Mars Flier Prototype

SEWilco writes "BBC News reports that a full-scale prototype of a Mars flier will be built. The ARES glider will unfold in midair for a mission which may cover 850 km (528 miles). I wonder if its huge wings would allow it to be tossed back in the air by a storm in that thin air, although probably not by "winds of a few m/sec"."

Comments

What's the price?

[$$$$$exyGal]

The first Mars Scout mission is planned for launch in 2007 with arrival at Mars in 2008.

Wow. If this succeeds, there'll be "space plane(s)" on Mars by 2008. I'm extremely curious what the required budget is for this project. Anyone know? 10 million USD? 100 million USD?

an older prototype

[AbdullahHaydar]

This article is about an older prototype that was flown 2 years ago.

using air currents to regain altitude

[Anonymous Coward]

I very much doubt that it would be able to use rising current to stay up in the air for a couple of reasons. First the aerodynamics. The wings would have to have a much larger aspect ratio, or span vs. chord length, since that govers much of your aerodynamic efficiency. you need to be very efficient to use air currents to gain altitude. Modern gliders, which are able to use rising currents, are able to do that because they very high aspect ratios compared to most airplanes, including this one. They probably can't increase the wing span a lot because you still have to pack this thing up in a rocket, plus I'm sure there are design (weight?) constraints for spring to deploy the wings. Don't want to make them too soft, since you have some aerodynamic loads that you may need to overcome during deployment, but not too stiff to minimize the weight and you don't want the wings to unfold too fast and snap off if you don't beef up the structure, ie more weight.

Second problem and a major one, is the control system. Developing algorythms to read atmospheric conditions to find sources of rising air would be very difficult to say the least. That's why we don't have cars that drive themselves. it's hard to design the control and sensing algorythms. You'd have to use thermals or ridge lift to gain altitude. I doubt you could use storms due to the dangerous, highly nonlinear environment.

Re:using air currents to regain altitude

[dzimmerm]

I have a private pilots license in Gliders and Single engine land.

Most aircraft seek sinking air naturally. The reason for this is that as an airplane approaches an area of rising air the strongest rising air will lift the wing on the side that is closest to that rising air. This will cause a turn away from the rising air.

When seeking for lift as a glider pilot we use an instrument called a variometer which is a very sensistive verticle airspeed indicator. Such a device can be made audio so that glider pilots can keep their eyes out on the airspace instead of fixated on the instrument panel.

Obviously if you can make an instrument with a rising audio tone when the plane is rising and a sinking audio tone when the plane is sinking you could couple this with a computer to find lift. The rising air is also hotter than the sinking air. A thermal sensor on each wingtip would give you a direction to go to find the hottest air.

We have the technology to seek rising air but rising air is generaly caused by sunshine and it only shines for a part of the day. I have no idea if the atmosphere of Mars is simular to Earths as far as verticle air movement. A lot of what goes on in Earths atmosphere is affected by the moisture content of the air. There is a lot of heat energy that is transferred by water evaporating and condensing. This would not be present in martian air and I do not know if there is an anolog for that effect on mars. The idea of the solar powered electric motoglider that also uses rising air during the day could be helpfull in sustaining a research aircraft aloft on mars.

I am guessing that with the thinner atmosphere the landing and takeoff speeds would be higher. That could make it tricky to try and land any large size aircraft on mars. Some kind of winch or catapult might be used to launch an aircraft but that would mean a base station would be needed.

I would almost think that lots of small gliders would be better than one big one if research and survivability is what you want. Could the beach ball landing be done and then a bunch of mini/micro air probes launched? How small could you make an aircraft that could sustain itself in mars atmosphere? I have heard that the solar radiation is much more intense on the surface of mars than on earth. Does that mean more power could be gotten from solar cells?

Send a beachball lander with a couple of hundred styrofoam gliders that have solar cells with electric motors and simple cameras or other simple probes. We could take a clue from the insects and send in lots in hopes that a few will survive to fullfill their missions.

dzimmerm

Incidentally, X-plane.org

[torpor]

... has some Mars models (fliable) available here in case anyone wants to try and get a feel for the flight dynamics of this sort of trip.

Pretty interesting, though I don't suppose there's an ARES model for X-plane yet, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't one soon ...

Re:tiptoe advancements

[KrispyKringle]

Obviously we've all heard in general the debate on manned vs. unmanned expeditions. I may as well point out the obvious, that the money put into a project like this is pretty much a drop in the bucket compared to the amount needed for a manned mission.

More pertinant to this particular mission, though, and intersting in regard to the general debate, is the point that in this instance, we are looking at an unmanned mission with capabilities in fact different, not just lesser, than those of a manned mission. Certainly there is much valuable information to be gained from a manned mission that a glider will not provide, but by the same token, this mission will provide greater mobility and a larger sampling of the planet than any traditional manned (or unmanned) missions can.

While we all want to see manned missions, at the same time we must realize that pragmatically, unmanned missions often have not only more for the money, but more in and of themselves to contribute.

Re:Why not a mars pathfinder

[mnmn]

Winds should not be a problem at higher altitudes, and since the first pathfinder flight, technologys improved. I read somewhere on slashdot 2 months ago of some solar panels taking in 250% more energy per area. I wouldnt take dust as a problem on smooth wings, salt, ice maybe, but not dry dust. Theres also no ozone there, which might let in more sunlight energy.

Such a pathfinder would be released from a spacecraft and wouldnt need landing gears or booster batteries for takeoff, that should kill more weight, but then again, I'm sure I'm pushing the luck there. It could just as well go plop like the last great idea for mars.

Wow, that looks kinda...

[IICV]

For some reason, I started laughing when I saw the design on that thing... I mean, really. Stars and stripes? Is this what NASA has to sink to to get government funding?

Besides, no one's going to be seeing that thing again once it crashes. It's not like we're ever going to get to Mars, at this rate.

Re:Flag nonsense

[L0C0loco]

Get a grip folks! Look at the picture. This is artwork, probably from a press kit. If selected, the real thing will probably be the usual stark white with minimal decoration. Things we send to other planets have to be meticulously cleaned, sterilized actually, so we do not contaminate the planet. White is easy to inspect.

From my work developing some of the science instrumentation for this, I recall the flight speed to be in the vicinity of 250Km/Hr.