-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 6563)
Message
Captcha
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: 7Z, GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG, RAR, SWF, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 551 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Patches and Stickers for sale here



File 141298503256.png - (196.07KB , 749x472 , 1412718627060365.png )
6563 No. 6563 ID: e8f72b
...

>Current projections for Mars-ready habitats put their weight at roughly 31 tons for a 4-person crew. With a torpor statis habitat, according to SpaceWorks, the same crew could be housed at a comparatively feathery 15 tons. Thus, the crew size of a Mars mission could be theoretically doubled without increasing the weight of the craft. A lightweight spaceship means less powerful rockets are needed to launch it, which further reduces fuel weight and cost.

>Of course, SpaceWorks mentions the psychological benefits of being asleep for 180 days instead of slowly descending into space madness. However, the chief advantage of deep sleep during space travel is likely cost and resource savings.

>As you might expect, there’s a ton of research that still needs to be done before astronauts can be made to hibernate for months at a time. RhinoChill has so far only been used in therapeutic scenarios—and most importantly, only here on Earth. It remains to be seen whether the technique can be used in orbit, but the potential savings on a flight to Mars could just be motivation enough for NASA to try it out.
Expand all images
>> No. 6564 ID: e8f72b
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/nasa-is-getting-serious-about-space-hibernation
>> No. 6566 ID: 315bfa
fucking finally... it took them this long?
>> No. 6567 ID: b5332d
>>6563
This isn't going to be even close to reality for quite a while.

Also, electrostimulation isn't going to be enough to maintain strength and load bearing capacity. They've got a lot of work to do.
>> No. 6569 ID: 9a1d75
>TPN when not absolutely necessary
lolnope.
>> No. 6570 ID: db7b1c
>>6567
It just has to keep the astronaut alive until he gets there and completes his mission, if he makes it back alive that's just a bonus

We've sent people to die for lesser causes, and if we won't do it for this far more important mission, someone like China will
>> No. 6571 ID: d94be2
File 141315269242.jpg - (10.87KB , 178x174 , Mechanicussymbol.jpg )
6571
>>6570
Fuck it, I'll volunteer. If only to beat the sneaky Chinese. No other reason at all. What? Why would I want cast away my weak imperfect flesh for the perfection of steel? You're crazy, man.
>> No. 6572 ID: 9e61f9
File 141315503180.jpg - (83.05KB , 400x400 , 19951787.jpg )
6572
>>6571
>> No. 6574 ID: 1bcc0d
>>6567
They'll still have to deal with decalcification of the skeleton from low gravity. The muscles could be handled with electrical stimulation, but the skeleton needs gravity.
>> No. 6575 ID: 264fa3
>>6574
Centrifuge?

Since they are asleep, you don't have to spin the whole ship, or even a large habitation ring. Just the bed with the necessary life support equipment.

Think g-force simulator that you lay down in.
>> No. 6576 ID: db7b1c
>>6575
>>6574
They can handle it for a year or so without permanent damage (see Valeri Plyakov, Sergei Krikalev etc), that's three months travel there with six months of work and three months travel back
>> No. 6579 ID: f2400b
>>6576

It would be interesting to see if Mars' gravity would be sufficient to sustain our skeletons. I unfortunately don't have the numbers on hand, and I'm too hopped up on the aftermath of dental work to figure out good search terms for it, but to my foggy mind it seems like if that's the case you could reduce the risk of skeletal decay further just by being on Mars for a while.

Now if that's USEFUL I have no fucking idea, but it could be neat.
>> No. 6580 ID: 885afe
>>6563
PLEASE SPACE FLY
>> No. 6581 ID: db7b1c
>>6579
I'm thinking if it's possible to mitigate it with exercise in orbit, it would be easier on mars

But you'd still have loss... maybe you could hold out for years, but nothing permanent
>> No. 6582 ID: 1bcc0d
>>6576
>Travel back
This is the problem, EVERY TIME, that we run into with Mars missions.

We're unwilling to commit to actually sending people there long-term. What we need to do is say "Look, we're going to send you there, but you're going to be there for years at the minimum. We're going to have to supply you from here for long enough that you can assemble your own rocket ship for the lift back, and by that time we expect you to have a fully-assembled and functioning Martian base.

No, instead we're just trying to do the Apollo Program on a Martian scale, which is a bad idea. We need to colonize the Moon first, to test all the required "live on Mars" technologies (like pre-fab shelters, low-g hydroponics, etc), then after the moon has at least started sustaining itself food and air-wise, use that as a low-G shipyard for building the big ship we'd take to Mars itself.

The Americas were not exploited and explored from long-distance, it was done by *colonists*. Why we assume Mars can be any different is beyond me.

And don't tell me folks wouldn't volunteer, because they would. By the thousands. Glory has a luster that few things can match.
>> No. 6584 ID: 264fa3
>>6582
>The Americas were not exploited and explored from long-distance, it was done by *colonists*. Why we assume Mars can be any different is beyond me.

While I applaud your enthusiasm, that's not really how it went down. The initial pan-Atlantic voyages were round trip affairs. No meaningful colonization started until it was deemed to be economically advantageous to the ruling class.

Though, to be fair, the rovers could be said to have filled the role of the pre-colonization voyages. So.... *shrug*

>And don't tell me folks wouldn't volunteer, because they would.

I know that I would, in a second.

In fact, that's my go-to comment when something pisses me off at work. "Fuck this shit, I'm on the first ship to Mars."

My theory is that they won't send useless people into space. It's just too expensive to lift dead weight.

Knowing my luck though, I'd end up on the first season of "Survivor: Mars"
>> No. 6586 ID: 18bb47
>>6584
The initial "discovery" voyages were two-way trips(Columbus, etc), but a lot of the Conquistadors set up settlements on the coast as soon as they arrived.

But, importantly, all of those voyages were made assuming that resupply would happen in the New World, and that folks might not come back.

Now, I agree that Profit isn't something I see in funding a Martian expedition, there's nothing there that we can't get here. Prestige is no longer valuable, these days the leper is King because he can claim the largest disability and is thus the most deserving of public funds.

But! There is profit on the moon, because a low-G, geologically-stable environment would be ridiculously simple for building and testing things. We could make a particle accelerator a 100 miles wide without hippies screaming, without earthquakes, and without even digging under a mountain.

Nevermind the fact that the moon would be fairly simple to farm, and has all the He-3 humanity could ever want.
>> No. 6624 ID: ca62af
>>6584
>No meaningful colonization started until it was deemed to be economically advantageous to the ruling class.

Not exactly accurate, it was the mercantile class that funded colonization efforts, the ruling class only cared about land ownership. Colonization of North America took off once the ruling class realized they could tax the mercantile class because people wanted to buy all this tobacco and wood and shit. It was mostly crazies and outcasts and criminals and religious whackos that moved to North America.
>> No. 6956 ID: d0d1e7
>>6624
it's still mostly crazies and outcasts and criminals and religious whackos in North America
>> No. 6957 ID: 95f3d6
I imagine space exploration will get easier once we create durable robots with high dexterity. Why send people to mars when you could send androids there to set up the base, start mining, build the return ship, etc, then send people.

>>6956

Well that's the kind of A-Team you need to play the rest of the planet like puppets.
>> No. 6958 ID: 29bdea
File 142127757349.png - (103.06KB , 199x202 , americlap.png )
6958
>>6957
USA! USA!
>> No. 6959 ID: 52aa49
>>6957
The first thing we need is the ability to beat the gravity well cheaply. That's the first problem of a spacefaring species.
>> No. 6970 ID: a6b004
>>6959
Medium and small-lift reusable rockets, launching shit into space, where it gets assembled in zero-G into big and heavy shit.

One of the problems with the Mars One program is that the rockets needed to launch shit from AZ to Mars are fuckhuge and megafuckspensive. It'd be easier and cheaper to get it all into space on cheap, small rockets, then transfer the cargo to a single massive "freight" rocket rocket that goes to Mars.

Not that there aren't other problems with the MarsOne plan, like the lack of onsite manufacturing capability for spare parts, and the lack of a viable way to seperate and vent excess oxygen from the modules.

We need to get the Moon going so we can launch shit from there. 1/6 the gravity, no atmosphere to punch through...
>> No. 6971 ID: 95f3d6
>>6959

If my time with KSP taught me anything, it's that we should assemble the final rocket in space. In orbit around earth, or maybe the moon. Not sure if the extra Delta V of a moon orbit justifies the complication.

I think at this point we wouldn't have any issue with the whole concept of assembly in space.
>> No. 6972 ID: 003f83
>>6970
>reusable rockets

we need a space elevator to the moon
>> No. 6981 ID: a6b004
>>6971
Stuff can be electromagnetically launched from the moon, there's no atmosphere. The moon has iron, aluminum, titanium, everything we'd need for really good alloys and metals except carbon, and we could do things there that we never could on Earth just because there's no environment to pollute.

Think about it: any gas, from pure O2 to uranium hexaflouride would just float away. There's no groundwater to pollute if your foundry explodes, or if your rocket fuel plant leaks.

As long as we shipped a few chemicals there, it would be the ideal place to build components, which then get put into orbit, assembled, and send Out.

Plus, with the moon being so stable tectonically, we could do a lot more underground. Farms, cities, etc. Better than the surface, actually, because of the radiation.
>> No. 6982 ID: aec606
>>6981
All that, and the gravity would be better to work in. It's what, 1/6th earth normal?

No fear of floating away, normal tools would work fine, and heavy stuff that would normally require a machine could be carried by hand (albeit carefully because mass.)
>> No. 6987 ID: 3681a8
>>6982
>All that, and the gravity would be better to work in. It's what, 1/6th earth normal?

Slightly less than that. A pound on earth is about .1 pounds on the moon.

This is cool, you can compare how much you'd weigh on different planets/moons and other celestial bodies.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/weight/

Surprising that Europa's gravity is so low and Neptune's is so high.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason