected to be wet).
Another effect of the U.V. light flux should be to ionize some of the water vapor. Positive Ions should contain Hydrogen, I think.

So, I am hoping to stimulate a ion flow into the tread of the wheels, I am anticipating that the cart will also travel, therefore exposing the wheel treads to fresh soil, as the previous soil is depleted of available positive ions.

You have an electric circuit, where the positive plume is the (+) and the electrons on the wheel tread are the (-). I do not want the electrons to travel in this circuit much beyond the wheels, but they might to some degree. That may not be fatal to the process.
So the Ions (I hope) will flow into the wheel tread. Here we might hope to use a vacuum to pluck them away. To make it effective, I hope that the wick of the tread will be joined to a continuation of the wick which will continue into a vacuum chamber for each wheel in the hubs.

Of course that vacuum chamber hub join will have to have a seal which allows the wheel to rotate, and allows (+) ions to flow into the hub,
and which serves as a restriction to unimpeded flow of atmosphere into the hub. Inside the hub will be the actual source of the electrons, and the (+) Ions will be given (-) electrons to satisfy them. If it is proven to be helpful, the interior of the hub can be heated as well to facilitate the plucking of water vapor molecules from the wick surface of the interior of the hub. Here, perhaps actually a light bulb would work, or perhaps a heat source similar to a soldering iron.

The pressure inside the hub, being significantly below ambient outside, and the temperature inside the hub being elevated, I would expect all water vapor collected to be present as a vapor. The vapor sucked into the pump would then be pressurized on the exhaust side of the air pump, and condensation methods would be employed to convert it to a liquid.

Perhaps daily, the cart would pull up to a master container, which is to contain water ice. It would have a means to discharge it's content into the master reservoir where it is desired it to will freeze. Of course this will require some type of co-ordination with the night cycle where cold temperatures for freezing will occur, and of course it will require fittings/doors suitable to discourage water losses to the atmosphere.

This may suit your desire to have water collected prior to human arrival, and of course it should still work after their arrival.

As for major sand dunes, that would be somewhat different, and not required for some time I think, since if water can be collected and the inhabitants have abilities to recycle, such vast quantities of water will not be needed at first. If this machine works, then perhaps it will never be done.

As for magnetic and non magnetic native metal fragments, collection of those may also be done with a cart.

Of course what I am trying to build on is methods which were reported to have worked. A plough blade charged with a negative charge, can be lubricated with water by putting a negative charge on it even in a seeming dry soil, and the water ions are attracted to the negative charge.

I am not saying the Mars analog is guaranteed to work, but it, or something like it may work for the desired effect.

The Moon:

Per the information supplied about the Moon, I suggest that the Moon might become a paying enterprise where you would first start with prospecting for concentrations of water bearing rocks, or valuable metal chunks. They are not likely to occur in the same locations it would seem.

Next robots with rakes and brushes deployed to those sites. The intention being to build a linear path where small materials/dust are swept to one side, and rocks are raked to the other. During this process a video recording may be useful. If certain alarms are triggered, notations of rocks of potential significance noted, and that information alarmed for.

As for the dust, it may be possible to extract magnetic and non-magnetic concentrations of metals from the dust during the sweeping.

Notable rocks would be metals, quartz, and perhaps hydrogen containing rocks.

Metals may be magnetic or non-magnetic (Even more valuable)

Robots may be able to collect those into appropriate bins.

Even more notable would be rocks which could have been ejected from the Earth during it's multi-billion year history. Those will be very valuable and I am sure scientists will want at least some of them.

I have previously proposed a different kind of spacesuit which would, I think be very suitable to what comes next. However, any suit desired can be contemplated. A lying down position (On a wheeled cart) will allow a human to investigate the row of rocks that were created by, in particular those which might be ejected by Earth.

The suit I suggested should allow a person doing that job to take a break, and do bodily functions. Eating/Elimiations/Naping, and little or no using diapers to deal with body functions.

So, with these methods, extracted and concentrated Hydro/Carbons, Metals for construction, Metals to ship back to Earth, Quartz or use ?,
and perhaps special rocks that came from the Earth.

By borrowing ideas from others about Mars, I would think that this process might be partially financed by Universities if they are given sole ownership of the rocks that are of interest to them.

Obviously a prosperous Moon operation might base a Mars operation. I have become convinced that most likely a Mars operation will resemble operations on Earth in Antarctica, for quite some time, unless there is a decision that Mars cannot have life now.

The point being that the Moon would be ours to play with until that day, and yet the Moon would also hasten the day that life would either be found on Mars, or a decision was made that "Enough is enough!", life is very unlikely.

Last edited by Void (2015-11-04 20:13:46)

Void · 2015-11-04 20:14:11

We like the Moon.
http://rathergood.com/moon_song/

tahanson43206 · 2024-02-04 12:07:18

For Void re Ballistic Capture ...

You started this topic in 2015, before I joined. I see that SpaceNut and Antius contributed to the topic.

It has been quiet since then.

In recent times, you have brought up Ballistic Capture, but I finally took a look at it when you posted a link to the Wikipedia article about the technique.

From a first reading of the article, I gather that the method takes longer than Hohmann, but it has the distinct advantage of NOT requiring a 4+ km/s delta v change at Mars. In fact, as you have been saying all along, it appears to require very little adjustment at Mars, if it was well crafted at launch time.

Thus, I am interested in seeing the topic given some attention, with a view to making it more understandable.

There are tradeoffs for everything in celestial mechanics, so I expect that there is more downside than just the longer flight time.

Never-the-less, for shipments of freight to Mars, this sounds like something well worth considering. In addition to not needed a massive investment of energy to enter orbit at Mars, the method can apparently be used any time.

In short, thank you for posting the link to the Wikipedia article. I know you've mentioned this many times since 2015, but you talk about many many topics, and it is easy for a single concept like this one to get lost.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-02-04 12:33:29

This post is a follow up on Ballistic capture...

The Wikipedia article includes a sist of references, and one of these is from Scientific American...

For 'bots, as well as bodies?
Ballistic capture does come with plenty of caveats, of course. A straight shot with abrupt braking at Mars takes about six months whereas a trip relying on ballistic capture would take an additional several months. The burn-free, capture altitude is also quite high—some 20,000 kilometers above Mars, far beyond where science satellites set up shop to scrutinize the planet up close. But taking along just a little extra fuel can then gently lower a ballistically captured spacecraft into scientifically valuable, standard orbits of around 100 to 200 kilometers like those achieved with Hohmann transfers—or even onward to the Martian surface for a landing.

The 20,000 km capture location would not necessarily be a problem for freight shipments.

A collection hub at that altitude could serve as a parking location.

The Mars Hopper designed by GW Johnson can just barely reach LMO, but it ** can ** reach LMO. A ferry that spends it's entire life shuttling between LMO and the Ballistic Capture orbit might be justified. Fuel for that vehicle could be lifted from Mars using the SpinLaunch system.

(th)

Void · 2024-02-04 19:28:43

An electric rocket propulsion may be compatible with ballistic capture. I also like the idea of a magnetic sail to sail on the solar wind. Since Mars does not have a significant magnetic field, that could work. But they both need a power supply.

I think the concept would be useful for prepositioning materials say for an expedition. For instance, to preposition a return vehicle. Of course, then you need something to get your people to orbit. It reduces the quantity of propellants that have to be made on the surface of Mars but then you have to somehow prevent boil off from the return vehicle. I am tempted to say solid rocket for return, but I know from Dr. Johnsons posts that those can deteriorate and so not be safe or reliable, over time.

But it is all interesting.

Done

tahanson43206 · 2024-02-04 20:30:04

For Void re Ballistic Capture at Mars ...

I am hoping your will pursue this idea a bit further, and perhaps help me to encourage our members who understand orbital mechanics to look into the question of where the ballistic capture region is for Mars.

There ** have ** to be tradeoffs ... we already know that it takes longer to use this orbit design, but as you say, for freight that can keep, that is not a problem. What I'm hoping we can learn is what the ** cost ** is in propellant, to put the same payload at Mars as the Hohmann transfer method would be able to do.

The idea of being able to send freight to Mars for arrival a year later is ** very ** appealing. For example, supplies for an expedition can be shipped to Mars and positioned at the 20,000 km hub, and they can be shipped every day for as many years ahead of time as are needed.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2024-02-04 20:46:56

SpaceNut wrote:

"baton" motion is A.G. in space the haphazard space x is not for atmospheric entry as the stage can bend due to drag and thrust.
Hohmann transfer orbit or Oberth effect, which requires the spacecraft to burn fuel in order to slow down at the target. A requirement for the spacecraft to carry fuel adds to its cost and complexity.
Ballistic capture is a low energy method for a spacecraft to achieve an orbit around a distant planet or moon with no fuel required to go into orbit. In the ideal case, the transfer is ballistic (requiring zero Delta-v) after launch. In the traditional alternative to ballistic capture, spacecraft would either use a Hohmann transfer.
Aerocapture is an orbital transfer maneuver in which a spacecraft uses aerodynamic drag force from a single pass through a planetary atmosphere to decelerate and achieve orbit insertion. Aerocapture uses a planet's or moon's atmosphere to accomplish a quick, near-propellantless orbit insertion maneuver.
Aerobraking is a spaceflight maneuver that reduces the high point of an elliptical orbit (apoapsis) by flying the vehicle through the atmosphere at the low point of the orbit (periapsis). The resulting drag slows the spacecraft. Aerobraking is used when a spacecraft requires a low orbit after arriving at a body.

Gravitational capture occurs when one object enters a stable orbit around another (typically referring to natural orbits rather than orbit insertion of a spacecraft with an orbital maneuvers).

usually, it will enter retrograde direction using gravity of the planet and atmospheric drag.

Earth–Mars Transfers with Ballistic Capture

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2015-10-14 13:09:54

Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#2 2015-10-15 20:25:02

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#3 2015-10-16 10:48:23

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#4 2015-10-16 21:20:20

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#5 2015-10-18 12:58:35

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#6 2015-10-18 18:29:34

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#7 2015-10-18 19:58:24

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#8 2015-10-18 20:49:31

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#9 2015-10-18 22:37:30

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#10 2015-11-01 12:38:18

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#11 2015-11-02 06:29:18

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#12 2015-11-02 06:35:59

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#13 2015-11-02 09:58:11

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#14 2015-11-02 15:17:34

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#15 2015-11-02 18:19:02

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#16 2015-11-02 20:34:21

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#17 2015-11-03 14:29:50

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#18 2015-11-04 20:14:11

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#19 2024-02-04 12:07:18

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#20 2024-02-04 12:33:29

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#21 2024-02-04 19:28:43

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#22 2024-02-04 20:30:04

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

#23 2024-02-04 20:46:56

Re: Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers

Board footer