XPost: misc.misc
From: bondage@frontiernet.net
Matthew Montchalin wrote:
>
> Joann Evans wrote:
> |Matthew Montchalin wrote:
> |>
> |> Jeff Findley wrote:
> |> | wrote in message
> |> |news:1102947469.283431.146290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> |> |>
> |> |> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> |> |> > But, is it strong enough to survive being shoved?
> |> |>
> |> |> The ISS is regularly shoved by its own rockets, the shuttle, and
> |> |> resupply vessels.
> |> |
> |> |Tiny little "shoves" to boost its orbit by a few miles. I have a
> |> |gut feeling that "shoves" of this magnitude would take a *long* time
> |> |to get ISS to Mars.
> |>
> |> What's wrong with a 50 year one-way trip?
> |
> |
> |How much technology do you know, that will function (or remain
> |dormant, and 'wake up' fully functional) for 50 years? Espically
> |the mechanical stuff?
>
> I expect the electronics to be ready for massive overhauling once
> it arrives in the Martian high orbit.
You still seem to sxpect this low thrust system, and everything
associated with it, to be functional for Mars orbit insertion...
> As for sticky door hinges,
> that remains to be seen. Do you think the metal will fuse together
> after 50 years? I've heard that some metals tend to deform under
> a sustained load, and this tendency is heightened with higher
> temperatures. But if you induce a spin on the ISS, just before
> you give it that last nudge to Mars, the metal should not be
> exposed to such temperature extremes that the metal will deform
> and fuse.
>
> | In fifty years, it might be greeted upon arrival by tourists at the
> |first Mars theme park....
>
> A manned mission to Mars makes more sense if some habitable cabins are
> deployed in a high orbit there first.
But not cabins that were in transit/waiting for about the time I've
been alive. (Yeah, I'll be 51 next month.)
> | ('Generation Travel' interstellar flights suffer from the same
> |problem...an astounding need for reliability where re-supply is
> |impossible, and a need to not use flight times so long, that technology
> |development in the interim doesn't produce ships that get to the
> |destination ahead of you...
>
> I don't consider the ISS suitable for habitation on a 50 year trip
> to Mars, simply that outfitting it before and after the trip, is
> the way to do it. I'm not in a hurry, and I don't think you are
> either.
Guess again. Patience may be the only virtue I have, but not that
much.
Even a Homann Transfer to Pluto, using no slingshots, takes only 45
years. If you can do the necessary amount of 'outfitting' on arrival and
it *will* be considerable (what's the likely micrometeoroid flux, for
example?), you might as well have brought all your habitation with you.
You still miss my other point. Do you not expect other technologies
to have made the need for this hopefully habitable shell unnecessary in
50 years? Robert Scott's quarters still exist in Antarctica, and quite
well preserved, but current explorers don't actually *use* it, either.
They bring and use contemporary technology.
Assuming it actually *takes* another half-century to send humans to
Mars (which I doubt very much), so will they.
Then there's the political support. Presidents/Copngressmen not yet
born may not feel much commitment to follow through on such a project,
either.
A 50 year horizon for this kind of mision is both impractical and
unnecessary.
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
