Slashdot Mirror


New Proposed Path for Manned Trips to Mars: Let Mars' Gravity Capture Spacecraft

As illustrated in this article at io9.com, the conventional method considered for launching a manned craft to Mars might make less sense, even if it takes less time, than a more complicated but more efficient means akin to a method that's been already been successfully used to minimize the amount of fuel used in exploring both within and beyond the solar system. Known as the "Hohmann Transfer" method, this type of maneuver is known to be effective. But it is also quite expensive and relies very heavily on timing. Hence why a new idea is being proposed which would involve sending the spacecraft out ahead of Mars' orbital path and then waiting for Mars to come on by and scoop it up. This is what is known as "Ballistic Capture", a new technique proposed by Professor Francesco Topputo of the Polytechnic Institute of Milan and Edward Belbruno, a visiting associated researcher at Princeton University and former member of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. In their research paper, which was published in arXiv Astrophysics in late October, they outlined the benefits of this method versus traditional ones. In addition to cutting fuel costs, ballistic capture would also provide some flexibility when it comes to launch windows.

8 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I think its gonna be a long long time by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's got to be better than New Jersey.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Wrong optimization by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For a manned mission it is necessary to minimize time, not fuel.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Wrong optimization by confused+one · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Send the supplies ahead the slow way, just like cargo/freight ships. Then send people the fast way, like on airliners.

      This. the described method could be used to litter Mars' orbit with supplies, which would be scooped up by the planet periodically.

  3. Re:I think its gonna be a long long time by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's an interesting idea, but getting *TO* Mars isn't the real problem. The biggest problem, that nobody is talking about (because they have no idea how to solve it), is *LANDING* on Mars.

    http://www.universetoday.com/7...

    The real problem is the combination of Mars’ atmosphere and the size of spacecraft needed for human missions. While the Apollo lunar lander weighed approximately 10 metric tons, a human mission to Mars will require three to six times that mass, given the restraints of staying on the planet for a year. Landing a payload that heavy on Mars is currently impossible, using our existing capabilities. "It’s this ugly, grey zone. There’s too much atmosphere on Mars to land heavy vehicles like we do on the moon, using propulsive technology, and there’s too little atmosphere to land like we do on Earth. Until we come up with a whole new system, landing humans on Mars will be an ugly and scary proposition."

  4. Re:I think its gonna be a long long time by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That article is from 2007. Since then a Sky Crane was used to land the 1 ton Curiosity rover on Mars. I think it's pretty clear that we simply may not land an entire 100 ton payload as a single vessel, but would instead land the various supplies, habitats, and people as separate payloads. Perhaps they all come on a single ship (unlikely), but there's no reason with our current technology that we couldn't land the pieces separately. Worst case would be the humans don't land close enough to the supplies to be able to survive long-term, in which case Plan B is to explore similar to how the Apollo Lunar program did, and head back after several days. Then a later mission would bring another set of people to use the supplies already delivered.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  5. Re:I think its gonna be a long long time by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why send/land everything at once anyway? Send living/experimentation modules and any needed non-perishable supplies or equipment such as vehicles on previous missions. Then send in a manned mission with perishable supplies/experiment subjects (seeds, plants, animals, whatever) afterwards. This allows for smaller payloads that can land easier, and has the added benefit of being easier to launch from Earth. It also gives you the chance to resend any critical supplies should one of the landings go wrong or land really off course.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  6. Re:I think its gonna be a long long time by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's perhaps an even more compelling argument why the atmosphere is good for us if we intend to land on Mars AND launch again: ISRU and the Sabatier reaction could be a huge win. If you plan to spend a few months on the surface, you can generate a ton of methalox fuel using the local atmosphere and only half a ton of water. Even if you needed to bring the water with you (which would be the safe option, I guess), it would effectively double your engine's Isp! You could even produce fuel for the trans-Earth injection this way, further saving the total Martian payload you'd need to launch. Without the atmosphere, none of this would be possible.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  7. Re:I think its gonna be a long long time by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    Except that your terminal velocity on Mars is orders of magnitude higher than on Earth. Decelerate to subsonic then fall and you'll be back supersonic in no time.

    I'm sure this is possible to do, but it absolutely requires more research and testing.

    --
    I am a proud traitor to my species in alliance with my mother the Earth in opposition to those who would destroy her.