Forum Members: Let's come up with a design for a Mars Spacecraft,;any IDEAS?

  • Thread starter timejim
  • Start date
38
0
What type of Spacecraft would you design and what propulsion system would you use? Her are my thoughts, what are your? Can we, as Forum members, pool our ideas and come up with a feasible design? I say, let's try.
1. Crew size:
1. Commander and Pilot.
2. Spacecraft Systems Officer.
3. Medical Officer.
4. Communications Specialist.
5. Payload Officer.
6. Recycling and environmental Specialist.
2. Propulsion System:
1. Nuclear
3. Target velocity of Craft:
1. 160,000 KPH
4. Surface exploration duration:
1. 15 days5.
5. I envision the Spacecraft Systems Officer also as Orbiter
Pilot along with #6 and #4.
6. The surface team would be #1, #3, #5.
 
51
0
I dunno about the details, but it would definately have to be a battle bot, you know, one that can combat the evil martian robots. Make it safe for humans ya know...
 
2,193
2
I am not 100% certain of this, but even though NASA has drawn plans for a spaceship powered by nuclear thrust, I believe that the idea is considered far too dangerous for actual use. And, the highly radioactive "cloud" left behind during travel would be potentially lethal to other space travellers.
It seems that, with respect to propulsion, a good candidate is a hybrid of conventional and ion thrust.
Food, fuel and other supplies would be best replenished by preemptive placement at strategic intervals between here and Mars, likely done through unmanned ships. This would be for both the trip to and from Mars. Similarly, these supplies should also be preemptively shipped to Mars itself.
Most, if not all, crew members would need to be extensively cross-trained over several years so that, for example, each could function effectively as the pilot, or medic, or navigation officer as the need arises.
Upon arrival to Mars, the ship should have the capability of doing two things: One, the ship should be designed so that part of it stays in orbit of Mars and a "landing craft" sent to the surface(similar to the Moon landing projects) and Two: the "mother ship" must have a second landing craft for emergency retrieval of surface astronauts in the event of first landing craft return failure or other issues.
On Mars, the priority of the astronauts should not be merely "exploring", as robotic craft can do that, but should very much include establishing the foundations of a landing colony area for subsequent missions.

Just some thoughts.
 
38
0
Originally posted by pallidin
I am not 100% certain of this, but even though NASA has drawn plans for a spaceship powered by nuclear thrust, I believe that the idea is considered far too dangerous for actual use. And, the highly radioactive "cloud" left behind during travel would be potentially lethal to other space travellers.
It seems that, with respect to propulsion, a good candidate is a hybrid of conventional and ion thrust.
Food, fuel and other supplies would be best replenished by preemptive placement at strategic intervals between here and Mars, likely done through unmanned ships. This would be for both the trip to and from Mars. Similarly, these supplies should also be preemptively shipped to Mars itself.
Most, if not all, crew members would need to be extensively cross-trained over several years so that, for example, each could function effectively as the pilot, or medic, or navigation officer as the need arises.
Upon arrival to Mars, the ship should have the capability of doing two things: One, the ship should be designed so that part of it stays in orbit of Mars and a "landing craft" sent to the surface

(similar to the Moon landing projects) and Two: the "mother ship" must have a second landing craft for emergency retrieval of surface astronauts in the event of first landing craft return failure or other issues.
On Mars, the priority of the astronauts should not be merely "exploring", as robotic craft can do that, but should very much include establishing the foundations of a landing colony area for subsequent missions.

Just some thoughts.
Real good ideas. Let's everyone keep expanding on these ideas, then later, we can start going into details.
 
174
0
Why does there have to be so many people onboard?

Couldn't we sub-down a bit? Have several computer systems take control of many of the operations?

It sure would cut down on space, food storage, personell, oxygen requirements, etc...

The craft would be smaller, weigh less, and would be easier to move around without so much mass.
 
Exactly, I know how at least two of those positions can be eliminated. First both payload and space systems duties can be transferred to an onboard engineer. Second, recyling can be computerized.

I'll post ideas for the actual design of the craft later.
 
174
0
What type of engines are you thinking of using on this; Newtonian or "something else"? ;)



If 'something else', here’s an idea I'm already trying to design:
 

Attachments

60
0
Send a probe ahead.
The probe would have:
1. Solar cells
2. Colany of Blue-green alge (to transform Co2 (from marsian atmosphere) into O2)
3. UV lights (to 'feed' alge)
4. Tanks to store the O2
5.Temperature control, to keep the alge comfortable.
(collect oxygen from the probe, use dead alge to grow food)

You should also send all the modules (self-assembling) before the people arrive, this would mean that when the people arrive- there is a self-sustaining coleny already.
 

Janitor

Science Advisor
1,095
1
I could easily be wrong, but I thought I read in the paper some years ago that there was an International treaty banning the launch of nuclear material. But maybe the U.S. does not consider it binding? I am almost certain that some NASA unmanned spacecraft have had modest-sized power generators that rely on the heat from fissile material. Does anybody know if something as large as the nuclear propulsion unit required for this sort of manned mission to Mars would make the launching country anathema?
 
174
0
The treaty was to ban all nuclear weapons in space.

Sites of information:
http://www.dpi.anl.gov/dpi2/hist_docs/treaties/ltbt63.htm [Broken]

http://www.dpi.anl.gov/dpi2/hist_docs/treaties/ost67.htm [Broken]

PAROS Initiative


If the fissible material is not for a weapon then it is permissable for use in space. NASA and the RSA both have nuclear-powered (RTG) space vehicles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Janitor

Science Advisor
1,095
1
Okay, I stand corrected. I do remember there was some protest when one of the probes to Jupiter was about to be launched, for fear that it might drop into the Atlantic Ocean and leave its radioisotope power generator in the water.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,849
5,040
Originally posted by Janitor
Okay, I stand corrected. I do remember there was some protest when one of the probes to Jupiter was about to be launched, for fear that it might drop into the Atlantic Ocean and leave its radioisotope power generator in the water.
Slightly different issue: environmentalism (misplaced). The Russians did have a nuclear powered satellite crash - the power cells survived intact.

Also, there was a fun conspiracy theory that when that probe dropped into Jupiter (last winter), the plutonium would blow up like a bomb, acting as a thermonuclear trigger igniting Jupiter as a big H-bomb. I checked last night though - Jupiter is intact.
 
93
0
pallidin said:
I am not 100% certain of this, but even though NASA has drawn plans for a spaceship powered by nuclear thrust, I believe that the idea is considered far too dangerous for actual use. And, the highly radioactive "cloud" left behind during travel would be potentially lethal to other space travellers.
Not really, nuclear engines for use in space http://www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/spacecraft/nerva/reactor.html and the radioactive "cloud" would not pose any danger whatsoever as that would immediately be dilluted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
174
0
I think someone should just improve the way we launch things into space - remove the part that “explodes/crashes when a problem is found”.

:D
 
20
0
What I don't get, is this. Why can't we make a flying disc, that spins in opposition to the earth's spin, as fast as it takes to stand still, and let the earth rotate away from it? The outer skin would have to rotate in this way, the interior would stay still.
 
174
0
LOL! Sorry.

Well, in my own theories on flying disks, spinning is a key element, but not a physical spinning. End the earth’s rotation has nothing to offer. :)
 

Related Threads for: Forum Members: Let's come up with a design for a Mars Spacecraft,;any IDEAS?

  • Posted
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
973
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
611

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top