Liffguard Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 11 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Furthermore, there will be ways to generate fuel that is combustible - there has to be, in order to refuel the rockets coming back. So things like fuel cells that run on hydrogen are another possibility. Presumably if they have access to a decent supply of water ice they can break it down for fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, Liffguard said: Presumably if they have access to a decent supply of water ice they can break it down for fuel. Yep. That and some carbon is apparently how they're planning on doing it. That will need some energy to get it going, but it will supply some fast fuel supplies too. Energy really isn't what I'm worried about on Mars. Especially since so much of it can be automated and put out ahead of actual humans. Catastrophic failure of habitats, exposure to cosmic rays, food supplies and things we haven't thought of all the way (odd micro allergens or something like that) are more likely to be the root cause of failure. Energy production by comparison is a known, solved problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liffguard Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 I've heard about concerns that the martial soil might degrade machinery, due to the dust particles possibly being both very fine and jagged. Pressure seals, hydraulics etc. might be particularly vulnerable. Does anyone know if this is a genuine or concern or just one of those things you read on the internet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted September 30, 2016 Author Share Posted September 30, 2016 The fineness might be a problem, but grain sharpness is more the problem on the Moon. The issue with Mars is perchlorates. But the solution is dirt simple. Perchlorate reacts with water to make oxygen. Hose down in the airlock and recycle the water and it'll be fine. Collect the oxygen if you can. The reaction also produces chlorine, which you can vent to the atmosphere or collect to use in space with a chlorine ion engine. The latter is probably good to power a slow space tug bringing supplies from elsewhere. Perchlorate is also a good rocket fuel on its own, so use it for hopping between settlements on Mars. Basically everthing that might be a problem is useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 That curiosity has lasted for so long and not had any major issues is a good sign that there aren't any major mechanical scary things that we can't solve right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 3 hours ago, Liffguard said: Presumably if they have access to a decent supply of water ice they can break it down for fuel. Correct. More specifically, the idea is to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen gets is liquefied and stored (it's one part of the fuel). The hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to produce methane and water via the Sabatier reaction. The methane is the other part of the fuel and the water can be fed back into the beginning of the process (you get back half the water that you start with each time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ded As Ned Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Where's the application to be a part of the first Mars colony? And how soon can I leave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Well... on the plus side, it looks like the EM drive might actually work... somehow. We can just slap one of those on a colony ship and start on our way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted November 16, 2016 Author Share Posted November 16, 2016 Of all the satellites in orbit the world has right this second, there are about 1400, with 800 in LEO. According to their technical filing SpaceX would launch an initial 1600 into 32 planes in 5 different LEO altitudes, and another 2,825 later. Each sat is 386kg, so theoretically F9 can launch the mass of 50 at a time, but it probably doesn't have the volume for that many. IF put up in maybe 64 launches, 25 or so at a time is probably right. That means a single F9 puts up half the sats needed for one plane at one altitude. The second batch of sats would need Falcon Heavy for some launches to get to the higher orbits, adding another 75 sats per plane, so another 112 or so launches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted November 16, 2016 Author Share Posted November 16, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted November 22, 2016 Author Share Posted November 22, 2016 This article points to a propaganda peddling program run by Laura Ingraham, who will probably be Trump's new press secretary / Goebbels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 11 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: :facepalm: Just to be clear, these trolling attacks against Musk's companies have been going on for a long time. It is not Trump who is behind it. Trump might in fact benefit SpaceX, as NASA is already indicating that they will need to look for cheaper alternatives to the bloated SLS project, which is really just a job creation effort to keep engineers from the Shuttle era employed. SpaceX can develop their ITS, which has multiple times the SLS's capability, and put humans on Mars in 10 years, for less money than Nasa can do it in over 20 years. In fact, NASA has a budget to launch SLS maybe once a year at a cost of multiple billions of dollars per launch. SpaceX can launch maybe 20 Falcon Heavy's for the price of one SLS launch, and probably 10 ITS's too, once that rocket is operational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Just to be clear, these trolling attacks against Musk's companies have been going on for a long time. It is not Trump who is behind it. Trump might in fact benefit SpaceX, as NASA is already indicating that they will need to look for cheaper alternatives to the bloated SLS project, which is really just a job creation effort to keep engineers from the Shuttle era employed. SpaceX can develop their ITS, which has multiple times the SLS's capability, and put humans on Mars in 10 years, for less money than Nasa can do it in over 20 years. In fact, NASA has a budget to launch SLS maybe once a year at a cost of multiple billions of dollars per launch. SpaceX can launch maybe 20 Falcon Heavy's for the price of one SLS launch, and probably 10 ITS's too, once that rocket is operational. You're assuming Trump cares about anything but his own wallet. Do Musk's companies make him money or give him a way to make money? If not why shouldn't he sick his attack dogs on Musk and "encourage" Musk to pay homage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: You're assuming Trump cares about anything but his own wallet. Do Musk's companies make him money or give him a way to make money? If not why shouldn't he sick his attack dogs on Musk and "encourage" Musk to pay homage? Well let me state that I do not share your apparent conviction that Trump is solely focused on making himself some money from his presidency. Seems to me there are far less risky, less time and effort intensive (and less heart-attack inducing) ways for a 70 year old billionaire to increase his wealth than running for the presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Well let me state that I do not share your apparent conviction that Trump is solely focused on making himself some money from his presidency. Seems to me there are far less risky, less time and effort intensive (and less heart-attack inducing) ways for a 70 year old billionaire to increase his wealth than running for the presidency. I don't think he's actually a billionaire and the Presidency appeals to his narcissistic streak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I don't think he's actually a billionaire and the Presidency appeals to his narcissistic streak. OK. We are going off topic now. But while he overstates his supposed $10bn wealth, Forbes rates him at $3.7bn. And while the narcissism might well be a motivation, his need for praise and adoration might well lead to him actually wanting to surprise everyone with being a far better president than many would have believed. In any case, this should be in the politics thread. As far as Space Issues are concerned, NASA seems to have already seen the writing on the wall, and brought out requests for cheaper alternatives to the wasteful SLS. And the most viable, most logical cheaper (and better) alternative is indeed SpaceX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I don't think he's actually a billionaire and the Presidency appeals to his narcissistic streak. Here we go with an informative link on the topic. http://www.inquisitr.com/3727375/trump-space-reform-may-force-nasa-to-ditch-sls-rocket-and-orion-spacecraft/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 I agree profitable privatized space travel is what will really open up space exploration. I just don't see Trump as the one to foster that. He is a true "croney capitalist". If he's not profiting from it monetarily orvia prestige it serves him no purpose and why would he be interested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Here we go with an informative link on the topic. http://www.inquisitr.com/3727375/trump-space-reform-may-force-nasa-to-ditch-sls-rocket-and-orion-spacecraft/ That's just wonderful . He'll put the squeeze on Musk. I'll be shocked if he doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.