In reply to Standing Bear's message of Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:32:35 -0500: Hi, [snip] >On Wednesday 02 November 2005 21:09, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Since the ISS isn't doing a great deal of good science where it >> is, why not use it to go to Mars? Since it's already in Earth >> orbit, it should cut down on the cost considerably. >> > >I would love to go to space.....in a real ship.....which, regrettably, the ISS >is not. The ISS is a large kluge put into an unsafe orbit not much higher >than a balloon could fly if it had any atmosphere. In fact, a company called >JP Aerospace is planning to do just that. Called "America's 'other' space >program!", it is quietly building proof of concept models of its space travel >by dirigible system. Back to a Mars vessel! We need a large ship. Molto >largo! It needs to have a rotating ring incorporated into the structure to >provide artificial gravity (unless we want to admit to possessing a working >Podkletnov/Li device). It needs a real space propulsion system, not some >damn chemicals that yield no real propulsion gain but take up ninety percent >or more of the 'rocket' Only nuclear systems offer any hope of that,
Actually, I agree with this. However none of it precludes use of the ISS in the construction. Whatever goes to Mars is going to be modular anyway, so you might as well use the ISS for some of the modules. > and I >am afraid that only the Chinese are capable to do that at this time....they >are the only ones with the guts. This may also be true. Another way of looking at it is that some already know that there are other far better ways of doing this. >Unless of course Dr R Mills can come to our >aid with a large hydrino 'black light' rocket! I doubt you will ever see hydrinos used directly in rocket propulsion. I suspect that the reaction cross section is too small ,though with a starting "fuel" already largely comprising severely shrunken hydrinos, it might work. However I think in that case you are probably really running a fusion engine. > It also has to have a grand amount of shielding, not from the reactor >which puts out, say, X amount of radiation; but from the 100X or so >radiological and microparticulate environment of deep intrastellar space >between us and Mars or any other planet we would want to visit. Carrying a strong magnetic field wrapped about the ship might afford best protection for weight, and the ship could be designed with the main living quarters at the core, surrounded by a.o. the water supply. The living quarters could also be *inside* any modules designed to be left behind at Mars, i.e. use an onion design as much as possible. (Every little bit of shielding helps). >A big enough >ship could also carry aboard it a space tether system for multiple visits to >the surface of interesting places, Mars included. A bit fanciful I fear. >Alternatively it could >carry a scaled down nuclear thruster system in what amounts to a planetary >shuttle. Much more likely. [snip] > Large ships have another advantage as well, better morale. Agreed. Everyone needs to be able to have some time to themselves occasionally. Those that grew up as members of large families might make the best crew. They have learned early on in life how to live in close quarters with many people with different temperaments. They should also spend at least a month together under similar circumstances here on Earth, before they leave. That would serve to expose any raw nerves, and provide an opportunity to sort out any problems before they become real problems. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
