Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1042
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 16:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Nasa's new fusion drive!! |

ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate WHY so Seri0Us
1161
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 16:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yep, I know some of those words. CISPA - Readin' your secret corptheft mails since 2012 |

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1082
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 16:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:Yep, I know some of those words.
 |

Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
1244
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 16:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
------> Out of Pod Experience
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'no.' |

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1082
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 16:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
Going to mars would be an out of pod expirience, yes! |

Slymah
33 RD Rebel Alliance of New Eden
71
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 16:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
You first. |

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1082
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 16:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
Only if you fund me  |

Alice Saki
Suddenly Spaced Out Suddenly Spaceships.
41309
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 16:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Can I Come!?!??!
|

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1101
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 16:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alice Saki wrote:Can I Come!?!??!
Its me and you and a huge rocket babe  |

baltec1
Bat Country
5732
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 16:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
If the moon is made of cheese does this mean mars is made of snickers? |
|

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
2908
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 17:26:00 -
[11] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:If the moon is made of cheese does this mean mars is made of snickers?
Strawberry Quik. Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |

Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9824
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 17:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
We should just blow up mars so people can stop wasting money on this crap  "Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff-á |

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
698
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 17:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
Humans are amazing.
I love most of them, just not all  *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |

Domina Trix
McKNOBBLER DRINKING CLAN
23
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 17:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
I hope they remembered the brakes 
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. |

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
539
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 18:12:00 -
[15] - Quote
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.
|

Arronicus
vintas industries Mistakes Were Made.
401
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 18:33:00 -
[16] - Quote
Athena Maldoran wrote:Alice Saki wrote:Can I Come!?!??! Its me and you and a huge rocket babe 
Saw that one already. Vibe was too loud and half-ruined the whole movie. |

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1130
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 18:47:00 -
[17] - Quote
Domina Trix wrote:I hope they remembered the brakes 
At the speeds we're talking, its a challange to slow down indeed.
"SPACEBRAKES"
 |

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1130
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 18:47:00 -
[18] - Quote
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.
We could drop down a space elevator? |

Iosue
Black Sky Hipsters
170
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 18:56:00 -
[19] - 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.
can someone explain this part me? i need to work on my space nerd-fu.
|

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1134
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 18:58:00 -
[20] - Quote
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.
machine > energy > speed.  |
|

Iosue
Black Sky Hipsters
170
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 19:00:00 -
[21] - Quote
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
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 19:03:00 -
[22] - Quote
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
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1134
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 19:03:00 -
[23] - Quote
I only know, we won't know before we tried! |

Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1094
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 19:24:00 -
[24] - Quote
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. HTFU!...for the children! |

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1151
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 19:31:00 -
[25] - Quote
Yarr, we're going to mars!!! Hoist the sails!!! |

Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
Homowners
53
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 19:58:00 -
[26] - Quote
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.
|

Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1099
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:10:00 -
[27] - Quote
Should be fun if the ship is unfortunate to enough do a 'Challenger' shortly after take-off. This is not a signature. |

KuroVolt
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
48
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:13:00 -
[28] - Quote
This better not be an april fools joke! |

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
3012
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:14:00 -
[29] - Quote
It's not even done yet ... |

TharOkha
0asis Group
521
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:52:00 -
[30] - Quote
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
GÇ£If reality can destroy the dream, why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?GÇ¥ |
|

Iosue
Black Sky Hipsters
170
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:55:00 -
[31] - Quote
apparently that trip to mars can be made while cloaky using thoughts to control the spaceship. EVE IS REAL GODDAMIT!!!!! |

Zeko Rena
ENCOM Industries
93
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:59:00 -
[32] - Quote
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
556
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:06:00 -
[33] - Quote
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....
The single biggest danger to EVE is the proliferation of ALTS! Kill an alt today!
Petition for a Minimum bounty of 10 mil. Prevent useless bounties!
|

Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
214
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:11:00 -
[34] - Quote
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
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:48:00 -
[35] - Quote
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
Jester Syndicate WHY so Seri0Us
1165
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:13:00 -
[36] - Quote
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. CISPA - Readin' your secret corptheft mails since 2012 |

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1180
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:25:00 -
[37] - Quote
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
5733
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:29:00 -
[38] - Quote
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
V.I.C.E.
1732
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:30:00 -
[39] - Quote
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. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1180
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:33:00 -
[40] - Quote
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. |
|

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1181
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:39:00 -
[41] - Quote
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:We should just blow up mars so people can stop wasting money on this crap 
The funny part about this, is that it makes it 10-100 times more cheap in terms of fuel costs 
|

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
2917
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 22:46:00 -
[42] - Quote
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
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:36:00 -
[43] - Quote
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
1222
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 00:55:00 -
[44] - Quote
Moved to "Out of Pod Experience" ----> Live Events are neither. |

Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
149
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 03:17:00 -
[45] - Quote
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. |

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
541
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 05:38:00 -
[46] - Quote
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
25
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 05:41:00 -
[47] - Quote
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!!!!!!!!!!"  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 Hegemonous Pandorum
119
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 05:50:00 -
[48] - Quote
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
No Name No Pain
595
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 05:57:00 -
[49] - Quote
let's hope this will be not as "USA landed on Moon"?  |

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
541
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 06:01:00 -
[50] - Quote
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
131
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:55:00 -
[51] - Quote
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
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
2364
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:15:00 -
[52] - Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haAhdtDmsOw Hello, hello again. |

Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
59
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:50:00 -
[53] - Quote
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 canGÇÖt really post links but if you look up 2 projects, ZubrinGÇÖs 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 MarsGÇÖ 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!
Malcanis for CSM8, Its about damn time.
A vote for Malcanis is a vote for bacon! |

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1246
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:35:00 -
[54] - Quote
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
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1246
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:37:00 -
[55] - Quote
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
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
61
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:37:00 -
[56] - Quote
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.
Malcanis for CSM8, Its about damn time.
A vote for Malcanis is a vote for bacon! |

Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
132
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 19:04:00 -
[57] - Quote
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
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
67
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:04:00 -
[58] - Quote
As promised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRiIn3gSGGM
Malcanis for CSM8, Its about damn time.
A vote for Malcanis is a vote for bacon! |

NEONOVUS
Saablast Followers
407
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 03:15:00 -
[59] - Quote
ooh pulse fusion activation drive system. Now why wont people want this built? |

Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
576
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 06:31:00 -
[60] - Quote
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. |
|

Evelyn Meiyi
Meiyi Family Holdings Tei-Su Syndicate
102
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 06:43:00 -
[61] - Quote
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
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
217
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 07:27:00 -
[62] - Quote
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. |

Sentamon
795
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 07:49:00 -
[63] - Quote
Moon base is required, unless you watched Apollo 18.  ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1390
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:27:00 -
[64] - Quote
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
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
70
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:44:00 -
[65] - Quote
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.
Malcanis for CSM8, Its about damn time.
A vote for Malcanis is a vote for bacon! |

Black Cadelanne
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:19:00 -
[66] - Quote
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
3836
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:56:00 -
[67] - Quote
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. 
(Assuming we survive them.) To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |

Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
71
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:01:00 -
[68] - Quote
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.  (Assuming we survive them.)
Indeed.
ItGÇÖs a sad fact the there has been more money spent on movies about ELEGÇÖs (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.
Malcanis for CSM8, Its about damn time.
A vote for Malcanis is a vote for bacon! |

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
541
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:51:00 -
[69] - Quote
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
541
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:04:00 -
[70] - Quote
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
Homowners
57
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 19:09:00 -
[71] - Quote
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. |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7216
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 19:26:00 -
[72] - Quote
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 ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |

Athena Maldoran
Special Nymphs On A Mission
1409
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 14:16:00 -
[73] - Quote
When will CCP send its first minmatar probe to Mars? |

Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1096
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 14:37:00 -
[74] - Quote
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. HTFU!...for the children! |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
528
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 15:28:00 -
[75] - Quote
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
128

|
Posted - 2013.03.29 16:04:00 -
[76] - Quote
Thread moved to Out of the Pod Experience. ISD Cura Ursus Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

Solhild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
919
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:02:00 -
[77] - Quote
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 
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |