These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#41 - 2013-03-26 22:39:26 UTC
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:
We should just blow up mars so people can stop wasting money on this crap Evil


The funny part about this, is that it makes it 10-100 times more cheap in terms of fuel costs Lol
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#42 - 2013-03-26 22:46:34 UTC
Nasa is doing it all wrong.

1) Make giant slingshot on the moon.
2) Launch stuff into deep space for no fuel expenditure.
3) Profit.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Forum Clone 77777
Doomheim
#43 - 2013-03-27 00:36:13 UTC
Does anyone, except for the OP, even care?

I mean, people who are interested would follow it yea?
This is a forum for people playing a game, there is a subforum for non-relevant-to-this-game crap and this is not even it!
Post in the right subforum, its not rocket science! (woops)
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#44 - 2013-03-27 00:55:46 UTC
Moved to "Out of Pod Experience" ---->

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#45 - 2013-03-27 03:17:41 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?


Getting people to Mars is more than just leaving Earth...you have to find a way to a) leave Earth, b) reach Mars, c) land on Mars, d) leave Mars, e) reach Earth, f) land on Earth. Each of those individually is a nightmare of planning, preping, coordinating, and exicuting to say the least.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2013-03-27 05:38:10 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.


Inside a coke can, two hammers smash into a stick of dynamite... the hammers detonate the dynamite, creating so much heat that the hammers not only melt, but literally boil into gas. The now gaseous hammers spray out of the coke can through the pop-top opening, pushing the can off in the other direction.... like that, but replace the dynamite with a super tiny sun.
Domina Trix
McKNOBBLER DRINKING CLAN
#47 - 2013-03-27 05:41:08 UTC
Quote:
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.


I think that is where O'Neill would shout "CARTERRR!!!!!!!!!!" Lol

Two of the defining characteristics of a carebear are wanting other players to play the way the carebear wants and whining on the forums for the game to change when they don't. Yet I see more threads on these forums from gankers than I do miners whining about wanting the game changed to suit them.
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
#48 - 2013-03-27 05:50:29 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.



Because the discretionary budget is a little tight I assume that the first mission to mars will also be a long term sustainability study.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2013-03-27 05:57:35 UTC
let's hope this will be not as "USA landed on Moon"? Lol

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#50 - 2013-03-27 06:01:11 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Getting people to Mars is more than just leaving Earth...you have to find a way to a) leave Earth, b) reach Mars, c) land on Mars, d) leave Mars, e) reach Earth, f) land on Earth. Each of those individually is a nightmare of planning, preping, coordinating, and exicuting to say the least.


Actually, most of that is pretty easy for us given out current technology. we have lots and lots of experience getting stuff off the earth and into orbit.

We have experience assembling things in space. A rocket to Mars would be like the international space station, with a motor and lots and lots of fuel.

Stopping when you get to mars is even pretty easy since you can air brake off it's thin atmosphere and do other tricks with elongated orbits.

Assuming you've brought enough fuel, getting back to earth is pie. And stopping once you get here? again, pie with the earth's atmosphere to orbit through.

The really tricky part is the landing on mars in something big enough, and having enough fuel in it, to get you back into orbit.

My dad is the rocket scientist, but as I recall the numbers, using a chemical rocket to accelerate 1 ton payload to earth escape velocity of 11km.sec, requires 5 tons of propellent. To lift that 5 tons of propellent out of the atmosphere, requires 20 tons of propellent. Add on the weight of the lifting body that hold the propellant, and you're talking 35-40 ton rocket to lift a 1 ton payload.

On Mars, with the lower escape velocity of 5km.sec, lifting that 1 ton payload would require 2.5 tons of propellant, and lifting that 2.5 tons of propellant would require only 6 tons of propellant. However..... landing that... 10 tons of space ship on Mars would require 25 tons of fuel to slow the ship from orbital velocity and overcome the acceleration due to gravity. So, you are back to something the size of the rocket needed to launch the 1 ton from earth.




Again, the moon, with 1/6th the gravity of the earth, an very low escape velocityi, would take less than a ton of fuel to accelerate a ton to orbit, and less than a ton to lift that propellant... then less than that to lower the ship to the moon in the first place.
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#51 - 2013-03-27 08:55:27 UTC
Isn't this the same system as Discovery was using back in the sixties?

Have super secret missions to the moon unearthed TMA-1 or something?
Degren
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2013-03-27 09:15:12 UTC
Anunzi
Solace Corp
#53 - 2013-03-27 09:50:51 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.



LHA Tarawa wrote:


The really tricky part is the landing on mars in something big enough, and having enough fuel in it, to get you back into orbit.


This has already been worked out by a very clever man called Dr Robert Zubrin. I'm at work, so can’t really post links but if you look up 2 projects, Zubrin’s Mars Direct and a joint project by Zubrin and NASA called DRM (design reference mission).

The premise is that the MAV (Mars ascent vehicle) and the habitat are launched and landed on Mars before the Astronauts even leave earth. The MAV uses gases from Mars’ atmosphere mixed with a tiny amount of hydrogen to make its own fuel. So you launch the empty MAV, it lands and fuels its self, when the crew arrives 3-4 years later they have a ready fuelled ship waiting for them on the surface.

Seriously, look up Mars Direct and the DRM. Well worth reading!

"It was the way she said it, Rimmer, to rhyme with scum"
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#54 - 2013-03-27 10:35:47 UTC
People care about internettspaceships as much as they care about real space ships :D

Anunzi: That stuff is beyond cool :D

Jacob: Are you refering to the Orion project?
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#55 - 2013-03-27 10:37:14 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Getting people to Mars is more than just leaving Earth...you have to find a way to a) leave Earth, b) reach Mars, c) land on Mars, d) leave Mars, e) reach Earth, f) land on Earth. Each of those individually is a nightmare of planning, preping, coordinating, and exicuting to say the least.


Actually, most of that is pretty easy for us given out current technology. we have lots and lots of experience getting stuff off the earth and into orbit.

We have experience assembling things in space. A rocket to Mars would be like the international space station, with a motor and lots and lots of fuel.

Stopping when you get to mars is even pretty easy since you can air brake off it's thin atmosphere and do other tricks with elongated orbits.

Assuming you've brought enough fuel, getting back to earth is pie. And stopping once you get here? again, pie with the earth's atmosphere to orbit through.

The really tricky part is the landing on mars in something big enough, and having enough fuel in it, to get you back into orbit.

My dad is the rocket scientist, but as I recall the numbers, using a chemical rocket to accelerate 1 ton payload to earth escape velocity of 11km.sec, requires 5 tons of propellent. To lift that 5 tons of propellent out of the atmosphere, requires 20 tons of propellent. Add on the weight of the lifting body that hold the propellant, and you're talking 35-40 ton rocket to lift a 1 ton payload.

On Mars, with the lower escape velocity of 5km.sec, lifting that 1 ton payload would require 2.5 tons of propellant, and lifting that 2.5 tons of propellant would require only 6 tons of propellant. However..... landing that... 10 tons of space ship on Mars would require 25 tons of fuel to slow the ship from orbital velocity and overcome the acceleration due to gravity. So, you are back to something the size of the rocket needed to launch the 1 ton from earth.




Again, the moon, with 1/6th the gravity of the earth, an very low escape velocityi, would take less than a ton of fuel to accelerate a ton to orbit, and less than a ton to lift that propellant... then less than that to lower the ship to the moon in the first place.


How heavy was the lunar lander?
Anunzi
Solace Corp
#56 - 2013-03-27 10:37:54 UTC
Athena Maldoran wrote:
People care about internettspaceships as much as they care about real space ships :D

Anunzi: That stuff is beyond cool :D

Jacob: Are you refering to the Orion project?



It is indeed Sir :)

There is an awesome documentary floating about on the internet about it, I'll see if i can find it tonight and link it here. Worth watching.

"It was the way she said it, Rimmer, to rhyme with scum"
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#57 - 2013-03-27 19:04:56 UTC
Athena Maldoran wrote:
Jacob: Are you refering to the Orion project?

I'm afraid I'm referring to Clark and the mission (at the turn of the millenium) to Saturn.

Wikipedia reference
Anunzi
Solace Corp
#58 - 2013-03-27 20:04:52 UTC


As promised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRiIn3gSGGM

"It was the way she said it, Rimmer, to rhyme with scum"
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#59 - 2013-03-28 03:15:00 UTC
ooh pulse fusion activation drive system.
Now why wont people want this built?
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#60 - 2013-03-28 06:31:24 UTC
Anybody that thinks human travel to Mars isn't possible yet is a naive simpleton.


The fastest known manned airplane (not rocket) is the SR-71 blackbird, it was made 50 years ago. Back then If you told anybody such a craft existed, they would call you crazy and conspiracy theorist.

Makes you wonder what they are keeping secret now. Only to be declassified in 50 years from now when its beyond obsolete.