Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture
Brent, speaking of the ISS, I have wondered if it could be put into an orbit that continuously cruised between Earth and Mars. When it swung by Mars it could drop off and retrieved crews. I don't see how the radiation would be any worse than the ISS crews are already exposed to. ------------------------------ On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 8:18 AM MST Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy wrote:
I attended the lecture last night on trajectories. It was really a good, stimulating talk. Thanks for passing the word along. There were some interesting side comments made about our launch capabilities and the Mars One effort. Mr. Adamo was not at all enthusiastic about the Mars One effort. His opinion is that the effort is doomed because there is not really a way to assure that folks going there would be safe - primarily from radiation. He has done some work with a former flight surgeon on designing a spacecraft to go to Mars. Their result is that in order to get sufficient shielding (using a water jacket), the spacecraft's mass would be around 380 metric tons. That is for a small crew, probably only about 5 members. For a point of comparison, the ISS mass is 400 metric tons. He made the comment that an astronaut who made this trip could only go to space once in this craft, and then he would be at the limit of radiation exposure for his life. The NASA limit is an increased risk of developing cancer of 5%. That brings us to our current launch capability. Our latest heavy lift rocket - the one we are currently developing - will have the capability to lift 130 metric tons to a very low earth orbit. So low, in fact, that it would burn up at perigee. The Apollo 17 Saturn 5 rocket lifted 140 metric tons into earth orbit -- higher than the new rocket will go. (I am sorry, but my mind will not allow me to recall the name of our currently being designed rocket.) Recall that it took several dozen shuttle launches to assemble the ISS. The Mars One vehicle would require either a hugely more massive launch rocket or a similar effort to build the craft. As I mentioned, it was a very intellectually stimulating lecture and did involve several ordinary differential equations. They were nicely explained in English by Mr. Adamo. This was the first time I have seen some real math put to Kepler's laws. There were many charts showing what it takes to leave the earth and go to the moon or Mars. It was a very well done lecture. The above is my recollection of the lecture, and may not actually represent the opinions of Mr. Adamo. It is only my interpretation of what he said. He knows his stuff, that is apparent. Thanks Patrick and Dr. Sohl for passing the word along. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Joe, I am no expert on orbits, but I do not think such an orbit would exist because of the differences in the orbits of Mars and the earth. Those differences are both in the difference of the plane of the orbits, the nodes, and the periods. Mr. Adamo was talking about different trajectories for each transfer to Mars. ISS is very massive and would take a huge rocket to get it to Mars. Alternatively a small rocket and a bunch of time may be used, but that is not practical for human travel because of the time involved. A trip to Mars is 300 days round trip, and you must stay there for an additional 500 days for the orbits to be just right for transfer. Those are his numbers. That makes the trip a total of 900 some odd days, and that is the radiation exposure issue. Like I said, I am no expert here. I am just repeating what I thought I heard last night. It was a great lecture. On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 8:36 AM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: Brent, speaking of the ISS, I have wondered if it could be put into an orbit that continuously cruised between Earth and Mars. When it swung by Mars it could drop off and retrieved crews. I don't see how the radiation would be any worse than the ISS crews are already exposed to. ------------------------------ On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 8:18 AM MST Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy wrote:
I attended the lecture last night on trajectories. It was really a good, stimulating talk. Thanks for passing the word along. There were some interesting side comments made about our launch capabilities and the Mars One effort. Mr. Adamo was not at all enthusiastic about the Mars One effort. His opinion is that the effort is doomed because there is not really a way to assure that folks going there would be safe - primarily from radiation. He has done some work with a former flight surgeon on designing a spacecraft to go to Mars. Their result is that in order to get sufficient shielding (using a water jacket), the spacecraft's mass would be around 380 metric tons. That is for a small crew, probably only about 5 members. For a point of comparison, the ISS mass is 400 metric tons. He made the comment that an astronaut who made this trip could only go to space once in this craft, and then he would be at the limit of radiation exposure for his life. The NASA limit is an increased risk of developing cancer of 5%. That brings us to our current launch capability. Our latest heavy lift rocket - the one we are currently developing - will have the capability to lift 130 metric tons to a very low earth orbit. So low, in fact, that it would burn up at perigee. The Apollo 17 Saturn 5 rocket lifted 140 metric tons into earth orbit -- higher than the new rocket will go. (I am sorry, but my mind will not allow me to recall the name of our currently being designed rocket.) Recall that it took several dozen shuttle launches to assemble the ISS. The Mars One vehicle would require either a hugely more massive launch rocket or a similar effort to build the craft. As I mentioned, it was a very intellectually stimulating lecture and did involve several ordinary differential equations. They were nicely explained in English by Mr. Adamo. This was the first time I have seen some real math put to Kepler's laws. There were many charts showing what it takes to leave the earth and go to the moon or Mars. It was a very well done lecture. The above is my recollection of the lecture, and may not actually represent the opinions of Mr. Adamo. It is only my interpretation of what he said. He knows his stuff, that is apparent. Thanks Patrick and Dr. Sohl for passing the word along. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
The other issue is they have as yet been unable to store food for 3 years and still have it edible. Along with the fact the human record for residing in space is one year and that is regular resupply. Sent from my iPad
On Feb 25, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe, I am no expert on orbits, but I do not think such an orbit would exist because of the differences in the orbits of Mars and the earth. Those differences are both in the difference of the plane of the orbits, the nodes, and the periods. Mr. Adamo was talking about different trajectories for each transfer to Mars. ISS is very massive and would take a huge rocket to get it to Mars. Alternatively a small rocket and a bunch of time may be used, but that is not practical for human travel because of the time involved. A trip to Mars is 300 days round trip, and you must stay there for an additional 500 days for the orbits to be just right for transfer. Those are his numbers. That makes the trip a total of 900 some odd days, and that is the radiation exposure issue. Like I said, I am no expert here. I am just repeating what I thought I heard last night. It was a great lecture.
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 8:36 AM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brent, speaking of the ISS, I have wondered if it could be put into an orbit that continuously cruised between Earth and Mars. When it swung by Mars it could drop off and retrieved crews. I don't see how the radiation would be any worse than the ISS crews are already exposed to.
------------------------------
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 8:18 AM MST Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy wrote:
I attended the lecture last night on trajectories. It was really a good, stimulating talk. Thanks for passing the word along. There were some interesting side comments made about our launch capabilities and the Mars One effort. Mr. Adamo was not at all enthusiastic about the Mars One effort. His opinion is that the effort is doomed because there is not really a way to assure that folks going there would be safe - primarily from radiation. He has done some work with a former flight surgeon on designing a spacecraft to go to Mars. Their result is that in order to get sufficient shielding (using a water jacket), the spacecraft's mass would be around 380 metric tons. That is for a small crew, probably only about 5 members. For a point of comparison, the ISS mass is 400 metric tons. He made the comment that an astronaut who made this trip could only go to space
Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe From: Erik Hansen <zaurak@digis.net> To: Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com>; Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture The other issue is they have as yet been unable to store food for 3 years and still have it edible. Along with the fact the human record for residing in space is one year and that is regular resupply. Sent from my iPad
On Feb 25, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe, I am no expert on orbits, but I do not think such an orbit would exist because of the differences in the orbits of Mars and the earth. Those differences are both in the difference of the plane of the orbits, the nodes, and the periods. Mr. Adamo was talking about different trajectories for each transfer to Mars. ISS is very massive and would take a huge rocket to get it to Mars. Alternatively a small rocket and a bunch of time may be used, but that is not practical for human travel because of the time involved. A trip to Mars is 300 days round trip, and you must stay there for an additional 500 days for the orbits to be just right for transfer. Those are his numbers. That makes the trip a total of 900 some odd days, and that is the radiation exposure issue. Like I said, I am no expert here. I am just repeating what I thought I heard last night. It was a great lecture.
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 8:36 AM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brent, speaking of the ISS, I have wondered if it could be put into an orbit that continuously cruised between Earth and Mars. When it swung by Mars it could drop off and retrieved crews. I don't see how the radiation would be any worse than the ISS crews are already exposed to.
------------------------------
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 8:18 AM MST Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy wrote:
I attended the lecture last night on trajectories. It was really a good, stimulating talk. Thanks for passing the word along. There were some interesting side comments made about our launch capabilities and the Mars One effort. Mr. Adamo was not at all enthusiastic about the Mars One effort. His opinion is that the effort is doomed because there is not really a way to assure that folks going there would be safe - primarily from radiation. He has done some work with a former flight surgeon on designing a spacecraft to go to Mars. Their result is that in order to get sufficient shielding (using a water jacket), the spacecraft's mass would be around 380 metric tons. That is for a small crew, probably only about 5 members. For a point of comparison, the ISS mass is 400 metric tons. He made the comment that an astronaut who made this trip could only go to space
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Joe: Low earth orbit is still deep inside the gravity well of the planet earth. In terms of energy the ISS is only halfway to achieving an orbit around the sun. It's still a long way uphill to get anywhere. DT Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe From: Erik Hansen <zaurak@digis.net> To: Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com>; Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture The other issue is they have as yet been unable to store food for 3 years and still have it edible. Along with the fact the human record for residing in space is one year and that is regular resupply. Sent from my iPad
On Feb 25, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe, I am no expert on orbits, but I do not think such an orbit would exist because of the differences in the orbits of Mars and the earth. Those differences are both in the difference of the plane of the orbits, the nodes, and the periods. Mr. Adamo was talking about different trajectories for each transfer to Mars. ISS is very massive and would take a huge rocket to get it to Mars. Alternatively a small rocket and a bunch of time may be used, but that is not practical for human travel because of the time involved. A trip to Mars is 300 days round trip, and you must stay there for an additional 500 days for the orbits to be just right for transfer. Those are his numbers. That makes the trip a total of 900 some odd days, and that is the radiation exposure issue. Like I said, I am no expert here. I am just repeating what I thought I heard last night. It was a great lecture.
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 8:36 AM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brent, speaking of the ISS, I have wondered if it could be put into an orbit that continuously cruised between Earth and Mars. When it swung by Mars it could drop off and retrieved crews. I don't see how the radiation would be any worse than the ISS crews are already exposed to.
------------------------------
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 8:18 AM MST Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy wrote:
I attended the lecture last night on trajectories. It was really a good, stimulating talk. Thanks for passing the word along. There were some interesting side comments made about our launch capabilities and the Mars One effort. Mr. Adamo was not at all enthusiastic about the Mars One effort. His opinion is that the effort is doomed because there is not really a way to assure that folks going there would be safe - primarily from radiation. He has done some work with a former flight surgeon on designing a spacecraft to go to Mars. Their result is that in order to get sufficient shielding (using a water jacket), the spacecraft's mass would be around 380 metric tons. That is for a small crew, probably only about 5 members. For a point of comparison, the ISS mass is 400 metric tons. He made the comment that an astronaut who made this trip could only go to space
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Daniel, you just beat me to it. The ISS is still traveling well below escape velocity. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, daniel turner via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe: Low earth orbit is still deep inside the gravity well of the planet earth. In terms of energy the ISS is only halfway to achieving an orbit around the sun. It's still a long way uphill to get anywhere. DT
Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe
This question has prompted 15 minutes of nerdgasm among several of our staff. Looks like the "delta-v" necessary to transition from Low Earth Orbit to a bare-bones transfer orbit to Mars is a skosh under 5 km/sec. Long story short, if you magically decree that the 420,000 kg ISS is structurally capable of undergoing the acceleration achievable by real-world chemical rockets, and also magically provision the ISS for a 20-month round-trip crewed mission, and then magically shield it to protect its crew from the radiation received in interplanetary space, all without increasing its mass (hence the need for magic) then you'd need to find a way to strap four or five sets of Space Shuttle boosters, main engines and Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel tanks (i.e., everything but the shuttle orbiter itself) to the ISS if your goal is the accelerate the ISS and send it to Mars. (And if you want a Mars landing vehicle and a habitat for astronauts while they wait for the ISS's next visit, that's extra.) And just how do you get four or five completely fueled sets of Space Shuttle rockets into Low Earth Orbit? Ummmm... Seth -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:49 PM To: daniel turner; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture Daniel, you just beat me to it. The ISS is still traveling well below escape velocity. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, daniel turner via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe: Low earth orbit is still deep inside the gravity well of the planet earth. In terms of energy the ISS is only halfway to achieving an orbit around the sun. It's still a long way uphill to get anywhere. DT
Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Along with this, if you somehow accomplished this - you are ultimately in an orbit around the Sun. You can't have an orbit with Mars and the earth as the focal points. They are, of course, independently orbiting the Sun. So on your return part of your orbit you probably won't come anywhere close to where the earth is when you get "back". Clear skies, Dale. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote:
This question has prompted 15 minutes of nerdgasm among several of our staff.
Looks like the "delta-v" necessary to transition from Low Earth Orbit to a bare-bones transfer orbit to Mars is a skosh under 5 km/sec.
Long story short, if you magically decree that the 420,000 kg ISS is structurally capable of undergoing the acceleration achievable by real-world chemical rockets, and also magically provision the ISS for a 20-month round-trip crewed mission, and then magically shield it to protect its crew from the radiation received in interplanetary space, all without increasing its mass (hence the need for magic) then you'd need to find a way to strap four or five sets of Space Shuttle boosters, main engines and Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel tanks (i.e., everything but the shuttle orbiter itself) to the ISS if your goal is the accelerate the ISS and send it to Mars. (And if you want a Mars landing vehicle and a habitat for astronauts while they wait for the ISS's next visit, that's extra.)
And just how do you get four or five completely fueled sets of Space Shuttle rockets into Low Earth Orbit?
Ummmm...
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:49 PM To: daniel turner; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture
Daniel, you just beat me to it. The ISS is still traveling well below escape velocity.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, daniel turner via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe: Low earth orbit is still deep inside the gravity well of the planet earth. In terms of energy the ISS is only halfway to achieving an orbit around the sun. It's still a long way uphill to get anywhere. DT
Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Dale, the orbit would require frequent tweaking Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 26, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Dale Hooper <dchooper5@gmail.com> wrote:
Along with this, if you somehow accomplished this - you are ultimately in an orbit around the Sun. You can't have an orbit with Mars and the earth as the focal points. They are, of course, independently orbiting the Sun. So on your return part of your orbit you probably won't come anywhere close to where the earth is when you get "back".
Clear skies, Dale.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote:
This question has prompted 15 minutes of nerdgasm among several of our staff.
Looks like the "delta-v" necessary to transition from Low Earth Orbit to a bare-bones transfer orbit to Mars is a skosh under 5 km/sec.
Long story short, if you magically decree that the 420,000 kg ISS is structurally capable of undergoing the acceleration achievable by real-world chemical rockets, and also magically provision the ISS for a 20-month round-trip crewed mission, and then magically shield it to protect its crew from the radiation received in interplanetary space, all without increasing its mass (hence the need for magic) then you'd need to find a way to strap four or five sets of Space Shuttle boosters, main engines and Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel tanks (i.e., everything but the shuttle orbiter itself) to the ISS if your goal is the accelerate the ISS and send it to Mars. (And if you want a Mars landing vehicle and a habitat for astronauts while they wait for the ISS's next visit, that's extra.)
And just how do you get four or five completely fueled sets of Space Shuttle rockets into Low Earth Orbit?
Ummmm...
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:49 PM To: daniel turner; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture
Daniel, you just beat me to it. The ISS is still traveling well below escape velocity.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, daniel turner via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe: Low earth orbit is still deep inside the gravity well of the planet earth. In terms of energy the ISS is only halfway to achieving an orbit around the sun. It's still a long way uphill to get anywhere. DT
Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Joe, The ISS will have to slow down. It is in orbit around the sun and therefore a higher energy situation than Mars. The arrival velocity is made to be about the same as the departure from earth - 4 to 6 km per second. You have to lose that energy, or whatever you are dropping off has to lose it. My calculations were for ISS, and did not include the entry nor re-entry vehicle. On Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:34 PM, Joe via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote: Dale, the orbit would require frequent tweaking Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 26, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Dale Hooper <dchooper5@gmail.com> wrote:
Along with this, if you somehow accomplished this - you are ultimately in an orbit around the Sun. You can't have an orbit with Mars and the earth as the focal points. They are, of course, independently orbiting the Sun. So on your return part of your orbit you probably won't come anywhere close to where the earth is when you get "back".
Clear skies, Dale.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote:
This question has prompted 15 minutes of nerdgasm among several of our staff.
Looks like the "delta-v" necessary to transition from Low Earth Orbit to a bare-bones transfer orbit to Mars is a skosh under 5 km/sec.
Long story short, if you magically decree that the 420,000 kg ISS is structurally capable of undergoing the acceleration achievable by real-world chemical rockets, and also magically provision the ISS for a 20-month round-trip crewed mission, and then magically shield it to protect its crew from the radiation received in interplanetary space, all without increasing its mass (hence the need for magic) then you'd need to find a way to strap four or five sets of Space Shuttle boosters, main engines and Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel tanks (i.e., everything but the shuttle orbiter itself) to the ISS if your goal is the accelerate the ISS and send it to Mars. (And if you want a Mars landing vehicle and a habitat for astronauts while they wait for the ISS's next visit, that's extra.)
And just how do you get four or five completely fueled sets of Space Shuttle rockets into Low Earth Orbit?
Ummmm...
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:49 PM To: daniel turner; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture
Daniel, you just beat me to it. The ISS is still traveling well below escape velocity.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, daniel turner via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe: Low earth orbit is still deep inside the gravity well of the planet earth. In terms of energy the ISS is only halfway to achieving an orbit around the sun. It's still a long way uphill to get anywhere. DT
Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Pshaw, like in the classic movie The Thing (John Carpenter version), once Chuck is done taking inventory of and organizing all the cool stuff in his basement, we'll just have him assemble an interplanetary transporter; problem solved without all the heavy lifting. From: Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> To: 'Utah Astronomy' <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture This question has prompted 15 minutes of nerdgasm among several of our staff. Looks like the "delta-v" necessary to transition from Low Earth Orbit to a bare-bones transfer orbit to Mars is a skosh under 5 km/sec. Long story short, if you magically decree that the 420,000 kg ISS is structurally capable of undergoing the acceleration achievable by real-world chemical rockets, and also magically provision the ISS for a 20-month round-trip crewed mission, and then magically shield it to protect its crew from the radiation received in interplanetary space, all without increasing its mass (hence the need for magic) then you'd need to find a way to strap four or five sets of Space Shuttle boosters, main engines and Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel tanks (i.e., everything but the shuttle orbiter itself) to the ISS if your goal is the accelerate the ISS and send it to Mars. (And if you want a Mars landing vehicle and a habitat for astronauts while they wait for the ISS's next visit, that's extra.) And just how do you get four or five completely fueled sets of Space Shuttle rockets into Low Earth Orbit? Ummmm... Seth -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:49 PM To: daniel turner; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture Daniel, you just beat me to it. The ISS is still traveling well below escape velocity. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, daniel turner via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe: Low earth orbit is still deep inside the gravity well of the planet earth. In terms of energy the ISS is only halfway to achieving an orbit around the sun. It's still a long way uphill to get anywhere. DT
Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Joe, Well, that was fun! I just made some calculations to answer your question. It was fun manipulating Newton's second law to get the answer and then comparing that answer to the Saturn 5 rocket. Joe we don't have to lift it from the earth's surface. We have to lift it from the Earth's orbit to Mars' orbit. Not a trivial task. But here are the answers you asked for - if my math is correct. We have to add between 4 km/sec and 6 km/sec according to Mr. Adamo for a reasonable transfer orbit. That is between 8,950 and 13,424 miles per hour! We then have to lose that velocity on the other end. Actually, because the gravity of Mars is less than that of the earth we will have to lose more, but we'll ignore that for right now. If we were to use the Saturn 5 1st stage, we would require a burn of between 47 an 70 seconds on both ends. The Saturn 5 rocket could only be ignited once. It could not be stopped and then relighted. That is a total burn of between 94 and 140 seconds. The Saturn 5 first stage burn time was 165 seconds. Of course, we would have to get the Saturn 5 first stage into orbit and rendezvous with ISS. The Saturn 5 first stage had a mass of 2290 metric tons. That is beyond the capabilities of even the Saturn 5 let alone anything we have or are designing today. Of course it could be done with more than one trip, but we're talking about more than half the mass of ISS that took several dozen trips to complete. Ok, how about the second stage? Using the thrust available there we would require a burn time of between 354 and 545 seconds on each end. Total burn time would be between 11.8 minutes and 18.2 minutes. It was designed to burn for only 360 seconds (6 minutes), and could not be re-started. That's out. Ok, a smaller rocket. The Saturn 3rd stage. That would require a burn on each end of between 1600 and 2400 seconds. Total burn time would be between 53 minutes and 80 minutes. The third stage could be restarted, but could only burn for 165 seconds and then again for 335 seconds. As you can see, to send ISS to Mars is a pretty large order. We have, nor have we ever had anything that would do the job. Nor has any other country. If I am not mistaken, the Saturn 5 was the largest rocket ever to grace the earth. There is nothing that compares to it today, nor is anything on the drawing boards. It is also evident that the Saturn 5 is a very bad match to this task. We would need to build a vehicle that is much better tailored to the requirements of this mission. I hope this answers your question. Brent On Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:46 PM, Richard Tenney via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote: Pshaw, like in the classic movie The Thing (John Carpenter version), once Chuck is done taking inventory of and organizing all the cool stuff in his basement, we'll just have him assemble an interplanetary transporter; problem solved without all the heavy lifting. From: Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> To: 'Utah Astronomy' <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture This question has prompted 15 minutes of nerdgasm among several of our staff. Looks like the "delta-v" necessary to transition from Low Earth Orbit to a bare-bones transfer orbit to Mars is a skosh under 5 km/sec. Long story short, if you magically decree that the 420,000 kg ISS is structurally capable of undergoing the acceleration achievable by real-world chemical rockets, and also magically provision the ISS for a 20-month round-trip crewed mission, and then magically shield it to protect its crew from the radiation received in interplanetary space, all without increasing its mass (hence the need for magic) then you'd need to find a way to strap four or five sets of Space Shuttle boosters, main engines and Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel tanks (i.e., everything but the shuttle orbiter itself) to the ISS if your goal is the accelerate the ISS and send it to Mars. (And if you want a Mars landing vehicle and a habitat for astronauts while they wait for the ISS's next visit, that's extra.) And just how do you get four or five completely fueled sets of Space Shuttle rockets into Low Earth Orbit? Ummmm... Seth -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:49 PM To: daniel turner; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture Daniel, you just beat me to it. The ISS is still traveling well below escape velocity. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, daniel turner via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe: Low earth orbit is still deep inside the gravity well of the planet earth. In terms of energy the ISS is only halfway to achieving an orbit around the sun. It's still a long way uphill to get anywhere. DT
Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
On top of all this, remember that 50% of all the probes sent to Mars have failed (United States, European Space Agency and Russia). Also, probes don’t really care if they come back. I would assume, unless you send people like me, that the astronauts would want to come back. With our budget cutbacks I don’t think we’re going anywhere. By the time we get around to it, Cape Canaveral will be under water.
On Feb 26, 2015, at 15:45, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe, Well, that was fun! I just made some calculations to answer your question. It was fun manipulating Newton's second law to get the answer and then comparing that answer to the Saturn 5 rocket. Joe we don't have to lift it from the earth's surface. We have to lift it from the Earth's orbit to Mars' orbit. Not a trivial task. But here are the answers you asked for - if my math is correct. We have to add between 4 km/sec and 6 km/sec according to Mr. Adamo for a reasonable transfer orbit. That is between 8,950 and 13,424 miles per hour! We then have to lose that velocity on the other end. Actually, because the gravity of Mars is less than that of the earth we will have to lose more, but we'll ignore that for right now. If we were to use the Saturn 5 1st stage, we would require a burn of between 47 an 70 seconds on both ends. The Saturn 5 rocket could only be ignited once. It could not be stopped and then relighted. That is a total burn of between 94 and 140 seconds. The Saturn 5 first stage burn time was 165 seconds. Of course, we would have to get the Saturn 5 first stage into orbit and rendezvous with ISS. The Saturn 5 first stage had a mass of 2290 metric tons. That is beyond the capabilities of even the Saturn 5 let alone anything we have or are designing today. Of course it could be done with more than one trip, but we're talking about more than half the mass of ISS that took several dozen trips to complete. Ok, how about the second stage? Using the thrust available there we would require a burn time of between 354 and 545 seconds on each end. Total burn time would be between 11.8 minutes and 18.2 minutes. It was designed to burn for only 360 seconds (6 minutes), and could not be re-started. That's out. Ok, a smaller rocket. The Saturn 3rd stage. That would require a burn on each end of between 1600 and 2400 seconds. Total burn time would be between 53 minutes and 80 minutes. The third stage could be restarted, but could only burn for 165 seconds and then again for 335 seconds. As you can see, to send ISS to Mars is a pretty large order. We have, nor have we ever had anything that would do the job. Nor has any other country. If I am not mistaken, the Saturn 5 was the largest rocket ever to grace the earth. There is nothing that compares to it today, nor is anything on the drawing boards. It is also evident that the Saturn 5 is a very bad match to this task. We would need to build a vehicle that is much better tailored to the requirements of this mission. I hope this answers your question. Brent
On Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:46 PM, Richard Tenney via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Pshaw, like in the classic movie The Thing (John Carpenter version), once Chuck is done taking inventory of and organizing all the cool stuff in his basement, we'll just have him assemble an interplanetary transporter; problem solved without all the heavy lifting.
From: Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> To: 'Utah Astronomy' <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture
This question has prompted 15 minutes of nerdgasm among several of our staff.
Looks like the "delta-v" necessary to transition from Low Earth Orbit to a bare-bones transfer orbit to Mars is a skosh under 5 km/sec.
Long story short, if you magically decree that the 420,000 kg ISS is structurally capable of undergoing the acceleration achievable by real-world chemical rockets, and also magically provision the ISS for a 20-month round-trip crewed mission, and then magically shield it to protect its crew from the radiation received in interplanetary space, all without increasing its mass (hence the need for magic) then you'd need to find a way to strap four or five sets of Space Shuttle boosters, main engines and Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel tanks (i.e., everything but the shuttle orbiter itself) to the ISS if your goal is the accelerate the ISS and send it to Mars. (And if you want a Mars landing vehicle and a habitat for astronauts while they wait for the ISS's next visit, that's extra.)
And just how do you get four or five completely fueled sets of Space Shuttle rockets into Low Earth Orbit?
Ummmm...
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:49 PM To: daniel turner; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture
Daniel, you just beat me to it. The ISS is still traveling well below escape velocity.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, daniel turner via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe: Low earth orbit is still deep inside the gravity well of the planet earth. In terms of energy the ISS is only halfway to achieving an orbit around the sun. It's still a long way uphill to get anywhere. DT
Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Brent, that was a most interesting reply and I'm going to think about it. One point you made, however, I might disagree with. That is the need to slow the ISS down by a great deal when it reaches Mars. I imagine it as a continuous bus, taking on and letting cargo and people off in the vicinity of Mars and Earth. Once in the right trajectory I imagine it won't take a Saturn V to tweak the orbit. Thanks for the answer! Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 26, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> wrote:
On top of all this, remember that 50% of all the probes sent to Mars have failed (United States, European Space Agency and Russia). Also, probes don’t really care if they come back. I would assume, unless you send people like me, that the astronauts would want to come back. With our budget cutbacks I don’t think we’re going anywhere. By the time we get around to it, Cape Canaveral will be under water.
On Feb 26, 2015, at 15:45, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe, Well, that was fun! I just made some calculations to answer your question. It was fun manipulating Newton's second law to get the answer and then comparing that answer to the Saturn 5 rocket. Joe we don't have to lift it from the earth's surface. We have to lift it from the Earth's orbit to Mars' orbit. Not a trivial task. But here are the answers you asked for - if my math is correct. We have to add between 4 km/sec and 6 km/sec according to Mr. Adamo for a reasonable transfer orbit. That is between 8,950 and 13,424 miles per hour! We then have to lose that velocity on the other end. Actually, because the gravity of Mars is less than that of the earth we will have to lose more, but we'll ignore that for right now. If we were to use the Saturn 5 1st stage, we would require a burn of between 47 an 70 seconds on both ends. The Saturn 5 rocket could only be ignited once. It could not be stopped and then relighted. That is a total burn of between 94 and 140 seconds. The Saturn 5 first stage burn time was 165 seconds. Of course, we would have to get the Saturn 5 first stage into orbit and rendezvous with ISS. The Saturn 5 first stage had a mass of 2290 metric tons. That is beyond the capabilities of even the Saturn 5 let alone anything we have or are designing today. Of course it could be done with more than one trip, but we're talking about more than half the mass of ISS that took several dozen trips to complete. Ok, how about the second stage? Using the thrust available there we would require a burn time of between 354 and 545 seconds on each end. Total burn time would be between 11.8 minutes and 18.2 minutes. It was designed to burn for only 360 seconds (6 minutes), and could not be re-started. That's out. Ok, a smaller rocket. The Saturn 3rd stage. That would require a burn on each end of between 1600 and 2400 seconds. Total burn time would be between 53 minutes and 80 minutes. The third stage could be restarted, but could only burn for 165 seconds and then again for 335 seconds. As you can see, to send ISS to Mars is a pretty large order. We have, nor have we ever had anything that would do the job. Nor has any other country. If I am not mistaken, the Saturn 5 was the largest rocket ever to grace the earth. There is nothing that compares to it today, nor is anything on the drawing boards. It is also evident that the Saturn 5 is a very bad match to this task. We would need to build a vehicle that is much better tailored to the requirements of this mission. I hope this answers your question. Brent
On Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:46 PM, Richard Tenney via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Pshaw, like in the classic movie The Thing (John Carpenter version), once Chuck is done taking inventory of and organizing all the cool stuff in his basement, we'll just have him assemble an interplanetary transporter; problem solved without all the heavy lifting.
From: Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> To: 'Utah Astronomy' <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture
This question has prompted 15 minutes of nerdgasm among several of our staff.
Looks like the "delta-v" necessary to transition from Low Earth Orbit to a bare-bones transfer orbit to Mars is a skosh under 5 km/sec.
Long story short, if you magically decree that the 420,000 kg ISS is structurally capable of undergoing the acceleration achievable by real-world chemical rockets, and also magically provision the ISS for a 20-month round-trip crewed mission, and then magically shield it to protect its crew from the radiation received in interplanetary space, all without increasing its mass (hence the need for magic) then you'd need to find a way to strap four or five sets of Space Shuttle boosters, main engines and Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel tanks (i.e., everything but the shuttle orbiter itself) to the ISS if your goal is the accelerate the ISS and send it to Mars. (And if you want a Mars landing vehicle and a habitat for astronauts while they wait for the ISS's next visit, that's extra.)
And just how do you get four or five completely fueled sets of Space Shuttle rockets into Low Earth Orbit?
Ummmm...
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:49 PM To: daniel turner; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture
Daniel, you just beat me to it. The ISS is still traveling well below escape velocity.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, daniel turner via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe: Low earth orbit is still deep inside the gravity well of the planet earth. In terms of energy the ISS is only halfway to achieving an orbit around the sun. It's still a long way uphill to get anywhere. DT
Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe
Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Anyone ever play Kerbal Space Program? It lets you do all kinds of cool stuff like this... https://kerbalspaceprogram.com Dan -- Daniel Holmes, danielh@holmesonics.com "Laugh while you can, monkey boy!" -- Lord John Whorfin
On Feb 26, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Joe via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Brent, that was a most interesting reply and I'm going to think about it. One point you made, however, I might disagree with. That is the need to slow the ISS down by a great deal when it reaches Mars. I imagine it as a continuous bus, taking on and letting cargo and people off in the vicinity of Mars and Earth. Once in the right trajectory I imagine it won't take a Saturn V to tweak the orbit. Thanks for the answer! Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 26, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> wrote:
On top of all this, remember that 50% of all the probes sent to Mars have failed (United States, European Space Agency and Russia). Also, probes don’t really care if they come back. I would assume, unless you send people like me, that the astronauts would want to come back. With our budget cutbacks I don’t think we’re going anywhere. By the time we get around to it, Cape Canaveral will be under water.
On Feb 26, 2015, at 15:45, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe, Well, that was fun! I just made some calculations to answer your question. It was fun manipulating Newton's second law to get the answer and then comparing that answer to the Saturn 5 rocket. Joe we don't have to lift it from the earth's surface. We have to lift it from the Earth's orbit to Mars' orbit. Not a trivial task. But here are the answers you asked for - if my math is correct. We have to add between 4 km/sec and 6 km/sec according to Mr. Adamo for a reasonable transfer orbit. That is between 8,950 and 13,424 miles per hour! We then have to lose that velocity on the other end. Actually, because the gravity of Mars is less than that of the earth we will have to lose more, but we'll ignore that for right now. If we were to use the Saturn 5 1st stage, we would require a burn of between 47 an 70 seconds on both ends. The Saturn 5 rocket could only be ignited once. It could not be stopped and then relighted. That is a total burn of between 94 and 140 seconds. The Saturn 5 first stage burn time was 165 seconds. Of course, we would have to get the Saturn 5 first stage into orbit and rendezvous with ISS. The Saturn 5 first stage had a mass of 2290 metric tons. That is beyond the capabilities of even the Saturn 5 let alone anything we have or are designing today. Of course it could be done with more than one trip, but we're talking about more than half the mass of ISS that took several dozen trips to complete. Ok, how about the second stage? Using the thrust available there we would require a burn time of between 354 and 545 seconds on each end. Total burn time would be between 11.8 minutes and 18.2 minutes. It was designed to burn for only 360 seconds (6 minutes), and could not be re-started. That's out. Ok, a smaller rocket. The Saturn 3rd stage. That would require a burn on each end of between 1600 and 2400 seconds. Total burn time would be between 53 minutes and 80 minutes. The third stage could be restarted, but could only burn for 165 seconds and then again for 335 seconds. As you can see, to send ISS to Mars is a pretty large order. We have, nor have we ever had anything that would do the job. Nor has any other country. If I am not mistaken, the Saturn 5 was the largest rocket ever to grace the earth. There is nothing that compares to it today, nor is anything on the drawing boards. It is also evident that the Saturn 5 is a very bad match to this task. We would need to build a vehicle that is much better tailored to the requirements of this mission. I hope this answers your question. Brent
On Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:46 PM, Richard Tenney via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Pshaw, like in the classic movie The Thing (John Carpenter version), once Chuck is done taking inventory of and organizing all the cool stuff in his basement, we'll just have him assemble an interplanetary transporter; problem solved without all the heavy lifting.
From: Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> To: 'Utah Astronomy' <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture
This question has prompted 15 minutes of nerdgasm among several of our staff.
Looks like the "delta-v" necessary to transition from Low Earth Orbit to a bare-bones transfer orbit to Mars is a skosh under 5 km/sec.
Long story short, if you magically decree that the 420,000 kg ISS is structurally capable of undergoing the acceleration achievable by real-world chemical rockets, and also magically provision the ISS for a 20-month round-trip crewed mission, and then magically shield it to protect its crew from the radiation received in interplanetary space, all without increasing its mass (hence the need for magic) then you'd need to find a way to strap four or five sets of Space Shuttle boosters, main engines and Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel tanks (i.e., everything but the shuttle orbiter itself) to the ISS if your goal is the accelerate the ISS and send it to Mars. (And if you want a Mars landing vehicle and a habitat for astronauts while they wait for the ISS's next visit, that's extra.)
And just how do you get four or five completely fueled sets of Space Shuttle rockets into Low Earth Orbit?
Ummmm...
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:49 PM To: daniel turner; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture
Daniel, you just beat me to it. The ISS is still traveling well below escape velocity.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, daniel turner via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe: Low earth orbit is still deep inside the gravity well of the planet earth. In terms of energy the ISS is only halfway to achieving an orbit around the sun. It's still a long way uphill to get anywhere. DT
Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe
Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Seems to me I remember 3 people from ATK (now Northrup Grumman) explaining why they were designing a completely new rocket system called the constellation because it was now impossible to reproduce a satyr and five (don't you love spellcheckers) as there are no factories, no tooling, and no people to do the work of building a Saturn five rocket. Sent from my iPad
On Feb 26, 2015, at 8:56 PM, Daniel Holmes review of building a <danielh@holmesonics.com> wrote:
Anyone ever play Kerbal Space Program? It lets you do all kinds of cool stuff like this...
https://kerbalspaceprogram.com
Dan
-- Daniel Holmes, danielh@holmesonics.com "Laugh while you can, monkey boy!" -- Lord John Whorfin
On Feb 26, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Joe via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Brent, that was a most interesting reply and I'm going to think about it. One point you made, however, I might disagree with. That is the need to slow the ISS down by a great deal when it reaches Mars. I imagine it as a continuous bus, taking on and letting cargo and people off in the vicinity of Mars and Earth. Once in the right trajectory I imagine it won't take a Saturn V to tweak the orbit. Thanks for the answer! Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 26, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> wrote:
On top of all this, remember that 50% of all the probes sent to Mars have failed (United States, European Space Agency and Russia). Also, probes don’t really care if they come back. I would assume, unless you send people like me, that the astronauts would want to come back. With our budget cutbacks I don’t think we’re going anywhere. By the time we get around to it, Cape Canaveral will be under water.
On Feb 26, 2015, at 15:45, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe, Well, that was fun! I just made some calculations to answer your question. It was fun manipulating Newton's second law to get the answer and then comparing that answer to the Saturn 5 rocket. Joe we don't have to lift it from the earth's surface. We have to lift it from the Earth's orbit to Mars' orbit. Not a trivial task. But here are the answers you asked for - if my math is correct. We have to add between 4 km/sec and 6 km/sec according to Mr. Adamo for a reasonable transfer orbit. That is between 8,950 and 13,424 miles per hour! We then have to lose that velocity on the other end. Actually, because the gravity of Mars is less than that of the earth we will have to lose more, but we'll ignore that for right now. If we were to use the Saturn 5 1st stage, we would require a burn of between 47 an 70 seconds on both ends. The Saturn 5 rocket could only be ignited once. It could not be stopped and then relighted. That is a total burn of between 94 and 140 seconds. The Saturn 5 first stage burn time was 165 seconds. Of course, we would have to get the Saturn 5 first stage into orbit and rendezvous with ISS. The Saturn 5 first stage had a mass of 2290 metric tons. That is beyond the capabilities of even the Saturn 5 let alone anything we have or are designing today. Of course it could be done with more than one trip, but we're talking about more than half the mass of ISS that took several dozen trips to complete. Ok, how about the second stage? Using the thrust available there we would require a burn time of between 354 and 545 seconds on each end. Total burn time would be between 11.8 minutes and 18.2 minutes. It was designed to burn for only 360 seconds (6 minutes), and could not be re-started. That's out. Ok, a smaller rocket. The Saturn 3rd stage. That would require a burn on each end of between 1600 and 2400 seconds. Total burn time would be between 53 minutes and 80 minutes. The third stage could be restarted, but could only burn for 165 seconds and then again for 335 seconds. As you can see, to send ISS to Mars is a pretty large order. We have, nor have we ever had anything that would do the job. Nor has any other country. If I am not mistaken, the Saturn 5 was the largest rocket ever to grace the earth. There is nothing that compares to it today, nor is anything on the drawing boards. It is also evident that the Saturn 5 is a very bad match to this task. We would need to build a vehicle that is much better tailored to the requirements of this mission. I hope this answers your question. Brent
On Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:46 PM, Richard Tenney via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Pshaw, like in the classic movie The Thing (John Carpenter version), once Chuck is done taking inventory of and organizing all the cool stuff in his basement, we'll just have him assemble an interplanetary transporter; problem solved without all the heavy lifting.
From: Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> To: 'Utah Astronomy' <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture
This question has prompted 15 minutes of nerdgasm among several of our staff.
Looks like the "delta-v" necessary to transition from Low Earth Orbit to a bare-bones transfer orbit to Mars is a skosh under 5 km/sec.
Long story short, if you magically decree that the 420,000 kg ISS is structurally capable of undergoing the acceleration achievable by real-world chemical rockets, and also magically provision the ISS for a 20-month round-trip crewed mission, and then magically shield it to protect its crew from the radiation received in interplanetary space, all without increasing its mass (hence the need for magic) then you'd need to find a way to strap four or five sets of Space Shuttle boosters, main engines and Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel tanks (i.e., everything but the shuttle orbiter itself) to the ISS if your goal is the accelerate the ISS and send it to Mars. (And if you want a Mars landing vehicle and a habitat for astronauts while they wait for the ISS's next visit, that's extra.)
And just how do you get four or five completely fueled sets of Space Shuttle rockets into Low Earth Orbit?
Ummmm...
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:49 PM To: daniel turner; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture
Daniel, you just beat me to it. The ISS is still traveling well below escape velocity.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, daniel turner via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe: Low earth orbit is still deep inside the gravity well of the planet earth. In terms of energy the ISS is only halfway to achieving an orbit around the sun. It's still a long way uphill to get anywhere. DT
Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe
Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
There are a primarily two viable types of orbits that would support this. The first are called cycler or VISIT (Versatile International Station for Interplanetary Transport) orbits. With a heliocentric orbital period of 1.25 years and a semi-major axis of 1.16 AU you could have "close" (see below) encounters with Earth once every five years and with Mars once every 3.75 years. Alternatively, an orbit of 1.5 years and a semi-major axis of 1.31 AU can result in Earth encounters once every three years and Mars encounters once every 7.5 years. Neither alone works particularly well for manned missions. With one vehicle in each orbit type (one to take you there and another to bring you home), you'd still be looking at no less than 5 year round trip missions. Once the vehicles are launched to orbit, they would require almost no fuel to maintain the orbits. The primary difficulty with a heliocentric orbit that is resonant or cyclical (i.e., on a regular cycle) is that you can't get too close to either planet or the gravity-assist throws everything out of whack. This requires some significant ΔV near each planet to either get from the station to the planet or from the planet to the station. Most Earth approaches would be well outside the moon's orbit with approach speeds around 4 km/s. The second and more generally accepted type of orbit utilizes planetary gravity assists and are usually called UP/DOWN Escalator Orbits. In the case of Mars, it's called the "Aldrin Cycler" after Buzz who proposed the idea. This type gets a vehicle to Mars in ~6 months, spends 16 months beyond Mars orbit, then re-encounters Mars for a ~6 month transfer back to Earth. With two vehicles, you could do repeated ~2 year missions - 6 months there, one year on Mars, and 6 months back. This second type gets you very close to the planet, but these orbits require more fuel to get started and notable (though not impossible with current technologies) trajectory adjustments every few orbits. Because the planet approaches are very close, they have very high approach speeds, especially at Mars (often over 11km/s - see Brent's wonderful post to get an idea of how many Saturn V's it would take to stop there). In short, there are orbits that do what Joe suggested, but both require fuel requirements well beyond our current capabilities if you want to stop anywhere along the way. There are many variations on these two orbit types that could make them more feasible for a manned Mars mission, but most require several vehicles to get the mission duration below a couple years. Additional reading: - http://courses.ae.utexas.edu/ase333t/past_projects/04spring/Cycler%20Website... - https://engineering.purdue.edu/people/james.m.longuski.1/ConferencePapersPre... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler - http://buzzaldrin.com/files/pdf/2002.AIAA_PAPER.Analysis_of_a_Broad_Class_of... - https://engineering.purdue.edu/people/james.m.longuski.1/ConferencePapersPre... Jared
Much appreciated, and a good report, Jared! Glad I'm not totally off-the-wall. -- Joe From: Jared Smith <jared@smithplanet.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture There are a primarily two viable types of orbits that would support this. The first are called cycler or VISIT (Versatile International Station for Interplanetary Transport) orbits. With a heliocentric orbital period of 1.25 years and a semi-major axis of 1.16 AU you could have "close" (see below) encounters with Earth once every five years and with Mars once every 3.75 years. Alternatively, an orbit of 1.5 years and a semi-major axis of 1.31 AU can result in Earth encounters once every three years and Mars encounters once every 7.5 years. Neither alone works particularly well for manned missions. With one vehicle in each orbit type (one to take you there and another to bring you home), you'd still be looking at no less than 5 year round trip missions. Once the vehicles are launched to orbit, they would require almost no fuel to maintain the orbits. The primary difficulty with a heliocentric orbit that is resonant or cyclical (i.e., on a regular cycle) is that you can't get too close to either planet or the gravity-assist throws everything out of whack. This requires some significant ΔV near each planet to either get from the station to the planet or from the planet to the station. Most Earth approaches would be well outside the moon's orbit with approach speeds around 4 km/s. The second and more generally accepted type of orbit utilizes planetary gravity assists and are usually called UP/DOWN Escalator Orbits. In the case of Mars, it's called the "Aldrin Cycler" after Buzz who proposed the idea. This type gets a vehicle to Mars in ~6 months, spends 16 months beyond Mars orbit, then re-encounters Mars for a ~6 month transfer back to Earth. With two vehicles, you could do repeated ~2 year missions - 6 months there, one year on Mars, and 6 months back. This second type gets you very close to the planet, but these orbits require more fuel to get started and notable (though not impossible with current technologies) trajectory adjustments every few orbits. Because the planet approaches are very close, they have very high approach speeds, especially at Mars (often over 11km/s - see Brent's wonderful post to get an idea of how many Saturn V's it would take to stop there). In short, there are orbits that do what Joe suggested, but both require fuel requirements well beyond our current capabilities if you want to stop anywhere along the way. There are many variations on these two orbit types that could make them more feasible for a manned Mars mission, but most require several vehicles to get the mission duration below a couple years. Additional reading: - http://courses.ae.utexas.edu/ase333t/past_projects/04spring/Cycler%20Website... - https://engineering.purdue.edu/people/james.m.longuski.1/ConferencePapersPre... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler - http://buzzaldrin.com/files/pdf/2002.AIAA_PAPER.Analysis_of_a_Broad_Class_of... - https://engineering.purdue.edu/people/james.m.longuski.1/ConferencePapersPre... Jared _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
How much would be necessary to do it with 100 tons of water layered around the crew areas for radiation protection? -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:45 PM To: Richard Tenney; Utah Astronomy; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture Joe, Well, that was fun! I just made some calculations to answer your question. It was fun manipulating Newton's second law to get the answer and then comparing that answer to the Saturn 5 rocket. Joe we don't have to lift it from the earth's surface. We have to lift it from the Earth's orbit to Mars' orbit. Not a trivial task. But here are the answers you asked for - if my math is correct. We have to add between 4 km/sec and 6 km/sec according to Mr. Adamo for a reasonable transfer orbit. That is between 8,950 and 13,424 miles per hour! We then have to lose that velocity on the other end. Actually, because the gravity of Mars is less than that of the earth we will have to lose more, but we'll ignore that for right now. If we were to use the Saturn 5 1st stage, we would require a burn of between 47 an 70 seconds on both ends. The Saturn 5 rocket could only be ignited once. It could not be stopped and then relighted. That is a total burn of between 94 and 140 seconds. The Saturn 5 first stage burn time was 165 seconds. Of course, we would have to get the Saturn 5 first stage into orbit and rendezvous with ISS. The Saturn 5 first stage had a mass of 2290 metric tons. That is beyond the capabilities of even the Saturn 5 let alone anything we have or are designing today. Of course it could be done with more than one trip, but we're talking about more than half the mass of ISS that took several dozen trips to complete. Ok, how about the second stage? Using the thrust available there we would require a burn time of between 354 and 545 seconds on each end. Total burn time would be between 11.8 minutes and 18.2 minutes. It was designed to burn for only 360 seconds (6 minutes), and could not be re-started. That's out. Ok, a smaller rocket. The Saturn 3rd stage. That would require a burn on each end of between 1600 and 2400 seconds. Total burn time would be between 53 minutes and 80 minutes. The third stage could be restarted, but could only burn for 165 seconds and then again for 335 seconds. As you can see, to send ISS to Mars is a pretty large order. We have, nor have we ever had anything that would do the job. Nor has any other country. If I am not mistaken, the Saturn 5 was the largest rocket ever to grace the earth. There is nothing that compares to it today, nor is anything on the drawing boards. It is also evident that the Saturn 5 is a very bad match to this task. We would need to build a vehicle that is much better tailored to the requirements of this mission. I hope this answers your question. Brent On Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:46 PM, Richard Tenney via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote: Pshaw, like in the classic movie The Thing (John Carpenter version), once Chuck is done taking inventory of and organizing all the cool stuff in his basement, we'll just have him assemble an interplanetary transporter; problem solved without all the heavy lifting. From: Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> To: 'Utah Astronomy' <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture This question has prompted 15 minutes of nerdgasm among several of our staff. Looks like the "delta-v" necessary to transition from Low Earth Orbit to a bare-bones transfer orbit to Mars is a skosh under 5 km/sec. Long story short, if you magically decree that the 420,000 kg ISS is structurally capable of undergoing the acceleration achievable by real-world chemical rockets, and also magically provision the ISS for a 20-month round-trip crewed mission, and then magically shield it to protect its crew from the radiation received in interplanetary space, all without increasing its mass (hence the need for magic) then you'd need to find a way to strap four or five sets of Space Shuttle boosters, main engines and Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel tanks (i.e., everything but the shuttle orbiter itself) to the ISS if your goal is the accelerate the ISS and send it to Mars. (And if you want a Mars landing vehicle and a habitat for astronauts while they wait for the ISS's next visit, that's extra.) And just how do you get four or five completely fueled sets of Space Shuttle rockets into Low Earth Orbit? Ummmm... Seth -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:49 PM To: daniel turner; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture Daniel, you just beat me to it. The ISS is still traveling well below escape velocity. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, daniel turner via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe: Low earth orbit is still deep inside the gravity well of the planet earth. In terms of energy the ISS is only halfway to achieving an orbit around the sun. It's still a long way uphill to get anywhere. DT
Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Newton's second law states that force is proportional to mass. If 100 metric tons of water are added to ISS, the thrust would be increased by (520/420)-1, or 23.8%. The additional push can be garnered either by a stronger push or by pushing longer. Newton's second law is typically expressed as F=ma, but since we can make the substitution a=v/t and then solve for t, the equation becomes t=mv/F. for a constant force, more time is required as mass is increased. Does that make sense? Brent On Thursday, March 5, 2015 8:10 AM, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote: How much would be necessary to do it with 100 tons of water layered around the crew areas for radiation protection? -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:45 PM To: Richard Tenney; Utah Astronomy; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture Joe, Well, that was fun! I just made some calculations to answer your question. It was fun manipulating Newton's second law to get the answer and then comparing that answer to the Saturn 5 rocket. Joe we don't have to lift it from the earth's surface. We have to lift it from the Earth's orbit to Mars' orbit. Not a trivial task. But here are the answers you asked for - if my math is correct. We have to add between 4 km/sec and 6 km/sec according to Mr. Adamo for a reasonable transfer orbit. That is between 8,950 and 13,424 miles per hour! We then have to lose that velocity on the other end. Actually, because the gravity of Mars is less than that of the earth we will have to lose more, but we'll ignore that for right now. If we were to use the Saturn 5 1st stage, we would require a burn of between 47 an 70 seconds on both ends. The Saturn 5 rocket could only be ignited once. It could not be stopped and then relighted. That is a total burn of between 94 and 140 seconds. The Saturn 5 first stage burn time was 165 seconds. Of course, we would have to get the Saturn 5 first stage into orbit and rendezvous with ISS. The Saturn 5 first stage had a mass of 2290 metric tons. That is beyond the capabilities of even the Saturn 5 let alone anything we have or are designing today. Of course it could be done with more than one trip, but we're talking about more than half the mass of ISS that took several dozen trips to complete. Ok, how about the second stage? Using the thrust available there we would require a burn time of between 354 and 545 seconds on each end. Total burn time would be between 11.8 minutes and 18.2 minutes. It was designed to burn for only 360 seconds (6 minutes), and could not be re-started. That's out. Ok, a smaller rocket. The Saturn 3rd stage. That would require a burn on each end of between 1600 and 2400 seconds. Total burn time would be between 53 minutes and 80 minutes. The third stage could be restarted, but could only burn for 165 seconds and then again for 335 seconds. As you can see, to send ISS to Mars is a pretty large order. We have, nor have we ever had anything that would do the job. Nor has any other country. If I am not mistaken, the Saturn 5 was the largest rocket ever to grace the earth. There is nothing that compares to it today, nor is anything on the drawing boards. It is also evident that the Saturn 5 is a very bad match to this task. We would need to build a vehicle that is much better tailored to the requirements of this mission. I hope this answers your question. Brent On Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:46 PM, Richard Tenney via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote: Pshaw, like in the classic movie The Thing (John Carpenter version), once Chuck is done taking inventory of and organizing all the cool stuff in his basement, we'll just have him assemble an interplanetary transporter; problem solved without all the heavy lifting. From: Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> To: 'Utah Astronomy' <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture This question has prompted 15 minutes of nerdgasm among several of our staff. Looks like the "delta-v" necessary to transition from Low Earth Orbit to a bare-bones transfer orbit to Mars is a skosh under 5 km/sec. Long story short, if you magically decree that the 420,000 kg ISS is structurally capable of undergoing the acceleration achievable by real-world chemical rockets, and also magically provision the ISS for a 20-month round-trip crewed mission, and then magically shield it to protect its crew from the radiation received in interplanetary space, all without increasing its mass (hence the need for magic) then you'd need to find a way to strap four or five sets of Space Shuttle boosters, main engines and Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel tanks (i.e., everything but the shuttle orbiter itself) to the ISS if your goal is the accelerate the ISS and send it to Mars. (And if you want a Mars landing vehicle and a habitat for astronauts while they wait for the ISS's next visit, that's extra.) And just how do you get four or five completely fueled sets of Space Shuttle rockets into Low Earth Orbit? Ummmm... Seth -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:49 PM To: daniel turner; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Last night's lecture Daniel, you just beat me to it. The ISS is still traveling well below escape velocity. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, daniel turner via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Joe: Low earth orbit is still deep inside the gravity well of the planet earth. In terms of energy the ISS is only halfway to achieving an orbit around the sun. It's still a long way uphill to get anywhere. DT
Brent, Your answer touched on an issue I don't fully understand. How much thrust would it take to nudge the ISS, which is already in orbit, into another orbit that would sligshot it toward Mars? It's not as if we need to lift it into space. Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Rest in peace, Spock. :^( http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/02/27/leonard-nimoy-spock-star-tre... Linton
Damn. Saw a blurb he was admitted to a hospital again. He's had lung problems for many years. He quit smoking 30 years ago, but it wasn't enough. He had a good life. Managed to walk a fine line between overzealous fans and chosen profession. By accident I caught an old episode of "Sea Hunt" with Lloyd Bridges. One of the other actors caught my attention and took a good look at him. It was a very young Leonard Nimoy. At least five years before becoming Mr. Spock. He was never controversial just, "logical." FYI, Channel 4.2, MeTV runs original ST episodes every Saturday night at 8:00. Looks like they've been remastered, so they are pretty clean. Pass the chocolate Rich. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linton Rohr" <lintonius@earthlink.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 10:59:35 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Speaking of Star Trek... Rest in peace, Spock. :^( http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/02/27/leonard-nimoy-spock-star-tre... Linton _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
The radiation would be much worse once you get outside of the magnetopause. Even though the ISS is in Earth orbit, it's still protected by the magnetic field of the Earth--it's huge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field Thanks, Dan -- Daniel Holmes, danielh@holmesonics.com "Laugh while you can, monkey boy!" -- Lord John Whorfin
On Feb 25, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Joe Bauman via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Brent, speaking of the ISS, I have wondered if it could be put into an orbit that continuously cruised between Earth and Mars. When it swung by Mars it could drop off and retrieved crews. I don't see how the radiation would be any worse than the ISS crews are already exposed to.
------------------------------
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 8:18 AM MST Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy wrote:
I attended the lecture last night on trajectories. It was really a good, stimulating talk. Thanks for passing the word along. There were some interesting side comments made about our launch capabilities and the Mars One effort. Mr. Adamo was not at all enthusiastic about the Mars One effort. His opinion is that the effort is doomed because there is not really a way to assure that folks going there would be safe - primarily from radiation. He has done some work with a former flight surgeon on designing a spacecraft to go to Mars. Their result is that in order to get sufficient shielding (using a water jacket), the spacecraft's mass would be around 380 metric tons. That is for a small crew, probably only about 5 members. For a point of comparison, the ISS mass is 400 metric tons. He made the comment that an astronaut who made this trip could only go to space once in this craft, and then he would be at the limit of radiation exposure for his life. The NASA limit is an increased risk of developing cancer of 5%. That brings us to our current launch capability. Our latest heavy lift rocket - the one we are currently developing - will have the capability to lift 130 metric tons to a very low earth orbit. So low, in fact, that it would burn up at perigee. The Apollo 17 Saturn 5 rocket lifted 140 metric tons into earth orbit -- higher than the new rocket will go. (I am sorry, but my mind will not allow me to recall the name of our currently being designed rocket.) Recall that it took several dozen shuttle launches to assemble the ISS. The Mars One vehicle would require either a hugely more massive launch rocket or a similar effort to build the craft. As I mentioned, it was a very intellectually stimulating lecture and did involve several ordinary differential equations. They were nicely explained in English by Mr. Adamo. This was the first time I have seen some real math put to Kepler's laws. There were many charts showing what it takes to leave the earth and go to the moon or Mars. It was a very well done lecture. The above is my recollection of the lecture, and may not actually represent the opinions of Mr. Adamo. It is only my interpretation of what he said. He knows his stuff, that is apparent. Thanks Patrick and Dr. Sohl for passing the word along. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
participants (15)
-
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
Dale Hooper -
Daniel Holmes -
daniel turner -
Dave Gary -
Erik Hansen -
Jared Smith -
Joan Carman -
Joe -
Joe Bauman
-
Larry Holmes -
Linton Rohr -
Richard Tenney -
Seth Jarvis