These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

We're going to Mars, it takes just 30 days!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Iosue
League of Gentlemen
The Initiative.
#21 - 2013-03-26 19:00:30 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
The largest issue with putting humans on mars, then bringing them back, is not the travel between Earth and Mars. It is getting the people back off of Mars back into space.

The moon has 16% the gravity of Earth (2.4km/sec escape velocity) and virtually no atmosphere, so it took relatively little thrust to lift the lander module back into orbit.

Mars has 38% earth's gravity (5km/sec escape velocity), and it does have an atmosphere (even if minuscule when compared to Earth).

Unless we can figure out how to land, fuel, and launch a pretty significant rocket ship from Mars, then anyone that goes is going to have a heck-a time getting back off of Mars.



i don't follow. if we've mastered getting stuff off earth, which has higher gravity that mars, what's the problem with getting stuff off mars?
Spondoo Lix
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-03-26 19:03:44 UTC
It means they squeeze the rocket fuel in a vice until a nuclear reaction occurs and the whole apparatus just pumps out energy.
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#23 - 2013-03-26 19:03:45 UTC
I only know, we won't know before we tried!
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2013-03-26 19:24:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
LHA Tarawa wrote:
The largest issue with putting humans on mars, then bringing them back, is not the travel between Earth and Mars. It is getting the people back off of Mars back into space.

The moon has 16% the gravity of Earth (2.4km/sec escape velocity) and virtually no atmosphere, so it took relatively little thrust to lift the lander module back into orbit.

Mars has 38% earth's gravity (5km/sec escape velocity), and it does have an atmosphere (even if minuscule when compared to Earth).

Unless we can figure out how to land, fuel, and launch a pretty significant rocket ship from Mars, then anyone that goes is going to have a heck-a time getting back off of Mars.



Ok let me simplify this concept for you. Earth. Small ship from Earth rendezvous with big ship in orbit. Big ship go boom boom to Mar. Mars. Small ship undocks. Small ship lands on Mars. Astronauts do stuff. Small ship launches from Mars. Small ship rendezvous with big ship. Big ship go boom boom back to Earth.

We've done this before, about 40yrs ago. Assuming same weight for the M.E.M. as the L.E.M. then they only need to provide slightly more than 22% more thrust to overcome the additional gravity + aerodynamic drag. Chances are, though, the M.E.M. would need to be significantly more robust. But then, they could use aerodynamic forces to their advantage lifting off the surface. A runway would not necessarily be required utilizing VTOL in the low gravity environment. With the advances in computer controlled flight, VTOL in low gravity is trivial.

Don't ban me, bro!
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#25 - 2013-03-26 19:31:12 UTC
Pirate Yarr, we're going to mars!!! Hoist the sails!!!
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#26 - 2013-03-26 19:58:04 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
The largest issue with putting humans on mars, then bringing them back, is not the travel between Earth and Mars. It is getting the people back off of Mars back into space.

The moon has 16% the gravity of Earth (2.4km/sec escape velocity) and virtually no atmosphere, so it took relatively little thrust to lift the lander module back into orbit.

Mars has 38% earth's gravity (5km/sec escape velocity), and it does have an atmosphere (even if minuscule when compared to Earth).

Unless we can figure out how to land, fuel, and launch a pretty significant rocket ship from Mars, then anyone that goes is going to have a heck-a time getting back off of Mars.



Don't know why you're quoting escape velocities, us humans design craft that know how to accelerate.

Also, colonies.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
Josef Djugashvilis
#27 - 2013-03-26 20:10:50 UTC
Athena Maldoran wrote:
Nasa's new fusion drive!!


Should be fun if the ship is unfortunate to enough do a 'Challenger' shortly after take-off.

This is not a signature.
KuroVolt
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2013-03-26 20:13:15 UTC
This better not be an april fools joke!

BoBwins Law: As a discussion/war between two large nullsec entities grows longer, the probability of one comparing the other to BoB aproaches near certainty.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2013-03-26 20:14:50 UTC
It's not even done yet ...
TharOkha
0asis Group
#30 - 2013-03-26 20:52:40 UTC
Iosue wrote:
NASA Guy wrote:
Several low-mass, magnetically-driven metal liners are inductively driven to converge radially and axially and form a thick blanket surrounding the target plasmoid and compress the plasmoid to fusion conditions. Virtually all of the radiant, neutron and particle energy from the plasma is absorbed by the encapsulating, metal blanket thereby isolating the spacecraft from the fusion process and eliminating the need for large radiator mass. This energy, in addition to the intense Ohmic heating at peak magnetic field compression, is adequate to vaporize and ionize the metal blanket.


can someone explain this part me? i need to work on my space nerd-fu.


You need to train nuclear and plasma physics to LVL-5

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
Iosue
League of Gentlemen
The Initiative.
#31 - 2013-03-26 20:55:43 UTC
apparently that trip to mars can be made while cloaky using thoughts to control the spaceship. EVE IS REAL GODDAMIT!!!!!
Zeko Rena
ENCOM Industries
#32 - 2013-03-26 20:59:36 UTC
Iosue wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
The largest issue with putting humans on mars, then bringing them back, is not the travel between Earth and Mars. It is getting the people back off of Mars back into space.

The moon has 16% the gravity of Earth (2.4km/sec escape velocity) and virtually no atmosphere, so it took relatively little thrust to lift the lander module back into orbit.

Mars has 38% earth's gravity (5km/sec escape velocity), and it does have an atmosphere (even if minuscule when compared to Earth).

Unless we can figure out how to land, fuel, and launch a pretty significant rocket ship from Mars, then anyone that goes is going to have a heck-a time getting back off of Mars.



i don't follow. if we've mastered getting stuff off earth, which has higher gravity that mars, what's the problem with getting stuff off mars?


Not sure if you have noticed, but usually when a ship is launched from Earth it carries a lot of fuel with it, this fuel is used as the ship is launched from earth, then the containers that carry this fuel drop off and fall back to earth.

I think what he is trying to point out is that you would need to carry a lot more extra fuel for the return trip and that would add a lot of weight to the craft.

(Hopefully this posts, the first time I tried the forum ate it)
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
#33 - 2013-03-26 21:06:50 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
The largest issue with putting humans on mars, then bringing them back, is not the travel between Earth and Mars. It is getting the people back off of Mars back into space.

The moon has 16% the gravity of Earth (2.4km/sec escape velocity) and virtually no atmosphere, so it took relatively little thrust to lift the lander module back into orbit.

Mars has 38% earth's gravity (5km/sec escape velocity), and it does have an atmosphere (even if minuscule when compared to Earth).

Unless we can figure out how to land, fuel, and launch a pretty significant rocket ship from Mars, then anyone that goes is going to have a heck-a time getting back off of Mars.



That's where we will attempt to build the first orbital elevator....Lol

Signature removed - CCP Eterne
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-03-26 21:11:44 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
Ok let me simplify this concept for you. Earth. Small ship from Earth rendezvous with big ship in orbit.


And how did you get the big ship into orbit? :)

Our biggest problem isn't getting stuff from planet to planet - if all else fails, we can always strap some nukes on our backs.

Our biggest problem is getting stuff from planets to orbit. 22% extra thrust doesn't sound much, but that's 22% we need to store somewhere, 22% extra fuel in addition to the biggest rocket ever built that has to be not just landed on Mars safely, but also brought from Earth to orbit in the first place - each and every time you want to go there. Last time we did it, we did a couple of trips and then stopped, because it simply wasn't worth the money. If we do this again, we'd be doing it for prestige and a couple of rocks at best - if we're in it for the long haul, we desperately need a system that will efficiently bring stuff into orbit. Solve that and the space colonization may well be on its way.
TheTravler
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2013-03-26 21:48:13 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
Ok let me simplify this concept for you. Earth. Small ship from Earth rendezvous with big ship in orbit.


And how did you get the big ship into orbit? :)

Our biggest problem isn't getting stuff from planet to planet - if all else fails, we can always strap some nukes on our backs.

Our biggest problem is getting stuff from planets to orbit. 22% extra thrust doesn't sound much, but that's 22% we need to store somewhere, 22% extra fuel in addition to the biggest rocket ever built that has to be not just landed on Mars safely, but also brought from Earth to orbit in the first place - each and every time you want to go there. Last time we did it, we did a couple of trips and then stopped, because it simply wasn't worth the money. If we do this again, we'd be doing it for prestige and a couple of rocks at best - if we're in it for the long haul, we desperately need a system that will efficiently bring stuff into orbit. Solve that and the space colonization may well be on its way.

You send it up first and dock it with the ISS. How hard is this to understand?
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2013-03-26 22:13:34 UTC
TheTravler wrote:
You send it up first and dock it with the ISS. How hard is this to understand?


The ISS is definitely built for storing rocket fuel in significant quantities, mhm.

Dodixie > Hek
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#37 - 2013-03-26 22:25:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Athena Maldoran
Here's a video explaining the whole thing for those that are confused. Basicly we are very close to beeing able to travel free within our solarsystem.

Nasa video explaining stuff..

"A round-trip human expedition to Mars, using current technology, would take two to three years. On such missions, astronauts would lose both muscle and bone mass, and would be exposed to large doses of cosmic rays and solar energetic particles. The cargo required for such a mission would require 9 launches of the largest class rocket for a manned Mars mission. Dr John Slough's team of researchers at the University of Washington and MSNW, believe they have a unique solution to this problem by using nuclear fusion. The high energy density of fusion fuel means that such a rocket could reduce the trip time to 30 days, while requiring only a single rocket launch per Mars-bound spacecraft.

He was interviewed on his proposal by Jason Ross at the Fall 2012 NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) symposium, held Nov. 14-15, 2012 in Hampton, Virginia. NIAC examines early stage concepts that may lead to advanced and innovative space technologies critical for NASA missions in the next 10 to 100 years."
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#38 - 2013-03-26 22:29:51 UTC
ElQuirko wrote:
TheTravler wrote:
You send it up first and dock it with the ISS. How hard is this to understand?


The ISS is definitely built for storing rocket fuel in significant quantities, mhm.


Its a prototype for modular POS.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#39 - 2013-03-26 22:30:12 UTC
I saw one article where it was proposed that the Mars Ascent vehicle be fueled with CO2. It would be heated by an on-board nuclear reactor to power the rocket engine. The CO2 comes from the Martin atmosphere. The article said that it would only take a few hours to compress and liquify sufficient CO2 to fill the tanks of the Mars Ascent vehicle. The method is:

A turbo-compressor compresses the CO2.
Half the compressed gas is cooled to Mars ambient temperatures, sufficient to liquify the high pressure gas.
The other half is run through the reactor and heated.
Its then expanded through a turbine. The turbine power runs the compressor and is used to generate electricity to help run everything.

When its time to take off, liquid CO2 is taken from the storage tank, pumped through the reactor and expelled through a nozzle.

Now another point: They have yet to get a fusion reaction. Their compression method is inherently unstable. So far every time someone tries the method they describe it works fine at compressing gas at low power. The instabilities have not grown big enough to interfere. But as soon as they raise the power sufficiently to get fusion the instabilities grow, the plasma finds a way out, and the needed pressures and temperatures are not achieved.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#40 - 2013-03-26 22:33:20 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
I saw one article where it was proposed that the Mars Ascent vehicle be fueled with CO2. It would be heated by an on-board nuclear reactor to power the rocket engine. The CO2 comes from the Martin atmosphere. The article said that it would only take a few hours to compress and liquify sufficient CO2 to fill the tanks of the Mars Ascent vehicle. The method is:

A turbo-compressor compresses the CO2.
Half the compressed gas is cooled to Mars ambient temperatures, sufficient to liquify the high pressure gas.
The other half is run through the reactor and heated.
Its then expanded through a turbine. The turbine power runs the compressor and is used to generate electricity to help run everything.

When its time to take off, liquid CO2 is taken from the storage tank, pumped through the reactor and expelled through a nozzle.

Now another point: They have yet to get a fusion reaction. Their compression method is inherently unstable. So far every time someone tries the method they describe it works fine at compressing gas at low power. The instabilities have not grown big enough to interfere. But as soon as they raise the power sufficiently to get fusion the instabilities grow, the plasma finds a way out, and the needed pressures and temperatures are not achieved.


Look at post 37 for more detailed information and a small video.