Author Topic: So, who's for Mars then?  (Read 22362 times)

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2013, 07:24:43 PM »
Apparently they'll be using their own feces as radiation shielding.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/1/4054664/astronauts-will-use-feces-as-a-radiation-shield-on-2018-mars-mission

My favourite comment on the article:

Quote
Instead of Solar and Cosmic Radiation lets add millions of bacteria to the mix and end up with a Ship of Radioactive Faeces.

Patrick will be behind this. He's the only one obsessed with space-poop!
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Noldi400

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 627
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2013, 08:26:28 PM »
You will be aware no doubt that mature established couples are being sought for a trip to Mars, setting off in 2018 for an 18 month non-landing mission.

Would you fancy it?
What technical things need to worked out yet or is it all there ready to go?
Is it pointless, given that they don't intend to land?
Does a relationship guarantee a lack of discord? Obviously if they're mature and in an established relationship they'll be used to going with sex for that long anyway ;)

Thoughts? Observations? Ribald comments?

Well, if the selected couples are the Smiths, Brandts, Seenys, and Rimskys, I'm not holding my breath for their safe return.
"The sane understand that human beings are incapable of sustaining conspiracies on a grand scale, because some of our most defining qualities as a species are... a tendency to panic, and an inability to keep our mouths shut." - Dean Koontz

Offline slaver0110

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2013, 09:17:39 PM »
Just to put my two-cents in, (as somebody already brought up Patrick1000/Fattydash/DoctorTea...etc) I've already started to speculate about the magnitude of woo-posts here-there-and-everywhere between now and when mars is reached.
I think it should be interesting, assuming that this goes ahead, to see how the HB'ers start to pile on the whole thing.  I keep imagining every incredible theory from "the rocket never reached orbit" to "the pictures of Mars from the flyby are so obviously faked"...
...well, you get the picture.
[/rant off]
As skeptical as I am about this endeavour, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't think it'll happen.  It would be another victory for private space-flight in the extreme.
Cheers, all!

ETA:  Sorry if this post came off as near-sighted or too blunt; it's been a long week.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2013, 09:20:44 PM by slaver0110 »

Offline Dalhousie

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 614
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2013, 10:29:01 PM »
Uh. Who is this Taber MacCallum who thinks there's no place for it go? Sure you can use it for shielding but... uhhh... why the hay has it not occurred to him to just jettison it?

Somebody who knows more about life support systems that everbody here put together.  He spent two years on Bisophere 2 and since then has been developing a range of life support systems including a number of NASA contracts with his company Paragon Space Development.

Think of the consequences of putting a bowel movement a day by two people overboard for 500 days (that's a thousand movements at least) on a mission without any major orbital changes and you can work out why jettisoning it is not going to be a good idea.

edited for clarity....
« Last Edit: March 02, 2013, 10:32:00 PM by Dalhousie »

Offline Not Myself

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
  • Unwanted Irritant
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2013, 10:44:43 PM »
Think of the consequences of putting a bowel movement a day by two people overboard for 500 days (that's a thousand movements at least) on a mission without any major orbital changes and you can work out why jettisoning it is not going to be a good idea.

Maybe they can use them to make course corrections  ;D
The internet - where bigfoot is real and the moon landings aren't.

Offline cjameshuff

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2013, 10:50:08 PM »
It's really little like other suggested Mars missions...it's a bare-minimum mission with delta-v requirements considerably lower than other alternatives due to the free return trajectory. The only propulsion needed after departure is for correcting errors in their trajectory. It's all minor variations on equipment that we expect to exist by that time.

However, that free return trajectory means they've got one small launch window in the relatively near future. Even if commercial crew development goes as planned, that leaves them with a small period of time to develop and test the vehicle. If they can't launch on time, their system won't be able to make the trip.


Think of the consequences of putting a bowel movement a day by two people overboard for 500 days (that's a thousand movements at least) on a mission without any major orbital changes and you can work out why jettisoning it is not going to be a good idea.

1000 very small comets drifting just outside the windows.

Really, it should be doable. It wouldn't take much of an impulse to get refuse well clear of the spacecraft. But it'd require an airlock just for chucking garbage out of the spacecraft, designed to reliably eject it at some minimum velocity and be cycled perhaps hundreds of times over the mission, and the main result would be less shielding. Jettisoning refuse might be done for a spacecraft that has to brake to enter orbit, but this is just flying by.

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2013, 11:15:33 PM »
Think of the consequences of putting a bowel movement a day by two people overboard for 500 days (that's a thousand movements at least) on a mission without any major orbital changes and you can work out why jettisoning it is not going to be a good idea.

Assuming two 1 kg turds (and those are big turds) per day for 500 days ejected at 1 m/s from a 10 ton spacecraft will accelerate the craft by 0.1 m/s. The fuel required to compensate for that acceleration is about .33 kg. It's not that big a deal. Sure, use it for shielding but don't say there is no other place to put it.

Offline Dalhousie

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 614
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2013, 11:24:13 PM »
Think of the consequences of putting a bowel movement a day by two people overboard for 500 days (that's a thousand movements at least) on a mission without any major orbital changes and you can work out why jettisoning it is not going to be a good idea.

Assuming two 1 kg turds (and those are big turds) per day for 500 days ejected at 1 m/s from a 10 ton spacecraft will accelerate the craft by 0.1 m/s. The fuel required to compensate for that acceleration is about .33 kg. It's not that big a deal. Sure, use it for shielding but don't say there is no other place to put it.

Not even close to the reason.

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2013, 11:49:05 PM »
Think of the consequences of putting a bowel movement a day by two people overboard for 500 days (that's a thousand movements at least) on a mission without any major orbital changes and you can work out why jettisoning it is not going to be a good idea.

Assuming two 1 kg turds (and those are big turds) per day for 500 days ejected at 1 m/s from a 10 ton spacecraft will accelerate the craft by 0.1 m/s. The fuel required to compensate for that acceleration is about .33 kg. It's not that big a deal. Sure, use it for shielding but don't say there is no other place to put it.

Not even close to the reason.

What is the reason?

Offline Not Myself

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
  • Unwanted Irritant
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2013, 12:37:30 AM »
Would they make a good heat shield?
The internet - where bigfoot is real and the moon landings aren't.

Offline Not Myself

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
  • Unwanted Irritant
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2013, 12:51:16 AM »
Not even close to the reason.

Not referring to the meteor shower upon return?  Possibly the first earth-orbiting satellite to be taken out by a turd?
« Last Edit: March 03, 2013, 12:57:48 AM by Megalonychidae »
The internet - where bigfoot is real and the moon landings aren't.

Offline Dalhousie

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 614
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2013, 02:06:57 AM »
Not even close to the reason.

Not referring to the meteor shower upon return?  Possibly the first earth-orbiting satellite to be taken out by a turd?

Nope.

Offline Not Myself

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
  • Unwanted Irritant
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #27 on: March 03, 2013, 05:13:35 AM »
I think I'll sit out the game of twenty questions.
The internet - where bigfoot is real and the moon landings aren't.

Offline Inanimate Carbon Rod

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
    • evilscience
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #28 on: March 03, 2013, 06:37:27 AM »
Think of the consequences of putting a bowel movement a day by two people overboard for 500 days

A big brown streak down one side of the ship?
Formerly Supermeerkat. Like you care.

Offline Inanimate Carbon Rod

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
    • evilscience
Re: So, who's for Mars then?
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2013, 06:39:57 AM »
Not even close to the reason.

We await your outpouring of wisdom most wise one. Please rescue us stupidheads from our ignorance.
Formerly Supermeerkat. Like you care.