Slashdot Mirror


New Kind of Orbit Could Ease Mars Communications

japan_dan writes "An interesting way to enable Earth-Mars communication when the Sun occludes the direct radio line-of-sight: ESA proposes placing a pair of continuous-thrusting relay satellites, using a solar electric propulsion system — one in front and ahead of Mars, the other behind and below — with both following non-Keplerian, so-called 'B-orbits'. This means the direction of thrust is perpendicular to the satellites' direction of flight, allowing them to 'hover' with both Earth and Mars in view. Quoting from the Q&A: 'We found that a pair of relay satellites would only have to switch on their thrusters for about 90 days out of every 2.13-year period, and this solution would only increase the one-way signal travel time by one minute, so it could be effective.'" Here is the paper describing non-Keplerian orbits (PDF).

21 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. That's good news by Lord+Lode · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's good news for the diplomatic Human / Martian relations.

    1. Re:That's good news by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Funny

      As long as we don't go bombing their planet to look for water.... that's BAD for relations.

  2. Wouldn't it make more sense.... by mark-t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... to park such a device at L4 or L5, where you wouldn't require *ANY* fuel to keep it in position?

    1. Re:Wouldn't it make more sense.... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The interviewee mentions that both LaGrange point orbits, as well as a few other options, are also being considered. Reading the interview, which is part of the article, can sometimes reveal useful information like this.

      Also, to be pedantic, you would still need some fuel on a LaGrange spacecraft for station-keeping purposes. Though this amount would be minimal, you can't justifiably claim that you wouldn't need *ANY* fuel.

      Cheers Mate.

    2. Re:Wouldn't it make more sense.... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Informative

      Minor correction: they're the *only* stable Lagrange points. (And only then if the mass ratio of the primary and secondary body is high enough.)

    3. Re:Wouldn't it make more sense.... by DutchUncle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, and that's the whole point - when the planet is blocked, the Lagrange points would be visible to use for a relay.

      Look up 1940's science fiction about the Venus Equilateral Relay Station by George O. Smith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Equilateral

    4. Re:Wouldn't it make more sense.... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      But as TorKlingberg points out below, the sun will move between Mars-L4/L5 or L4/L5-Earth.

      Doesn't matter. If the sun is between Mars-L4/5 and Earth, then Mars is visible from Earth. Likewise, if the Sun is between Earth-L4/5 and Mars, then Mars is visible from Earth.

      The only case where you need these relays is if the Sun is between Mars and Earth (or close enough to a direct line to make a hash of radio communications between Mars and Earth), and in any such case, none of the L4/5 points (either Mars or Earth) will be blocked from either of the two planets.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Wouldn't it make more sense.... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      ... to park such a device at L4 or L5, where you wouldn't require *ANY* fuel to keep it in position?

      The receiver/transmitter on these satellites and space probes are very small. Generally they transmit using only a few watts, and we rely on huge antennas like in the ubiquitous dishes in the Deep Space Network to gather enough of that minuscule signal to distinguish it from background noise. Going the other way, we use the same huge antennas to blast commands to these spacecraft at anywhere between 5-500 kW. By the time the signal reaches the spacecraft, it has dissipated substantially, but its original broadcast power was high enough that the spacecraft's relatively small antenna can still collect enough of it to distinguish the signal.

      Putting a repeater spacecraft at the L4 or L5 points would place them a substantial distance from Mars. Consequently the repeater would need a very large antenna and large amounts of power (though not as big/much as earth-based antennas) in order to relay signals to/from a spacecraft on Mars. The idea presented in the paper is more akin to what we do right now with the two Mars Rovers and several of our Mars orbiters. The Rovers themselves have weak antennas and can't communicate directly with Earth except at low data rates. Instead, they transmit their data to the orbiters (same antenna can achieve higher bandwidth since the distance is much less), which then relay it to Earth using their much larger and more powerful antenna.

      (Introduction to channel capacity for those who may be wondering what the relationship is between data transmission speed and signal to noise ratio.)

  3. Who needs full-time communications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Houston> We haven't talked for a day, what's up?
    Mars rover> Hey, I moved one meter!
    Houston> No shit!

    1. Re:Who needs full-time communications by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow, I had the exact same conversation with my unemployed brother-in-law yesterday!

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  4. Re:lets wake up here by fractalVisionz · · Score: 4, Funny

    and let either private enterprise (?) explore space

    I agree, even 6 year-olds are doing it.

  5. Re:lets wake up here by ElSupreme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah nothing that NASA has done has affected your life in the positive. Lets just wait for private enterprise to go there.
    The only reason private enterprise is able to *think about* real space travel is because they are using the ~40 years of NASA knowledge and research.

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm
    Ok so this is really basic, but also aerogel, and a laundry list of other things.

    Being on Mars is really cool, and we have learned a lot about it. But as for usefulness it tells us maybe mining Mars wouldn't be that profitable (but did we know that before). But all the stuff they used to get to Mars, that shit trickels down FAST. I mean I personally believe that SSDs on the rovers are wat put them into the main stream. They lasted in a super harsh enviroment orders of magnitude longer than they were supposed to. So keep thinking all NASA produces is cool photos.

    --
    My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
  6. Bandwidth by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is slightly tangential, but worth noting I think:

    This will be handy when we can't afford to lose contact with Mars for even a few days, but there's a bigger problem lurking in inter-planetary communications: bandwidth. We don't really have enough Deep Space Network dishes (particularly, the large 70-m ones) to talk to all of our missions as much as we should. We're sacrificing data collection on billion-dollar missions on a daily basis on the grounds that we don't have enough bandwidth to get it back. When we put people or even just more missions on Mars, that'll only get worse.

  7. Immature by ZinnHelden · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry, I tried to read the summary but I didn't make it past 'continually-thrusting'.

  8. Re:lets wake up here by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What are you doing at a nerd site? Money is the LAST thing a nerd is thinking of when (s)he thinks of space. Space is for technological and scientific advancement. Sue, there will be money made in the future, but private enterprise operates on the next fiscal quarter.

    NASA is doing ot because (duh) THERE'S NO MONEY IN SPACE EXPLORATION and money is the only reason for private enterprise to even exist.

  9. For those who don't RTFA by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To clarify - this sort of "orbital" motion (not really "orbital" since it actively powered) is hardly a new idea. What is relatively new is the fact that you have engines that permit you do do it without prohibitive fuel consumption. It's different from a hovering rocket-propelled lander (like the DC-X) only in scale. The key feature, not clear in the article, is that you are intentionally thrusting along the local vertical, in the direction of gravity, to modify its effects. That was possible and everybody knew about it since, well, Newton figured out gravity. What we haven't been able to do is to maintain it for more than the briefest periods due to excess fuel consumption.

            The new part here is the Hall Current thruster, which is ~factor of 10 more efficient than traditional engines. The specific impulse of these is around 1800 seconds (lb-sec of impulse per lbm of fuel- hey I didn't invent the units, I just use them...) compared to maybe 180 for a hydrazine monopropellant thruster. These are not exactly "new" either, the Russkies have been using them for decades. Only recently has the western world begun to develop them, so it's new only in that sense. So the solution they are looking at is now looking reasonably practical, although no doubt still significantly limited by the fuel consumption.

            Brett

    1. Re:For those who don't RTFA by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey, ISP is in seconds, it's an industry standard.

      But it shouldn't be. N*s/kg is the correct unit for specific impulse. "Seconds" is only used by American engineers who don't understand the difference between weight and mass.

      When I was a kid I was deeply interested in space, but it wasn't until years later that I understood the meaning of Isp because of the idiotic convention of designating it in seconds, rather than force*time/mass, which makes its meaning completely obvious.

      If you want to turn people off an understanding of the most basic aspects of space travel, by all means go ahead and keep using seconds for Isp. But it's really time for the United States to get with the rest of the world and abandon Imperial units, although I guess as an imperial power they seem like a natural fit.

      [Ok, now wondering if this'll get more "troll" or "flamebait" mods. It should probably lean toward "flamebait", as the story is true: Isp in seconds really did confuse me for years. The egregious America-bashing is, well, egregious, so probably warrants a flamebait mod. But really, what's with the Imperial units, kids?]

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  10. Not quite by pavon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Would it?

    Mars has an aphelion (maximum distance from sun) of 250 Gm, and the Earth has an aphelion of 150 Gm. So when the sun is occluding their line of sight, they are on opposite sides of the sun and are separated by at most 400 Gm. If you had a satellite in the Earth's L4 or L5 point, then this would form a 150,350,400 Gm triangle with Mars. Thus the total signal distance would be 500 Gm. This would add 100 Gm, increasing the transit time by 5.5 minutes (from 22.2 to 27.7 minutes). Not as good as the solution presented but not twice as long.

    Placing these in the Earth's orbit, rather than Mars', would have the added advantage of solving the solar occlusion problem for anything we send out into the solar system, not just for things on Mars.

    1. Re:Not quite by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The original article was mentioning satellites following/leading mars. With the satellites in mars Lagrange points, the distance would be longer, though not entirely double.

      What the hell, I'll bother to do the math this time, using your figures of 150 Gm and 25 Gm that would result in a maximum distance from earth the a mars Lagrange point at about 350 Gm, plus the 250 Gm to mars gives a distance of ~600 Gm vs the strait line of 400 Gm. so its a ~50% increase in time.

      Of course I could get pedantic and claim I was talking about the difference in time. But that would be fudging to cover my my lazy ass failing to math.

  11. Re:Or their aesthetic sense. by jefu · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps we need to arrange an introduction between the Martians and the Magratheans.

  12. Re:Why not above? by MRe_nl · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Surely there is a stable point somewhere above the sun?"

    No.

    Gravity is always pulling you down, but there are places in the solar system where gravity balances out. These are called Lagrange points and space agencies use them as stable places to put spacecraft. If you're not in one of those places, you're happily going to fall on/in-to the object or end up in some sort of orbit going around the object, but you're not going to be motionless or synced up with anything.

    All stable points within our solar system (L1/L5) are on the ecliptic plane iirc.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"