These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Evelyn Meiyi
Corvidae Trading and Holding
#61 - 2013-03-28 06:43:49 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.



Basically, what they're saying is that they manipulate the metal liners to 'squeeze' the plasmoid material into critical mass; the metal blanket surrounding the engine core insulates the rest of the ship from radiation and particle decay energies, which means that the resultant heat will not need to be shunted to a radiator (and fusion produces an absolute crapload of heat; see our sun for an example).

With the magnetic field operating at peak efficiency, the plasmoid is compressed enough that the tremendous heat generated will easily ionize the metal blanket, thus providing the 'kick' that gets the engine going.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#62 - 2013-03-28 07:27:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
TheTravler wrote:
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?


I don't think you understand. Leaving aside that you can't dock that to ISS for a pile of reasons, everything we send into orbit and beyond requires a certain amount of energy to get there.

First of all, the flight plan: we need to use the Hohmann transfer orbit, because it has by far the lowest fuel requirement. Unfortunately, Hohmann requires planets to be in a certain position relative to eachother, meaning a mission to Mars would take about 3 years to complete and the astronauts would have to wait 1.5 years on Mars for planets to get into optimal positions again. Should we want to speed this up to 1.5 years total mission length, the fuel requirements would rise 10x.

We also need food and air for our astronauts, facilities, a place to exercise to strengthen the muscles, larger lander and take off craft, protection from long term radiation and of course the fuel not just to carry all this, but to actually get it into orbit.

Now, the entire Apollo spacecraft weighted about 45 tons (with 15 tons for the lander), while a proposed Mars mission Spacecraft would weight at least 400 tons for the 3 year mission. In total, this would require roughly 4 launches of the largest rockets ever built (Saturn V or Energia) or roughly 8 launches of the SpaceX's Falcon Heavy (the most cost efficient heavy rocket at the moment) just to get it all into LEO. Just the total cost of a single launch would easily surpass the total cost of Apollo Program, complete with development of the Saturn V rocket. Funny enough, the cost of development and launch would actually be lower than the total price paid for the Space Shuttle program - thankfully that mess of a program is closed down no, so NASA can refocus to new horizons and leave LEO launches to private companies.

Just a side note: Saturn V and Space Shuttle's launch of into LEO costed approximately $10.000/kg, SpaceX's Falcon Heavy will drop to about a fifth, while projected space elevator costs could drop this as low as $220/kg. So we're slowly getting there, if we actually get a space elevator up and running, they can launch me into space for a bargain price of one small car :D
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#63 - 2013-03-28 07:49:55 UTC
Moon base is required, unless you watched Apollo 18. Shocked

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#64 - 2013-03-28 12:27:50 UTC
So basically we need to make a bigger and better base in space around earth.. Anyone remember "Lost in space" with Joey from friends?
Anunzi
Solace Corp
#65 - 2013-03-28 12:44:30 UTC
Athena Maldoran wrote:
So basically we need to make a bigger and better base in space around earth.. Anyone remember "Lost in space" with Joey from friends?



Well thats the point of Mars Direct or the DRM. We dont need to do anything of the sort! All the technology we need, we already have.


The only thing stopping it from happening is politics. NASA/ESA/JAXA/RUScosmos could have done this 15-20 years ago had the political will been there.

"It was the way she said it, Rimmer, to rhyme with scum"
Black Cadelanne
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2013-03-28 14:19:19 UTC
So i have to build my own frig now. Anybody wanna help me? Im stuck at the flux-compensator!

Ahh wrong technology, sorry.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#67 - 2013-03-28 14:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Anunzi wrote:
Athena Maldoran wrote:
So basically we need to make a bigger and better base in space around earth.. Anyone remember "Lost in space" with Joey from friends?



Well thats the point of Mars Direct or the DRM. We dont need to do anything of the sort! All the technology we need, we already have.


The only thing stopping it from happening is politics. NASA/ESA/JAXA/RUScosmos could have done this 15-20 years ago had the political will been there.

We just need a further injection of what spurs political will the most. Fear.
The air burst of the meteor in Russia has already sparked a great deal of pressure to focus on our space exploration programs again... one or two more events like that and we should be cruising along at Kennedy Administration speeds in no time. Smile

(Assuming we survive them.)

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Anunzi
Solace Corp
#68 - 2013-03-28 15:01:47 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

We just need a further injection of what spurs political will the most. Fear.
The air burst of the meteor in Russia has already sparked a great deal of pressure to focus on our space exploration programs again... one or two more events like that and we should be cruising along at Kennedy Administration speeds in no time. Smile

(Assuming we survive them.)


Indeed.

It’s a sad fact the there has been more money spent on movies about ELE’s (extinction level events) than there has been on funding observatories and people to actually look for the kind of asteroids that could wipe us all off the face of the planet.

The says a lot about us as a species I think.

"It was the way she said it, Rimmer, to rhyme with scum"
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2013-03-28 15:51:29 UTC
Athena Maldoran wrote:
How heavy was the lunar lander?


It's "earth weight" was 32,000 lbs. 22K lbs for the descent stage, of which 18Klbs was fuel. The ascent stage was only "earth weight" 10,000 lbs, with 5K lbs of that being fuel.

Again, with no atmosphere and an escape velocity of only 1.8 km/sec, your fuel, weight ratios can be pretty close. 22K lbs of fuel to lower 32K lbs to the moon. 5K lbs of fuel to lift 5K payload back to orbit.


Mars has about 2.5x the gravity of the moon. So, to lift the same 5k lb ascent vehicle would be 12.5K lbs fuel. The descent vehicle then needs to slow 17.5K lbs rather than 10K, so 22klbs * 1.75 * 2.5 = 100K lbs of fuel.

But that is a simplified case assuming the rocket motors, fuel storage tanks, etc needed to produce 6K lbs of thrust (needs to be greater than 32K LIM * .16 gravity = 5K lbs of gravitational force on the moon) would be the same as the weight of motors that need to produce 80K lbs of force (150K lb LIM * .40 gravity).

So, in reality, it would be much worse than the 5x as much fuel in the mars descent than the lunar descent.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2013-03-28 16:04:34 UTC
Since the '80s, when we decided that the economy exists to make a few people insanely rich, by allowing everyone else to bury themselves in debt, there just hasn't been the money available for stuff like this.

When we remember why trade imbalances are bad, not good, there may again be money available for stuff like this.
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#71 - 2013-03-28 19:09:44 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.


Have your dad explain why escape velocity has nothing to do with anything you described above. That term gets abused and mistreated harder than a rented mule.

I do agree that "the bigger the payload, the more fuel you need, and the more fuel you carry, the more fuel you need," creates a nasty cycle where eventually you're bringing along more fuel just to propel the fuel you're carrying, the definition of inefficiency.

So again, the solution is colonies.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#72 - 2013-03-28 19:26:22 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
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.


Yeah its existence was a well-kept secret for decades

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#73 - 2013-03-29 14:16:17 UTC
When will CCP send its first minmatar probe to Mars?
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2013-03-29 14:37:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
TheTravler wrote:
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
[quote=Mr Kidd]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? :)


I don't think you understand. Leaving aside that you can't dock that to ISS for a pile of reasons, everything we send into orbit and beyond requires a certain amount of energy to get there.

First of all, the flight plan: we need to use the Hohmann transfer orbit, because it has by far the lowest fuel requirement


How does one get a big ship into orbit? It doesn't. You bring it up in modular pieces exactly how the ISS was built. At a minimum a orbital gantry would need to be built to house/align the pieces for assembly but, I don't see that being an obstacle.

As to the Hohmann transfer orbit, the implication of a fusion drive ship is direct point to point flight. At least, that's what I got out of the linked article though it did not explicitly state such. It did mention less propellent and shorter flight times. I could be wrong. It may still be required but I suspect less paramount.

It's a moot point right now anyway. We can't even sustain a fusion reaction for more than fractions of a second.

If you're interested in learning more about the Hohmann transfer I highly suggest taking a look at this: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/ It's actually quite fun.

Don't ban me, bro!
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#75 - 2013-03-29 15:28:59 UTC
I remember the SR-71 not being so much a secret of its own, but its top speed certainly was.
Some guy> I just set a new airspeed record!
USAF-SR71 Team> We just beat it, again.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
ISD Cura Ursus
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#76 - 2013-03-29 16:04:18 UTC
Thread moved to Out of the Pod Experience.

ISD Cura Ursus

Lieutenant Commander

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Solhild
Doomheim
#77 - 2013-03-29 21:02:23 UTC
Just scanned this thread.
The technology seems fairly straightforward?

An ion thrust engine that uses ridiculously powerful lasers to heat a continuous feed of metal foil rings which are destroyed in a 'continuous' fusion reaction. The resulting energy is contained and directed by powerful magnets to provide thrust.

cool Cool