http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23349496
quite a good article might wanna grab the headphones and a sandwich first
quite a good article might wanna grab the headphones and a sandwich first
Astronomy / Space How to put a man on mars
- Thread starter Listeri69
- Start date
@Listeri69
That was really good. Well put together too.
[EDIT]
Just looking at the return journey part of the video, I think that there maybe an easier solution.....
The video states that mining water to convert into rocket fuel would be needed to launch the return vehicle off the surface. This water would have to be mined, processed and stored over quite some time - at least a couple of years before the mission even begins.
Well why go to all that trouble when you can drop a nuclear thermal rocket on the surface? The nuclear reaction should generate enough thrust to launch the return vehicle back into space. This technology has been around since the 1940's as well.
I can't see why this method hasn't been considered. Unless I am missing something.
That was really good. Well put together too.
[EDIT]
Just looking at the return journey part of the video, I think that there maybe an easier solution.....
The video states that mining water to convert into rocket fuel would be needed to launch the return vehicle off the surface. This water would have to be mined, processed and stored over quite some time - at least a couple of years before the mission even begins.
Well why go to all that trouble when you can drop a nuclear thermal rocket on the surface? The nuclear reaction should generate enough thrust to launch the return vehicle back into space. This technology has been around since the 1940's as well.
I can't see why this method hasn't been considered. Unless I am missing something.
Last edited:
a nuclear thermal rocket still requires a working fluid to provide the thrust (usually liquid hydrogen) so they would still need to mine water for fuel.
Think he might just be suggesting only a nuclear warhead. Detonate the warhead for thrust; quite an acceleration I should think
Yes, but they wouldn't need as much so it could be simply transported to the planets surface before hand.
Or another possible solution is to send SRB's (Solid Rocket Boosters) down to the surface. The point I am making is that I think there are other solutions to mining water, which would take a very long time to process into hydrogen.
Last edited:
converting water to hydrogen is simple and takes no time at all, you can even get hydrogen kits for your car that use distilled water to produce hydrogen that's fed through the air intake of the engine to give a performance boost and lower MPG.
it would be much harder (and a lot more expensive) to transport SRB's big enough to do the job as you would first have to lift them from Earth's gravity well, transport them to Mars and then find a way to land them safely on the surface.
by building a gas station on Mars you eliminate the need to expend a massive amount of resources to transport fuel for both legs of the journey and in doing so reduce the size of the spacecraft you need by a factor of more than 50%
water would be required in large amounts to make a manned mission viable as each person would require 2 - 3 litres drinking water every day for a period of several years.
1000+ litres per person before you even consider how much would be required for personal hygiene and at 1KG per litre that would add a lot of weight.
On earth Yes, trying doing it on Mars where the temperature at best is zero degrees.
Like they do with the Mars Rovers?
Have you any idea how long that process will take? You are talking about decades of R&D and then there is the time it takes to collect the Hydrogen needed. If you think that transporting SRB's to Mars would be difficult, How on Earth can you expect to get a hydrogen garage there with all the processing and storage equipment?
Recycling is an option here.
Just to add, Although I agree that mining the water is essential for the long term, I don't think it is an option for the first few missions. Too many things can go wrong.
Last edited:
a big difference in size between the two, the Mars rover is 899 kilograms while each SRB used by the space shuttle is 590,000 kg at launch, even considering that martian gravity is 62% that of earth so the boosters would be that much smaller that's a lot to transport.
and twenty plus years of R&D wouldn't be required in any case?
besides that when i said making hydrogen was simple i meant it, you can do it at home, all a hydrogen garage would consist of could be fit into the average backpack
and would be required anyway but it only goes so far and doesn't have the added benefit of producing oxygen as the electrolysis of water does.
it's precisely because too many things can go wrong that water/hydrogen extraction on Mars would be needed before we could send a manned mission, imagine if on the way there the ship carrying the first humans to mars was hit with a micrometeorite and lost some of it's oxygen or water supply - without a gas station to replenish those life essential consumables the occupants would be long dead before they could either be resupplied or return to earth.
Think he might just be suggesting only a nuclear warhead. Detonate the warhead for thrust; quite an acceleration I should think
You mean something like Project Orion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
Yes, they would be a lot smaller. Imagine the size of the landing craft that landed on the Moon. It wouldn't require large SRB's at all to get that thing back in orbit.
Yes, I know about the electrolysis process.
The command module that would orbit Mars (ahead of the mission) would have all these essentials on board in case of such an emergency. So any repairs, water, oxygen could be replenished in orbit rather than take another risk and trying to land on the surface. It would be far too risky to land on the surface of Mars when there have been problems. If this situation happened the mission would probably be aborted anyway.
I'll give another scenario with your hydrogen method. Imagine you get to Mars, all is well and you decide to attempt a landing and you land. You check the hydrogen processing equipment and find that there has been a leak, or a part has malfunctioned, or the hydrogen fuel mix is incorrect or you cannot transfer the hydrogen to the launch vehicle because of corrosion. Lots of things like this can go wrong but its too late, you are already on the planet and unfortunately are marooned there.
With SRB's all you would have to do is connect them up to the launch vehicle and you are away. Lets say that you would need at least 3 SRB's to get back into orbit. Well, 2 really, but we connect 3 in case one of them malfunctions after launch. So I would say that at least six SRB's would need to be sent ahead of the mission to be on the safe side.
However, saying that, both systems are prone to failure just like everything else but the issue here is reducing the risk of failure.
Regarding the recent BBC News article on this subject, they are literally living on another planet if they think they can get someone on the surface of Mars and back within the next 20 years. When you think about all the resources that are needed and other problems that still need to be solved, I think it would be very optimistic to say that it would take at least another 100 years for this to become a reality.
Last edited:
Informative site, pleasant to look. It will require courageous men to go so far away.
"The words spoken as the crew become the first humans to ever set foot on another planet would take between 3 and 20 minutes to travel back to Earth."
"The words spoken as the crew become the first humans to ever set foot on another planet would take between 3 and 20 minutes to travel back to Earth."
- Houston! We have a problem!