I wonder how the team will deal with sub zero temperatures and slushy pitches.
Astronomy & Space Exploration
- Thread starter MrMarcello
- Start date
Space may be the final frontier but it's made in a hollywood basement.
Well if you only "have" to stay on Mars for around 2 years, it's not so bad. Not so different than being in the Army or Navy, or aboard an oil platform.
I'm sure they would let you take a laptop and a controller too. Give you a real chance to catch up on the backlog of steam games we all have. Although I don't think there is much down time aboard the ISS at the moment, and it would likely be similar in mars.
Nothing to say you can't bring women either. Just keep on the birth control.
Aldrin recommends using three cyclers, (named Armstrong, Aldrin and Conrad) to send people to earth in the 30s. Although I think his idea was criticised as being rather extravagant.
I think they should build up the Earth-Mars ships in the same way they built up the ISS: Slowly over time. It would be pretty small at first, being launched from a single rocket, and being just big enough to take a crew to Mars (and back if required). But once it is passing Earth again, we send a second ship as big as the first to match velocities and dock with it, adding a n
Cobain can you hear the spheres, singing songs off station to station (I dont get it)
This is Purdue university combining Aldrins idea with their own. I'm posting this because it's fairly detailed, although I don't personally like their ideas.
Right from the start, they want three Moon bases. Why? I totally get why you want a moon base to test the technology you are going to use to get to Mars, but it seems like a huge waste.
They also want to use the Moon to refuel the rockets to go to Mars. Why? That's just a huge waste of time and delta v, not to mention adding complexity. If you want to go to Mars, go to Mars. Don't go to the Moon first. It's not on the way.
They then want to go to Phobos before going to Mars. Why? It's less hospitable to human life, and although it's a lot easier to get from the Phobos surface to Phobos orbit than it is to get from the Mars surface to mars orbit, you then have to get from Phobos orbit to Mars orbit which will probably require more delta v than just landing on Mars.
I'm not sure about their choice of cycle either. I think they are using a 2 synodic cycle when an aldrin cycle (1 synodic cycle) would work, though, but it's hard to know what would be best. Also, at least at the start, rather than use lots of little capsules I'd probably recommend just launching a vehicle that get the crew to and from Mars safely as a single rocket (in tight conditions), and try to get that to dock with the Cycler. That way if it can't dock, then you haven't lost the crew, they just spend 2 years floating back to Earth in something the size of what was used in the Apollo missions.
Last edited:
This is how I would do it with plenty of redundancy.
We need a single rocket with two habitable sections; the Inter-Planetary Stage and the Lander. The Lander is a the part that will land on Earth and Mars, but is capable of being refuelled on Mars and getting back into Mars obit to redock with the Inter-Planetary Stage. The Inter-Plantary Stage has barebones requirements needed to survive a 2 year trip in space (food, water), but lacks any luxury.
We are also going to use two Cyclers in single synodial Aldrin Cycles. An "outbound" one which has a short transit time from Earth to Mars (but a long transit time from Mars to Earth) and an "inbound" one which has a short transit time from Mars to Earth (but a long transit time from Earth to Mars). These have much more luxury to help survive a long space mission. Basically an ISS.
We launch from Earth with using a single rocket system, something approximately the size of the Apollo missions. This would have the 2 main habitable parts; the Inter-Planetary Stage and the Lander. If something goes wrong at launch, you use a launch escape system to get the crew back safely (the dragon just powers itself away using the propulsive landing system in the dragon capsule). (Redundancy 1)
You then boost into a matched trajectory to perform a hyperbolic rendezvous with the outbound Cycler. If something goes wrong trying to dock with the Cycler, or you miss the Cycler completely your crew just spend 2 years in space before returning to earth using the free return trajectory. This would not be a pleasant 2 years spent in space, but the crew would survive. (Redundancy 2)
When you get to Mars, you undock your ship from the Cycler, and reduce your speed to get into Mars orbit. You then undock the lander from the Inter-Plantary stage and try to land on Mars. This I would say is the FIRST BIG RISK. Considering how many mars rovers we've lost trying to EDL, this should be considered second most dangerous part of the mission. But if SpaceX can master propulsive landing with the dragon capsule on earth, then I think we've got a great chance. (Much better than using parachutes in 1% atmosphere).
We refuel the Lander, do some science, and then wait for nearly two years before the inbound Cycler comes to pick us up. We get back in the Lander take off from Mars and dock with the Inter-Planetary Stage. This is the SECOND BIG RISK. We have never taken off from a foreign planet before. I'm saying that we are going to use the same Lander to descend onto Mars as we are to ascend back into orbit, but in reality we'd probably have to use a different Mars Decent Vehicle and a Mars Ascent Vehicle like on the Martian.
Once in the Inter-Planetary Stage, we again boost into a matched trajectory to perform a hyperbolic rendezvous with the inbound Cycler. If we fail to dock this time, the crew only has to spend 5 months in the Inter-Plantary stage rather than 2 years. And again, the crew would survive (Redundancy 3)
Once back at earth, we again undock from the Cycler, and undock from the interplanetary stage and land back on Earth.
In reality it would be more complicated. Maybe you'd keep the interplanetary stage in space all the time as well, rather than send up them with each rocket.
We need a single rocket with two habitable sections; the Inter-Planetary Stage and the Lander. The Lander is a the part that will land on Earth and Mars, but is capable of being refuelled on Mars and getting back into Mars obit to redock with the Inter-Planetary Stage. The Inter-Plantary Stage has barebones requirements needed to survive a 2 year trip in space (food, water), but lacks any luxury.
We are also going to use two Cyclers in single synodial Aldrin Cycles. An "outbound" one which has a short transit time from Earth to Mars (but a long transit time from Mars to Earth) and an "inbound" one which has a short transit time from Mars to Earth (but a long transit time from Earth to Mars). These have much more luxury to help survive a long space mission. Basically an ISS.
We launch from Earth with using a single rocket system, something approximately the size of the Apollo missions. This would have the 2 main habitable parts; the Inter-Planetary Stage and the Lander. If something goes wrong at launch, you use a launch escape system to get the crew back safely (the dragon just powers itself away using the propulsive landing system in the dragon capsule). (Redundancy 1)
You then boost into a matched trajectory to perform a hyperbolic rendezvous with the outbound Cycler. If something goes wrong trying to dock with the Cycler, or you miss the Cycler completely your crew just spend 2 years in space before returning to earth using the free return trajectory. This would not be a pleasant 2 years spent in space, but the crew would survive. (Redundancy 2)
When you get to Mars, you undock your ship from the Cycler, and reduce your speed to get into Mars orbit. You then undock the lander from the Inter-Plantary stage and try to land on Mars. This I would say is the FIRST BIG RISK. Considering how many mars rovers we've lost trying to EDL, this should be considered second most dangerous part of the mission. But if SpaceX can master propulsive landing with the dragon capsule on earth, then I think we've got a great chance. (Much better than using parachutes in 1% atmosphere).
We refuel the Lander, do some science, and then wait for nearly two years before the inbound Cycler comes to pick us up. We get back in the Lander take off from Mars and dock with the Inter-Planetary Stage. This is the SECOND BIG RISK. We have never taken off from a foreign planet before. I'm saying that we are going to use the same Lander to descend onto Mars as we are to ascend back into orbit, but in reality we'd probably have to use a different Mars Decent Vehicle and a Mars Ascent Vehicle like on the Martian.
Once in the Inter-Planetary Stage, we again boost into a matched trajectory to perform a hyperbolic rendezvous with the inbound Cycler. If we fail to dock this time, the crew only has to spend 5 months in the Inter-Plantary stage rather than 2 years. And again, the crew would survive (Redundancy 3)
Once back at earth, we again undock from the Cycler, and undock from the interplanetary stage and land back on Earth.
In reality it would be more complicated. Maybe you'd keep the interplanetary stage in space all the time as well, rather than send up them with each rocket.
Threadban for @BringNaniBack please, seriously. I come to this thread for the latest astronomical science, don't let it descend into a conspiracy thread.
If you want a NASA conspiracy thread, go and make one.
We'll finally get an answer to that age old question at least - can Zlatan do it on a cold
2nded. Debate whatever, but don't derail this thread with that nonsense. Go make a club with KingEric or summat.
I think the best way would building the ship on our orbit because is closer and would have more supplies and the fact could be used as a station as well
That's what we need
Very interesting, rc. So the idea of the Cyclers is to enable the astronauts to travel first class? If they miss the connection, they make the same trip in third? Is a landing on Mars impossible if they fail to rendevous with the Cycler on the outbound journey?
I'd imagine having an astronaut at the controls greatly reduces the risk of landing. A human being should be able to recognize a large rock when he sees it.
Yeah, basically.
That's what we need
The similarities between the Hermes and a Cycler are interesting.
Hermes with it's continuous thrust ION engine reached Mars in 124 days. An Aldrin Cycler would do it in 146.
But the Hermes can actually enters Mars orbit so that's a huge advantage.
Chill guys, it was just some lyrics from the song Californication by the Red Hot Chili Peppers which may or may not know. Heard it the other day and couldn't get it out of my head. I will leave the conspiracy hints out of this thread from now on.
This a RHCP lyric too?
You've got form in other threads, it's not like I'm jumping to a ridiculous conclusion here. Start a NASA conspiracy thread, you'd probably get people in here to engage in it. But I'll thank you very much for not putting it here.
I'm not at the tin foil level of really fully claiming NASA conspiracies or Flat Earth etc just yet. Maybe in the future
I think I saw the ISS passing by, I checked my nasa app and said would pass by my area at 10:57pm coming from NW going to NE (4 minutes window) so at 10:59pm I saw a star moving from NW to NE no blinking lights like the airplanes and crossed the sky too fast for an airplane.
Reading up and learning more about the cyclers it seems that they aren't as useful as I hoped.
The ideal cycler would seem to be one that goes from Earth to Mars in 6 months or less, then returns to Earth within a few years, in case a mission critical event has occurred. All at low delta v costs. It can then have a long period of rest before the cycle starts again.
One potential cycler is the S1L1 cycler, which almost qualifies.
https://engineering.purdue.edu/peop...isofaClassofEarth--MarsCyclerTrajectories.pdf
4.03 km/s to get on the cycle, 115 days to mars (4 months), if a mission critical event happens the return time is 934 days to get back home, and then you need 4.61 km/s to get off the ride again.
For comparison, a free return trajectory for Earth Mars comes in about 3.34 km/s
- An Aldrin Cycler (1 synodic period - 26 months) has a delta v requirement (to taxi to and from that cycle) of approximately 5 times that of a normal efficient transfer. You would therefore have to save an awful lot of mass to make it worth while. It's certainly possible if you managed to make a human-survivable closed loop (turning human waste into food via potatoes), but we are a long way from doing that even on the ISS at the moment.
- Other cyclers have much lower delta v costs - comparable with those of an efficient hohmann transfer. However, I wouldn't recommend using them unless they past the earth again on a near-free return trajectory
The ideal cycler would seem to be one that goes from Earth to Mars in 6 months or less, then returns to Earth within a few years, in case a mission critical event has occurred. All at low delta v costs. It can then have a long period of rest before the cycle starts again.
One potential cycler is the S1L1 cycler, which almost qualifies.
https://engineering.purdue.edu/peop...isofaClassofEarth--MarsCyclerTrajectories.pdf
4.03 km/s to get on the cycle, 115 days to mars (4 months), if a mission critical event happens the return time is 934 days to get back home, and then you need 4.61 km/s to get off the ride again.
For comparison, a free return trajectory for Earth Mars comes in about 3.34 km/s
How fast Mars travels? So when we leave earth we use our gravity as a slingshot but can the space craft travel faster than a planet in case they miss the trajectory and they need to catch up the red planet?Reading up and learning more about the cyclers it seems that they aren't as useful as I hoped.
However, there might be a cycler with those requirements that I haven't seen yet. You can get cyclers that instead of going Earth-Mars-Earth-Mars and so on, go Earth-Mars-Mars-Earth-Earth-Earth-Mars, etc.
- An Aldrin Cycler (1 synodic period - 26 months) has a delta v requirement (to taxi to and from that cycle) of approximately 5 times that of a normal efficient transfer. You would therefore have to save an awful lot of mass to make it worth while. It's certainly possible if you managed to make a human-survivable closed loop (turning human waste into food via potatoes), but we are a long way from doing that even on the ISS at the moment.
- Other cyclers have much lower delta v costs - comparable with those of an efficient hohmann transfer. However, I wouldn't recommend using them unless they past the earth again on a near-free return trajectory
The ideal cycler would seem to be one that goes from Earth to Mars in 6 months or less, then returns to Earth within a few years, in case a mission critical event has occurred. All at low delta v costs. It can then have a long period of rest before the cycle starts again.
One potential cycler is the S1L1 cycler, which almost qualifies.
https://engineering.purdue.edu/peop...isofaClassofEarth--MarsCyclerTrajectories.pdf
4.03 km/s to get on the cycle, 115 days to mars (4 months), if a mission critical event happens the return time is 934 days to get back home, and then you need 4.61 km/s to get off the ride again.
For comparison, a free return trajectory for Earth Mars comes in about 3.34 km/s
Well the planets are moving around the sun now we use earths gravity as a slingshot in other words when we leave the planet we are already at the earth's speed, now for some reason if they miss that window to get to Mars (when is closer to earth), can they chase the planet to get there?I dont understand the question
Ok got some time to check:I dont understand the question
Mars - 53,979 miles per hour
Earth - 67,000 miles per hour
Spacecraft speed?
Yeah so basically,
Let's say you have enough velocity to just about leave Earths sphere of influence, and so enter orbit around the sun. As you say, after leaving you'd be travelling at something very close to Earth's orbital velocity, and depending on which direction you've ejected from, you'll probably stay in a very similar orbit close to the Earth and will probably be recaptured (and then maybe ejected again), either pretty much straight away or one orbit later when you meet up again.
Instead of just ejecting from Earths SOI, we want to get to Mars.
Earth rotates around the Sun with an average distance of about 150 million km, with the closest distance (perihelion) being about 147 million km which occurs around the 4th of January and the furthest distance (aphelion) being around 152 million km which occurs around the 4th July (independence day bitches!).
Mars rotates around the Sun with an average distance of 227 million km, with the closest distance (perihelion) being about 206 million km and the furthest distance (aphelion) being around 249 million km (notice that varies a lot more than Earth). It completes the rotation around the Sun every 687 (Earth) days. Mars also has an orbital inclination of 1.85 degrees when compared to Earth. Earth is always catching Mars up (travelling faster, in a lower orbit), and Mars and Earth cross approximately every 26 months
We need to get our ship from an orbit of around 150 km to an orbit of around 227 km.. but crucially we need to make the ship have a Mars encounter. Launch too soon or too late, and Mars will be nowhere near there, and we will just orbit the sun forever.
It turns out the most efficient way (in turns of fuel) to push our ships aphelion (the furthest point in the ships orbit around the sun) out to intercept Mars's orbit, is to wait until the ship is on the exact opposite side of where we want to push out, and then start the burn. However, doing this means our mission would last many years before meeting Mars, which is obviously not great with a crew on board.
So instead what we do, is wait until the Earth has almost caught up with Mars, and then burn to meet up with Mars's (costing more fuel, but less time). You then meet Mars, and once you have fallen deep into Mars's gravity well, do a second burn in the opposite direction to circularise the orbit and so get captured around Mars. So to answer your question:
Not really. When Mars is gone, it's gone. There are an infinite number of ways to burn and get a Mars encounter, but with a human crew on board you dont want a long travel time. You'd probably be better off by aborting and trying again 26 months later. If you don't have a crew, then sure there are loads of ways to do it.
Having said that, the worst time to launch would be right after that orbital window has passed. Mars isn't running away from Earth, Earth is running away from Mars. You would have to increase your orbit to much higher than Mars's, and wait for Mars to catch up.
That post just made me want to play KSP again.
DO IT
As soon as work stops being busy, I'm going to try and install the n-body physics mod Principia, although you have to request a copy from their IRC channel
Although I always play it for about a month and then stop until the next update. Need a laptop
Comparing our space traveling and ocean exploration we are traveling like the Vikings and the fact we need to wait until next century to have Saturn and other planets aligned so we can use them to slingshot out of our solar system using current technology.
Funky little zooom tool on NASA website for the sharpest ever image of Andromeda.
http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/
http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/
Beautiful. Amazing to think how many other stars and planets are in that photo.
On the flip side, I've got a buddy at work that would tell you that's all invented by NASA and that it's impossible to go to space.
Its surprising theres still so many flat earthers about. I read the other day that even the New York Times said it was impossible for the moon landings to happen as a rocket couldnt fly through a vacuum. They only retracted the statement the day after Neil and Buzz set off to the Moon.
Please tell me he says that when he's on his phone, and signal is going to and from satellites in space at the speed of light.
Last edited:
He doesn't believe in satellites either.
Flat Earther indeed. As I said above, doesn't believe in satellites because he doesn't believe in space at all. Says the "firmament" is impenetrable.Its surprising theres still so many flat earthers about. I read the other day that even the New York Times said it was impossible for the moon landings to happen as a rocket couldnt fly through a vacuum. They only retracted the statement the day after Neil and Buzz set off to the Moon.
My wife's grandmother was like that but she was 95 and she was born in 1903, she had no education and she couldn't read or write, does your friend came from north Korea?
Pennsylvania, as it turns out.
Our conversations about the shape of the Earth, the size and scope of the Illuminati, and the Illuminati's role in proliferating the idea that space exists are quite entertaining sometimes to say the least.
Theres a brilliant channel on youtube called PBS Spacetime thats well worth a look. A lot of the vids on there are pretty advanced, or at least a lot more advanced than every science tv show I ever seen.
Yeah they are really good. The PBS Spacetime just did a reddit AMA https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4nv9dw/science_ama_series_im_matt_odowd_writer_host_of/
Just come across these guys at NASA. The Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate. This is thier blurb.
The Systems Analysis & Concepts Directorate (SACD) informs decision makers of the art of the possible. We can examine existing systems or define future Architectures, Vehicles, or Operational Concepts across the trade space within a physics-based, multidisciplinary, variable fidelity environment to determine the performance, cost, risk, and schedule feasibility and systems requirements to enable informed technical, programmatic, and budgetary decisions.
http://sacd.larc.nasa.gov
Basically from what I understand these guys dream up missions like building sky cities 50km up in the Venetian atmosphere, then doing all the maths and working out all the engineering thatd be needed to make this a reality.
I completely understand that the kinds of stuff they dream up will be many many years away from even getting the green light for a mission, but even so I think its awesome that there are actual serious discussions and a few boffins who are actively working in this 'concept' field.
Just think of the feats we could achieve as a human race if more funding and less red tape was afforded to these guys and thier counterparts around the world. Although from what Im led to believe, between scientist around the world politics tend not to get in the way when it comes to sharing science..or at least space science.
Anyone know of any 'proper' documentaries or websites that delve into this area?
The Systems Analysis & Concepts Directorate (SACD) informs decision makers of the art of the possible. We can examine existing systems or define future Architectures, Vehicles, or Operational Concepts across the trade space within a physics-based, multidisciplinary, variable fidelity environment to determine the performance, cost, risk, and schedule feasibility and systems requirements to enable informed technical, programmatic, and budgetary decisions.
http://sacd.larc.nasa.gov
Basically from what I understand these guys dream up missions like building sky cities 50km up in the Venetian atmosphere, then doing all the maths and working out all the engineering thatd be needed to make this a reality.
I completely understand that the kinds of stuff they dream up will be many many years away from even getting the green light for a mission, but even so I think its awesome that there are actual serious discussions and a few boffins who are actively working in this 'concept' field.
Just think of the feats we could achieve as a human race if more funding and less red tape was afforded to these guys and thier counterparts around the world. Although from what Im led to believe, between scientist around the world politics tend not to get in the way when it comes to sharing science..or at least space science.
Anyone know of any 'proper' documentaries or websites that delve into this area?
Its surprising theres still so many flat earthers about. I read the other day that even the New York Times said it was impossible for the moon landings to happen as a rocket couldnt fly through a vacuum. They only retracted the statement the day after Neil and Buzz set off to the Moon.
A bit silly of them since before the moon landing we had already sent rockets to the moon, notably Apollo's 8 and 10. Plus some unmanned flights before that.
Its surprising theres still so many flat earthers about. I read the other day that even the New York Times said it was impossible for the moon landings to happen as a rocket couldnt fly through a vacuum. They only retracted the statement the day after Neil and Buzz set off to the Moon.
They should have consulted a first year physics student who could have told them about Newton's Third Law.
I don't have an unduly high opinion of the paper, but this is difficult to believe. Whatever the NYT may be, they're not idiots.