To Mars in a Month!
May 6th, 2012 at 4:49:49 PM
permalink
Funny how fast things can change. I was watching a program not so long ago that said one problem with a manned mission to Mars is the length of time it would take, they were estimating that if you waited for a really perfect time it would take about a year or so, potentially take 3 years to make a round trip or some damn thing [can't quite remember].
Now we are starting to hear they think we might be able to get there in about a month.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17476-ion-engine-could-one-day-power-39day-trips-to-mars.html
The oddity seems to be that the method produces very low speed initially... "energy thrusts of 0-to-60 mph (0-to-97 kph) in four days may seem underwhelming"
http://www.space.com/8579-nasa-spacecraft-breaks-speed-boost-record.html
Now we are starting to hear they think we might be able to get there in about a month.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17476-ion-engine-could-one-day-power-39day-trips-to-mars.html
The oddity seems to be that the method produces very low speed initially... "energy thrusts of 0-to-60 mph (0-to-97 kph) in four days may seem underwhelming"
http://www.space.com/8579-nasa-spacecraft-breaks-speed-boost-record.html
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
May 6th, 2012 at 5:51:12 PM
permalink
The first thing you learn about rocketry, in other words propulsion systems that do not "breathe" air, is that there is (generally) an inverse relationship between efficiency and thrust. As soon as we can overcome this in an economical way space travel will quickly become a more realistic possibility. Ion engines and other forms of electric propulsion are a good start, but in practice are only used for station keeping (keeping objects in a given orbit).
One big issue with just throwing a dozen low propulsion, high efficiency, engines on a space craft is that a good majority of them use very strong electromagnetic forces making them impractical to scale up or use in parallel with each other. In my senior project we found hydrazine (something that's been used in space travel for half a century) to STILL be the most efficient propulsion source.
Edit: By "efficient" I don't mean by math, Hydrazine is simple/cheap/easy to use.
One big issue with just throwing a dozen low propulsion, high efficiency, engines on a space craft is that a good majority of them use very strong electromagnetic forces making them impractical to scale up or use in parallel with each other. In my senior project we found hydrazine (something that's been used in space travel for half a century) to STILL be the most efficient propulsion source.
Edit: By "efficient" I don't mean by math, Hydrazine is simple/cheap/easy to use.
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
May 6th, 2012 at 7:38:58 PM
permalink
Super-Conducting magnets and Atomic Power generally do nox mix due to radiation leakage inherent in the fission pile. I was wondering about "the fuel" in this 3-yr. old article. Gravity propulsion is still the best method, period. Ion propulsion introduces space as the new dumping ground for for fuel, gallium vapor, galinstan vapor, mercury vapor, et al. And not for nothin', but toroidal super-conducting magnets surrounding the holes in the grids will focus the ion stream away from the edges. Room Temperature liquid alloys/elements as suggested above are used.
IMHO matter/anti-matter 4TW even positron-electron anilhilation might be feasible.
IMHO matter/anti-matter 4TW even positron-electron anilhilation might be feasible.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
May 7th, 2012 at 12:55:21 AM
permalink
Quote: ahiromuIon engines and other forms of electric propulsion are a good start, but in practice are only used for station keeping (keeping objects in a given orbit).
the articles suggest this has changed, that ion propulsion is in great current favor for wide usage, unless I missed something
even wikipedia does not seem to be up to date
>>>
PS: to be clear, I got some info from a "Universe" episode which touted the Japanese trip to the asteroid with ion propulsion as an eye-opening record setter. The first article does cite "VASIMR" as the manner in which NASA may be planning to go to Mars now. The title of the article is perhaps misleading
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
May 7th, 2012 at 6:48:01 AM
permalink
Didn't the Pathfinder missions take about 8-9 months? I think the problem is, when you get there, either you have to leave right away, you're stuck there for about 18 months until Earth and Mars get into position again, or the return trip takes longer - something you don't have to worry about with a one-way trip.
All of the talk about (a) using gradual acceleration and (b) using hydrozine reminded me of the old TV series Salvage 1 (the TV-movie that was the pilot was called just Salvage), where somebody got to the moon by gradually accelerating from Earth and then gradually decelerating at the halfway point, and they used hydrozine (well, "monohydrozine") to do it since "normal" fuels would require too much fuel in order to do it.
All of the talk about (a) using gradual acceleration and (b) using hydrozine reminded me of the old TV series Salvage 1 (the TV-movie that was the pilot was called just Salvage), where somebody got to the moon by gradually accelerating from Earth and then gradually decelerating at the halfway point, and they used hydrozine (well, "monohydrozine") to do it since "normal" fuels would require too much fuel in order to do it.
May 7th, 2012 at 1:24:23 PM
permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuyDidn't the Pathfinder missions take about 8-9 months? I think the problem is, when you get there, either you have to leave right away, you're stuck there for about 18 months until Earth and Mars get into position again, or the return trip takes longer - something you don't have to worry about with a one-way trip.
All of the talk about (a) using gradual acceleration and (b) using hydrozine reminded me of the old TV series Salvage 1 (the TV-movie that was the pilot was called just Salvage), where somebody got to the moon by gradually accelerating from Earth and then gradually decelerating at the halfway point, and they used hydrozine (well, "monohydrozine") to do it since "normal" fuels would require too much fuel in order to do it.
Wow, I remember that show. as I recall Andy Griffith was in the lead role. As I recall they were going to the Moon to lay "salvage" claim to all the spacecraft left behind by NASA, and got sued by the government.
More recently, there was a movie with Tommy Lee Jones called, "The Astronaut Farmer" that dealt with similar issues, (but not similar spacecraft propulsion design).
in real life, I think NASA did get a law passed that their stuff will always be their property no matter where it is.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
May 7th, 2012 at 1:35:40 PM
permalink
Quote: Ayecarumbain real life, I think NASA did get a law passed that their stuff will always be their property no matter where it is.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty was ratified by the Senate, so, according to Article VI of the Constitution, it carries the force of Federal law. Article VIII reads:
"A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return."
Of course, if a country that didn't ratify the treaty gets its hands on NASA stuff in space, NASA is going to have a hard time enforcing any rights to it.
May 7th, 2012 at 2:05:21 PM
permalink
Why do you want to go to Mars?
There is plenty to explore in the Solar System, and you can do tons of that exploring
(including Mars) at much less cost by simply tossing humans out of the payload.
We should be sending probes to Europa and Enceladus, for example, to investigate water-
borne possibility of life on those worlds. Now that would be worthwhile exploring...not some
incredibly dangerous, monstrously expensive stunt (how, for example, do you cheaply
protect these "explorers" from all that cosmic radiation?).
There is plenty to explore in the Solar System, and you can do tons of that exploring
(including Mars) at much less cost by simply tossing humans out of the payload.
We should be sending probes to Europa and Enceladus, for example, to investigate water-
borne possibility of life on those worlds. Now that would be worthwhile exploring...not some
incredibly dangerous, monstrously expensive stunt (how, for example, do you cheaply
protect these "explorers" from all that cosmic radiation?).
May 8th, 2012 at 12:03:19 AM
permalink
Quote: RaspberryCheeseBlintzWhy do you want to go to Mars?
Carl Sagan advocated that we become a two planet species. If Earth is hit by a comet or something else enough to wipe out the human population...
Just throwing this out there, not saying I am buying it either. But I am glad when we are exploring space and always disappointed when we cut back.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
May 8th, 2012 at 12:12:16 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitCarl Sagan advocated that we become a two planet species. If Earth is hit by a comet or something else enough to wipe out the human population..
So humanity can be saved from the ashes by Warren Buffet's and Richard Branson's DNA.
May 8th, 2012 at 4:37:27 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitCarl Sagan advocated that we become a two planet species. If Earth is hit by a comet or something else enough to wipe out the human population...
Just throwing this out there, not saying I am buying it either. But I am glad when we are exploring space and always disappointed when we cut back.
I'm glad we "explore space" too.
This, however, is not exploring space. It's an expensive stunt, likely to a) get people killed and b) set back real exploration.
The cost/benefit ratio of manned vs. unmanned space mission is laughable, easily over an order of magnitude at the least by any measure you'd wish
to make save the touchy feely emotionalism of having a couple of feet bounce on the ground for a few weeks.
likely someday it will be quite cheap to zip about the Solar System, but we no where near that day, and fantasies about "preserving the species" with space colonies are just that.
May 8th, 2012 at 4:54:24 PM
permalink
Have you ever been told that your nick name is too long? :)
The forum engine does not handle it very well ...
(and do not think I am just flooding here - this post is necessary to fix the the recent threads list on the font page!)
The forum engine does not handle it very well ...
(and do not think I am just flooding here - this post is necessary to fix the the recent threads list on the font page!)
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
May 8th, 2012 at 7:28:54 PM
permalink
Dr. Strangelove ending for sure, LOL
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
May 9th, 2012 at 11:36:17 AM
permalink
In 1918, it would have taken 46.5 years.
A falling knife has no handle.
May 9th, 2012 at 11:42:19 AM
permalink
Quote: MoscaIn 1918, it would have taken 46.5 years.
note that in those days 120 miles an hour was as fast as could be believed. Automobiles probably had not gone that fast yet.
PS: Pluto undiscovered as well. Thanks for the image.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
May 9th, 2012 at 12:51:01 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitnote that in those days 120 miles an hour was as fast as could be believed. Automobiles probably had not gone that fast yet.
PS: Pluto undiscovered as well. Thanks for the image.
You're welcome, I love that image.
A falling knife has no handle.
May 9th, 2012 at 3:01:09 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitnote that in those days 120 miles an hour was as fast as could be believed. Automobiles probably had not gone that fast yet.
PS: Pluto undiscovered as well. Thanks for the image.
On January 24, 1907 in Ormond Beach, Florida Glenn Curtiss riding a Curtiss V8 40 hp motorcycle reached 136.27 mph. The speed of 200 mph was not broken until 1927.
But in 1918, most people had never been over 40-45 mph.
May 9th, 2012 at 5:15:30 PM
permalink
Quote: MoscaIn 1918, it would have taken 46.5 years.
It is imagery like this that fuels imagination and drives exploration. With the demise of the ISS in a few years, there will be an entire generation that could grow up without an American in space.
I suppose they could contemplate their bellybutton's, or work on re-freezing the polar ice caps, but what will they aspire to as a nation?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
May 9th, 2012 at 5:45:18 PM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaIt is imagery like this that fuels imagination and drives exploration. With the demise of the ISS in a few years, there will be an entire generation that could grow up without an American in space.
Suborbital tourism will be a reality inside two years. They are already talking about the possibility of orbital tourism (note that in February was the 50th anniversary of John Glenn's first orbital flight that circled the planet three times).
If I'm not mistaken, the technical, financial leap to go from suborbital flight to orbital flight is substantially more than the technical requirements to go from orbital flight to lunar orbital flight. I think the fact that it took 7 years in the 1960's was because they wanted to do a dry run for a moon landing.
I am guessing that an orbit of the earth takes 2 hours, and the first tourist craft will probably carry 2 dozen people. The fuel requirement to go long distance in space are minimal compared to entry and re-entry into space. So the tourist craft will probably be capable of being retrofitted to circle the moon.
People are paying $200K apiece for a suborbital flight, so they will presumably pay $5 million for an orbital flight. If there is twenty of them, that is $100 million per craft per orbital flight. There are enough billionaires out there shelling out hundreds of millions for megayachts and aircraft. Someone would be willing to pay $200-$300 million to circle the moon. Just the bragging rights would be worth it.
Guy Laliberté, the Canadian circus billionaire who founded Cirque du Soleil, paid $35m to spend 12 days in space in September 2009.
May 10th, 2012 at 5:24:39 AM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaI suppose they could contemplate their bellybutton's, or work on re-freezing the polar ice caps, but what will they aspire to as a nation?
Winning the Fifth Afghan War?
Then there's Iran... Playing worldwide whack-a-mole is a lot more profitable than space exploration.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
May 10th, 2012 at 9:55:30 AM
permalink
Quote: P90Winning the Fifth Afghan War?
Then there's Iran... Playing worldwide whack-a-mole is a lot more profitable than space exploration.
We already have the ability to return the entire human race back to the Dark Ages. But is there any achievement on Earth that could capture the imagination like a human walking on Mars would? Obama was right on this... Our next goal is Mars.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
May 10th, 2012 at 10:03:17 AM
permalink
Prediction: Chinese first
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
May 10th, 2012 at 10:08:34 AM
permalink
Quote: WongBoPrediction: Chinese first
WongBo, I think you may have planted the seed for the next great long term Wizard of Vegas contest...
I'd love to see what the line would be on North Korea... Where's Jackie Gaughan when you need him?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
May 10th, 2012 at 11:10:38 AM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaWe already have the ability to return the entire human race back to the Dark Ages. But is there any achievement on Earth that could capture the imagination like a human walking on Mars would? Obama was right on this... Our next goal is Mars.
Obama's all hat, no cattle. Everything is promised, little gets done.
While a mission to Mars would be a great stunt, it's not likely to get done in BHO's time and bring his party voters. And if it's done, let's just hope it's done with separately appropriated funding rather than at the expense of real space missions.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
May 10th, 2012 at 1:23:22 PM
permalink
Now THIS is what space exploration should be about:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/05/life-on-europa-io-or-ganymede-new-mission-to-jupiters-moons-.html
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/05/life-on-europa-io-or-ganymede-new-mission-to-jupiters-moons-.html
May 10th, 2012 at 2:50:48 PM
permalink
Quote: RaspberryCheeseBlintzNow THIS is what space exploration should be about:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/05/life-on-europa-io-or-ganymede-new-mission-to-jupiters-moons-.html
It's possible we haven't heard too much about the Japanese mission to the asteroid due to language barriers and such. The wikipedia article fails to say so, but apparently the speed of the mission has been something unthinkable not so long ago. It was "launched on 9 May 2003 and rendezvoused with Itokawa in mid-September 2005"
Compare the 8 years the European mission to a moon of Jupiter will take. Are they using an older propulsion? Granted, Jupiter is further out. Edit: it is also possible there are limits that have to be recognized with ion propulsion.
Roughly, the Japanese mission covered 224 million miles in 29 months, or about 7.7 million miles a month average speed, to put it in an unusual way. At that speed it could go the 483.4 million to Jupiter in about 63 months, or 5 yrs 3 months, but I can imagine the ion propulsion could easily have had the craft still accelerating, and the returns of the acceleration seem to be critical, the opposite of diminishing returns. I am wondering if something double is attainable, 15 million miles a month? 33 months to Jupiter?!
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
May 10th, 2012 at 3:04:34 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitThe wikipedia article fails to say so, but apparently the speed of the mission has been something unthinkable not so long ago. It was "launched on 9 May 2003 and rendezvoused with Itokawa in mid-September 2005"
Compare the 8 years the European mission to a moon of Jupiter will take. Are they using an older propulsion?
Distances in space are not constant and they are not intuitive. Orbital periods affect this variable distance, and space travel frequently involves using other planets' gravity fields to "slingshot" to reach another.
Fuel and even just working mass are precious, you can only carry so much. If you take too much, you can take less payload. If you carry working mass only, you depend on solar radiation to obtain the energy to accelerate it, on top of hotel load. Longer-range missions tend to require more complex trajectories.
The closest distance between Earth and Jupiter is 4 AU, up to 6 AU. The distance to the asteroid belt is a constant ~1.6 AU.
P.S. Also, measuring interplanetary distances in miles is like measuring aircraft speed in horse gallops...
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
May 10th, 2012 at 4:29:22 PM
permalink
@P90 Of course... he {Obama} is the head of the Executive Branch.... not the head of the Legislative Branch... DUUUH.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
May 10th, 2012 at 6:16:21 PM
permalink
Hohmann transfers
It's kind of like learning how to crawl before you can run. The wiki does a good job at explaining its limitations, first and foremost is the fact that nothing in space is ever just a two body problem. Nonetheless, a good place to begin and is the starting point of most if not all interplanetary missions:
- You can speed it up at the cost of more delta-v (Less efficient)
- You can be more efficient by taking advantage of slingshot effects, Lagrange points, and other gravitational cheat codes. Usually used in unmanned missions like Cassini (Venus flybys).
It's kind of like learning how to crawl before you can run. The wiki does a good job at explaining its limitations, first and foremost is the fact that nothing in space is ever just a two body problem. Nonetheless, a good place to begin and is the starting point of most if not all interplanetary missions:
- You can speed it up at the cost of more delta-v (Less efficient)
- You can be more efficient by taking advantage of slingshot effects, Lagrange points, and other gravitational cheat codes. Usually used in unmanned missions like Cassini (Venus flybys).
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
May 13th, 2012 at 6:25:49 PM
permalink
Well I am disappointed that the Space Shuttle program did not
have more longevity, but I am also disappointed that one of the
missions took John Glenn back into space.
What was the scientific purpose of that one again ? Public
relations doesn't count.
have more longevity, but I am also disappointed that one of the
missions took John Glenn back into space.
What was the scientific purpose of that one again ? Public
relations doesn't count.
There's emptiness behind their eyes
There's dust in all their hearts
They just want to steal us all and take us all apart
