Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mars Bound Spacecraft Example
68 views
Skip to first unread message
millssc...@gmail.com
Feb 17, 2016, 10:02:59 AM2/17/16
to
I was thinking about actual design of the hardware. The inflatable hull has a debris limit in earth orbit. Old spacecraft pieces cloud the orbits. These pieces will in general not challenge the steel hulls. This is because of the rather low relative velocities.
On a path to Mars the issue is ultra high speed impacts. It just may be that if the event causes a inflatable hull breech it would also cause a steel hull breech. Negating the advantage of steel over fabric hull selection. A hybrid use is allowed therefor.
SO I submit the large revolving classical artificial gravity section made of fabric. This is in addition to the smaller steel portions. Use brute force design and place sensors over the hull to detect holes. A sensor every square four inches. The issue is how to then gain access to place a patch.
This simply means use something like army cots to sleep on. Everything on the walk way is to be hand moveable for effortless patching. Make it a rather garden like gravity park.
The center has ladders to climb up into at instrumentation overhead.
In general a station in the steel command module is to be manned 24 hours a earth day.
A nuclear battery system of several 10's of kilowatts is a good target power source value.
SO the basic parameters are not challenging for the transit spacecraft. And the hard part is the lander.
The moon mission plans also require landers. A common design would help hugely. A basic lander? Earth, moon, Mars capable. In general there are two modalities of landing. One for the couple of astronauts and one for cargo. Moving humans is a fairly small endeavor. While cargo includes takeoff craft.
The lander for the astronauts can be two way. While cargo can be also. What modality is required?
Land cargo always. This is why passenger aircraft carry cargo. It is free.
Taking of with no cargo? This is nontrivial system theory. The cargo to return to earth needs to be clarified and used in the lander design. It is a critical value. Shuffling cargo in the human craft with out occupants is free once more. Auto control human/cargo dual design.
I would submitted that the size of several astronauts should suffice for all return to earth cargo.
The question becomes travel and land and return or travel and occupy a Mars base module for a while. Here is where the fabric colony shines.
All in all design the cargo capacity of the lander plus astronauts as capable of self carriage of a real Mars fabric module. Carry one-way. Simple space in lander is required for the module. But it never returns.
The system concepts lead I hope to a design. Space is cheap in a lander. Low density cargo weighs small with large volume.
I hope the concepts make some sense. Just use the cargo density as a critical concept.
On a path to Mars the issue is ultra high speed impacts. It just may be that if the event causes a inflatable hull breech it would also cause a steel hull breech. Negating the advantage of steel over fabric hull selection. A hybrid use is allowed therefor.
SO I submit the large revolving classical artificial gravity section made of fabric. This is in addition to the smaller steel portions. Use brute force design and place sensors over the hull to detect holes. A sensor every square four inches. The issue is how to then gain access to place a patch.
This simply means use something like army cots to sleep on. Everything on the walk way is to be hand moveable for effortless patching. Make it a rather garden like gravity park.
The center has ladders to climb up into at instrumentation overhead.
In general a station in the steel command module is to be manned 24 hours a earth day.
A nuclear battery system of several 10's of kilowatts is a good target power source value.
SO the basic parameters are not challenging for the transit spacecraft. And the hard part is the lander.
The moon mission plans also require landers. A common design would help hugely. A basic lander? Earth, moon, Mars capable. In general there are two modalities of landing. One for the couple of astronauts and one for cargo. Moving humans is a fairly small endeavor. While cargo includes takeoff craft.
The lander for the astronauts can be two way. While cargo can be also. What modality is required?
Land cargo always. This is why passenger aircraft carry cargo. It is free.
Taking of with no cargo? This is nontrivial system theory. The cargo to return to earth needs to be clarified and used in the lander design. It is a critical value. Shuffling cargo in the human craft with out occupants is free once more. Auto control human/cargo dual design.
I would submitted that the size of several astronauts should suffice for all return to earth cargo.
The question becomes travel and land and return or travel and occupy a Mars base module for a while. Here is where the fabric colony shines.
All in all design the cargo capacity of the lander plus astronauts as capable of self carriage of a real Mars fabric module. Carry one-way. Simple space in lander is required for the module. But it never returns.
The system concepts lead I hope to a design. Space is cheap in a lander. Low density cargo weighs small with large volume.
I hope the concepts make some sense. Just use the cargo density as a critical concept.
bob haller
Feb 17, 2016, 2:55:27 PM2/17/16
to
sadly the reportm i saw said that even a tiny debris impact on a spacewalking astronaut will incenerate the person and the suits interior
millssc...@gmail.com
Feb 17, 2016, 6:23:24 PM2/17/16
to
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 10:02:59 AM UTC-5, millssc...@gmail.com wrote:
> I was thinking about actual design of the hardware. The inflatable hull has a debris limit in earth orbit. Old spacecraft pieces cloud the orbits. These pieces will in general not challenge the steel hulls. This is because of the rather low relative velocities.
>
> On a path to Mars the issue is ultra high speed impacts. It just may be that if the event causes a inflatable hull breech it would also cause a steel hull breech. Negating the advantage of steel over fabric hull selection. A hybrid use is allowed therefor.
>
> SO I submit the large revolving classical artificial gravity section made of fabric. This is in addition to the smaller steel portions. Use brute force design and place sensors over the hull to detect holes. A sensor every square four inches. The issue is how to then gain access to place a patch.
>
> This simply means use something like army cots to sleep on. Everything on the walk way is to be hand moveable for effortless patching. Make it a rather garden like gravity park.
>
> The center has ladders to climb up into at instrumentation overhead.
>
> In general a station in the steel command module is to be manned 24 hours a earth day.
>
> A nuclear battery system of several 10's of kilowatts is a good target power source value.
>
> SO the basic parameters are not challenging for the transit spacecraft. And the hard part is the lander.
>
I tried to figure the basic parameters. My first fallacy was to require the Earth/Moon/Mars landing craft capacity. The Moon and rare atmosphere Mars need identical rocket descent.
>
> On a path to Mars the issue is ultra high speed impacts. It just may be that if the event causes a inflatable hull breech it would also cause a steel hull breech. Negating the advantage of steel over fabric hull selection. A hybrid use is allowed therefor.
>
> SO I submit the large revolving classical artificial gravity section made of fabric. This is in addition to the smaller steel portions. Use brute force design and place sensors over the hull to detect holes. A sensor every square four inches. The issue is how to then gain access to place a patch.
>
> This simply means use something like army cots to sleep on. Everything on the walk way is to be hand moveable for effortless patching. Make it a rather garden like gravity park.
>
> The center has ladders to climb up into at instrumentation overhead.
>
> In general a station in the steel command module is to be manned 24 hours a earth day.
>
> A nuclear battery system of several 10's of kilowatts is a good target power source value.
>
> SO the basic parameters are not challenging for the transit spacecraft. And the hard part is the lander.
>
The original Apollo lander is likely still the best idea. Just size the cargo bay in the lander stage for the maximum expected cargo volume. This means some efficiency loss foe sub-volume cargo because of the needed lander structure otherwise.
And have return cargo in the takeoff orbiter. Just like Apollo. So the lander is conceptually the same as Apollo. Just use seats for the astronauts.
By refueling from a tank on the transit craft, the same take-off orbiter can shuffle down several landing stages.
William Mook
Feb 17, 2016, 7:15:48 PM2/17/16
to
Tiny and very capable aircraft, using tiny engines and controls,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaNZzUg5Opg
combined with the production of arrays of small engines, attached to carefully designed airframes, will revolutionize aviation and space travel in the coming months.
Bringing about the long delayed and still born commercial supersonic transport
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neswVVVwhns
Using flying wing with oblique wing and vectored thrust.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxgg0BXMoqU
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1603610/posts
Like the Northrup switchblade body SST flying wing.
built in very tiny airframes enclosing a single astronaut in a long duratipon echanical counter pressure suit, lying within supersonic flying wings powered by vectored ram rockets.
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=9844
A 14,250 lb oblique flying wing carries an 1,200 lb oblate spheroid into space and returns to Earth. The 1,200 lb spheroid carrys an astronaut. The spheroid boosts from Low Earth orbit to lunar orbit, and lands on the lunar surface. It then returns to Earth and re-enters, carrying the astronaut back to the launch point, landing safely.
A similar system is capable of boosting an astronaut to a Hohmann transfer orbit to mars, and entering the Martian atmosphere and landing there. It will take close to 1000 days to complete the trip.
http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Orbit-1.jpg
Solar powred microscale reactors that recycle waste streams into fresh air and water using sunlight make this possible. Food is another problem. Only a few weeks of supply. This is addressed by the perfection of a research topic right now - suspended animation - hibernation.
A version of which is in clinical trials.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/23/tech/innovation/suspended-animation-trials/
In combination with drugs like EX-RAD which allow survival from intense radiation doses - its possible for individuals for less than $1 million to fly to orbit, the moon, Mars and the asteroid belt.
With swarm robotics and solar energy, it will be possible for them to build what they need from the materials found there.
Large arrays of small engines building very large vehicles were described in another post. These will provide the ability to transport 100,000 pounds and later 1,000,000 pounds between worlds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaNZzUg5Opg
combined with the production of arrays of small engines, attached to carefully designed airframes, will revolutionize aviation and space travel in the coming months.
Bringing about the long delayed and still born commercial supersonic transport
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neswVVVwhns
Using flying wing with oblique wing and vectored thrust.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxgg0BXMoqU
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1603610/posts
Like the Northrup switchblade body SST flying wing.
built in very tiny airframes enclosing a single astronaut in a long duratipon echanical counter pressure suit, lying within supersonic flying wings powered by vectored ram rockets.
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=9844
A 14,250 lb oblique flying wing carries an 1,200 lb oblate spheroid into space and returns to Earth. The 1,200 lb spheroid carrys an astronaut. The spheroid boosts from Low Earth orbit to lunar orbit, and lands on the lunar surface. It then returns to Earth and re-enters, carrying the astronaut back to the launch point, landing safely.
A similar system is capable of boosting an astronaut to a Hohmann transfer orbit to mars, and entering the Martian atmosphere and landing there. It will take close to 1000 days to complete the trip.
http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Orbit-1.jpg
Solar powred microscale reactors that recycle waste streams into fresh air and water using sunlight make this possible. Food is another problem. Only a few weeks of supply. This is addressed by the perfection of a research topic right now - suspended animation - hibernation.
A version of which is in clinical trials.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/23/tech/innovation/suspended-animation-trials/
In combination with drugs like EX-RAD which allow survival from intense radiation doses - its possible for individuals for less than $1 million to fly to orbit, the moon, Mars and the asteroid belt.
With swarm robotics and solar energy, it will be possible for them to build what they need from the materials found there.
Large arrays of small engines building very large vehicles were described in another post. These will provide the ability to transport 100,000 pounds and later 1,000,000 pounds between worlds.
millssc...@gmail.com
Feb 17, 2016, 9:13:37 PM2/17/16
to
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:23:24 PM UTC-5, millssc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 10:02:59 AM UTC-5, millssc...@gmail.com wrote:
> By refueling from a tank on the transit craft, the same take-off orbiter can shuffle down several landing stages.
So try to solidify the exact values. shuffling landers using the launch orbiter always can waste the manned trip. So allow lander stages to automatically land. Drop cargo with the one design lander stage. It is optionally mounted with the launch orbiter.
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 10:02:59 AM UTC-5, millssc...@gmail.com wrote:
> By refueling from a tank on the transit craft, the same take-off orbiter can shuffle down several landing stages.
Do not have special first stages. The cargo only version is simply hold sized to handle all expected needs. If fitted with return orbiter the landers cargo mass allowance must be reduced.
All things considered size the cargo hold for a secondary usage. Allow its reuse as a command station. Empty the cargo, reseal and open up control stations for the real base command module.
This means a large proportion distinction relative to Apollo. An outsized lander stage hold means a small orbiter relative to the lander stage size. Apollo was about 1 to 1 volumes. This system is about 10 to one!
All in all ev suits are worn while landing. EV to the command station implies an airlock on the cargo hold?
millssc...@gmail.com
Feb 18, 2016, 12:37:40 PM2/18/16
to
The ascent orbiter efficiency appears the critical technology. Wearing ev suits inside allows for reduced orbiter wall mass.
Sizing the engine for Mars is required. The Moon simply has an excess engine capacity. Just reduce the fuel load relative to the Mars usage.
I would submit a target of 2000 pound craft as a challenge goal. It is important to remember it is for ascent only. It needs no heat shields anyways.
The fabric wall ascender is a philosophic concept. How lightweight to make?
The altitude of transit craft orbit is allowed to be lower than earth orbit altitudes.
Another factor is atmosphere density. Mars is real low making almost an irrelative wind drag. Model the cost by inverting the reentry heat. If you have to ablative reduce incoming capsule energy by huge plasma drag, that can be thought of as the amount of cost reduction of Mars ascents relative to Earth ascents. Well maybe I am not sure!
A Mars ascent energy is equal to the free fall energy of the craft dropped stationary at orbit altitude. This equation is allowed on Mars. I think.
That is a ???
I am not sure just a concept here.
I believe there is a formal barrier here to lander design success. Having to use aa Falcon9 to return to orbit appears necessary. This means maybe auto landing a Falcon9 and ev'ing to it to ascend. The lander would be used also ass a one-way system. Maybe formalize the ascent orbiter to be a cargo return only craft. In general consider the down landing to be emergency able to use the ascent orbiter to land with also.
That Falcon9 is a huge cost!
It really means a program re-think. Consider the first step as automatic landing Falcon9's. Start to send human return orbiters first. I feel confident that independent Mars Landers is the way to go. With a nearby Falcon9. The cargo hold issue is important to maintain. Just land the Falcon9 with no cargo demanded.
A real rocket advance needs funding. The contest system is needed.
Landing Mars space shuttles is an example of any alleyway concept. The Lander system using rare gas to glide in. Using little fuel for Falcon9 or Lander both given wings.
The UPHILL is treacherous.
We need better fuel I guess.
Somebody I believe proposed using high explosive pellets to be fuel.
the use of high explosives is limited by the strength of the pressure chamber of the engine. SO target for 10 times the strength of titanium. But where?
Massive carbonfiber engine cases?
So much for some rambling. fuel is a barrier still.
Somekind of exotic high explosive self implosion. HE sheets are used as a plane detonation to weld steel sheet to sheet. So make two sheets of HE on opposite sides of the center material. The focus is an imploding sheet. No encasement pressure chamber is used. Implode to self destruction and eject the center material as gas. No massive walls would be required.
etc concepts
Sizing the engine for Mars is required. The Moon simply has an excess engine capacity. Just reduce the fuel load relative to the Mars usage.
I would submit a target of 2000 pound craft as a challenge goal. It is important to remember it is for ascent only. It needs no heat shields anyways.
The fabric wall ascender is a philosophic concept. How lightweight to make?
The altitude of transit craft orbit is allowed to be lower than earth orbit altitudes.
Another factor is atmosphere density. Mars is real low making almost an irrelative wind drag. Model the cost by inverting the reentry heat. If you have to ablative reduce incoming capsule energy by huge plasma drag, that can be thought of as the amount of cost reduction of Mars ascents relative to Earth ascents. Well maybe I am not sure!
A Mars ascent energy is equal to the free fall energy of the craft dropped stationary at orbit altitude. This equation is allowed on Mars. I think.
That is a ???
I am not sure just a concept here.
I believe there is a formal barrier here to lander design success. Having to use aa Falcon9 to return to orbit appears necessary. This means maybe auto landing a Falcon9 and ev'ing to it to ascend. The lander would be used also ass a one-way system. Maybe formalize the ascent orbiter to be a cargo return only craft. In general consider the down landing to be emergency able to use the ascent orbiter to land with also.
That Falcon9 is a huge cost!
It really means a program re-think. Consider the first step as automatic landing Falcon9's. Start to send human return orbiters first. I feel confident that independent Mars Landers is the way to go. With a nearby Falcon9. The cargo hold issue is important to maintain. Just land the Falcon9 with no cargo demanded.
A real rocket advance needs funding. The contest system is needed.
Landing Mars space shuttles is an example of any alleyway concept. The Lander system using rare gas to glide in. Using little fuel for Falcon9 or Lander both given wings.
The UPHILL is treacherous.
We need better fuel I guess.
Somebody I believe proposed using high explosive pellets to be fuel.
the use of high explosives is limited by the strength of the pressure chamber of the engine. SO target for 10 times the strength of titanium. But where?
Massive carbonfiber engine cases?
So much for some rambling. fuel is a barrier still.
Somekind of exotic high explosive self implosion. HE sheets are used as a plane detonation to weld steel sheet to sheet. So make two sheets of HE on opposite sides of the center material. The focus is an imploding sheet. No encasement pressure chamber is used. Implode to self destruction and eject the center material as gas. No massive walls would be required.
etc concepts
millssc...@gmail.com
Feb 18, 2016, 2:50:53 PM2/18/16
to
Here is a contest example.."Ascent Orbiter Engine"
by Douglas Eagleson inventor Public Disclosure.
217 East Deer Park Dr.
Gaithersburg MD
millssc...@gmail.com
Use the Apollo Lander already discussed. How to fuel the ascent?
Make a Hybrid engine. Hydrazine/Magnetohydrodynamic(MHD) . Put an MHD coil around the engine exhaust.
Put a high voltage high current power plant in the correct location of the launching range. 1.
Lay out wiring from plant on the ground. 2 miles backrange and 2 mile return to plug cable into ascent orbiter. Have the orbiter "wire guide" aa powerliine.
This high voltage will cause efficient carriage resistance.
Power the MHD booster until the 4 miles altitude is released at.
A critical state allows fuel carriage for the rest of the ascent.
Longer power line are possible. A lifting balloon could be employed to place wire "pre-lifted"
This invention is stated.
by Douglas Eagleson inventor Public Disclosure.
217 East Deer Park Dr.
Gaithersburg MD
millssc...@gmail.com
Use the Apollo Lander already discussed. How to fuel the ascent?
Make a Hybrid engine. Hydrazine/Magnetohydrodynamic(MHD) . Put an MHD coil around the engine exhaust.
Put a high voltage high current power plant in the correct location of the launching range. 1.
Lay out wiring from plant on the ground. 2 miles backrange and 2 mile return to plug cable into ascent orbiter. Have the orbiter "wire guide" aa powerliine.
This high voltage will cause efficient carriage resistance.
Power the MHD booster until the 4 miles altitude is released at.
A critical state allows fuel carriage for the rest of the ascent.
Longer power line are possible. A lifting balloon could be employed to place wire "pre-lifted"
This invention is stated.
millssc...@gmail.com
Feb 18, 2016, 3:22:02 PM2/18/16
to
douglaseagleson.blogspot.com
My art and invention site
Sylvia Else
Feb 18, 2016, 7:30:04 PM2/18/16
to
On 18/02/2016 10:23 AM, millssc...@gmail.com wrote:
> I tried to figure the basic parameters. My first fallacy was to
> require the Earth/Moon/Mars landing craft capacity. The Moon and
> rare atmosphere Mars need identical rocket descent.
The atmosphere of Mars is thin, true enough, but it can still provide a
> I tried to figure the basic parameters. My first fallacy was to
> require the Earth/Moon/Mars landing craft capacity. The Moon and
> rare atmosphere Mars need identical rocket descent.
useful deceleration, and parachutes are still effective. I'd be
surprised if a manned lander wasn't designed around that, making it
substantially different from a lunar lander.
Sylvia.
Greg (Strider) Moore
Feb 18, 2016, 10:33:09 PM2/18/16
to
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:din60a...@mid.individual.net...
You may want to check out the most recent Air & Space magazine. It's not
quite that easy.
And especially for larger, more massive craft.
It's one reason they used the "sky crane" for Curiosity.
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
quite that easy.
And especially for larger, more massive craft.
It's one reason they used the "sky crane" for Curiosity.
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
Greg (Strider) Moore
Feb 18, 2016, 10:42:52 PM2/18/16
to
wrote in message
news:2bc6f99a-1027-4d02...@googlegroups.com...
issues.
>
>On a path to Mars the issue is ultra high speed impacts. It just may be
>that if the event causes a inflatable hull breech it would also cause a
>steel hull breech. Negating the advantage of steel over fabric hull
>selection. A hybrid use is allowed therefor.
Since there's no such advantage, this doesn't make much sense. And it's most
likely easier to scale up the thickness of an inflatable than it is to make
a metal (most likely aluminum, not steel) hull stronger.
>
>SO I submit the large revolving classical artificial gravity section made
>of fabric. This is in addition to the smaller steel portions. Use brute
>force design and place sensors over the hull to detect holes. A sensor
>every square four inches. The issue is how to then gain access to place a
>patch.
Or, go with the acoustic detection that can hear the ultrasonic (and sonic)
whistles caused by a hull breach.
>
>This simply means use something like army cots to sleep on. Everything on
>the walk way is to be hand moveable for effortless patching. Make it a
>rather garden like gravity park.
An inflatable already will most likely have its main hardware in the center
core. That said, making stuff detachable from the wall is not hard.
Your hole size will determine things too. If it's small enough, you may
simply allow it to vent until you can space walk and patch it from the
outside.
If it's large enough that this isn't practical, you may be losing so much
air anyway, that your simply have to depressurize that module and plan for a
later IVA.
>
>The center has ladders to climb up into at instrumentation overhead.
If you're rotating, the center will be at Zero G. Simply float.
>
>In general a station in the steel command module is to be manned 24 hours a
>earth day.
Why?
>
>A nuclear battery system of several 10's of kilowatts is a good target
>power source value.
"nuclear battery" What exact is that? And why not go solar, we know it
works. (not to say an actual nuclear reactor doesn't have its own
advantages, but it also has some huge disadvantages, including the weight of
the paperwork that needs to be completed simply to launch it.)
>
>SO the basic parameters are not challenging for the transit spacecraft.
>And the hard part is the lander.
Actually they are, because ever kg you have in your transit craft is going
to cost money. You want to make it count. You also need to make it reliable.
You WILL have failures over a multi-year mission, so redundancy will be
important. We learned this on Apollo 13.
In some ways, your transit craft is probably the hardest part since it's the
one part that absolutely has to work.
>
>The moon mission plans also require landers. A common design would help
>hugely.
No, a common design is going to unnecessarily complicate things. For
example, for Earth landing, you're going to use some form of aerobraking.
This won't work on the Moon at all. You have to be purely rocket powered.
Mars is in some ways more complex, you can't use just aerobraking and
parachutes and you don't want to use just rockets.
So, optimize for each.
> A basic lander? Earth, moon, Mars capable. In general there are two
> modalities of landing. One for the couple of astronauts and one for
> cargo. Moving humans is a fairly small endeavor. While cargo includes
> takeoff craft.
>
Moving humans is the much harder endeavor. They're much more sensitive to g
forces, temperatures and other environmental conditions.
>The lander for the astronauts can be two way. While cargo can be also.
>What modality is required?
>
>Land cargo always. This is why passenger aircraft carry cargo. It is free.
>
>Taking of with no cargo? This is nontrivial system theory. The cargo to
>return to earth needs to be clarified and used in the lander design. It is
>a critical value. Shuffling cargo in the human craft with out occupants is
>free once more. Auto control human/cargo dual design.
>
I can't even make sense of what you're saying here.
>I would submitted that the size of several astronauts should suffice for
>all return to earth cargo.
>
>The question becomes travel and land and return or travel and occupy a Mars
>base module for a while. Here is where the fabric colony shines.
>
>All in all design the cargo capacity of the lander plus astronauts as
>capable of self carriage of a real Mars fabric module. Carry one-way.
>Simple space in lander is required for the module. But it never returns.
>
>The system concepts lead I hope to a design. Space is cheap in a lander.
>Low density cargo weighs small with large volume.
>
>I hope the concepts make some sense. Just use the cargo density as a
>critical concept.
No, this makes no sense.
news:2bc6f99a-1027-4d02...@googlegroups.com...
>
>I was thinking about actual design of the hardware. The inflatable hull
>has a debris limit in earth orbit. Old spacecraft pieces cloud the orbits.
>These pieces will in general not challenge the steel hulls. This is
>because of the rather low relative velocities.
Actually current designs suggest inflatables are MORE resistant to debris
>I was thinking about actual design of the hardware. The inflatable hull
>has a debris limit in earth orbit. Old spacecraft pieces cloud the orbits.
>These pieces will in general not challenge the steel hulls. This is
>because of the rather low relative velocities.
issues.
>
>On a path to Mars the issue is ultra high speed impacts. It just may be
>that if the event causes a inflatable hull breech it would also cause a
>steel hull breech. Negating the advantage of steel over fabric hull
>selection. A hybrid use is allowed therefor.
likely easier to scale up the thickness of an inflatable than it is to make
a metal (most likely aluminum, not steel) hull stronger.
>
>SO I submit the large revolving classical artificial gravity section made
>of fabric. This is in addition to the smaller steel portions. Use brute
>force design and place sensors over the hull to detect holes. A sensor
>every square four inches. The issue is how to then gain access to place a
>patch.
whistles caused by a hull breach.
>
>This simply means use something like army cots to sleep on. Everything on
>the walk way is to be hand moveable for effortless patching. Make it a
>rather garden like gravity park.
core. That said, making stuff detachable from the wall is not hard.
Your hole size will determine things too. If it's small enough, you may
simply allow it to vent until you can space walk and patch it from the
outside.
If it's large enough that this isn't practical, you may be losing so much
air anyway, that your simply have to depressurize that module and plan for a
later IVA.
>
>The center has ladders to climb up into at instrumentation overhead.
>
>In general a station in the steel command module is to be manned 24 hours a
>earth day.
>
>A nuclear battery system of several 10's of kilowatts is a good target
>power source value.
works. (not to say an actual nuclear reactor doesn't have its own
advantages, but it also has some huge disadvantages, including the weight of
the paperwork that needs to be completed simply to launch it.)
>
>SO the basic parameters are not challenging for the transit spacecraft.
>And the hard part is the lander.
to cost money. You want to make it count. You also need to make it reliable.
You WILL have failures over a multi-year mission, so redundancy will be
important. We learned this on Apollo 13.
In some ways, your transit craft is probably the hardest part since it's the
one part that absolutely has to work.
>
>The moon mission plans also require landers. A common design would help
>hugely.
example, for Earth landing, you're going to use some form of aerobraking.
This won't work on the Moon at all. You have to be purely rocket powered.
Mars is in some ways more complex, you can't use just aerobraking and
parachutes and you don't want to use just rockets.
So, optimize for each.
> A basic lander? Earth, moon, Mars capable. In general there are two
> modalities of landing. One for the couple of astronauts and one for
> cargo. Moving humans is a fairly small endeavor. While cargo includes
> takeoff craft.
>
forces, temperatures and other environmental conditions.
>The lander for the astronauts can be two way. While cargo can be also.
>What modality is required?
>
>Land cargo always. This is why passenger aircraft carry cargo. It is free.
>
>Taking of with no cargo? This is nontrivial system theory. The cargo to
>return to earth needs to be clarified and used in the lander design. It is
>a critical value. Shuffling cargo in the human craft with out occupants is
>free once more. Auto control human/cargo dual design.
>
>I would submitted that the size of several astronauts should suffice for
>all return to earth cargo.
>
>The question becomes travel and land and return or travel and occupy a Mars
>base module for a while. Here is where the fabric colony shines.
>
>All in all design the cargo capacity of the lander plus astronauts as
>capable of self carriage of a real Mars fabric module. Carry one-way.
>Simple space in lander is required for the module. But it never returns.
>
>The system concepts lead I hope to a design. Space is cheap in a lander.
>Low density cargo weighs small with large volume.
>
>I hope the concepts make some sense. Just use the cargo density as a
>critical concept.
Greg (Strider) Moore
Feb 18, 2016, 10:44:40 PM2/18/16
to
"bob haller" wrote in message
news:23af3321-b172-4872...@googlegroups.com...
And since there's at least one possible case of an orbital debris impact, I
sort of discount your fear-mongering.
Could it happen, sure. Something puncturing the helmet is probably the worse
(in the few suit penetrations I can think of the skin basically got sucked
into the tiny hole, sealing it and the astronaut ended up with a hickey.
In the helmet, a hole would be harder to plug.
news:23af3321-b172-4872...@googlegroups.com...
>sadly the reportm i saw said that even a tiny debris impact on a
>spacewalking astronaut will incenerate the person and the suits interior
Incinerate? In the vacuum of space?
>spacewalking astronaut will incenerate the person and the suits interior
And since there's at least one possible case of an orbital debris impact, I
sort of discount your fear-mongering.
Could it happen, sure. Something puncturing the helmet is probably the worse
(in the few suit penetrations I can think of the skin basically got sucked
into the tiny hole, sealing it and the astronaut ended up with a hickey.
In the helmet, a hole would be harder to plug.
Sylvia Else
Feb 18, 2016, 11:38:26 PM2/18/16
to
On 19/02/2016 2:33 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:din60a...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> On 18/02/2016 10:23 AM, millssc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I tried to figure the basic parameters. My first fallacy was to
>>> require the Earth/Moon/Mars landing craft capacity. The Moon and
>>> rare atmosphere Mars need identical rocket descent.
>>
>> The atmosphere of Mars is thin, true enough, but it can still provide
>> a useful deceleration, and parachutes are still effective. I'd be
>> surprised if a manned lander wasn't designed around that, making it
>> substantially different from a lunar lander.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> You may want to check out the most recent Air & Space magazine. It's not
> quite that easy.
>
> And especially for larger, more massive craft.
>
> It's one reason they used the "sky crane" for Curiosity.
Curiosity used both atmospheric drag and a parachute.
> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:din60a...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> On 18/02/2016 10:23 AM, millssc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I tried to figure the basic parameters. My first fallacy was to
>>> require the Earth/Moon/Mars landing craft capacity. The Moon and
>>> rare atmosphere Mars need identical rocket descent.
>>
>> The atmosphere of Mars is thin, true enough, but it can still provide
>> a useful deceleration, and parachutes are still effective. I'd be
>> surprised if a manned lander wasn't designed around that, making it
>> substantially different from a lunar lander.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> You may want to check out the most recent Air & Space magazine. It's not
> quite that easy.
>
> And especially for larger, more massive craft.
>
> It's one reason they used the "sky crane" for Curiosity.
Sylvia.
Greg (Strider) Moore
Feb 19, 2016, 7:45:28 AM2/19/16
to
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:dinki0...@mid.individual.net...
AND rockets. It's also at about the limit of what we think we can currently
do with parachutes.
>Sylvia.
do with parachutes.
>Sylvia.
millssc...@gmail.com
Feb 19, 2016, 9:37:51 AM2/19/16
to
I forgot. What is the lowest altitude for orbiting Mars. It might be classified?
Ascent to 10 mile high orbit. Mate with a transfer module in orbit there to complete the trip to the transit craft. Carry fuel for direct to transit craft modality, mate with fuel/booster transfer module, allow emergency descent of transit craft orbit to 10 miles.
Not carrying fuel to ground saves fuel! The boost to Mars from Earth will not contain high Mars ascender fuel load.
It is rather complex theory. I need help.
My ideas might prove useful in earth application. Wireguided HV powerlines for 4 miles.
Ascent to 10 mile high orbit. Mate with a transfer module in orbit there to complete the trip to the transit craft. Carry fuel for direct to transit craft modality, mate with fuel/booster transfer module, allow emergency descent of transit craft orbit to 10 miles.
Not carrying fuel to ground saves fuel! The boost to Mars from Earth will not contain high Mars ascender fuel load.
It is rather complex theory. I need help.
My ideas might prove useful in earth application. Wireguided HV powerlines for 4 miles.
Greg (Strider) Moore
Feb 19, 2016, 3:41:24 PM2/19/16
to
wrote in message
news:8338c88e-ce95-49e9...@googlegroups.com...
decay. Mars has a pretty thing atmosphere, so its lowest possible orbit is
certainly lower than Earth's.
That said, Mons Olympus is 22km (16mi) high. So if you're orbiting that low,
you might end up lithobraking.
>Ascent to 10 mile high orbit. Mate with a transfer module in orbit there
>to complete the trip to the transit craft. Carry fuel for direct to transit
>craft modality, mate with fuel/booster transfer module, allow emergency
>descent of transit craft orbit to 10 miles.
>
The problem isn't altitude. It's speed. You have to get going fast enough
to mate to your orbiting craft.
>Not carrying fuel to ground saves fuel! The boost to Mars from Earth will
>not contain high Mars ascender fuel load.
>
Which is why most plans these days rely on in-situ fuel making. Make your
fuel ON Mars.
>It is rather complex theory. I need help.
>
>My ideas might prove useful in earth application. Wireguided HV powerlines
>for 4 miles.
news:8338c88e-ce95-49e9...@googlegroups.com...
>
>I forgot. What is the lowest altitude for orbiting Mars. It might be
>classified?
>
Probably not. It's really a matter of how fast you want your orbit to
>I forgot. What is the lowest altitude for orbiting Mars. It might be
>classified?
>
decay. Mars has a pretty thing atmosphere, so its lowest possible orbit is
certainly lower than Earth's.
That said, Mons Olympus is 22km (16mi) high. So if you're orbiting that low,
you might end up lithobraking.
>Ascent to 10 mile high orbit. Mate with a transfer module in orbit there
>to complete the trip to the transit craft. Carry fuel for direct to transit
>craft modality, mate with fuel/booster transfer module, allow emergency
>descent of transit craft orbit to 10 miles.
>
to mate to your orbiting craft.
>Not carrying fuel to ground saves fuel! The boost to Mars from Earth will
>not contain high Mars ascender fuel load.
>
fuel ON Mars.
>It is rather complex theory. I need help.
>
>My ideas might prove useful in earth application. Wireguided HV powerlines
>for 4 miles.
Alain Fournier
Feb 19, 2016, 7:42:26 PM2/19/16
to
On Feb/19/2016 3:41 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote :
> wrote in message
> news:8338c88e-ce95-49e9...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I forgot. What is the lowest altitude for orbiting Mars. It might be
>> classified?
>>
>
> Probably not. It's really a matter of how fast you want your orbit to
> decay. Mars has a pretty thing atmosphere, so its lowest possible orbit
> is certainly lower than Earth's.
>
> That said, Mons Olympus is 22km (16mi) high. So if you're orbiting that
> low, you might end up lithobraking.
Mars has a bigger scale height than Earth. Meaning that its atmosphere
> wrote in message
> news:8338c88e-ce95-49e9...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I forgot. What is the lowest altitude for orbiting Mars. It might be
>> classified?
>>
>
> Probably not. It's really a matter of how fast you want your orbit to
> decay. Mars has a pretty thing atmosphere, so its lowest possible orbit
> is certainly lower than Earth's.
>
> That said, Mons Olympus is 22km (16mi) high. So if you're orbiting that
> low, you might end up lithobraking.
gets thinner at a slower rate than that of Earth. If I recall correctly
the two have same pressure at about 100 km. That is about the lowest
practical orbit for Earth and would therefore be likewise for Mars. If
you have a higher orbit around Mars, the pressure is actually higher
than what it would be at a similar altitude around Earth and therefore
the orbit would decay faster than around Earth.
You will experience severe aero-braking before experiencing lithobraking
even at Mons Olympus.
>> Ascent to 10 mile high orbit. Mate with a transfer module in orbit
>> there to complete the trip to the transit craft. Carry fuel for direct
>> to transit craft modality, mate with fuel/booster transfer module,
>> allow emergency descent of transit craft orbit to 10 miles.
> The problem isn't altitude. It's speed. You have to get going fast
> enough to mate to your orbiting craft.
Alain Fournier
Greg (Strider) Moore
Feb 19, 2016, 9:05:38 PM2/19/16
to
"Alain Fournier" wrote in message news:na8cjv$efr$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>On Feb/19/2016 3:41 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote :
>> wrote in message
>On Feb/19/2016 3:41 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote :
>> wrote in message
>> That said, Mons Olympus is 22km (16mi) high. So if you're orbiting that
>> low, you might end up lithobraking.
>
>Mars has a bigger scale height than Earth. Meaning that its atmosphere
>gets thinner at a slower rate than that of Earth. If I recall correctly
>the two have same pressure at about 100 km. That is about the lowest
>practical orbit for Earth and would therefore be likewise for Mars. If
>you have a higher orbit around Mars, the pressure is actually higher
>than what it would be at a similar altitude around Earth and therefore
>the orbit would decay faster than around Earth.
You may be right. I honestly can't recall.
>> low, you might end up lithobraking.
>
>Mars has a bigger scale height than Earth. Meaning that its atmosphere
>gets thinner at a slower rate than that of Earth. If I recall correctly
>the two have same pressure at about 100 km. That is about the lowest
>practical orbit for Earth and would therefore be likewise for Mars. If
>you have a higher orbit around Mars, the pressure is actually higher
>than what it would be at a similar altitude around Earth and therefore
>the orbit would decay faster than around Earth.
millssc...@gmail.com
Feb 20, 2016, 8:17:44 AM2/20/16
to
The in-situ solution would means finding nitrates to mine. You can't just use electricity to convert dirt to fuel. The same for cracking water. The efficiencies and materials just don't exist.
Putting a power source on mars to make hydrogen and oxygen liquids has a price tag.
I do not believe gas could be found by hole drilling. Mars never went thru the exotic flora history of Earth.
Although I do like the concept of artificial crust vents.
The reason for basic silicon elemental existence is not well understood. Sol evolution sciences are bullcrap. This question begs the question of why life?
Finding uranium would be the most fruitful attack. Natural enrichment levels of natural uranium on earth can be used in a true critical core. Reduce the spacing between fuelrods to increase the U-235 space density to the right U-235 state. Then use a moderator that is more efficient than water. The small rod spacing causes the level of moderation for criticality. So just go prompt critical using liquid hydrogen moderation. The mandate for delayed neutron control is just an issue of ease of core neutron population control. It tends to self disassemble nicely. But how to harness this system?
Putting a power source on mars to make hydrogen and oxygen liquids has a price tag.
I do not believe gas could be found by hole drilling. Mars never went thru the exotic flora history of Earth.
Although I do like the concept of artificial crust vents.
The reason for basic silicon elemental existence is not well understood. Sol evolution sciences are bullcrap. This question begs the question of why life?
Finding uranium would be the most fruitful attack. Natural enrichment levels of natural uranium on earth can be used in a true critical core. Reduce the spacing between fuelrods to increase the U-235 space density to the right U-235 state. Then use a moderator that is more efficient than water. The small rod spacing causes the level of moderation for criticality. So just go prompt critical using liquid hydrogen moderation. The mandate for delayed neutron control is just an issue of ease of core neutron population control. It tends to self disassemble nicely. But how to harness this system?
Alain Fournier
Feb 20, 2016, 8:17:53 AM2/20/16
to
On Feb/20/2016 12:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
> Earth will be the same. Below that altitude Earth atmosphere will be
> thicker. Above that altitude Mars altitude will be thicker.
>
> This is why aerobraking into parachutes doesn't work very well on
> Mars.
Aerobraking into parachutes is difficult on Mars. But I'm not sure of
your reasoning here. It is the "This is why" part I don't understand.
The greater scale height for the Martian atmosphere makes aerobraking
easier. The problem is simply that you don't have enough atmosphere and
you run into the ground too early. Parachutes are most effective at
pressures above the ground level pressure on Mars. If Mars had a smaller
scale height but the same amount of gas in its atmosphere aerobraking
into parachutes would just be harder. For instance if you would replace
the CO2 in Mars' atmosphere by something heavier like radon (okay you
would have to heat up Mars a little to keep it gaseous but this is just
a thought experiment), the scale height would go down and it would be
harder to aerobrake at Mars because you would have a much thinner layer
to do your aerobraking.
Alain Fournier
> "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <moo...@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>
>> "Alain Fournier" wrote in message news:na8cjv$efr$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> On Feb/19/2016 3:41 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote :
>>>> wrote in message
>>>> That said, Mons Olympus is 22km (16mi) high. So if you're orbiting that
>>>> low, you might end up lithobraking.
>>>
>>> Mars has a bigger scale height than Earth. Meaning that its atmosphere
>>> gets thinner at a slower rate than that of Earth. If I recall correctly
>>> the two have same pressure at about 100 km. That is about the lowest
>>> practical orbit for Earth and would therefore be likewise for Mars. If
>>> you have a higher orbit around Mars, the pressure is actually higher
>>> than what it would be at a similar altitude around Earth and therefore
>>> the orbit would decay faster than around Earth.
>>
>> You may be right. I honestly can't recall.
>>
>
> There is some altitude where air pressure at Mars and air pressure at
>
>> "Alain Fournier" wrote in message news:na8cjv$efr$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> On Feb/19/2016 3:41 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote :
>>>> wrote in message
>>>> That said, Mons Olympus is 22km (16mi) high. So if you're orbiting that
>>>> low, you might end up lithobraking.
>>>
>>> Mars has a bigger scale height than Earth. Meaning that its atmosphere
>>> gets thinner at a slower rate than that of Earth. If I recall correctly
>>> the two have same pressure at about 100 km. That is about the lowest
>>> practical orbit for Earth and would therefore be likewise for Mars. If
>>> you have a higher orbit around Mars, the pressure is actually higher
>>> than what it would be at a similar altitude around Earth and therefore
>>> the orbit would decay faster than around Earth.
>>
>> You may be right. I honestly can't recall.
>>
>
> Earth will be the same. Below that altitude Earth atmosphere will be
> thicker. Above that altitude Mars altitude will be thicker.
>
> This is why aerobraking into parachutes doesn't work very well on
> Mars.
Aerobraking into parachutes is difficult on Mars. But I'm not sure of
your reasoning here. It is the "This is why" part I don't understand.
The greater scale height for the Martian atmosphere makes aerobraking
easier. The problem is simply that you don't have enough atmosphere and
you run into the ground too early. Parachutes are most effective at
pressures above the ground level pressure on Mars. If Mars had a smaller
scale height but the same amount of gas in its atmosphere aerobraking
into parachutes would just be harder. For instance if you would replace
the CO2 in Mars' atmosphere by something heavier like radon (okay you
would have to heat up Mars a little to keep it gaseous but this is just
a thought experiment), the scale height would go down and it would be
harder to aerobrake at Mars because you would have a much thinner layer
to do your aerobraking.
Alain Fournier
Alain Fournier
Feb 20, 2016, 8:27:16 AM2/20/16
to
On Feb/20/2016 8:17 AM, millssc...@gmail.com wrote :
> The in-situ solution would means finding nitrates to mine. You can't just use electricity to convert dirt to fuel. The same for cracking water. The efficiencies and materials just don't exist.
Why nitrates?
> The in-situ solution would means finding nitrates to mine. You can't just use electricity to convert dirt to fuel. The same for cracking water. The efficiencies and materials just don't exist.
> Putting a power source on mars to make hydrogen and oxygen liquids has a price tag.
>
> I do not believe gas could be found by hole drilling. Mars never went thru the exotic flora history of Earth.
"exotic flora history". But that is mostly irrelevant. You can crack the
CO2 into CO and O2 and that will make you a useful fuel. You can also
harvest water from the atmosphere, you split it into H2 and O2 and you
now have more conventional rocket fuel.
This has been studied a lot. You can look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ_resource_utilization
If you do a web search you will find numerous other interesting sites.
Alain Fournier
Greg (Strider) Moore
Feb 20, 2016, 9:27:00 AM2/20/16
to
wrote in message
news:09fc92a7-a68c-4b13...@googlegroups.com...
> The same for cracking water. The efficiencies and materials just don't
> exist.
Water doesn’t exist on Mars? That would be news to the scientists studying
Mars.
But even then, you don't need that. You need the existing atmosphere and
some H2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ_resource_utilization
>
>Putting a power source on mars to make hydrogen and oxygen liquids has a
>price tag.
Yes, but you need a power source already for your landing team. You land
your lander and power source before hand and make your fuel.
Once you have full tanks, THEN you send your landing team.
>
>I do not believe gas could be found by hole drilling. Mars never went
>thru the exotic flora history of Earth.
No one is suggesting that
>
>Although I do like the concept of artificial crust vents.
>
>The reason for basic silicon elemental existence is not well understood.
>Sol evolution sciences are bullcrap. This question begs the question of why
>life?
>
Both the above are irrelevant.
>Finding uranium would be the most fruitful attack. Natural enrichment
>levels of natural uranium on earth can be used in a true critical core.
>Reduce the spacing between fuelrods to increase the U-235 space density to
>the right U-235 state. Then use a moderator that is more efficient than
>water. The small rod spacing causes the level of moderation for
>criticality. So just go prompt critical using liquid hydrogen moderation.
>The mandate for delayed neutron control is just an issue of ease of core
>neutron population control. It tends to self disassemble nicely. But how
>to harness this system?
Again, way to complicated.
news:09fc92a7-a68c-4b13...@googlegroups.com...
>
>The in-situ solution would means finding nitrates to mine. You can't just
>use electricity to convert dirt to fuel.
No one is suggesting that. So that's a complete strawman.
>The in-situ solution would means finding nitrates to mine. You can't just
>use electricity to convert dirt to fuel.
> The same for cracking water. The efficiencies and materials just don't
> exist.
Mars.
But even then, you don't need that. You need the existing atmosphere and
some H2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ_resource_utilization
>
>Putting a power source on mars to make hydrogen and oxygen liquids has a
>price tag.
your lander and power source before hand and make your fuel.
Once you have full tanks, THEN you send your landing team.
>
>I do not believe gas could be found by hole drilling. Mars never went
>thru the exotic flora history of Earth.
>
>Although I do like the concept of artificial crust vents.
>
>The reason for basic silicon elemental existence is not well understood.
>Sol evolution sciences are bullcrap. This question begs the question of why
>life?
>
>Finding uranium would be the most fruitful attack. Natural enrichment
>levels of natural uranium on earth can be used in a true critical core.
>Reduce the spacing between fuelrods to increase the U-235 space density to
>the right U-235 state. Then use a moderator that is more efficient than
>water. The small rod spacing causes the level of moderation for
>criticality. So just go prompt critical using liquid hydrogen moderation.
>The mandate for delayed neutron control is just an issue of ease of core
>neutron population control. It tends to self disassemble nicely. But how
>to harness this system?
JF Mezei
Feb 20, 2016, 10:22:43 PM2/20/16
to
On 2016-02-20 20:37, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> It seems obvious. The atmosphere reaches high enough to cause orbital
> decay but doesn't get thick enough fast enough to slow any reasonable
> sized craft down enough for parachutes to get a safe landing. A chute
> big enough to slow you down enough to get a safe landing at surface
> pressures gets ripped off because you don't get ENOUGH aerobraking. So
> you either need a series of parachutes of increasing size (not
> practical, as they'd just take up too much space) or you need some
> other way to get slowed down.
Yet, NASA has landed craft on Mars before using parachutes.
And considering Mars' atmosphere does not densify rapidly, one set of
parachutes could last a fair amount of time before their drag is too
much for their strength.
I guess it comes down to a formula of weight of parachutes vs fuel for
equavalent delta-V produced.
> It seems obvious. The atmosphere reaches high enough to cause orbital
> decay but doesn't get thick enough fast enough to slow any reasonable
> sized craft down enough for parachutes to get a safe landing. A chute
> big enough to slow you down enough to get a safe landing at surface
> pressures gets ripped off because you don't get ENOUGH aerobraking. So
> you either need a series of parachutes of increasing size (not
> practical, as they'd just take up too much space) or you need some
> other way to get slowed down.
Yet, NASA has landed craft on Mars before using parachutes.
And considering Mars' atmosphere does not densify rapidly, one set of
parachutes could last a fair amount of time before their drag is too
much for their strength.
I guess it comes down to a formula of weight of parachutes vs fuel for
equavalent delta-V produced.
Jeff Findley
Feb 21, 2016, 11:14:19 AM2/21/16
to
In article <56c92d82$0$60252$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com>,
jfmezei...@vaxination.ca says...
rocket engines on larger. The problem comes in when you try to scale up
to manned spacecraft sizes.
> And considering Mars' atmosphere does not densify rapidly, one set of
> parachutes could last a fair amount of time before their drag is too
> much for their strength.
>
> I guess it comes down to a formula of weight of parachutes vs fuel for
> equavalent delta-V produced.
And final descent of the larger Mars probes have all been done with
rocket engines (e.g. the complex sky crane approach).
Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
jfmezei...@vaxination.ca says...
>
> On 2016-02-20 20:37, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> > It seems obvious. The atmosphere reaches high enough to cause orbital
> > decay but doesn't get thick enough fast enough to slow any reasonable
> > sized craft down enough for parachutes to get a safe landing. A chute
> > big enough to slow you down enough to get a safe landing at surface
> > pressures gets ripped off because you don't get ENOUGH aerobraking. So
> > you either need a series of parachutes of increasing size (not
> > practical, as they'd just take up too much space) or you need some
> > other way to get slowed down.
>
> Yet, NASA has landed craft on Mars before using parachutes.
But not parachutes alone. Airbags were needed on smaller craft and
> On 2016-02-20 20:37, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> > It seems obvious. The atmosphere reaches high enough to cause orbital
> > decay but doesn't get thick enough fast enough to slow any reasonable
> > sized craft down enough for parachutes to get a safe landing. A chute
> > big enough to slow you down enough to get a safe landing at surface
> > pressures gets ripped off because you don't get ENOUGH aerobraking. So
> > you either need a series of parachutes of increasing size (not
> > practical, as they'd just take up too much space) or you need some
> > other way to get slowed down.
>
> Yet, NASA has landed craft on Mars before using parachutes.
rocket engines on larger. The problem comes in when you try to scale up
to manned spacecraft sizes.
> And considering Mars' atmosphere does not densify rapidly, one set of
> parachutes could last a fair amount of time before their drag is too
> much for their strength.
>
> I guess it comes down to a formula of weight of parachutes vs fuel for
> equavalent delta-V produced.
rocket engines (e.g. the complex sky crane approach).
Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
bob haller
Feb 21, 2016, 11:48:20 AM2/21/16
to
Inflate a large transhab like structure, and let it doing the decellration....
pehahaps you it as living area on mars, by partially reinflating it.
pehahaps you it as living area on mars, by partially reinflating it.
Jeff Findley
Feb 21, 2016, 1:48:50 PM2/21/16
to
In article <2a4cccc4-fea9-4547...@googlegroups.com>,
hal...@aol.com says...
> pehahaps you it as living area on mars, by partially reinflating it.
Things that are different, just aren't the same. An inflatable heat
shield for a hypersonic reentry is not constructed *at all* in the same
way that an inflatable habitat is constructed. The many layers for MMOD
protection, in particular, would certainly not stand up to a hypersonic
reentry.
hal...@aol.com says...
>
> Inflate a large transhab like structure, and let it doing the decellration....
Repeating this doesn't make it posible.
> Inflate a large transhab like structure, and let it doing the decellration....
> pehahaps you it as living area on mars, by partially reinflating it.
shield for a hypersonic reentry is not constructed *at all* in the same
way that an inflatable habitat is constructed. The many layers for MMOD
protection, in particular, would certainly not stand up to a hypersonic
reentry.
JF Mezei
Feb 21, 2016, 3:44:55 PM2/21/16
to
On 2016-02-21 13:48, Jeff Findley wrote:
> Things that are different, just aren't the same. An inflatable heat
> shield for a hypersonic reentry is not constructed *at all* in the same
> way that an inflatable habitat is constructed. The many layers for MMOD
> protection, in particular, would certainly not stand up to a hypersonic
> reentry.
I am not Eisntein, and I understood his suggestion properly. Just
> Things that are different, just aren't the same. An inflatable heat
> shield for a hypersonic reentry is not constructed *at all* in the same
> way that an inflatable habitat is constructed. The many layers for MMOD
> protection, in particular, would certainly not stand up to a hypersonic
> reentry.
because he mentioned "transhab" didn't mean it was expected to use the
exact same material for the baloon.
You'll note that one of the Orion or CST100 will use inflatable
structure to increase drag during re-entry. So this isn't totally out of
whack in terms of ideas.
in "2010", they used aerobraking, and then disposed of the inflated
balloons.
What if they did that for Mars re-entry and detached the ballons just
before touch down when retro rockets provide the smooth landing ? The
balloons would bounce on the bound and hopefully wouldn't end up too far
away, and be patriated to become pressurized habitable volume.
eagleso...@gmail.com
Feb 21, 2016, 4:11:36 PM2/21/16
to
On the natural uranium reactor concept. Making nested cylindrical fuel cans, i.e a coaxial geometry allows a huge increase of 235 atom density relative to the normal fuel rods. The coaxial liquid hydrogen moderator has spacing sufficient. It is a simple parametric theory. Trial and error core geometry parameter/sizing design until it goes prompt critical. Success is a hand grenade sized core disassembly. or larger as designed.
Jeff Findley
Feb 21, 2016, 4:56:35 PM2/21/16
to
In article <56ca21c6$0$63789$c3e8da3$3863...@news.astraweb.com>,
jfmezei...@vaxination.ca says...
final landing forces. But, this is not at all the same as a heat shield
for reentry (things that are different, just aren't the same).
> in "2010", they used aerobraking, and then disposed of the inflated
> balloons.
That is fiction. This is "real life".
> What if they did that for Mars re-entry and detached the ballons just
> before touch down when retro rockets provide the smooth landing ? The
> balloons would bounce on the bound and hopefully wouldn't end up too far
> away, and be patriated to become pressurized habitable volume.
Nope, not going to happen. This isn't McGuyver, or The Martian. Again,
things that are different, just aren't the same.
jfmezei...@vaxination.ca says...
>
> On 2016-02-21 13:48, Jeff Findley wrote:
>
> > Things that are different, just aren't the same. An inflatable heat
> > shield for a hypersonic reentry is not constructed *at all* in the same
> > way that an inflatable habitat is constructed. The many layers for MMOD
> > protection, in particular, would certainly not stand up to a hypersonic
> > reentry.
>
>
> I am not Eisntein, and I understood his suggestion properly. Just
> because he mentioned "transhab" didn't mean it was expected to use the
> exact same material for the baloon.
>
> You'll note that one of the Orion or CST100 will use inflatable
> structure to increase drag during re-entry. So this isn't totally out of
> whack in terms of ideas.
This is not true. These capsules can deploy airbags to cushion the
> On 2016-02-21 13:48, Jeff Findley wrote:
>
> > Things that are different, just aren't the same. An inflatable heat
> > shield for a hypersonic reentry is not constructed *at all* in the same
> > way that an inflatable habitat is constructed. The many layers for MMOD
> > protection, in particular, would certainly not stand up to a hypersonic
> > reentry.
>
>
> I am not Eisntein, and I understood his suggestion properly. Just
> because he mentioned "transhab" didn't mean it was expected to use the
> exact same material for the baloon.
>
> You'll note that one of the Orion or CST100 will use inflatable
> structure to increase drag during re-entry. So this isn't totally out of
> whack in terms of ideas.
final landing forces. But, this is not at all the same as a heat shield
for reentry (things that are different, just aren't the same).
> in "2010", they used aerobraking, and then disposed of the inflated
> balloons.
> What if they did that for Mars re-entry and detached the ballons just
> before touch down when retro rockets provide the smooth landing ? The
> balloons would bounce on the bound and hopefully wouldn't end up too far
> away, and be patriated to become pressurized habitable volume.
things that are different, just aren't the same.
bob haller
Feb 21, 2016, 6:23:31 PM2/21/16
to
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 10:02:59 AM UTC-5, millssc...@gmail.com wrote:
> I was thinking about actual design of the hardware. The inflatable hull has a debris limit in earth orbit. Old spacecraft pieces cloud the orbits. These pieces will in general not challenge the steel hulls. This is because of the rather low relative velocities.
>
>
> On a path to Mars the issue is ultra high speed impacts. It just may be that if the event causes a inflatable hull breech it would also cause a steel hull breech. Negating the advantage of steel over fabric hull selection. A hybrid use is allowed therefor.
>
>
> SO I submit the large revolving classical artificial gravity section made of fabric. This is in addition to the smaller steel portions. Use brute force design and place sensors over the hull to detect holes. A sensor every square four inches. The issue is how to then gain access to place a patch.
>
>
> This simply means use something like army cots to sleep on. Everything on the walk way is to be hand moveable for effortless patching. Make it a rather garden like gravity park.
>
>
> The center has ladders to climb up into at instrumentation overhead.
>
>
> In general a station in the steel command module is to be manned 24 hours a earth day.
>
>
> A nuclear battery system of several 10's of kilowatts is a good target power source value.
>
>
> SO the basic parameters are not challenging for the transit spacecraft. And the hard part is the lander.
>
> The moon mission plans also require landers. A common design would help hugely. A basic lander? Earth, moon, Mars capable. In general there are two modalities of landing. One for the couple of astronauts and one for cargo. Moving humans is a fairly small endeavor. While cargo includes takeoff craft.
>
>
> The lander for the astronauts can be two way. While cargo can be also. What modality is required?
>
> Land cargo always. This is why passenger aircraft carry cargo. It is free.
>
> Taking of with no cargo? This is nontrivial system theory. The cargo to return to earth needs to be clarified and used in the lander design. It is a critical value. Shuffling cargo in the human craft with out occupants is free once more. Auto control human/cargo dual design.
>
> The lander for the astronauts can be two way. While cargo can be also. What modality is required?
>
> Land cargo always. This is why passenger aircraft carry cargo. It is free.
>
> Taking of with no cargo? This is nontrivial system theory. The cargo to return to earth needs to be clarified and used in the lander design. It is a critical value. Shuffling cargo in the human craft with out occupants is free once more. Auto control human/cargo dual design.
>
> I would submitted that the size of several astronauts should suffice for all return to earth cargo.
>
> The question becomes travel and land and return or travel and occupy a Mars base module for a while. Here is where the fabric colony shines.
>
> All in all design the cargo capacity of the lander plus astronauts as capable of self carriage of a real Mars fabric module. Carry one-way. Simple space in lander is required for the module. But it never returns.
>
> The system concepts lead I hope to a design. Space is cheap in a lander. Low density cargo weighs small with large volume.
>
> I hope the concepts make some sense. Just use the cargo density as a critical concept.
hey were going to send humans to the moon and return them safely, back when the space program was struggling to orbit anything.
>
> The question becomes travel and land and return or travel and occupy a Mars base module for a while. Here is where the fabric colony shines.
>
> All in all design the cargo capacity of the lander plus astronauts as capable of self carriage of a real Mars fabric module. Carry one-way. Simple space in lander is required for the module. But it never returns.
>
> The system concepts lead I hope to a design. Space is cheap in a lander. Low density cargo weighs small with large volume.
>
> I hope the concepts make some sense. Just use the cargo density as a critical concept.
we will all have communicators and call anyone from anywhere. ahh that star trek stuff. totally impossible
JF Mezei
Feb 21, 2016, 6:26:58 PM2/21/16
to
On 2016-02-21 16:56, Jeff Findley wrote:
> This is not true. These capsules can deploy airbags to cushion the
> final landing forces. But, this is not at all the same as a heat shield
> for reentry (things that are different, just aren't the same).
From NASA tweets, I had been given impression that the inflatable system
> This is not true. These capsules can deploy airbags to cushion the
> final landing forces. But, this is not at all the same as a heat shield
> for reentry (things that are different, just aren't the same).
was designed to act as air brake to greatly widen the circumference at
base of capsule during re-entry (likely after the hot phase but was
never specified by NASA)
So I never researched it more than that. Doing a google does seem to
confirm it is nothing more than a landing cushion and a means to keep
capsule upright in water.
So essentially useless dead weight
Side question: how different is Mars re-entry in terms of heating/plasma ?
Do temperatures rise to about the same as when re-entring in Earth ?
More ? less ?
Does composition of Mars artmosphere make a difference with regards to
the need for shield ? With less O2, is there less oxidation/burning of
the shield or is that irrelevant because it is only the temperature that
matters ?
Jeff Findley
Feb 21, 2016, 7:13:41 PM2/21/16
to
In article <56ca47c0$0$44289$c3e8da3$aae7...@news.astraweb.com>,
jfmezei...@vaxination.ca says...
manned vehicle on Mars.
Research which is helpful is along these lines:
Inflatable Re-entry Vehicle Experiment - NASA
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/378699main_NASAFacts-IRVE.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jul/HQ_12-250_IRVE-3_Launch.html
NASA Explores Inflatable Spacecraft Technology
Sat, 01/03/2015 - 12:40pm by Brock Vergakis, The Associated Press
http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2015/01/nasa-explores-inflatable-
spacecraft-technology
NASA studies inflatable heat shield for Mars landing
Larger spacecraft needed for voyage to Red Planet requires new
technology
The Associated Press Posted: Jan 03, 2015 5:28 PM ET Last Updated: Jan
05, 2015 11:49 AM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nasa-studies-inflatable-heat-shield-
for-mars-landing-1.2889075
This article has some nice drawings. Note that none the shape of the
inflatable heat shield. It is shaped nothing like an inflatable HAB
module. And if you read the article, it's not built like one either.
http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-irve-3-inflatable-reentry-system/22974/
> Side question: how different is Mars re-entry in terms of heating/plasma ?
>
> Do temperatures rise to about the same as when re-entring in Earth ?
> More ? less ?
>
> Does composition of Mars artmosphere make a difference with regards to
> the need for shield ? With less O2, is there less oxidation/burning of
> the shield or is that irrelevant because it is only the temperature that
> matters ?
The big problem is the fact that the Martian atmosphere is so thin.
Because of this, you need a really big heat shield. This is why NASA
has been so interested in inflatable heat shields. They allow for a
very large diameter heat shield that is not limited so much by the
diameter of the payload shroud used to launch it.
jfmezei...@vaxination.ca says...
>
> On 2016-02-21 16:56, Jeff Findley wrote:
>
> > This is not true. These capsules can deploy airbags to cushion the
> > final landing forces. But, this is not at all the same as a heat shield
> > for reentry (things that are different, just aren't the same).
>
> From NASA tweets, I had been given impression that the inflatable system
> was designed to act as air brake to greatly widen the circumference at
> base of capsule during re-entry (likely after the hot phase but was
> never specified by NASA)
>
> So I never researched it more than that. Doing a google does seem to
> confirm it is nothing more than a landing cushion and a means to keep
> capsule upright in water.
>
> So essentially useless dead weight
Cushioning a landing is important, but not the hardest part of landing a
> On 2016-02-21 16:56, Jeff Findley wrote:
>
> > This is not true. These capsules can deploy airbags to cushion the
> > final landing forces. But, this is not at all the same as a heat shield
> > for reentry (things that are different, just aren't the same).
>
> From NASA tweets, I had been given impression that the inflatable system
> was designed to act as air brake to greatly widen the circumference at
> base of capsule during re-entry (likely after the hot phase but was
> never specified by NASA)
>
> So I never researched it more than that. Doing a google does seem to
> confirm it is nothing more than a landing cushion and a means to keep
> capsule upright in water.
>
> So essentially useless dead weight
manned vehicle on Mars.
Research which is helpful is along these lines:
Inflatable Re-entry Vehicle Experiment - NASA
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/378699main_NASAFacts-IRVE.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jul/HQ_12-250_IRVE-3_Launch.html
NASA Explores Inflatable Spacecraft Technology
Sat, 01/03/2015 - 12:40pm by Brock Vergakis, The Associated Press
http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2015/01/nasa-explores-inflatable-
spacecraft-technology
NASA studies inflatable heat shield for Mars landing
Larger spacecraft needed for voyage to Red Planet requires new
technology
The Associated Press Posted: Jan 03, 2015 5:28 PM ET Last Updated: Jan
05, 2015 11:49 AM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nasa-studies-inflatable-heat-shield-
for-mars-landing-1.2889075
This article has some nice drawings. Note that none the shape of the
inflatable heat shield. It is shaped nothing like an inflatable HAB
module. And if you read the article, it's not built like one either.
http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-irve-3-inflatable-reentry-system/22974/
> Side question: how different is Mars re-entry in terms of heating/plasma ?
>
> Do temperatures rise to about the same as when re-entring in Earth ?
> More ? less ?
>
> Does composition of Mars artmosphere make a difference with regards to
> the need for shield ? With less O2, is there less oxidation/burning of
> the shield or is that irrelevant because it is only the temperature that
> matters ?
Because of this, you need a really big heat shield. This is why NASA
has been so interested in inflatable heat shields. They allow for a
very large diameter heat shield that is not limited so much by the
diameter of the payload shroud used to launch it.
Alain Fournier
Feb 21, 2016, 8:46:30 PM2/21/16
to
On Feb/21/2016 6:26 PM, JF Mezei wrote :
> Does composition of Mars artmosphere make a difference with regards to
> the need for shield ? With less O2, is there less oxidation/burning of
> the shield or is that irrelevant because it is only the temperature that
> matters ?
The composition of the atmosphere does have a small effect but that
> Does composition of Mars artmosphere make a difference with regards to
> the need for shield ? With less O2, is there less oxidation/burning of
> the shield or is that irrelevant because it is only the temperature that
> matters ?
isn't important. The important points are that re-entry speeds are
slower at Mars compared to Earth and the atmosphere is much thinner near
the ground.
Mars escape velocity is slightly more than 5 km/s. That is less than
speeds at LEO. And you don't have to shed all that 5 km/s at once. You
can get captured, lower your orbit to low Mars orbit in a few passes.
You are then at about 3.4 km/s, which is much less than the 8 km/s of LEO.
Compared to Earth re-entry, the first phase of re-entry at Mars are
easy. It is still hard and dangerous, only less so than for Earth. But
aero-dynamic drag will only slow you down so much at Mars. The last
phase of re-entry is more complicated at Mars. You can go very fast in a
10 millibar atmosphere. You have to be careful not to hit the ground
real hard.
Alain Fournier
William Mook
Mar 4, 2016, 4:22:56 AM3/4/16
to
The odds of getting hit by anything is very low for the 279 days it takes for a minimum energy transfer orbit to Mars.
10^(-5) m is 10 microns - you'll likely get hit with a few dozen of those accordinmg to these statistics. At 2.3 g/cc and 9.6 km/sec this particle contains 15.2 microjoules. At 12 megajoules per kg vaporisation energy we have a 10 micron diameter particle producing a 140 micron diameter hole.
Such holes, even if they were 10x larger involving 1,000x as much energy, would be of no real concern since they could easily be covered over with a a thick version of Duct Tape.
This idea goes way back in time, and the details were worked out 56 years ago!
Langley researchers got to work examining the feasibility of various space station configurations in 1960, they soon agreed that the most promising design was a self- deploying inflatable space station. Thanks to their Echo II experience, Langley engineers already knew first hand that a folded station packed snugly inside a rocket would be protected during the rough ride through the atmosphere. That's not to say the Langley space station office didn't consider other concepts. They did. Among the non-inflatable concepts considered were designs for orbiting cylinders, and for a cylinder attached to a terminal booster stage, but these were rejected as dynamically unstable because they tended to roll at the slightest disturbance.
A version of Lockheed's elongated modular concept was turned down because it required the launch of several boosters to place all the elements into orbit, and proposals for Ferris wheels in space were rejected because of Coriolis effects. While the Langley space station team had sound technical reasons for doubting the feasibility of these proposals, it perhaps wasn't surprising they favored the inflatable option because the technology was developed at Langley! The concept also happened to make good engineering sense because the inflatable option meant a light payload and, with hundreds of kilograms of propellant required to put just one kilogram of payload into orbit, any plan that lightened the payload was a winner.
A rotating space station will produce the feeling of gravity because the rotation drives any object inside the station towards the hull. This "pull", or centrifugal force, is a manifestation of objects inside the station trying to travel in a straight line due to inertia. From the perspective of astronauts rotating with the station, artificial gravity behaves similarly to normal gravity, but there are side effects, one of which is the Coriolis effect, which gives an apparent force that acts on objects that move relative to a rotating reference frame. This force acts at right angles to the motion and the rotation axis, and tends to curve the motion in the opposite sense to the station's spin. If an astronaut inside a rotating station moves towards or away from the axis of rota- tion, they will feel a force pushing them towards or away from the direction of spin. These forces act on the inner ear and can cause nausea and disorientation. Slower spin rates (less than two revolutions per minute) reduce the Coriolis force and its effects, but rates above seven revolutions per minute cause significant problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wJQ5UrAsIY
https://goo.gl/7oa39I
The first idea for an inflatable station was the Erectable Torus Manned Space Laboratory, developed by the Langley space station team led by Paul Hill and Emanuel Schnitzer with the help of Goodyear. Their idea was a flat inflatable unitized torus about seven meters in diameter. Since it was unitized, all its elements were part of a single structure that could be carried to orbit on one booster, which was a major selling point. All NASA needed to do was fold the station into a compact payload. The Langley space station team was so enthusiastic about its inflatable torus that they made a presentation on the design to a national meeting of the American Rocket Society. In the months following their presenta- tion, Langley built and tested models of the Erectable Torus Manned Space Laboratory, including a full-scale research model constructed by Goodyear. This was the same size as the centrifuge in the fictional discovery of the 1968 movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Development of the concept appeared promising, but the design had its drawbacks.
Langley engineers built a three-meter-diameter elastically scaled model of the torus. By the time the model became operational in 1961
.
While still pursuing the inflatable torus concept, the Langley group also explored other ideas. In the summer of 1961, it entered into a six-month contract with North American Aviation for a feasibility study of an advanced modular space station concept, which also incorporated inflatable technology. While rigid in structure, this advanced station could still be automatically erected in space. The idea was to put together six rigid modules connected by inflatable spokes or passageways to a central non-rotating hub. The 22.8 meter diameter structure would be assembled on the ground, packaged into a snug launch configuration, and launched into space. To ruggedize it against micrometeorites, the rigid sections of the rotating hexagon airlock doors could be sealed when any threat arose to the integrity of the interconnecting inflatable sections. The structure was designed to rotate, making it possible for astronauts to take advantage of artificial gravity, which space station designers of the day believed was an absolute must for any long-term stay. Incidentally, the 22.8-meter-diameter size was selected because it provided the minimal rotational radius needed to generate the 1 G required for the station's living areas.
As the Langley engineers continued to investigate the potential of a rotating hexagon, they became increasingly confident they were on the right track. The only problem was finding a launch vehicle capable of lofting the 77,500-kilogram structure into orbit.
The solution was von Braun's Saturn, so a team of Langley researchers tried to figure out how to mate their space station to the Saturn's top stage. After working with a number of dynamic scale models, they refined a system of mechanical hinges enabling the six interconnected modules of the hexagon to fold into one compact mass. Tests confirmed the arrangement could be carried aloft in one piece and, once on orbit, actuators located at the joints between the modules would deploy the folded structure. The cost for the space station project was US$100 million. At the time, this was too much for NASA, which only had sufficient funding to finish Mercury and US$29 million for Apollo. Also, NASA wasn't even sure it needed a space station, because Apollo entailed only a circumlunar mission, with the possibility of building a space station as a byproduct of the Earth-orbit phase. Such uncertainty is par for the course in the aerospace industry, but it put Langley in a difficult situation. Since some sort of space station was still possible in the Apollo era, the basic technology had to be ready, so Langley continued their research. On May 19th, 1961, six days before President Kennedy's lunar landing speech, Loftin updated the US House Committee on Science and Astronautics on Langley's manned space station work. He passed around a series of pictures show- ing Langley's concepts for the inflatable torus and the rotating hexagon, before summarizing Langley's assessment of the status of the space station. The politicians were somewhat flummoxed, many of them not understanding what a manned space station was all about or how it might be used.
Six days after Loftin's appearance, President Kennedy stunned the world--including NASA--with his lunar landing speech. For 14 months following Kennedy's speech, NASA debated various mission modes. Many in NASA were certain the mission architecture would involve Earth-orbit rendezvous, which would require the lunar spacecraft to be assembled from components put into orbit by two or more Saturn rockets. This plan would therefore involve the development of orbital capabilities that might translate into a space station. With this in mind, the Langley team continued to explore the problems facing the design and operation of a space station. One continuing issue was how to protect astronauts from micrometeorite strikes, because big hits, especially those striking the inflatable torus, could prove disastrous. In an attempt to solve the problem, structure experts at Langley and Ames searched for a wall structure that offered the greatest protection for the least weight. They settled on a sandwiched structure with an inner and outer wall--a precursor to the layered structure that was later used in TransHab. Developed by North American, the outer wall was a meteorite shield comprising aluminum, backed by a poly- urethane plastic filler that overlaid a bonded aluminum honeycomb sandwich. The wall seemed rugged enough to do the job, but no one really knew because there was no way to simulate micrometeorite strikes in any ground facility. For the inner wall, Langley's engineers decided nylon-neoprene, Dacron-silicone, saran, Mylar, polypropylene, Teflon, and other flexible and heat-absorbing materials could do the job. What made these materials attractive was their ability to withstand a hard vacuum, electromagnetic and particle radiation, and large temperature changes. At a symposium in July 1962, the Langley team presented summary progress reports on their space station research, concluding that the rotating hexagon was superior to the inflatable torus. The inflatable concept was still a possibility.
William Mook
Mar 4, 2016, 4:40:25 AM3/4/16
to
Technology has advanced since 1960.
http://www.nanotech-now.com/utility-fog.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK54Bu9HFRw
A 25 mm thick wall forming a sphere that's 16.8 m diameter masses 24,350 kg. A 16 m diameter ring that's 7.2 m wide rotates within the sphere at a rate of once every 41.2 seconds moving at 32.7 kph (20.2 mph).
Coming in from the motionless zero gravity field, is a moving sidewalk that consists of 10 bands that are 0.5 m wide that move at 2 mph faster each. The ring masses 10,190 kg..
The sphere rotates in the opposite direction producing 1/9th the gee force as the cylinder.
http://www.nanotech-now.com/utility-fog.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK54Bu9HFRw
A 25 mm thick wall forming a sphere that's 16.8 m diameter masses 24,350 kg. A 16 m diameter ring that's 7.2 m wide rotates within the sphere at a rate of once every 41.2 seconds moving at 32.7 kph (20.2 mph).
Coming in from the motionless zero gravity field, is a moving sidewalk that consists of 10 bands that are 0.5 m wide that move at 2 mph faster each. The ring masses 10,190 kg..
The sphere rotates in the opposite direction producing 1/9th the gee force as the cylinder.
William Mook
Mar 4, 2016, 4:55:03 AM3/4/16
to
Two astronauts in a swing attached by a cable 20 m long with two tanks of propellant separated by 18 m - attach and rotate 9.4 rpm to produce one gee.
A 0.5 cm diameter cable 20 meters long mass 530 grams and produces 1 gee of force outward.
https://goo.gl/I52m9A
http://goo.gl/NeLyoD
Small inflatable tent weighing only a few kg each. Housing 2 people.
The tent deflates and folds away, and is used as a base when landed on Mars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q971MCu8MyY
A 0.5 cm diameter cable 20 meters long mass 530 grams and produces 1 gee of force outward.
https://goo.gl/I52m9A
http://goo.gl/NeLyoD
Small inflatable tent weighing only a few kg each. Housing 2 people.
The tent deflates and folds away, and is used as a base when landed on Mars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q971MCu8MyY
0 new messages