Who will win the Mars race?

Nithavela said:

Also, the people on the ISS experience similiar circumstances. Cooped in into a tiny living space, surrounded by deadly circumstances, no way to get out without serious outside help.

Click to expand...

But they have a window. Anecdotal accounts suggest that the window is important for mental health. Also, they can chat to people on Earth in real time.

RDKirk said:

It's probably possible to make a Mars landing as another Apollo-style stunt project, essentially a one-time deal.

But in a program of actual continued manned exploration of space absolutely needs a permanent orbiting construction and launch platform for deep space vehicles. I'm personally not interested in a stunt Mars landing or anything else that does not begin with building a Von Braun-style permanent space station. That's the only way to be in it to win it.

Click to expand...

QFT

mindlight said:

Rocket Launch: NET November 2017 | SpaceX Falcon Heavy Inaugural Flight

This is the year the launch of the Falcon Heavy rocket ( planned payload to Mars- 16.8Tons) opens up the possibility of a man on Mars for the first time since the Apollo Space programme and the retirement of the Saturn 5.

The private initiatives of Elon Musk and Mars One are planning permanent Mars settlements by 2025 and 2032 respectively with a date to put a man on Mars as early as 2022 if the TLS ( payload 450 tons to Mars) development works out.

NASA (2030s maybe - 50 tons to mars max) and the FKA(2030 - 150 tons to low earth orbit) are planning return trips.

The Russian EnergiaV will not be available till 2028 and the SLS will not be available till 2029 in its full Mars transit version. The Chinese are developing the Long March 9( 37 tons to Mars) rocket with a target date of 2028. ESA do not really have any manned mission space programme worth talking about but maybe they will warm to the idea later?


Who do you think will win the race and why?

Would you consider moving to a Mars base?

What are the key ingredients for success and challenges to overcome for a Mars mission?

Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your space bubble, but Judgment Day will kinda interfere with any plans to go Mars. It may begin as soon as next week or next month? If the Great Tribulation doesn't at least begin by 2018, then maybe a futile mission to Mars will be in order. There is nothing there, it's a freezing planet with nothing. They would be safer to huddle with penguins in Antarctica and make some modern igloos to send all their wacko scientists to live while they contemplate their futile efforts to find the origin of life in the universe. There's a lot of water down there, they can pretend they are on Mars ... "Incredible_ we found it _ water_ look_ it's frozen_ but look_ see_ there's life!"

JacksBratt said:

So, with your degree in math and physics, can you explain how a metal vehicle, the size of a car, shaped like a cone:

1/ fell through the atmosphere at thousands of miles per hour, with absolutely no fins or vanes and did not topple like a tumbling hat, but.... fell perfectly with the "heat shield" facing the direction of travel... This happened perfectly "every" time.

Click to expand...

First I will tell you why. Very simple, aerodynamics. The same reason why a plane doesn't "tumble through the air like a top hat" is the same reason why the cone shaped reentry module didn't tumble through the air like a top hat.

Lets have some fun with science. For this, You need to design a simple cone. Grab an index card and some glue or tape. Make a funnel by rolling the edges of the card around any of the corners. Glue or tape it then cut the remaining excess so that you have a nice cone.

Now, find a very thin long needle and punch the needle through the center of the cone so that you essential make a weather vane. it will look similar to the "last" pic of this windsock


IN fact, a windsock also answers your question in reverse. But alas, lets stick to your original question why the "cone" doesn't tumble through the reentry like a top hat.

Now, make sure your cone can "easily" pivot around the needle 360 degrees. Now grab a fan and place the cone in front of the fan., Feel free to position the cone at different angles such that fan initially strikes the cone from the sides. What you will notice is that the flow of air around the cone will create a lift force that will point the cone directly INTO the fan.

Just like a windsock will always orient into the direction of the wind that is blowing.

But but but... when you reenter the atmosphere it's like a vacuum there isn't a lot of air....

True, there isn't a lot of air... but there is ENOUGH air. the stray air particles striking the cone at thousands of miles per hour have the net effect of "alot of air" and result in that flow force bending around the cone that orients the cone into the direction that the cone is traveling.

You can do this experiment ad nasuem as many times as you like in your home until you understand some basic air flow dynamics.

JacksBratt said:

So, with your degree in math and physics, can you explain how a metal vehicle, the size of a car, shaped like a cone:

2/ Had a heat shield on the bottom that glowed red hot from the friction while three men sat inches away and were not affected by the incredible heat being generated? How do you dissipate that much heat from a metal object in that short of a distance from the heat source.... Hint: think frying pan.

Click to expand...

The answer is due to heat transfer, conductivity, insulation, dissipation... First, let me tell you something about nature. Everything in nature, every force, every energy state is essentially very very lazy. IN general, they all follow the path of least resistance. Another principle in terms of transfer of things like "heat" is that it requires a medium. The heat energy needs a carrier to take it from one location to another. On earth, we are familiar with more physical carriers like air molecules and water molecules or ever direct surface contact which enables the direct transfer of that heat energy (there are other carriers but I'm limiting it to this for the sake of discussion and not to write a book here)...

Now, an interesting thing happens when you are dealing with super sonic air flow. You get shock waves which essentially can be thought of as regions that result in drastically different aerodynamics. One side effect of properly utilized shockwave fronts is insulation from heat. That is, you create regions in which the convective transfer of heat is greatly reduced and hindered.

Lastly, you have dissipation, taking heat energy and dumping it somewhere else. If you have a hot mug of tea on a cold day and your hands are cold and you wrap your hands around the mug the heat readily flows from the hot mug into your cold hands.

So, combining all of the above is how the astronauts heat shield works. The supersonic air flow creates a shockwave which results in a layer of insulation. THe remaining heat hits the heat shield but due to design that heat is carried away and dumped away from the astronauts. There are other layers of insulation which severely effects heat flow slowing it down long enough for the astronauts to make it through.

Have you ever seen someone walk on burning coals? Think about it. The coals are hundreds of degrees hot, hot enough to burn your skin right? Well, there is only a "thin" layer of ash between your foot and the coals. So how is it possible to walk on the coals without burning your feet?

Similarly principle.

Radagast said:

There was a special ablative heat shield. Back in the 60s there was a great publicity shot of a kitten sitting over a roaring bunsen burner, with only a thin heat shield in between. The kitten felt no heat at all.
.

Click to expand...

thanks for the assist. If that conceptual image doesn't help him understand than I don't know what to say.

Here is a picture of someone holding a bunsen burner up against a piece of aerogel with their hand on the other side in direct contact. Similar principle

JacksBratt said:

Well, they must have been brilliant back then as they went to the moon with a computer that was smaller than the calculators kids use today.

Not to mention that, when asked, on record, a NASA astronaut said that they cannot go to the moon today because......"we have lost that technology".
.

Click to expand...

I apologize for sounding condescending, but I find that the average person does not understand how truly brilliant the scientific minds of the past were and how smart scientists are in general.

I wish there was a "scientific history" course because there are so many amazing achievements made by mental giants of the past that the public does not properly appreciate.

Did you know that as far back as the 1600s they managed to calculate the diameter of the moon to within 1% accuracy? Or that in the 1700s they managed to predict the orbit of comets that pop in and out of our solar system?

Yes, the minds working at NASA (and any other scientific org worldwide) are brilliant. I don't know if you've ever been around someone who is brilliant, but it is a humbling experience. I worked with a man whose IQ was north of 170 and it was scary how insanely smart he was.

Back to sounding condescending, you need to put this "moon landing was fake" energy into actually studying the history of science.

This whole "Lost technology" argument is utter rubbish. Once you understand what science and technology are, then you'd understand you don't "lose" the secrets of going to the moon anymore than we'd lose the secret to building a skyscraper or designing an electronic circuit.

I will stop here. Got actual stuff to do and though this was fun, I'm done. Radagast did a fine job answering you. Similarly, in this age of google you can easily answer your own questions...

Who cares?

mindlight said:

Why would these be so much worse than the experience of colonists to the New World or Australia in the early days though. Today we would still be able to share information and news , indeed replicate the entire internet with a 20 minute real time pause. That is not isolation comparable to the experience of the early colonists.

Click to expand...

I don't think the settlers of america or any other new place didn't suffer from some psychological issues themselves.

mindlight said:

A world that sees everything in terms of personal pain or dysfunction never makes the sacrifice for a better tomorrow. However deranged the original settlers were their children were blessed for it.

Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing against the colonisation of mars. I can't tell where you got that from.

mindlight said:

Who do you think will win the race and why?

Would you consider moving to a Mars base?

What are the key ingredients for success and challenges to overcome for a Mars mission?

Click to expand...

If anyone will, I think it'll be NASA as they have done the most work to this point at least with Mars missions, however a manned mission? I don't know if I'll see it in my lifetime. At best travel one way to Mars is 150 days long, set up and exploration would have to take into account what they'd need to relaunch back to Earth and at this time, it's just not feasible. You could be looking at a 2 year expedition at least and just the resources you'd need to keep the crew alive while heading to Mars, once there, and then on the way back are pretty, pardon the pun astronomical.

Radagast said:

I have.



If you're right, the conspiracy includes:

• all of NASA
• everyone involved in retroreflector tests like the one in the video I posted
• everyone at the Australian radiotelescopes that received TV and radio signals from the moon
• everyone who's photographed landing sites on the moon
• and the list goes on...

Nutters on the Internet might say that, but that doesn't make it true.



Thanks to us Australians. You're welcome.

Click to expand...

Also the Soviets and Chinese proved it out.

Radagast said:

Kinetic energy is ½ m v^2. In this case, mass was 1/640 of the Saturn V, and escape velocity was 0.213 times Earth, meaning energy needed was 1/14,000 as much as for the Saturn V.

Click to expand...

The gravity on the Moon is about 17% what it is on the Earth. So if you weigh 200 pounds on Earth, you will weigh 34 pounds on the Moon.

so why don't the astronauts bounce 5 times higher as they bunny hop across the surface of the moon?



The Apollo suit, including the life support backpack, weighed about 180 pounds.

If an astronaut weighing 175 pounds wears the complete suit,

(180 + 175 =355)

the total weight is then about 355 pounds on earth. and


on the moon the total weight would only be about 61 pounds.




Javier Sotomayor high jumps an amazing 2.45m,

That's about 8 feet high in earth gravity


and

Mike Powell (long jumper) - Wikipedia


Mike Powell long Jump 8.95 m

That's about 29 feet long in earth gravity


and

on the moon the astronauts can barely

get their feet off the ground.

really?

mindlight said:

A better analogy than with isolation experiments inside volcanoes or Antarctican stations would therefore be the early experience of the American colonies in the new world. People lived in a tight community scared of what lay in the dark forests all around. But they worked together to survive and then thrive.

Click to expand...

Like I said, there should be testing of the idea. Are windows really psychologically necessary, for example, or are HDTV screens with a view of outside just as good?

naveed said:

The gravity on the Moon is about 17% what it is on the Earth. So if you weigh 200 pounds on Earth, you will weigh 34 pounds on the Moon.

so why don't the astronauts bounce 5 times higher as they bunny hop across the surface of the moon?

Click to expand...

Because most of them are smart enough not to try.

naveed said:

The gravity on the Moon is about 17% what it is on the Earth. So if you weigh 200 pounds on Earth, you will weigh 34 pounds on the Moon.

so why don't the astronauts bounce 5 times higher as they bunny hop across the surface of the moon?

?

Click to expand...

They weren't going for any medals, so they never went "all out" on any attempts. A few bunny hops. They certainly didn't intend to exhaust themselves doing long-jump trials when they had other work to do.

And it's not as though one is as limber in spacesuit as in a pair of running trunks and cleats.

They also didn't want to chance taking unnecessary tumbles---although their "weight" was lower on the moon, their mass and therefore their momentum were precisely the same. If they had taken a tumble on the moon, they would have landed (on the helmet, perhaps) with exactly the same force as if they had tripped wearing a 180 pound space suit on earth.

Do you "run for the gold" down the halls of your workplace every day? Why would you have expected them to?