Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Martian dust devils could hamper future manned missions
SFGate.com ^ | 1/12/04 | Keay Davidson - SF Chronicle

Posted on 01/12/2004 11:56:35 AM PST by NormsRevenge

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: chimera
bump
21 posted on 01/12/2004 1:26:51 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Can some freeper verify the following info :

With the earths and Mars orbits taken into consideration what is the time between relatively close encounters (100 million miles).

A mars year is 686 days

Isn't is about 2 earth years ? That would mean the entire manned visit would be about that to. Six months to get there, a year there, and six months back.

I know it's alot more complicated than that, but isn't that in the ballpark?

22 posted on 01/12/2004 2:13:46 PM PST by George from New England
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Is it possible that these Dust Devil tracks are what that early astromoner saw and proclaimed as "canals", evidence of intelligent life on Mars?
23 posted on 01/12/2004 2:20:01 PM PST by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Dear God. Then let's not even go. We'll just sit here, fat dumb and happy on this insignificant little dust speck and hope the universe doesn't notice us.
24 posted on 01/12/2004 2:22:44 PM PST by Junior (Some people follow their dreams. Others hunt theirs down and beat them mercilessly into submission)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George from New England
I thought it took 3 years to get there with present technology.
25 posted on 01/12/2004 2:26:52 PM PST by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: George from New England
2 years up and back. 6 months one way, 18 the other. Short leg out or short leg back, your choice.
26 posted on 01/12/2004 2:30:43 PM PST by RightWhale (How many technological objections will be raised?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: George from New England
Remember that it's a moving target. You lead the target a little going out. Kepler's Laws say as you go outward you lose velocity, so you need to be out ahead a bit. Likewise, coming back, you lag just a bit, and "catch up" to the Earth as you gain speed going sunward, just like Kepler tells us. You don't necessarily have to stay at the destination for a year. You can come back anytime as long as you plot the course correctly. It's not a matter of having to jump across the shortest gap, because you aren't going to be able to do that anyway. Here is something to try:

Something fun to try and learn from.

27 posted on 01/12/2004 2:32:51 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Have the astronauts bring haggliders and sailplanes.
28 posted on 01/12/2004 2:38:46 PM PST by hattend (Mr Bush, the Supremes upheld CFR...what's your plan B? Too late to veto, now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George from New England
It is obviously more efficient to wait for the proper alignment, about a 550 day cycle, but, if something came up, you probably could leave sooner or later if you had the consumables and could execute the course properly.

If we could move beyond chemical propulsion and go with something like nuclear-ion, then a shorter trip is possible. It just goes faster and closes the gap more quickly.

29 posted on 01/12/2004 2:40:07 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: hattend
and hanggliders...a hagglider would be Hillary's
30 posted on 01/12/2004 2:42:32 PM PST by hattend (Mr Bush, the Supremes upheld CFR...what's your plan B? Too late to veto, now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: chimera
If you could power it all the way at one gee, you might get there in a week. Not too hard to take, but it wouldn't be the Queen Mary II. :)
31 posted on 01/12/2004 2:44:56 PM PST by RightWhale (How many technological objections will be raised?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: chimera
If we could move beyond chemical propulsion and go with something like nuclear-ion, then a shorter trip is possible. It just goes faster and closes the gap more quickly.

Correct me if I am mistaken...it takes as much energy to slow down as it does to speed up. That is to say if we were able to do a continuous 2 week burn of fuel on the way out, we would need to do a 2 week burn in the opposite direction of the trajectory to slow down on the other end. Ignoring gravity of mars and the sun of course.

32 posted on 01/12/2004 2:48:27 PM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Please provide an explanation for the math impaired among us. Thanks.
33 posted on 01/12/2004 3:04:36 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Please provide an explanation for the math

Of what? 2 years equals 24 months?

34 posted on 01/12/2004 3:14:26 PM PST by RightWhale (How many technological objections will be raised?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Why it is 6 months there, 18 months back
35 posted on 01/12/2004 3:28:24 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Or 18 months there and 6 months back.

It's how the planets line up as they move relative to each other. They are in the right place every two years. You could get 6 months up, 3 years there, and 6 months back, which would be two cycles or 4 years.

36 posted on 01/12/2004 3:32:09 PM PST by RightWhale (How many technological objections will be raised?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
Problems begging for a solution.

Send a priest.

37 posted on 01/12/2004 3:39:27 PM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chimera
Sounds familiar. Life was "rough, even risky", for those brave enough to venture forth into the unknown in past times. Columbus and his crew, the Pilgrims, those on the Lewis and Clark expedition, the first settlers of Jamestown, polar and undersea explorers, the first astronauts, et al., all faced a measure of risk and hardship.

Before we landed on the Moon, the naysayers predicted that the lander and the astronauts would sink into the lunar surface because of ... THE DUST.

They thought the dust was too loosely packed to support a spacecraft.
38 posted on 01/12/2004 3:45:34 PM PST by rdbrewer (generic tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Normal4me; RightWhale; demlosers; Prof Engineer; BlazingArizona; ThreePuttinDude; Brett66; ...
Looks like the saganist is coming out in force now.

Space Ping! This is the space ping list! Let me know if you want on or off this list!
39 posted on 01/12/2004 5:05:23 PM PST by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Yawwwwn...dust devils are not going to stop Martian exploration.
40 posted on 01/12/2004 5:22:16 PM PST by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson