|
Author
|
Topic: Mars trip proposed for space shuttles
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-06-2009 06:11 PM
   
SPACE.com: Mars Trip Proposed for Space Shuttles The co-founder of a rocket launch firm has proposed an audacious plan to send astronauts on a one-way trek to Mars using a pair of tethered U.S. space shuttles that would parachute to the Martian surface.Inventor Eric Knight, a co-founder of the rocket firm UP Aerospace, detailed the plan - which he's billed "Mars on a Shoestring" - in a thought exercise designed to encourage unconventional thinking for future human spaceflight. "My thought paper is a mental exercise to encourage new ideas," Knight told SPACE.com in an e-mail interview. "I also hope it spurs a re-evaluation of the timeline for human exploration of Mars. Twenty years seems like an eternity, given that we were able to get to the moon in less than 10 years - and we were essentially doing so 'from scratch.'" And from Eric Knight's website, Mars on a Shoestring Assuming we can get the orbiter pair to Mars, how would the crew descend to the surface of the planet?The atmosphere of Mars is, of course, much too thin to support a fly-in descent. The Martian atmosphere is only one percent of earth's atmosphere density. What I propose is the development of a very large parachute system that would be stowed in each of the orbiter's payload bays. The orbiters would detach from the tether and crew-transfer conduit. Each orbiter would then enter the Mars atmosphere and descend ballistically (like Apollo and Soyuz capsules), deploy its parachute system, and land wheels down with surely a pretty good thump -- even with the planet's gravity just 38% of Earth's. The vehicle's airfoil surfaces and orbital-maneuvering and reaction-control thrusters would provide only a small degree of assistance during the descent; however, the subtle assistance could be helpful during the final few thousand feet in nudging each craft to the clearest landing location. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 01-07-2009 12:04 AM
...and land wheels down with surely a pretty good thump Especially without a runway to land on... (the thread's title made me laugh!)Chris. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-07-2009 12:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
Especially without a runway to land on...
To be fair, no runway is needed for a vertical descent, vis-a-vis Soyuz-style, sans braking thrusters. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 01-07-2009 01:46 AM
If there's no need for a runway, why "wheels down"? Or is it a politically correct way to say "crash landing"?  Chris. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-07-2009 01:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
Or is it a politically correct way to say "crash landing"?
You joke, but I suspect he intended the tires and gear to serve somewhat as shock absorbers. Less there be any confusion though, I find his proposal to be rather far-fetched. And though Knight says his plan was only introduced to spark conversation, I am not sure I see the purpose. He laments the idea of "moth-balling the orbiters at museums and 'rocket parks' around the country," while I see that as a noble activity. Not that I don't want to see us go to Mars, but I think we should do it when we are good and ready, and not on a 'shoestring'. |
xlsteve
Member Posts: 391
From: Holbrook MA, USA
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted 01-07-2009 07:20 AM
I agree with Robert. The shuttles deserve to be retired with dignity on earth. Although if we did crash them into Mars they would share the fate of most of the LMs.I'm not sure what sort of discussion this is supposed to engender. It reminds me of the plan that was put forward during Apollo to put a man on the moon to beat the Russians, and to keep sending him food and supplies until we figure out how to get him back. I, too, would like to see us go to Mars, but I don't think that we're in that much of a hurry to get there. Not to mention the shuttle isn't designed to withstand the exposure to cosmic rays or to solar flares that a long journey to Mars would risk. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-07-2009 07:32 AM
Far fetched is putting it mildly. Reminds me a little of a made for TV movie I saw on UPN many years ago called "Escape from Mars" which involved a mission to the red planet utilizing a heavily modified shuttle orbiter tethered to the ET and SRBs for the flight out to the red planet. There are several similarities to this idea. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-07-2009 08:34 AM
Assuming the minimum weight for the orbiter of 69,000 Kg and a final descent rate of 2 m/s (same as Soyuz), the parachute would need to be 685ms (2,247ft) across. It would weigh over 7,500 Kg using same material as Orion.(This assumes Earth gravity and air density, but hey, let's not be picky here). If the author wants to promote thought-leadership I could think up a few less wacky concepts. Paul |
Mr Meek
Member Posts: 353
From: Chattanooga, TN
Registered: Dec 2007
|
posted 01-07-2009 09:27 AM
It's certainly...creative. Though, it does sound like a plot from a movie you might find on Mystery Science Theater 3000.He's adding an awful lot of mass in this truss, inflatable corridor (plus the tanks, pumps, and gas to inflate it), and engine. Surely these would require a separate launch (or launches) on unmanned boosters. All of that being said, I can understand the idea of a thought exercise. Perhaps this will spur someone on to create a more practical plan. |
WAWalsh
Member Posts: 809
From: Cortlandt Manor, NY
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 01-07-2009 10:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
Or is it a politically correct way to say "crash landing"?
One astronaut selected for the trip to the other: "What is this called, a crash helmet?" |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-07-2009 01:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by WAWalsh:
One astronaut selected for the trip to the other: "What is this called, a crash helmet?
"Oh I hope not." |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 01-07-2009 02:05 PM
The biggest flaw in the argument to me is all the useless dead weight you'd have to push to escape velocity to get out of Earth orbit. The wings would be minimal help on EDL compared to the fuel needed to get them there. |
OV-105
Member Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 01-10-2009 03:06 PM
I didn't read the "report" but how would the crew get back after they land the shuttle on Mars? |
dogcrew5369
Member Posts: 750
From: Statesville, NC
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 03-09-2009 10:31 PM
I think someone has been watching way too much Armageddon! |
compass
Member Posts: 42
From: uk
Registered: May 2007
|
posted 03-11-2009 04:46 AM
This makes about as much sense as the Royal Navy setting off from Britain to discover Australia several hundred years ago in a kayak... would that have been viable? |
advertisement