The following is a work of fiction. The characters are fictional. Any resemblance of characters to real people is a mere coincidence and unintentional.
"Test, test. Is this thing on?" said Tom checking his microphone. He tried to look past the blinding lights to see his audio guy. All he could see was the camera men.
"It's working, Tom," came a voice in his earphone. He adjusted his suit and got ready for the mission at hand. Then he looked straight into the nearest camera.
"2030 is the year of more commercial space progress. The Dragonfly project is going to take off tomorrow around 6 am in the morning. The project will test an in-line air boost to orbit concept in the hopes of competing with the reusable rocket family from SpaceX. This is Tom Townsend live from Cape Canaveral. Here with me is the pilot of the mission, Dan Darger. Dan, what got you interested in space?" Tom looked starlight at his guest in a silver pressure suit that had several logos of sponsors on it.
"Well, Tom. That's a good question," Dan said trying to calm himself to say the right thing. "I think it started when I was pretty young. You see, my Dad got me and himself tickets to ride a Virgin Galactic spaceplane. I guess it was love at first launch." Dan felt really good about that answer.
"Was that the SpaceShipTwo class or later classes? I think were up to SpaceShipFive if I'm not mistaken."
"Uhh. Yeah. It was a small ship that seated six passengers and took us up to about 100 clicks." Dan paused a moment with his finger ponting to Tom with a up an down motion. "The thing that struck me was the view of the Earth. I always thought the rocket ride up would be the coolest, but the Earth....Man! That was something." Dan's mind went back to that moment, that emotion.
"I heard it's a magnificent site."
"You haven't been up? Oh man! You gotta go, you just gotta. You don't know what your missing until you go." Dan smiled at Tom feeling a little superior.
"Well, I guess I just might. But let's talk about your mission tomorrow. What is the significance of it?" Tom attempted to gain control back after feeling a little put down.
"Well, Tom. It's a winged craft with scram jets and a orbiter attached to its nose. I will be riding in the orbiter. The two crafts will take off from the space runway here at the Cape with the first stage rocket. Then that will be jettisoned. It will scream up into the atmosphere gaining acceleration as it goes using the scram jets. At about 100,000 ft, the orbiter will detach with a small rocket and go into space. Once in initial orbit, that small rocket is jettisoned, and the orbit is stabilized by the orbiter's main engines." Dan could feel himself relaxing and getting the hang of this interview.
"OK. What will happen to the mothership?"
"Oh, right! It will fly back down to the runway."
"I know the project is about the mothership, but tell us a little about the orbiter." Tom put on the best interested tone he could muster.
"Well, the orbiter has been to space before. In fact, it's been in orbit more than a hundred times and was retired about 5 years ago. It was built by SNC and it was the original Dreamchaser. It's a lifting body style craft that flies well in space and the atmosphere. It was refurbished and retrofitted for this mission." Dan went through the data in his mind to see if that was enough for the answer.
"So, why are you not piloting the mothership rather than the orbiter?" Tom smiled smugly at the camera then at Dan.
"Well...uh....isn't it obvious?" Dan looked quizzically.
"Not everyone is a rocket scientist, Dan. The folks out there want to hear your expert viewpoint. So tell us why your in the orbiter."
"Oh...right! Well the project is about getting to space cheaply. So the mothership was designed to fly without a pilot on board. The actual pilots will be on the ground. It is also smart so it can fly independently if need be. I'm in the orbiter to do orbits. Yeah, for the system to be proven, I have to get the orbiter to orbit and then land back safely on the runway."
"Good. That sums the mission up pretty good." Tom felt back in control and Dan was all smiles patting himself on the back. "So, Dan, what are you wearing?"
"This is my pressurized flight suit. It keeps me alive in case of a loss of pressurization." Dan looked down at his silver suit. "As you can see it has logos of my sponsors."
"Yes, it's very colorful. And loss of pressurization means when the orbiter looses air Dan won't die because of the suit." Tom felt a little ticked that Dan didn't elaborate on that detail.
"Yeah, that's it! On top of this I will be wearing a parachute."
"A parachute?"
"Uh....yeah! In case something bad happens." Dan felt that was enough said.
"Something bad? Like you blow up?"
"Ah...well....yes, but not exactly. If the orbiter blows up I blow up with it and the chute is no good. But if the mothership has a bad failure I can just detach the orbiter and fly it down to safety. Now if the mothership is badly damaged and the orbiter is damaged as well but in one piece but can't get back to land, then I have the chute to bail out and fly another day." Dan felt that that was a blunder of an explanation and it was uncomfortable to say.
"Oh I see. You just want to live no matter what." Tom stated the obvious but he felt it needed to be said.
"Ah, yeah! Don't you?" Quizzical look again showed up on Dan's face.
"Sure I do. And we all do." Tom laughed his way through embarrassment.
"Well, good luck on your flight tomorrow. I hope the Dragonfly project is a success," said Tom concluding the interview.
"Thanks Tom," said Dan with a big smile.
Tom gave a cut sign to the camera men. The cameras lenses dropped like horses stopping to graze.
"Feel nervous about tomorrow?" asked Tom.
Dan slumped back in his seat with a sigh. "Not as much as I do about this interview."
Tom looked at him quizzically.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Mass Logistics To Space Idea
ISS partners keep a flow of small pressurized cargo craft coming to the station for just 6 crew and experiments. Progress, ATV, HTV, Dragon, and soon Cynus make up such a fleet. The ATV is the biggest carrying a max of 16,900 lbs or 7,667 kg. On land, we stack huge metal boxes carrying all kinds of cargo on ships, trains, and trucks. These are shipped around the land supplying communities with effectively whatever they need. Commonly these are 40ft long cargo containers and can carry a max of 68,008 lbs or 30,848 kg.
Imagine if commercial space takes off, and many space stations orbit around Earth, the moon, and deep space are made and manned. Having around 24 people in each station who need food, clothes, equipment sent to them and waste taken from them. How would you supply that amount of cargo?
SpaceX's Falcon Heavy can lift to orbit almost the gross weight/mass of two 40 ft cargo boxes. So, I figure it could carry the cargo of one of these cargo boxes in a purpose made reusable stretch cargo capsule. It would be a vehicle of mass logistics transportation. What would such a craft look like and what would its operation be like?
Why stretch anything? The airline industry have stretched the bodies of its planes for many years to expand their payload capacity. I remember first learning about stretched aircraft with the DC-9. It would seem reasonable to assume that commercial space companies sought out a solution for an increased capacity without reinventing the wheel all the way. SpaceX's Dragon is touted as a reusable capsule. They also want to make it to be capable of propulsive landings on the ground from orbit. Thinking about those capabilities, you could stretch the capsule lengthwise (see pic above) to increase cargo capacity per trip.
A stretched capsule could launch from a heavy lifting rocket like the Falcon Heavy housed in a fairing. Upon arrival, it could dock or be captured and berthed to a station. The hatch on one end of the capsule would minimize space issues while attached to a station. I don't imagine that it would be used for crew but only for pressurized cargo. The station's Astronauts (Cosmonauts, or Taikonauts - if you like) would unload it and load it back up with whatever needs to be taken back down to Earth. That could include experiments and even waste. I've been considering the environmental impact of expending waste by burning it in the atmosphere. Dealing with the waste on the ground might be more beneficial. The capsule would detach from the station and de-orbit on its own merit. The long heat sheild and the integrity of the cross sectional shape of the capsule would allow for a similar atmospheric re-entry as the Dragon. Stretching the capsule longways also allows room for extra parachutes. Dragon stores its parachutes on the side of the craft in a compartment. The stretched capsule could have two or more compartments for parachutes. Then comes the propulsive landing which would have a number of thrusters along the sides of the craft. Several landing legs would also support this operation.
The stretch capsule could be an intriguing idea for future engineers and space operations. I think the alternative is to build newer and bigger capsules mostly from scratch. It's not just the capsule that has to be designed but the manufacturing process as well. I think a stretched solution would use the existing manufacturing process with some added parts. In the end, this is just one idea out of many.
 |
| Stretch Capsule concept made from Apollo CM pic |
 |
| Falcon Heavy (right) with Falcon family |
The stretch capsule could be an intriguing idea for future engineers and space operations. I think the alternative is to build newer and bigger capsules mostly from scratch. It's not just the capsule that has to be designed but the manufacturing process as well. I think a stretched solution would use the existing manufacturing process with some added parts. In the end, this is just one idea out of many.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Solar Impulse At St Louis
On one of the nicest evenings in recent memory in St Louis County, Solar Impulse silently eased its way to Lambert Airport from Texas. It was a cool night without a cloud in the sky. It was perfect.I had just purchased a Fujifilm FinePix camera on discount from Amazon.com. I had some initial practice with it at night from my home. I took a couple of pictures of stars, clouds, birds, and sunrise. The landscape was flooded with trees which served as a type of boarder anytime you look at the sky.
It was Monday evening, and I knew the plane was coming. The local paper website, St Louis Post Dispatch, had an article saying it was on its way. Unfortunately it would arrive right after tornadic weather hit the airport. Even with these events in mind, I felt excited. Pulling up the Solar Impulse website, I could track Bertrand Piccard's progression through the midwestern countryside. He yet seemed far away.A skilled pilot, Betrand was a member of a family of explorers. So much so that Jean Luc Picard character in Star Trek was modeled after the twins Jean and Auguste Piccard. Bertrand was Auguste's grandson.
The chat on the site was active and the mood was joyous. Much was about the ground crew was doing as seen in the live video stream. I logged in to join the conversation, though my mind was on the things that were about to occur.
I noticed that the map showed Bertrand would fly in a holding pattern right near my home. My mind raced. He was still some miles out. At around Washington he crossed the Missouri River, then followed it. I realized he was on his way. I sent an email to the ground crew who passes on messages to Bertrand and saying, "Smile after you cross I-64 and you follow Missouri river a bit. I will take your picture. Your will be flying by my home."
I employed my wife to track the craft on the net while I gathered the FinePix, binoculars, and tripod and headed outside. My wife texted me updates, "Get ready. Plane just shift down south angle over mo river."
I scanned the skies. There were several things out that night and the visibility was excellent. Planes, birds, stars; it was all there. My only worry was the tree line. Will it allow me to see Solar Impulse at all?
Then, I made out a red light and a green light just coming slowly over the trees. The lights were quite far apart, then I realized. That's it.
I nervously tried to take photos of it, but it would not show up on my camera view. I ended up pointing at it and shooting and hoping for the best. My wife came out.
She indicated a better spot for me to shoot. The plane was in an obvious holding pattern going round in circles. I set up in the new spot and then I heard my wife yell. Bertrand had put on the lights. I think he got my email. :-))
Now it was easy to get a picture.
 |  |
 |
 |
 |
It looked like some kind of slow moving extraterrestrial thing in the night sky. It was so quiet.
We later went inside and almost 2 hours later Bertrand landed at Lambert. The news said they had to use an inflatable hangar to house the craft since the designated hangar had been damaged by tornadoes.
On Friday afternoon my wife and I went to see the plane in person. It was in a large aluminum framed tent and several visitors were there along with the ground crew.
I got over 100 pictures in of the plane and of the posters they had around. Its massive wingspan was tremendous. The cockpit was open and there was a stuffed animal mascot in it. While the basic design of the craft was not new, the materials and technologies that went into it were new.
Solar Impulse as a project was to give awareness of alternative energies. It was the first solar plane to fly day and night without consuming any fossil fuel. I'm very glad my wife and I got to see it.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Autogyro: Forgotten Tech Still Shows Signs Of Potential
Autogyros seem to be a forgotten tech thanks to the advent of the very versatile helicopter. In modern times the autogyro has improved from Cierva's original design. Two man crafts now feature initial powered rotation of the rotors, aft facing propeller that provides partial vector thrusting with the rudder. Now the technology is being pushed further. Let's check out a couple of 'sporty' autogyros on the market that would make James Bond green with envy, and let's look at two future developments in the making.
The autogyro is going the way of the sports car. Calidus and Arrow Copter are currently on the market and show off their sexy bodies like no other rotary wing craft. They both are tandem two seaters and feature enclosed cockpit with a bubble canopy. Calidus has nice rounded curves and sleek lines while Arrow Copter sprawls out its elevator and rear landing gear almost like a bird of prey extends its wings, tail, and talons. They are quite cool. The beauty of a sleek and sexy autogyros lie in where they likes to fly. They like to fly just above the tree tops, and they do very well there. While planes can fly in that region, they can't maneuver as quickly in tight spaces as autogyros can. Following the terrain is quite dangerous for planes. Military planes require sophisticated radar mapping equipment to fly near the ground. Autogyros can swivel in tight turns, can fly slow, and cost less in maintenance than a helicopter. They can take off in around 500 ft of runway space though they don't need a runway. A flat field will do. They land in a fraction of that distance. Both of these models have a max. speed of just over 100 mph. They should do great in hilly or lake ridden landscapes. I gathered this information by watching many videos of gyroplanes and reading specs on them. Though it is said that autogyros are safer than helicopters, all aircraft can and do crash. All safety precautions should be taken.
There are now 2 significant developments. There is a flying car with the Pal-V, and there is a plane hybrid with Carter Aviation Technologies. The Pal-V is a roadable autogyro. That is it is street legal and flies like an autogyro. It seems to drive more like an enclosed motorcycle than a car since it leans into turns on its 3 wheels. The conversion from road vehicle to aircraft involves a combination of automatic motions and manual hands-on motions. You can cross rivers, lakes, mountains (or hills), and valleys by flying over them and then park it at home. That's pretty neat.
Carter Aviation Technologies have developed and perfected the slowed rotor concept to create a hybrid autogyro and plane. The result is a craft that can virtually takeoff and land vertically yet have the flight efficiency and range of an airplane. It's a real vertical takeoff and vertical landing craft (VTVL). Carter Aviation redesigned the main rotor and added weights on the tips. This allows for jump vertical takeoffs by pre-rotating the rotors. The craft converts from autogyro to plane just by tilting the mast. Then, it flies like a plane and you can get some great mileage or range out of your fuel. With larger craft, Carter Aviation plans on using twin propellers with variable angle props which would allow the craft to hover like a helicopter. This is truly a major breakthrough for the autogyro.
Autogyros are developing and have come far since Cierva made his debut flight in 1924. Some on the market are sporty, sexy, and fun. New innovations should help the future of this venerable craft. Perhaps one day we will look at autogyros the way we look at helicopters personal planes. It can be the safer go anywhere personal craft. Engineering is awesome.
The autogyro is going the way of the sports car. Calidus and Arrow Copter are currently on the market and show off their sexy bodies like no other rotary wing craft. They both are tandem two seaters and feature enclosed cockpit with a bubble canopy. Calidus has nice rounded curves and sleek lines while Arrow Copter sprawls out its elevator and rear landing gear almost like a bird of prey extends its wings, tail, and talons. They are quite cool. The beauty of a sleek and sexy autogyros lie in where they likes to fly. They like to fly just above the tree tops, and they do very well there. While planes can fly in that region, they can't maneuver as quickly in tight spaces as autogyros can. Following the terrain is quite dangerous for planes. Military planes require sophisticated radar mapping equipment to fly near the ground. Autogyros can swivel in tight turns, can fly slow, and cost less in maintenance than a helicopter. They can take off in around 500 ft of runway space though they don't need a runway. A flat field will do. They land in a fraction of that distance. Both of these models have a max. speed of just over 100 mph. They should do great in hilly or lake ridden landscapes. I gathered this information by watching many videos of gyroplanes and reading specs on them. Though it is said that autogyros are safer than helicopters, all aircraft can and do crash. All safety precautions should be taken.
There are now 2 significant developments. There is a flying car with the Pal-V, and there is a plane hybrid with Carter Aviation Technologies. The Pal-V is a roadable autogyro. That is it is street legal and flies like an autogyro. It seems to drive more like an enclosed motorcycle than a car since it leans into turns on its 3 wheels. The conversion from road vehicle to aircraft involves a combination of automatic motions and manual hands-on motions. You can cross rivers, lakes, mountains (or hills), and valleys by flying over them and then park it at home. That's pretty neat.
Carter Aviation Technologies have developed and perfected the slowed rotor concept to create a hybrid autogyro and plane. The result is a craft that can virtually takeoff and land vertically yet have the flight efficiency and range of an airplane. It's a real vertical takeoff and vertical landing craft (VTVL). Carter Aviation redesigned the main rotor and added weights on the tips. This allows for jump vertical takeoffs by pre-rotating the rotors. The craft converts from autogyro to plane just by tilting the mast. Then, it flies like a plane and you can get some great mileage or range out of your fuel. With larger craft, Carter Aviation plans on using twin propellers with variable angle props which would allow the craft to hover like a helicopter. This is truly a major breakthrough for the autogyro.
Autogyros are developing and have come far since Cierva made his debut flight in 1924. Some on the market are sporty, sexy, and fun. New innovations should help the future of this venerable craft. Perhaps one day we will look at autogyros the way we look at helicopters personal planes. It can be the safer go anywhere personal craft. Engineering is awesome.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Getting To Mars Depicted (Part 2)
In Part 1, we went through how much a trip to Mars costs in terms of fuel and hardware. It takes 8 large rocket launches just for one manned mission. That is about 75% the launches of the Apollo program to the moon. Back then, the US Congress was willing to spend the money, but today they are holding back wanting to cut NASA's budget. That's nothing new. Congress has been cutting NASA's budget for at least the past 20 years. A manned mission to Mars is quite a huge undertaking. I know I did not talk about the radiation concerns or other crew health issues. NASA likes to mention those. They don't like to mention how much it would cost, and I think that is an issue that Congress and the public need to address. The more the public knows about this issue the better. How could we possibly reduce the cost? Well, I've got 2 ideas. Both of them are along the lines of mass transportation and reusable assets. Reusable transportation assets and multiple manifests could provide more effective financing than one mission going alone by any one government space program.
Reusable Assets
When talking about reusable assets, a tug to take payloads from Earth orbit to Mars orbit and a reusable Mars lander/launcher come to mind. For Mars, these assets have to be very sophisticated to include transferring of fuel and other consumables. They would have to be able to be controlled remotely with some automation and manually by any crew.
I've talked about a reusable tug before. For Mars, having a large tug that can travel many times between the planets could provide the means to take multiple missions on each trip. Distributing the cost of the trip among several customers could make the trip financially possible. I like to imagine such a tug as being based on the concept of the Saturn S-IVB. It would have to be much larger. I could have duo-propulsion: traditional chemical booster; electric propulsion such as ion drive or plasma drive. Space.com has a great article on electric propulsion called How Electric Spacecraft Could Fly NASA To Mars. A robitic arm such as the Canadarm 2 could provide a means of capturing and docking many different types of space modules. Also it should be able to carry many modules to include unmanned and manned modules simultaneously. Our module technology has become quite sophisticated so I don't think that would be a problem. One of the biggest issues of such a craft would be electric power. Solar panels are nice, but large ones would be needed to power the electric propulsion. They also should be able to retract and deploy on command and often. I expect that aerobraking maneuver would help reduce the amount of fuel needed for each mission. Solar panels would need to retract for that maneuver lest they are damaged. These panels would have to last a long time. Another option, though less popular, would be giving the craft its own nuclear power reactor. Of course, responsible handling of the nuclear material is a must; including a disposal plan for the depleted nuclear material.
A reusable lander/launcher is necessary. The idea of landing on an atmospheric planet is enticing and yet hard. If you going to reuse the lander, it has to launch from the planet as well. We've never created a craft like that before. It would need a heat shield that can pop off and be replaced easily (by robotic means), a reliable engine, and large tanks for fuel. After every launch back into orbit, it would need to be serviced and refueled for the next landing. This craft is important because for one manned mission, NASA would use 3 landers and 1 launcher. That's 4 vehicles. Consolidating hardware complexity and weight into one vehicle should save on cost. Using this vehicle for many missions should be a savings multiplier.
What do we really want to do on Mars? Do we want to just plant a flag and walk around a go home? No, many folks want to do many things. From geology to colonization to terraforming, Mars has inspired many possible missions. If we go with throw away assets, we won't be able to afford getting there but once in a generation if at all. Mars should also only be the first step to exploring and exploiting the inner solar system. Therefore, reusable assets are a must. We must build an infrastructure.
Multiple Manifests
To spread the cost of trips to Mars and back, it would seem a no brainer to get as many different missions and customers to sign on. It's like filling up the cargo hold and passenger cabins of a larch ocean fairing ship to make trips between continents across a large ocean.
Imagine multiple unmanned mission accompanied by one manned mission packed on the reusable tug that is about to depart Earth orbit. These mission could be from all types: orbital, landers, rovers and sample returns. The landers, rovers, and sample return missions can get loaded up on the reusable lander/launcher to get down to the surface along with the assests of the manned mission. It seems they would all land in one spot. Well, that could create the opportunity to have some planetary transportation services such as fast rovers and aircraft. You can quickly imagine a multitude of missions and activity around and on Mars.
Spreading the cost for each trip and back from Mars among many customers seems reasonable. Using reusable assets such as a reusable transportation tug and a reusable lander/launcher goes hand in hand with multiple manifests. Such an effort could easily be a commercial venture. Such an infrastructure could have the effect of researching the red planet in a much faster fashion than what we do now. If regular trips to Mars every 3 years is sustainable then we would have established a permanent link worthy of colonization.
 |
| Many Launchers for 1 Mission |
When talking about reusable assets, a tug to take payloads from Earth orbit to Mars orbit and a reusable Mars lander/launcher come to mind. For Mars, these assets have to be very sophisticated to include transferring of fuel and other consumables. They would have to be able to be controlled remotely with some automation and manually by any crew.
I've talked about a reusable tug before. For Mars, having a large tug that can travel many times between the planets could provide the means to take multiple missions on each trip. Distributing the cost of the trip among several customers could make the trip financially possible. I like to imagine such a tug as being based on the concept of the Saturn S-IVB. It would have to be much larger. I could have duo-propulsion: traditional chemical booster; electric propulsion such as ion drive or plasma drive. Space.com has a great article on electric propulsion called How Electric Spacecraft Could Fly NASA To Mars. A robitic arm such as the Canadarm 2 could provide a means of capturing and docking many different types of space modules. Also it should be able to carry many modules to include unmanned and manned modules simultaneously. Our module technology has become quite sophisticated so I don't think that would be a problem. One of the biggest issues of such a craft would be electric power. Solar panels are nice, but large ones would be needed to power the electric propulsion. They also should be able to retract and deploy on command and often. I expect that aerobraking maneuver would help reduce the amount of fuel needed for each mission. Solar panels would need to retract for that maneuver lest they are damaged. These panels would have to last a long time. Another option, though less popular, would be giving the craft its own nuclear power reactor. Of course, responsible handling of the nuclear material is a must; including a disposal plan for the depleted nuclear material.
A reusable lander/launcher is necessary. The idea of landing on an atmospheric planet is enticing and yet hard. If you going to reuse the lander, it has to launch from the planet as well. We've never created a craft like that before. It would need a heat shield that can pop off and be replaced easily (by robotic means), a reliable engine, and large tanks for fuel. After every launch back into orbit, it would need to be serviced and refueled for the next landing. This craft is important because for one manned mission, NASA would use 3 landers and 1 launcher. That's 4 vehicles. Consolidating hardware complexity and weight into one vehicle should save on cost. Using this vehicle for many missions should be a savings multiplier.
What do we really want to do on Mars? Do we want to just plant a flag and walk around a go home? No, many folks want to do many things. From geology to colonization to terraforming, Mars has inspired many possible missions. If we go with throw away assets, we won't be able to afford getting there but once in a generation if at all. Mars should also only be the first step to exploring and exploiting the inner solar system. Therefore, reusable assets are a must. We must build an infrastructure.
Multiple Manifests
 |
| Mars Plane |
Imagine multiple unmanned mission accompanied by one manned mission packed on the reusable tug that is about to depart Earth orbit. These mission could be from all types: orbital, landers, rovers and sample returns. The landers, rovers, and sample return missions can get loaded up on the reusable lander/launcher to get down to the surface along with the assests of the manned mission. It seems they would all land in one spot. Well, that could create the opportunity to have some planetary transportation services such as fast rovers and aircraft. You can quickly imagine a multitude of missions and activity around and on Mars.
Spreading the cost for each trip and back from Mars among many customers seems reasonable. Using reusable assets such as a reusable transportation tug and a reusable lander/launcher goes hand in hand with multiple manifests. Such an effort could easily be a commercial venture. Such an infrastructure could have the effect of researching the red planet in a much faster fashion than what we do now. If regular trips to Mars every 3 years is sustainable then we would have established a permanent link worthy of colonization.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Getting To Mars Depicted (Part 1)
There is a lot of talk about going to Mars these days. It's an old goal, and one that captures people's imaginations. So much so that many movies and science fiction series episodes depict such a trip. What are the current plans? Why haven't we gone yet?
NASA has a plan to get to Mars. It involves 7 launches of the Heavy Lift Vehicle rocket, then 1 launch of a crew rocket, and 3 transfer vehicles, 2 landers, and 1 launcher from the surface of Mars. Unfortunately, that was for 1 manned mission. That's an insane amount of hardware and consumables. That gives you an idea of what a monumental task it is to land on Mars and to come back.
Unfortunately the plan was geared for the now dead Constellation Program. Russia has a plan for a manned Mars mission. I've heard it's to the Martian moon Phobos. Elon Musk wants to go to Mars as well as the Mars Society members. Even Buzz Aldrin is looking forward to a manned Mars mission. He has a book out now called Mission To Mars: My Vision For Space Exploration.
There are a couple of non-government proposals to the red planet. Dennis Tito, who visited ISS in , proposed a sling shot mission around Mars involving two people but no landing. What I like about this mission is that it's quite concise and understood. I mean we've done this with unmanned craft. Space.com has an article about it called Dennis Tito's 2018 Human Mars Flyby Mission Explained.
Another proposed mission seems a little crazy to me because it sidelines the problem of returning to Earth by not returning. Mars One Foundation wants to conquer Mars with a colony and is looking for people willing for this one way ticket mission. The settlement idea is impressive. They seem to use their resources wisely. Yet, once people arrive, then you have to supply them with provisions like food for the long term. That is at least a launch to Mars every 3 years. If it's all the same to you, I'd be happier with a way back home to Earth, please.
The Mars Society is a group of people interested in colonizing the red planet. They also create papers and do research that will aid in manned missions. They have been conducting some interesting simulated manned mission on the martian surface. These are being conducted at Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS). It's a simulated base with all kinds of experiments going on. They are always looking for volunteers. I you wondered what would people do on the red planet, check Mars Society out. You'd be amazed.
So, why haven't we been to Mars yet? That's a really good question. It's a question that is not easily answered. We wanted to go in the Apollo era. We've been talking about going for many decades. We've sent rovers there and that has renewed interest for a manned mission. I suppose the answer is embarrassing to engineers and scientists. These guys are 'can do' people. They take a 'can't don't' challenge and tackle it. Manned mission to Mars happen to be extremely difficult. The areas of difficulty are not in technology but finances and logistics.
There are two big problems with such a trip:
1. Mars is so far away its very expensive to land 1 lb on it.
2. Mars is hard to launch from, unlike the moon.
Mars is quite far away and that's understandable. 34.8 million miles is the closest Earth has come to Mars. The moon is only 0.25 of a million miles from Earth. Mars is going about 54,493.9 mph. Earth is going about 66,673.5 mph. Now, that may seem counter intuitive that Earth is actually traveling faster than Mars, but were dealing with the gravitational field of the Sun and it's not linear, but curved. So, a spacecraft has to overcome the Earth's gravitational pull to cruise to Mars. That would require several times the fuel needed to get to the moon per pound or kilogram.
To launch from the surface of Mars, you need to account for the gravity and the atmospheric friction. Mars has about twice the gravity of the moon and a third that of the Earth. The martian atmosphere pressure is like that at about 100k ft in Earth's atmosphere. I figure you could compare it to launching from the Moon with the Apollo lander or launching from Earth with a Mercury launch. Either way, you end up with a launcher that is several times the mass of the lunar lander. You need to take all that weight to Mars from Earth, and that at multiple times what it costs to go to the moon.
The distance between Mars and the Earth and the conditions on Mars itself make it extremely expensive in fuel and hardware to do any mission. That may help answer why we haven't gone yet. Who is going to afford it? Is there a better way than throw away hardware?
Click here for Part 2.
 |
| NASA's Mars Transfer Vehicle |
Unfortunately the plan was geared for the now dead Constellation Program. Russia has a plan for a manned Mars mission. I've heard it's to the Martian moon Phobos. Elon Musk wants to go to Mars as well as the Mars Society members. Even Buzz Aldrin is looking forward to a manned Mars mission. He has a book out now called Mission To Mars: My Vision For Space Exploration.
 |
| Mars by Viking 1 |
Another proposed mission seems a little crazy to me because it sidelines the problem of returning to Earth by not returning. Mars One Foundation wants to conquer Mars with a colony and is looking for people willing for this one way ticket mission. The settlement idea is impressive. They seem to use their resources wisely. Yet, once people arrive, then you have to supply them with provisions like food for the long term. That is at least a launch to Mars every 3 years. If it's all the same to you, I'd be happier with a way back home to Earth, please.
The Mars Society is a group of people interested in colonizing the red planet. They also create papers and do research that will aid in manned missions. They have been conducting some interesting simulated manned mission on the martian surface. These are being conducted at Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS). It's a simulated base with all kinds of experiments going on. They are always looking for volunteers. I you wondered what would people do on the red planet, check Mars Society out. You'd be amazed.
 |
| Mars - JPL Solar System Simulator |
There are two big problems with such a trip:
1. Mars is so far away its very expensive to land 1 lb on it.
2. Mars is hard to launch from, unlike the moon.
Mars is quite far away and that's understandable. 34.8 million miles is the closest Earth has come to Mars. The moon is only 0.25 of a million miles from Earth. Mars is going about 54,493.9 mph. Earth is going about 66,673.5 mph. Now, that may seem counter intuitive that Earth is actually traveling faster than Mars, but were dealing with the gravitational field of the Sun and it's not linear, but curved. So, a spacecraft has to overcome the Earth's gravitational pull to cruise to Mars. That would require several times the fuel needed to get to the moon per pound or kilogram.
To launch from the surface of Mars, you need to account for the gravity and the atmospheric friction. Mars has about twice the gravity of the moon and a third that of the Earth. The martian atmosphere pressure is like that at about 100k ft in Earth's atmosphere. I figure you could compare it to launching from the Moon with the Apollo lander or launching from Earth with a Mercury launch. Either way, you end up with a launcher that is several times the mass of the lunar lander. You need to take all that weight to Mars from Earth, and that at multiple times what it costs to go to the moon.
The distance between Mars and the Earth and the conditions on Mars itself make it extremely expensive in fuel and hardware to do any mission. That may help answer why we haven't gone yet. Who is going to afford it? Is there a better way than throw away hardware?
Click here for Part 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)