mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Science & Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-08-05, 12:57   #67
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009

1,987 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly
There is one answer here: https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...5&postcount=14
Also the volume of a Space-X Starship with maybe 25 people would be ok.
I looked at a cross-section of the inside. This would work for a small group of people. No more than four.

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn
I think you've been watching too many sci-fi stuff.
This and crime documentaries.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-05, 13:38   #68
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

278F16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
I looked at a cross-section of the inside. This would work for a small group of people. No more than four.
Are you referring to the cycler or a Starship? The Starship cargo area/space to be inhabited is quite large. Go check out some of the drawings that have been made. There is room for 100 people to travel and a large open area.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-07, 01:08   #69
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009

1,987 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
Are you referring to the cycler or a Starship? The Starship cargo area/space to be inhabited is quite large. Go check out some of the drawings that have been made. There is room for 100 people to travel and a large open area.
It was the Starship. I am not familiar with "cycler." The reason I say 4 people is the same as before. Put to many in it and tempers could become short. A large group to the moon might be alright. Not to Mars though on a first flight. More later on.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-07, 11:08   #70
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand

24·613 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
Four would sleep for the duration.
I wanna go to Mars. I don't plan to do anything there, and don't need any fame, etc., and I even don't know if I would survive. But thinking of sleeping for all that time... hmm... really tempting!

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2021-08-08 at 07:56
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-08, 23:21   #71
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009

1,987 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
I wanna go to Mars. I don't plan to do anything there, and don't need any fame, etc., and I even don't know if I would survive. But thinking of sleeping for all that time... hmm... really tempting!
It would be interesting to see it close-up. However, I wouldn't go. I've never even flown in an airplane.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-08-08, 23:29   #72
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

2·23·137 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
However, I wouldn't go. I've never even flown in an airplane.
No problem, you also wouldn't fly in an airplane to get to Mars.
retina is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-28, 11:58   #73
Lariliss
 
"Lariliss"
Oct 2021
UK

13 Posts
Default

Manned Mars mission is not a near future possibility, and at the same time we are not ready to go.
As already mentioned above.

There are several ‘blanks’ in our knowledge and technology to overcome:
- Possibility of returning at least something to the Earth. We are sending robots successfully, even doing upgrades, but are they to become dump there?
- In case of one way flight the robots should build the infrastructure for humans to stay there (for how many months or years?). How well the infrastructure can sustain acceptable physical conditions for a human?
- Asteroids. There is a way to go for safety understanding, where the base should be located?

‘Colonization’ would be a great success if we have the above at least with the opportunity to have shifts with astronauts coming back to the Earth.
Psychological factors are always considered and tested, and as far as I know, there is no perfect match. It is always a trial.
Lariliss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-28, 13:06   #74
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

11×17×59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lariliss View Post
- Asteroids. There is a way to go for safety understanding, where the base should be located?
It is easier to get to some NEOs (Near Earth Objects) than it is to go to the Moon. One of them is an obvious location for a base.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-28, 13:40   #75
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

278F16 Posts
Default

But, what if we eliminate the requirement to 'soft' land and the journey time to be <30 days? Is it still "easier to get to" an NEO than the moon?
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-28, 16:44   #76
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

11·17·59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
But, what if we eliminate the requirement to 'soft' land and the journey time to be <30 days? Is it still "easier to get to" an NEO than the moon?
I believe so.

Some of these things come very close, only a few hours from the Earth's surface with current rocketry compared with a few days to the Moon.

The measure of easiness used in my post is the energy cost in terms of delta-v to land on the object. A probe loitering in Earth orbit can just wait until another candidate flies by. Such missions have been proposed for interstellar visitors and for long period comets coming in from the Oort cloud.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-28, 16:48   #77
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

11·17·59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
The measure of easiness used in my post is the energy cost in terms of delta-v to land on the object.
Remember that you need delta-v to counteract gravity if you want a soft landing. The moon has a substantial delta-v cost; a 100 metre asteroid has almost none. The difference more than compensates for matching solar orbits with low inclination.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Manned Aerial Vehicle Multirotor Super Drone Mark Rose Lounge 2 2015-09-05 04:31
Mission Creep davieddy PrimeNet 14 2011-12-10 20:55
To the moon and Mars... kwstone Soap Box 22 2005-07-25 12:07
Off-Topic: "Mission to Mars" ewmayer Lounge 7 2004-05-25 18:48
First mission GP2 Completed Missions 2 2003-09-28 23:16

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:36.


Wed Dec 8 07:36:49 UTC 2021 up 138 days, 2:05, 1 user, load averages: 1.08, 1.70, 1.67

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.