James Oberg On Mars!
Pat Flannery
Pat
Eric Chomko
> And why it's so hard to get there:http://thespacereview.com/article/1448/1
>
> Pat
Lemme see, Mars at 36 million miles at its closest and the moon at
250K miles on average, that is 36 x 4 = 144 times as far. It takes 8
days to do a lunar mission. So, if we equate the distance to mission
time, linearly, we have a Mars mission taking 1152 days, 3 years and
almost 2 months. The Mars synodic period is 780 days, or 2 years and
50 days. So clearly we have to speed something up if we want to get
the astronauts back ASAP. And we also want to have some appreciably
amount to time on mars as well given a more than 2 years commitment to
the actual mission from launch to landing.
Eric
Jonathan
"Eric Chomko" <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:49cafe7c-dba7-4f75...@z31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Eric
I thought Bolden said "Mars in 39 hours"! Or days, or whatever.
What pipe-dream was he smoking?
Rick Jones
> I thought Bolden said "Mars in 39 hours"! Or days, or whatever.
> What pipe-dream was he smoking?
VASIMIR vapors of course :)
rick jones
--
web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Fritz Wuehler
news:x72dnflECcDggBfX...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
The duration of a Mars mission is the biggest problem which can only be
solved by using nuclear propulsion IMHO. Any hour that you spend longer
in space or on Mars increases the risk of something breaking down,
wearing out, someone getting sick or some Solar event occuring. The
Apollo astronauts were lucky that no solar burst occurred during the
missions or things might have ended up badly.
Von Braun proposed a Martian flyby for the late seventies, which would
have been feasible with a small crew and a new vehicle (not Apollo but
some larger variant which would have looked more like a small space
station). I still think this is quite easily achievable.
Eric Chomko
<fr...@spamexpire-200908.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
> "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
The only problem is what good is a flyby? I assume you mean a manned
flyby, BTW. If we can send a lander or rover as we have done, but what
good is a flyby without actually landing humans walking around? Heck,
I'd be happy with a Martian rock/regolith/soil sample return mission,
unmanned.
Oh, and the whole "flag and footprints" distain folks have only
happens when we have already had a flag and footprints mission. No one
complained about flag and footprints before Apollo 11. Well, other
than the "we need the NASA money for the poor" types.
Eric
Pat Flannery
The problem with the flyby is the pointlessness of the whole mission; go
all that way and just zip on by and fly home again.
Rather like Columbus sighting the New World and then hightailing it back
to Spain without even going ashore.
An even more pointless mission concept that got recently discussed was a
manned flyby of Venus, where you _know_ that you aren't going to be
landing astronauts anytime soon, if ever, and all you get to even look
at are a bunch of sulfurous cloudtops.
The Near Earth Asteroid mission at least has some imagination on its
side, although you probably aren't going to find out much that you
didn't know already.
Even then, can you extrapolate your findings to other asteroids than the
one you went to?
If I were doing a manned Mars mission, I'd do it with a very small crew
(say, two or three) to cut down on all the consumables, and it would go
like this:
1.) Remotely land return craft on Mars, minus most consumables for the
return trip, but having some for a manned stay on the planet.
2.) Launch crew on a "Mars Direct Ascent" spacecraft that will jettison
its living quarters as it approaches the planet, leaving just the lander
and its crew; this will not enter Mars orbit but head straight for the
surface on arrival, landing near the ascent spacecraft.
3.) Launch a unmanned cargo/living quarters spacecraft that will loop
around Mars and head back towards Earth at the same time the crew is
scheduled to lift off in their ascent vehicle from the Martian surface,
so they can rendezvous with it on the way back. This will contain the
supplies for the return trip and the Earth return descent capsule.
If something should prevent the landing attempt,the crew can use fuel
aboard their lander/living quarters combo to also loop Mars and
rendezvous with the return craft after a while.
There are obviously major safety concerns with this approach; there are
points in the mission where the crew can get marooned on the Martian
surface or end up in space with insufficient supplies to reach Earth,
and their planned stay on the Martian surface may have to be brief to
allow them the delta-V to rendezvous with the return spacecraft in case
they have to cancel the landing and just loop the planet.
However, if you want to do a minimal cost manned Martian landing using
present technology, it would probably look something like that architecture.
Of course, if they get the VASIMR engine working then everything changes
dramatically, as it's the weight of consumables for the crew over a long
Mars mission that really screws up the payload fraction...as well, as
you pointed out, the probability of things breaking down on the way
there or back.
If you could really get transit time down to 39 days, then you might
want to consider building a permanent Mars base, as that's a very doable
proposition with that fast of travel time.
Besides meaning fast manned travel times, VASIMR would also mean
unmanned craft carrying far larger payloads could be sent to the planet
on a slower trajectory.
If NASA wanted to get out of its present Constellation mess and throw
some money and effort at something that really could pan out big time
down the road, they should ditch the Ares _and_ Orion, and start working
on VASIMR with major funding and man-hours for its development.
Pat
George Orwell
1c0c-4768-b36...@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Eric
-----------------------------
A flyby is better than flying orbits around our globe or going to the
Moon. It advances man's reach and our technical cunning, albeit
slightly. A Martian Apollo program won't fly since it will be way too
expensive ($100 billion easily for several flights). The U.S. simply
interested in doing it for the prestige, certainly with a Democratic
leftist President in power. As things are looking now, a flyby could be
financed by the U.S., but there's no political will among the
constituency to go to Mars. Most people would rather get decent health
care for free.
It will force any competitors to upstage it by making a manned landing,
which will be very, very hard to do. So hard that it won't make sense
to go there unless there's a pressing need. I've been proclaiming that
we need to terraform Mars and Venus and then divide the land amongst
the nations of the world. I'm pretty sure that will get space
exploration going ASAP, no matter what the cost.
To conclude: it may only be a small step but it's the only one that
will be affordable and therefore politically viable. Asking for more
will simply means nothing will come of it.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Pat Flannery
>
> A flyby is better than flying orbits around our globe or going to the
> Moon. It advances man's reach and our technical cunning, albeit
> slightly. A Martian Apollo program won't fly since it will be way too
> expensive ($100 billion easily for several flights). The U.S. simply
> interested in doing it for the prestige, certainly with a Democratic
> leftist President in power. As things are looking now, a flyby could be
> financed by the U.S., but there's no political will among the
> constituency to go to Mars. Most people would rather get decent health
> care for free.
When the pathetic quality of the flyby versus a landing sinks in, NASA
will be laughed at for even proposing it, despite any cost savings...and
even the flyby would be godawful expensive once you figure out all the
requirements for keeping the crew alive for that long; you are talking a
two-year-long mission here at the least, the whole works in zero-G with
the implications of that for the crew's health.
The crew would find the whole thing very frustrating as Mars slowly
approaches...and then just as slowly withdraws again, with the long
voyage home again ahead of them
Look, but don't touch; the space exploration equivalent of a strip tease.
At least the asteroid mission would make for some great television if
nothing else, and be shorter to boot.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:54:11 -0500, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Look, but don't touch; the space exploration equivalent of a strip tease.
>
I think they would have a hard time even finding astronauts who wanted
to fly this particular mission profile; the last time it was attempted
it was on a spaceship named the Eleanor M, and it didn't end up at all
well, even with a CPFM aboard. ;)
Pat
Derek Lyons
>Of course, if they get the VASIMR engine working then everything changes
>dramatically
The problem, long term, isn't getting the engine to work - it's
figuring out how to power it.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Jonathan
"Rick Jones" <rick....@hp.com> wrote in message
news:h6ffao$evi$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> OM <om@all_trolls_must_die.com> wrote:
>> I thought Bolden said "Mars in 39 hours"! Or days, or whatever.
>> What pipe-dream was he smoking?
>
> VASIMIR vapors of course :)
I think he'll be grabbing for an inhaler once he reads the Augustine Report.
Jonathan
> If I were doing a manned Mars mission, I'd do it with a very small crew (say,
> two or three) to cut down on all the consumables, and it would go like this:
But this would fall to the criticism of not building any lasting
space infrastructure. A one-shot deal. One of the primary failings
of Apollo.
Derek Lyons
>The crew would find the whole thing very frustrating as Mars slowly
>approaches...and then just as slowly withdraws again, with the long
>voyage home again ahead of them
>
>Look, but don't touch; the space exploration equivalent of a strip tease.
Doesn't seemed to have bothered the crews of Apollo 8 or 10.
Eric Chomko
> "Eric Chomko" <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:75e00c8f-
>
> 1c0c-4768-b361-3cc027bea...@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
But we ARE going to Mars, and steadily at that, these days. The MER
rovers and Phoenix. Another larger rover is in the works. Do you want
to send a human flyby mission to Mars, just because?
>
> It will force any competitors to upstage it by making a manned landing,
> which will be very, very hard to do. So hard that it won't make sense
> to go there unless there's a pressing need. I've been proclaiming that
> we need to terraform Mars and Venus and then divide the land amongst
> the nations of the world. I'm pretty sure that will get space
> exploration going ASAP, no matter what the cost.
I seriously doubt terrafroming of Mars will occur in less than 100
years. We'll colonize the moon first.
> To conclude: it may only be a small step but it's the only one that
> will be affordable and therefore politically viable. Asking for more
> will simply means nothing will come of it.
>
Again what value is a manned flyby to Mars rather than a cheaper
unmanned landing?
Eric
Eric Chomko
> Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
> >The crew would find the whole thing very frustrating as Mars slowly
> >approaches...and then just as slowly withdraws again, with the long
> >voyage home again ahead of them
>
> >Look, but don't touch; the space exploration equivalent of a strip tease.
>
> Doesn't seemed to have bothered the crews of Apollo 8 or 10.
>
8 days vs. 2 years, and they knew a landing was coming soon.
Eric
Pat Flannery
> Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
>> The crew would find the whole thing very frustrating as Mars slowly
>> approaches...and then just as slowly withdraws again, with the long
>> voyage home again ahead of them
>>
>> Look, but don't touch; the space exploration equivalent of a strip tease.
>
> Doesn't seemed to have bothered the crews of Apollo 8 or 10.
>
But in that case the whole flights were only several days in duration,
not well over a year like a Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars and back
would be, and were done as preparations for a landing in the fairly near
future, not as a end in themselves.
Pat
Jochem Huhmann
One more useful alternative to a landing would be to aerobrake into Mars
orbit, explore Phobos and maybe have some pre-landed rovers on Mars with
near realtime control.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Marvin the Martian
> The only problem is what good is a flyby? I assume you mean a manned
> flyby, BTW. If we can send a lander or rover as we have done, but what
> good is a flyby without actually landing humans walking around? Heck,
> I'd be happy with a Martian rock/regolith/soil sample return mission,
> unmanned.
>
> Oh, and the whole "flag and footprints" distain folks have only happens
> when we have already had a flag and footprints mission. No one
> complained about flag and footprints before Apollo 11. Well, other than
> the "we need the NASA money for the poor" types.
>
> Eric
The science gathered is one goal.
Manned space flight is another goal. A flyby means you demonstrated that
the engineering design can achieve long duration space flight of better
reliability.
Isn't human expansion into space a goal was well? It may not be a goal
everyone agrees to have, but it is a goal in and of itself.
Marvin the Martian
> On Aug 17, 10:17 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>> And why it's so hard to get
>> there:http://thespacereview.com/article/1448/1
>>
>> Pat
>
> Lemme see, Mars at 36 million miles at its closest and the moon at 250K
> miles on average, that is 36 x 4 = 144 times as far. It takes 8 days to
> do a lunar mission. So, if we equate the distance to mission time,
> linearly, we have a Mars mission taking 1152 days, 3 years and almost 2
> months.
Well, your analogy is bad, it has to do with transfer orbits and the
lowest energy orbit to Mars requires less energy than it takes to get to
the moon and takes about 6 months, not three years.
You have the wrong concept (distance is wrong, energy is correct) and
being totally off by an order of magnitude. But other than being totally
wrong, yes, you're correct.
Marvin the Martian
> "Eric Chomko" <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:49cafe7c-dba7-4f75-90d0-
bc60e8...@z31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
That was the ion engine claim.
Dr J R Stockton
2009 12:20:15, Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net> posted:
>
>One more useful alternative to a landing would be to aerobrake into Mars
>orbit, explore Phobos and maybe have some pre-landed rovers on Mars with
>near realtime control.
Directly after the aerobraking, the vehicle is in an orbit with low
point in Mars' atmosphere and is in possession of some no-longer-needed
heat shield (I assume a smaller, new, shield for Earth re-entry). Those
remains of a shield which was sufficient to brake a manned mission
coming in from infinity into a fairly low orbit should be enough, on its
next pass, to brake a useful probe for Mars entry.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Jochem Huhmann
> In sci.space.history message <m27hwxj...@revier.com>, Fri, 21 Aug
> 2009 12:20:15, Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net> posted:
>>
>>One more useful alternative to a landing would be to aerobrake into Mars
>>orbit, explore Phobos and maybe have some pre-landed rovers on Mars with
>>near realtime control.
>
> Directly after the aerobraking, the vehicle is in an orbit with low
> point in Mars' atmosphere and is in possession of some no-longer-needed
> heat shield (I assume a smaller, new, shield for Earth re-entry). Those
> remains of a shield which was sufficient to brake a manned mission
> coming in from infinity into a fairly low orbit should be enough, on its
> next pass, to brake a useful probe for Mars entry.
You don't need a dedicated heat shield to brake into Mars orbit. MRO has
no such thing either. Of course the craft needs to be designed for that,
but this a very different thing to a landing. It also cuts a fair bit of
the most expensive and dangerous parts (entry, descent, landing, surface
stay, takeoff) out of the mission while still proving a large part of a
manned Mars mission and getting some useful work done. At least as a
first step towards a later surface mission this would be a very sane
thing to do first.
George Orwell
xHXnZ2dnU...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
And what do you think would happen if the the Chinese did a manned Mars
flyby mission? I'm pretty sure that most people would argue that the
Chinese would be the dominant space power henceforth, ahead of the U.S.
MAN'S reach in space is what defines leadership in space, NOT robotic
orbiters or landers! If some people in this NG need to ask why we need
to send humans instead of machines I would tell them to get out some
more.
I'm urging the Chinese to do a manned Mars flyby since it isn't that
hard, and it would force the U.S. to do a manned Martian landing, just
to regain the leadership title. A little competition is always good in
the space exploration arena since it's expensive. And again, I'm
argueing for terraforming and diviyving up the real estate on Mars and
Venus amongst the nations of our planet.
Sure, robobtic exploration is cheaper, but if strikes no chord with the
public except geeks. If we use robots Congress will simply take that as
an excuse to cut the funding for NASA to the bone, the money is always
needed somewhere else. NASA needs to publicly set its goals and lobby
openly with the public and Congress for appropriate funding and resist
all the other tasks Congress wants to give it.
David Spain
> The problem with the flyby is the pointlessness of the whole mission; go
> all that way and just zip on by and fly home again.
> An even more pointless mission concept that got recently discussed was a
> manned flyby of Venus, where you _know_ that you aren't going to be
> landing astronauts anytime soon, if ever, and all you get to even look
> at are a bunch of sulfurous cloudtops.
I hope you're not referencing my suggestion of a reusable traveling habitat
going on a Venus 'orbital' mission. I had suggested going into orbit, not
a flyby so that you could do extended study and launch probes, etc.
It would be a good shakedown for a Mars mission later.
But before that, we need to do a whole lot more research in LEO, *using*
the ISS. Can we put to rest this idea of de-orbiting the ISS in 2015?
I keep seeing this cropping up in the popular press, as if it were
NASA's decision alone, *sheesh*.
Dave
David Spain
> the last time it was attempted
> it was on a spaceship named the Eleanor M, and it didn't end up at all
> well, even with a CPFM aboard. ;)
>
If the Eleanor M was as design by committee as our current approach
the Congressional cost cutting would have *forced* a CPFM-only mission!
:-)
Dave
David Spain
>> I thought Bolden said "Mars in 39 hours"! Or days, or whatever. What
>> pipe-dream was he smoking?
>
> That was the ion engine claim.
I'm going to assume that aerobraking is not a possibility if you're
moving that fast, so does that figure presume some ion engine braking
as part of orbital insertion, or ion engine braking plus aerobraking?
Dave
David Spain
> The crew would find the whole thing very frustrating as Mars slowly
> approaches...and then just as slowly withdraws again, with the long
> voyage home again ahead of them
>
> Look, but don't touch; the space exploration equivalent of a strip tease.
>
Pat,
Here's a good sci-fi angle for you. Say country X mounts a flyby mission.
Aboard are some 1-way surface probes, some are large enough to carry 1 human
if stripped of gear. Unknown to mission control, the patriotic/fanatical
crew decides to choose a volunteer among the group to go. Anyone can withdraw
from consideration. The rest choose straws. If you think about it, might not
be that huge a stretch. Think 'Space Cowboys' for example.
Flags, footprints and mausoleum, all rolled into one!
Dave
PS: So as a corollary, no person capable 1-way probes to be included on any flybys!
PPS: Maybe 'Defying Gravity' is getting to me!
David Spain
> ...On a side note, IIRC the biggest difference between the Mars and
> Venus fly-bys were that a Mars fly-by would make its closest approach
> on the night side no matter how you sliced it, while a Venus fly-by
> would only see the sunlit side. Baxter makes this clear in onve of his
> chapters in "Voyage".
I must get a copy of this book!
Dave
David Spain
> If NASA wanted to get out of its present Constellation mess and throw
> some money and effort at something that really could pan out big time
> down the road, they should ditch the Ares _and_ Orion, and start working
> on VASIMR with major funding and man-hours for its development.
And as Derek points out some way to power it.
A lot of study was put into nuclear propulsion, but not as much
into pure space nuclear electric, which is what you'd want here.
Dave
David Spain
Um, one other comment tho.
On approach and departure would it not be the opposite? For Venus mainly
see the non-sunlit side and Mars mostly the sunlit side? These would be
the parts mostly observable, assuming lowest energy flight path?
Dave
Pat Flannery
> But before that, we need to do a whole lot more research in LEO, *using*
> the ISS. Can we put to rest this idea of de-orbiting the ISS in 2015?
It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that it will be extended to 2020,
and Shuttle flights will probably continue past 2010, especially if
Ares/Orion gets canceled. At least if it stays up till 2020, COTS may
get a chance to be up and running before it gets deorbited... but what
is COTS supposed to do with no ISS around in 2021?
The Russians have some big "future in space" illustration up at their
airshow this year that has a future space station on it, but that and a
dollar will get you a candy bar as far as realistic expectations go:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/maks2009/index.htm
They also appear to have redesigned their future power generation
section of the ISS:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/maks2009/pages/iss_rs_2009_jpg.htm
At least that's not the thing on the InterMountain Railway model of it:
http://www.imrcmodels.com/iss/issphoto01.htm
Pat
Pat Flannery
> If the Eleanor M was as design by committee as our current approach
> the Congressional cost cutting would have *forced* a CPFM-only mission!
I built a model of it many years back that I still have hanging from the
ceiling.
I think the main engine is supposed to be some sort of nuclear rocket
engine cluster*, given the three big radiator fins on the ship:
http://membres.lycos.fr/marsetsf/rc2.html
Sure didn't carry much additional fuel, did it?
The two landing capsules are also odd; there seems no good reason to
carry them on the mission shown in the movie unless Mona was intended to
descend to the surface in one, as its implied that this is something
like Apollo 8, a orbital mission only.
* In the movie model this was a perforated circular metal drain filter
out of a sink; another being visible as the grill over the speaker on
the ship's radio. These were still in production as of the mid 1980's,
as I spotted one at a hardware store and recognized it from the movie.
I still want to make "Paula Abdul On Mars" with her animated hip-hop
monkey sidekick "FU Gimp Chimp", but she has not returned my emails
regarding this venture (which I expect her to finance), despite the fact
that I threatened to start killing puppies in terrible ways, and when
caught blame it on her psychically telling me to do it, a story which is
sure to make the National Enquirer - particularly when it's learned that
the puppies were fed razor-sharp fragments of her music CDs mixed with
their puppy chow.
Like Orson Welles, a artist must constantly struggle with the powers
that be if he is to bring a wonder into existence, and the threat of a
few dead puppies is a small price to pay for great art. ;)
Pat
Eric Chomko
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:54:06 -0700, Eric Chomko wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 10:17 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
> >> And why it's so hard to get
> >> there:http://thespacereview.com/article/1448/1
>
> >> Pat
>
> > Lemme see, Mars at 36 million miles at its closest and the moon at 250K
> > miles on average, that is 36 x 4 = 144 times as far. It takes 8 days to
> > do a lunar mission. So, if we equate the distance to mission time,
> > linearly, we have a Mars mission taking 1152 days, 3 years and almost 2
> > months.
>
> Well, your analogy is bad, it has to do with transfer orbits and the
> lowest energy orbit to Mars requires less energy than it takes to get to
> the moon and takes about 6 months, not three years.
Yeah, but the moon stays roughly 240K miles from the Earth, whereas
Mars goes around the sun. So your mission to Mars really is one
synodic period between Earth and Mars, timewise.
>
> You have the wrong concept (distance is wrong, energy is correct) and
> being totally off by an order of magnitude. But other than being totally
> wrong, yes, you're correct.
I said " linearly". You seem to miss the fact that the two year
window is a fact between two planets and their orbits around the sun,
wheareas the moon always stays close to the earth.
Eric
Eric Chomko
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:42:43 -0700, Eric Chomko wrote:
> > The only problem is what good is a flyby? I assume you mean a manned
> > flyby, BTW. If we can send a lander or rover as we have done, but what
> > good is a flyby without actually landing humans walking around? Heck,
> > I'd be happy with a Martian rock/regolith/soil sample return mission,
> > unmanned.
>
> > Oh, and the whole "flag and footprints" distain folks have only happens
> > when we have already had a flag and footprints mission. No one
> > complained about flag and footprints before Apollo 11. Well, other than
> > the "we need the NASA money for the poor" types.
>
> > Eric
>
> The science gathered is one goal.
>
> Manned space flight is another goal. A flyby means you demonstrated that
> the engineering design can achieve long duration space flight of better
> reliability.
If you're going to go 10s of millions of miles from Earth to do a
flyby, you might as well send down a lander. It is like going on a
cruise ship and never docking at a port and walking around, otherwise.
>
> Isn't human expansion into space a goal was well? It may not be a goal
> everyone agrees to have, but it is a goal in and of itself.
Sure, I am all for manned spaceflight but not at the expense of
unmanned spaceflight.
Eric
Pat Flannery
>
> I'm going to assume that aerobraking is not a possibility if you're
> moving that fast, so does that figure presume some ion engine braking
> as part of orbital insertion, or ion engine braking plus aerobraking?
That wasn't a ion engine, it was the superconducting VASIMR plasma
engine, which generates a lot more thrust than a ion engine.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> Pat,
>
> Here's a good sci-fi angle for you. Say country X mounts a flyby mission.
> Aboard are some 1-way surface probes, some are large enough to carry 1
> human
> if stripped of gear. Unknown to mission control, the patriotic/fanatical
> crew decides to choose a volunteer among the group to go. Anyone can
> withdraw
> from consideration. The rest choose straws. If you think about it, might
> not
> be that huge a stretch. Think 'Space Cowboys' for example.
Oh, don't bring that thing up... that's the one where the Russian bomb
platform is in imminent danger of orbital decay from its 1,000 mile high
orbit.
>
> Flags, footprints and mausoleum, all rolled into one!
I'll volunteer!
And I'll slay the white personality-filled apes of Mars, and bang the
brass britches off of Dejah Thoris... I'll do that to her and the other
thing, not because she is easy, but because I am hard:
http://www.gwthomas.org/whiteapesofmars.htm
Pat Flannery Of Mars
Pat Flannery
The Soviets built operational nuclear-electric true reactor power
systems for their RORSATS, although this would require a lot more power
to drive it.
Lots of goodies on the Soviet space reactors here:
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/RORSAT/RORSAT.html
Pat
David Spain
>> That wasn't a ion engine, it was the superconducting VASIMR plasma
> engine, which generates a lot more thrust than a ion engine.
>
> Pat
OK, my bad, sorry. What's cooling those superconducting magnets?
If they aren't YtBaCuO2 it ain't liquid N. That'd be liquid H or liquid
He. I suppose you could ionize H, so it could double as a coolant for
the magnets and as a fuel source. But liquid N might be easier to deal
with with a lower ionization energy if you could use it instead or
the colder liquid O, but N would be less corrosive. Liquid O might be
more utilitarian to have around tho'. Liquid H, requires more energy
to ionize, but would yield a higher thrust. Probably rules out
Now you've got long term cryogenic fuel storage issues, but dramatically
shorter transit times I suppose.
It's a stretch, but so's any kind of Mars program, so a research
project possibly.
Woah! Take a look here:
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch7/ie_ea.html
I must remember to pay more attention to my atomic orbitals!
Lithium might be the best bet. Li at Atomic # 3
won't yield as good an ISP as H but look at the ionization energy!
This has got be the sweet spot for this type of engine! No cryo issues
except for magnet cooling!
So you feed it a supply of solid Li, heat it in vacuum to sublime to gas
and you're ready to go into stage 1 of VASIMIR.
Thus only need enough liquid H to cool the magnets, or maybe liquid N if using
high T superconducting magnets. Damn, do we *need* superconducting magnets?
What's the mag flux needed for this that normal electromagnets can't do?
Still need that beefy electrical power source.
Dave
David Spain
> David Spain wrote:
>> Flags, footprints and mausoleum, all rolled into one!
>
> I'll volunteer!
> And I'll slay the white personality-filled apes of Mars, and bang the
> brass britches off of Dejah Thoris... I'll do that to her and the other
> thing, not because she is easy, but because I am hard:
> http://www.gwthomas.org/whiteapesofmars.htm
>
> Pat Flannery Of Mars
Pat Flannery suffering anoxia induced hallucinations on Mars.
Signed,
Dejah Rachael Maddow Vu Thoris
Air Plant Works, Helium, Mars 90210
(That zip code is no co-incidence...)
;-)
Anonymous
>James Oberg On Mars!
If they can send James Oberg to Mars, why can't
they send all of the press there?
-Uncle Walter's Ghost
Alan Jones
<nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>And what do you think would happen if the the Chinese did a manned Mars
>flyby mission? I'm pretty sure that most people would argue that the
>Chinese would be the dominant space power henceforth, ahead of the U.S.
>MAN'S reach in space is what defines leadership in space, NOT robotic
>orbiters or landers! If some people in this NG need to ask why we need
>to send humans instead of machines I would tell them to get out some
>more.
Should I even respond to George "nobody" Orwell?
>I'm urging the Chinese to do a manned Mars flyby since it isn't that
>hard,
So how influential are you with the Chinese?
Now we need a good parody of JFK's speech, in english with a Chinese
slant, urging China to commit the funding for a manned Mars flyby
"since it is not that hard."
> and it would force the U.S. to do a manned Martian landing, just
>to regain the leadership title. A little competition is always good in
>the space exploration arena since it's expensive.
More likely, it would be a joint effort, American dreamers and
schemers partnered with the dominant world economic power.
> And again, I'm
>argueing for terraforming and diviyving up the real estate on Mars and
>Venus amongst the nations of our planet.
I'd be happy to sell you my share of Venus real estate, if you would
simply homestead there.
>Sure, robobtic exploration is cheaper, but if strikes no chord with the
>public except geeks.
I seem to recall much public excitement about the Viking lander
panoramic photos, and Hubble photos are still popular with the masses.
> If we use robots Congress will simply take that as
>an excuse to cut the funding for NASA to the bone, the money is always
>needed somewhere else. NASA needs to publicly set its goals and lobby
>openly with the public and Congress for appropriate funding and resist
>all the other tasks Congress wants to give it.
I make no excuses for the actions of Congress. NASA does not set its
own goals, and cannot lobby Congress. It does the best it can to
achieve the goals assigned by the executive branch and Congress.
Although, NASA does provide expert advice to the governing bodies
about the goals that could or should be assigned. NASA has very good
PR and wide spread public support, even for unmanned space
exploration. It is not in NASA's interest to refuse funding or reject
assigned tasks that they may be less enthusiastic about.
Alan
Derek Lyons
>David Spain wrote:
>> Pat Flannery wrote:
>>> If NASA wanted to get out of its present Constellation mess and throw
>>> some money and effort at something that really could pan out big time
>>> down the road, they should ditch the Ares _and_ Orion, and start
>>> working on VASIMR with major funding and man-hours for its development.
>>
>> And as Derek points out some way to power it.
>> A lot of study was put into nuclear propulsion, but not as much
>> into pure space nuclear electric, which is what you'd want here.
>>
>
>The Soviets built operational nuclear-electric true reactor power
>systems for their RORSATS,
Hideously unsafe and dangerous... but yes, 'operational'.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Pat Flannery
>> Pat
>
> OK, my bad, sorry. What's cooling those superconducting magnets?
Although the theory that the engine runs on is way over my head, here's
the news story on accelerator stage one running successfully, and the
second stage of the of the thing being in final development to speed up
the exhaust velocity even more:
http://cgi.ebay.com.my/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120453266575
It appears to be a very powerful magnetic bottle with one open end.
Although there have been notable increases in the temperature that
superconductors can work at over the past decade or so, I suspect that
the electromagnets will work via submersion in liquid helium, or more
likely, liquid hydrogen, given that LH2 will probably be the fuel the
engine turns into plasma and uses.
Although we've got superconducting materials up into the liquid nitrogen
temperature range, they are nothing you can form into wires and make
magnetic armature coils out of yet, at least that I've heard of.
VASIMR is not as efficient in regards to isp for electrical input energy
used as a pure ion engine, but it has the advantage of generating a lot
more thrust (as pretty much anything else in regards to space engines
can do; it's not going to help you if you have super ion engines on your
ship that use almost no fuel and it still takes you six years to get to
Mars because their total thrust is around one pound, and your ship
weighs one thousand tons)*.
The VASIMR concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket
*The four big diamond-shaped things on this:
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/gallery/pf_disc.htm ...are the massed ion
engines - even with that many, (around what? 800? They are bicycle
safety reflectors :D ) I expected it to take around three years to get
out to Saturn under constant thrust with a very high efficiency ion
drive...after leaving High Earth Orbit via a Orion-type nuclear pulse
booster stage.
If you want to know how far back _that_ thing's design goes, it was
designed to use mercury as the fuel for the ion engines, rather than xenon.
Pat
Pat Flannery
>
>
> Signed,
> Dejah Rachael Maddow Vu Thoris
> Air Plant Works, Helium, Mars 90210
> (That zip code is no co-incidence...)
A friend of mine has told me that there is now a new name for men that
are attracted to lesbians...apparently, I am now a "Lesbro". :D
I actually did know a pair of lesbians back in college; they got into a
hell of a fistfight (and footfight... one had the other down on the
floor and was kicking her in the head) that I tried to stop...then both
of them started stomping my ass instead of each other's.
This was the price I paid to assure that true Sapphic love would not go
astray.
My way of stopping the fight was inspired to say the least... I broke
down in tears and asked them why they were fighting like that, and
beating the crap out of me. Assuming that I was gay, they then saw me as
a kindred spirit, and not as a completely straight crybaby like I really
was.
When you fully encompass Zen, your actions work in perfect harmony with
the situations you encounter...instinctively, rather than by thought. :)
Pat
Pat Flannery
> Should I even respond to George "nobody" Orwell?
Perhaps anonymously? ;)
Frankly, I'd send all his postings straight down the memory chute.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why he did this.
For the curious, posting number one from "George Orwell" at 2:36 AM
yesterday morning:
> Comrade OM wrote:
>> >...After watching this clip, do any of the rest of you wonder if a
>> >certain scene this particular episode of "Men In Space" may have
>> >influenced the decision to *not* let Gene Cernan go EVA and manually
>> >cut loose the "Angry Alligator's" payload shroud:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW7m6Nxw1Ak
>> > OM
>
>
> Moral of story:
>
> The capitalists will sell us the rope to rescue Leonov with.
>
> -V. Lenin
>
> Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
> non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
> reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
> di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
> Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
> https://www.mixmaster.it>
Posting number one from "Anonymous" at 2:41 AM yesterday morning:
> Comrade OM wrote:
>> >...After watching this clip, do any of the rest of you wonder if a
>> >certain scene this particular episode of "Men In Space" may have
>> >influenced the decision to *not* let Gene Cernan go EVA and manually
>> >cut loose the "Angry Alligator's" payload shroud:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW7m6Nxw1Ak
>> > OM
>
>
> Moral of story:
>
> The capitalists will sell us the rope to rescue Leonov with.
>
> -V. Lenin
>
Posting number two from "George Orwell" at 2:51 AM yesterday morning:
> Hizonner OM wrote:
>> >...First time I've heard this one:
>> >" It was a rumor that went around the Internet back when Senator John
>> >Glenn, somewhat aged, went back into space. Seeing how old people are
>> >easy to fool and often believe what they see, the rumor was that NASA,
>> >as a practical joke, when John Glenn returned from space, was going to
>> >have everyone at mission control dress up in ape suits to scare him.
> snip
>> > OM
>
>
> Today the punchline would be, an Ape is President.
>
> -von Braun's Ghost
>
>
>
> Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
> non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
> reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
> di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
> Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
> https://www.mixmaster.it>
Posting number two from "Anonymous" at 3:16 AM yesterday morning:
> Hizonner OM wrote:
>> >...First time I've heard this one:
>> >" It was a rumor that went around the Internet back when Senator John
>> >Glenn, somewhat aged, went back into space. Seeing how old people are
>> >easy to fool and often believe what they see, the rumor was that NASA,
>> >as a practical joke, when John Glenn returned from space, was going to
>> >have everyone at mission control dress up in ape suits to scare him.
> snip
>> > OM
>
>
> Today the punchline would be, an Ape is President.
>
> -von Braun's Ghost
If you are going to be a troll, at least be a _competent_ troll.
This is completely pathetic.
A decade ago, trolls had real _standards_ to meet.
The relation of today's trolls to the Great Trolls Of Yesteryear is the
same as a mosquito to a Giant Japanese Hornet as far as annoyance goes. :D
Pat
Pat Flannery
> Nope. Turns out he's really a known bastard troll, "jonathan".
I don't think that's him.
"Jonathan" is a very warped little thing that has such a exaggerated
opinion of himself that he can barely deign to bring his high intellect
to bear in aiding the little subhumans that are the rest of us, despite
the fact that we are walking around in a perpetually confused fog and
desperately _need_ his insight if we are to survive.
In his pity, he gives it to us.
"George Orwell" on the other hand, is just a pea-brained little jerk
with a keyboard in front of him.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> Hideously unsafe and dangerous... but yes, 'operational'.
Hey, they were working great as long as they could shoot the reactor
core up into HEO.
"Out of sight, out of mind"...the classic Soviet approach to any problem. ;)
Pat
Pat Flannery
>
> And what do you think would happen if the the Chinese did a manned Mars
> flyby mission?
I don't know, maybe you'd get killfiled again in your latest incarnation?
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:MISdnStQU40qIQ7X...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
Oh sure, that's great.. until you get to the dread "Space Cowboy" scenario.
:-)
> Pat
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Pat Flannery
> Oh sure, that's great.. until you get to the dread "Space Cowboy" scenario.
You could picture them actually building something like that with no
stretch of the imagination whatsoever, couldn't you?
The only problem with the whole storyline was that it was supposed to be
in danger of decay from 1,000 miles up...but, of course, if it was in a
Molniya type orbit with the low point passing straight over the US once
every 24 hours at low altitude, that all makes sense, doesn't it?
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:jjj795trf4shcapjs...@4ax.com...
> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
> :"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> :news:MISdnStQU40qIQ7X...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
> :> Derek Lyons wrote:
> :>> Hideously unsafe and dangerous... but yes, 'operational'.
> :>
> :> Hey, they were working great as long as they could shoot the reactor
> core
> :> up into HEO.
> :> "Out of sight, out of mind"...the classic Soviet approach to any
> problem.
> :> ;)
> :>
> :
> :Oh sure, that's great.. until you get to the dread "Space Cowboy"
> scenario.
> :
>
>
There is no Dread Pirate Roberts. At least not any more. You see, the
original has retired to live like a king in Patagonia.
Good night. Good posting, sleep well, I'll most likely killfile you in the
morning.
--
Dread Pirate Greg
Anonymous Remailer
"David Spain" <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:lrqdnUaIyvJIew_X...@giganews.com...
> Pat Flannery wrote:
>> The crew would find the whole thing very frustrating as Mars slowly
>> approaches...and then just as slowly withdraws again, with the long
>> voyage home again ahead of them
>>
>> Look, but don't touch; the space exploration equivalent of a strip
tease.
>>
>
> Pat,
>
> Here's a good sci-fi angle for you. Say country X mounts a flyby mission.
> Aboard are some 1-way surface probes, some are large enough to carry 1 human
> if stripped of gear. Unknown to mission control, the patriotic/fanatical
> crew decides to choose a volunteer among the group to go. Anyone can withdraw
> from consideration. The rest choose straws. If you think about it, might not
> be that huge a stretch. Think 'Space Cowboys' for example.
>
>
>
> PS: So as a corollary, no person capable 1-way probes to be included on any flybys!
> PPS: Maybe 'Defying Gravity' is getting to me!
Stupid idea. Why would they include a one-way landing capsule if they
don't have the intention of using it?
No government is ever going to allow a one-way mission to Mars. Imagine
that if they did the person on Mars got second thoughts and would be
broadcasting pleas for rescue on a daily basis. That would be extremely
emberrasing for his national government. Eventually they'd have no
choice but to attempt get him back.
Eric Chomko
Or claim a loss of contact and just turn off the switch.
David Spain
> Stupid idea. Why would they include a one-way landing capsule if they
> don't have the intention of using it?
>
Remailer AI still needs work I see. Where you read 'idea' I say 'story'
as in 'fiction' as in an idea made up to entertain.
If you'd actually read my post, you see that I was talking about 1-way
probes not 'capsules'. A 1-way surface probe would be *intended* to be
unmanned, but capable of performing an automated landing soft enough
to preserve whatever surface experiment was intended to be used. If the
'G' load was low enough at landing, and the probe large enough, perhaps a
space-suited human could replace the 'experiment' w/o mission control's
knowledge or consent.
> No government is ever going to allow a one-way mission to Mars. Imagine
> that if they did the person on Mars got second thoughts and would be
> broadcasting pleas for rescue on a daily basis. That would be extremely
> emberrasing for his national government. Eventually they'd have no
> choice but to attempt get him back.
He (or she) would expire long before that could happen. In any improvised
scenario, likely only enough O2 to last a day or two, with comms limited
only to the flyby spacecraft.
No government would 'grant' permission for this, but no government
would be in a position to stop a crew that decided to do it. I suppose
they could arrest the surviving crew on return to Earth and charge them
all with manslaughter, or aiding and abetting a suicide of a national
hero, which many of those being charged also likely volunteered to be
but for the luck of the draw were not chosen.
Sure, like that would happen....
I can't think of any modern society that was puritanical enough not
to make a hero out of the crew mate who chose to be first on Mars for
their country.
Dave
David Spain
Sure! XM Satellite Radio brought to you by our sponsor and infrastructure
provider Russian Doomsday Machines Inc.
OK, don't like that one? How 'bout this one? Alternative universe,
3 Mile Island doesn't happen, Chernobyl doesn't happen, Baker Lake
Canada doesn't happen, Russians continue to use RORSATs with cores ejected
into High Orbits, until there are so many of them you have to mount a mission
to place control rods in orbit alongside all those ejected cores to keep
the whole orbit from going critical! Voyage to the Bottom Of the Sea
(movie version) scenario!
Adm. "Madman" Nelson...
:-)
David Spain
> Sure! XM Satellite Radio brought to you by our sponsor and infrastructure
> provider Russian Doomsday Machines Inc.
>
Imagine a TV commercial.
Dark night, camera solely focuses to show illuminated automobile dashboard.
Cracked windshield, a voice calls out "Honey you ok?"
Then another voice...
"OnStar actviated. Planetary destruct triggered. Launching in 5 seconds...."
;-)
Dave
Derek Lyons
David Spain
> David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> Pat Flannery wrote:
>>> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh sure, that's great.. until you get to the dread "Space Cowboy"
>>>> scenario.
>>> You could picture them actually building something like that with no
>>> stretch of the imagination whatsoever, couldn't you?
>>> The only problem with the whole storyline was that it was supposed to be
>>> in danger of decay from 1,000 miles up...but, of course, if it was in a
>>> Molniya type orbit with the low point passing straight over the US once
>>> every 24 hours at low altitude, that all makes sense, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> Pat
>> Sure! XM Satellite Radio brought to you by our sponsor and infrastructure
>> provider Russian Doomsday Machines Inc.
>>
>
>
> D.
Well, one could certainly ask why bother? <:-P
But the above scenario does cause one pause. Maybe all those old farts
from the 50's and 60's who claimed rock and roll would be the ruin of our
country were right 'on target' after all!
;-)
Dave
Pat Flannery
> morning.
You could have killed him with that rock, you know...
Pat
Pat Flannery
>
> Were you and Pat switched at birth? :) :)
We were both cloned by The Puppet People.