www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

c++.chat - Postcard from Mars

reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040125a/Pancam_So
l1_Postcard_part.jpg
Jan 25 2004
next sibling parent reply "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
It's pretty amazing stuff, really.

Think we'll ever get there?

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:bv1pee$1ap4$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 l1_Postcard_part.jpg

Jan 27 2004
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
There are two fundamental problems that must be solved:

1) a cheaper way to push mass into orbit

2) create a self-sustaining base on Mars at least as far as air, water, and
food goes. It is so far away that if people there are totally dependent on
resupply from Earth, it will be a dead-end, literally and figureatively.


(1) is impossible as long as NASA remains committed to the inefficient
shuttle concept. The whole idea of pushing that great big mass into orbit,
only to bring it down again just to get the people back, just makes no
sense. A sensible approach would be to build the space station out of
shuttle hulls, and drop the astronauts back to earth in light, disposable
(and relatively safe) apollo-type capsules. (Think of all the weight savings
by not having to push into orbit things like tiles, wings, rudders, wheels,
etc.) In fact, the rockets pushing people into orbit should be different
from those pushing mass into orbit. The former can be made safe and would be
safe if all they do is push a minimal capsule up. The latter can be much
less safe, therefore cheaper, and it pushes up all the equipment, living
space, supplies, etc.

But no, politics rules the space program, not common sense. So (1) will not
happen.

(2) I see little progress in that direction.


"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:bv7220$10gh$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 It's pretty amazing stuff, really.

 Think we'll ever get there?

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:bv1pee$1ap4$1 digitaldaemon.com...


 l1_Postcard_part.jpg


Jan 27 2004
parent reply "KarL" <karl kimay.net> writes:
There has been several articles in New Scientist and Scientitic American on
space transports etc.

There are simpler method for (1).  It is possible to have transporter planes
that flies into very high altitudes high for cargos/fuels, and rocket propelled
"shuttles" that remain permanent in orbit that flies "down" to transfer cargo
from planes to shuttles and back to space/orbit.  Back in the 70's when
NASA was testing the shuttles, the Columbia was piggy back on a 747
anyway.  Except the technology of the 70's never got changed.  It is
always the re-entry that is the problem - the brute force approach.



"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:bv7iev$1se8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 There are two fundamental problems that must be solved:

 1) a cheaper way to push mass into orbit

 2) create a self-sustaining base on Mars at least as far as air, water, and
 food goes. It is so far away that if people there are totally dependent on
 resupply from Earth, it will be a dead-end, literally and figureatively.


 (1) is impossible as long as NASA remains committed to the inefficient
 shuttle concept. The whole idea of pushing that great big mass into orbit,
 only to bring it down again just to get the people back, just makes no
 sense. A sensible approach would be to build the space station out of
 shuttle hulls, and drop the astronauts back to earth in light, disposable
 (and relatively safe) apollo-type capsules. (Think of all the weight savings
 by not having to push into orbit things like tiles, wings, rudders, wheels,
 etc.) In fact, the rockets pushing people into orbit should be different
 from those pushing mass into orbit. The former can be made safe and would be
 safe if all they do is push a minimal capsule up. The latter can be much
 less safe, therefore cheaper, and it pushes up all the equipment, living
 space, supplies, etc.

 But no, politics rules the space program, not common sense. So (1) will not
 happen.

 (2) I see little progress in that direction.

Jan 27 2004
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"KarL" <karl kimay.net> wrote in message
news:bv7k1c$1upb$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 There has been several articles in New Scientist and Scientitic American

 space transports etc.

 There are simpler method for (1).  It is possible to have transporter

 that flies into very high altitudes high for cargos/fuels, and rocket

 "shuttles" that remain permanent in orbit that flies "down" to transfer

 from planes to shuttles and back to space/orbit.  Back in the 70's when
 NASA was testing the shuttles, the Columbia was piggy back on a 747
 anyway.  Except the technology of the 70's never got changed.  It is
 always the re-entry that is the problem - the brute force approach.

The question I have is why worry about reentry? The only thing that *needs* reentry are the people. They can reenter with simple, proven apollo type capsules. Adding reentry capability to anything else adds enormous cost and complexity. It surely must be far cheaper to just build another one than build one capable of reentry. Look at the shuttle, and strip it of its reentry capability. There's probably only 10% of it left!
Jan 28 2004
parent reply "Kar G Lim" <klim machealth.com.au> writes:
It is almost like nothing gets done without Microsoft linkage....

As SpaceShipOne demonstrated in this historical flight,  the concept I
quoted
back in January was demonstrated by Paul Allen's pet project.  The
difference
is that we don't have billions of dollars to play.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/22/1087669926764.html

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:bv92ve$1c7h$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 There has been several articles in New Scientist and Scientitic American

 space transports etc.

 There are simpler method for (1).  It is possible to have transporter

 that flies into very high altitudes high for cargos/fuels, and rocket

 "shuttles" that remain permanent in orbit that flies "down" to transfer

 from planes to shuttles and back to space/orbit.  Back in the 70's when
 NASA was testing the shuttles, the Columbia was piggy back on a 747
 anyway.  Except the technology of the 70's never got changed.  It is
 always the re-entry that is the problem - the brute force approach.

The question I have is why worry about reentry? The only thing that

 reentry are the people. They can reenter with simple, proven apollo type
 capsules. Adding reentry capability to anything else adds enormous cost

 complexity.

 It surely must be far cheaper to just build another one than build one
 capable of reentry. Look at the shuttle, and strip it of its reentry
 capability. There's probably only 10% of it left!

Jun 21 2004
next sibling parent reply "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:
Fantastic!

Hmm, just pondering how I can get Paul Allen's email so I can offer my services
-
at very modest rates - to the project.

Well, I can dream, can't I?


"Kar G Lim" <klim machealth.com.au> wrote in message
news:cb8f4c$m8m$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 It is almost like nothing gets done without Microsoft linkage....

 As SpaceShipOne demonstrated in this historical flight,  the concept I
 quoted
 back in January was demonstrated by Paul Allen's pet project.  The
 difference
 is that we don't have billions of dollars to play.

 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/22/1087669926764.html

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:bv92ve$1c7h$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 There has been several articles in New Scientist and Scientitic American

 space transports etc.

 There are simpler method for (1).  It is possible to have transporter

 that flies into very high altitudes high for cargos/fuels, and rocket

 "shuttles" that remain permanent in orbit that flies "down" to transfer

 from planes to shuttles and back to space/orbit.  Back in the 70's when
 NASA was testing the shuttles, the Columbia was piggy back on a 747
 anyway.  Except the technology of the 70's never got changed.  It is
 always the re-entry that is the problem - the brute force approach.

The question I have is why worry about reentry? The only thing that

 reentry are the people. They can reenter with simple, proven apollo type
 capsules. Adding reentry capability to anything else adds enormous cost

 complexity.

 It surely must be far cheaper to just build another one than build one
 capable of reentry. Look at the shuttle, and strip it of its reentry
 capability. There's probably only 10% of it left!


Jun 22 2004
parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message
news:cb8m7a$10r5$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Fantastic!

 Hmm, just pondering how I can get Paul Allen's email so I can offer my

 at very modest rates - to the project.

 Well, I can dream, can't I?

I think Rutan is in charge of the engineering, not Allen, so he'd be the person to contact. I also bet he's a lot more accessible!
Jun 22 2004
prev sibling parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
It's an impressive achievement. But it did not go fast enough to have to
deal with reentry heat. I wonder what Rutan plans to do about that. And I
also think that there's nothing better that Allen could be doing with his
money than investing in this. My hat is off to him.

"Kar G Lim" <klim machealth.com.au> wrote in message
news:cb8f4c$m8m$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 It is almost like nothing gets done without Microsoft linkage....

 As SpaceShipOne demonstrated in this historical flight,  the concept I
 quoted
 back in January was demonstrated by Paul Allen's pet project.  The
 difference
 is that we don't have billions of dollars to play.

 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/22/1087669926764.html

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:bv92ve$1c7h$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 There has been several articles in New Scientist and Scientitic



 on
 space transports etc.

 There are simpler method for (1).  It is possible to have transporter

 that flies into very high altitudes high for cargos/fuels, and rocket

 "shuttles" that remain permanent in orbit that flies "down" to



 cargo
 from planes to shuttles and back to space/orbit.  Back in the 70's



 NASA was testing the shuttles, the Columbia was piggy back on a 747
 anyway.  Except the technology of the 70's never got changed.  It is
 always the re-entry that is the problem - the brute force approach.

The question I have is why worry about reentry? The only thing that

 reentry are the people. They can reenter with simple, proven apollo type
 capsules. Adding reentry capability to anything else adds enormous cost

 complexity.

 It surely must be far cheaper to just build another one than build one
 capable of reentry. Look at the shuttle, and strip it of its reentry
 capability. There's probably only 10% of it left!


Jun 21 2004
prev sibling parent roland <--rv ronetech.com> writes:
Walter a écrit :
 http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040125a/Pancam_So
 l1_Postcard_part.jpg
 
 

http://asimov.esrin.esa.int:8766/queryIG.html?rf=3&searchType=general&tipo=Image&tx0=Image&tx1=&col=mmg&qp=&qs=&qc=&ws=1&nh=12&lk=1&vf=0&ql=a&op0=%2B&fl0=ContentType%3A&ty0=p&op1=%2B&fl1=category%3A&ty1=p&op2=%2B&fl2=showcase%3A&ty2=p&tx2=SEMU775V9ED&showcase=Mars+Express Amazing images. If you have a pair of 3d glasses, even better. The hi-res images are worth downloading if you have a broadband connection. Incredible details.
Feb 12 2004