Space stuff...

noseall · 2026-04-15T21:53:35+0100

IT Minion said:
Which is why you have extensive testing especially of new versions of hardware, like doing a moon flyby. And for mission critical equipment you have backups.

Like a spare spacecraft? Or a handy water recycler or two? Or a filling station on Mars?

The needs of humans haven't changed. Nor has the duration of the trip. Nor has the 8 million things that need to happen and not go wrong whilst we catapult a few barmy folk on the mission of a lifetime.

IT Minion · 2026-04-15T21:54:04+0100

Brigadier said:
100t payload, you say?

Impressive.

More impressive will be stopping it creating a mile - wide crater on Mars, seeing as there's no atmosphere there to slow it down.......

There is atmosphere, it's just thinner.

pete01 · 2026-04-15T21:57:59+0100

Aerobraking to slow?

pete01 · 2026-04-15T22:00:05+0100

Brigadier said:
100t payload, you say?

Impressive.

More impressive will be stopping it creating a mile - wide crater on Mars, seeing as there's no atmosphere there to slow it down.......

We've already landed stuff on mars successfully haven't we?

noseall · 2026-04-15T22:03:10+0100

pete01 said:
We've already landed stuff on mars successfully haven't we?

We have landed stuff there yes. The really hard part is getting stuff back. That matters a great deal when it's your favourite astronaut.

Brigadier · 2026-04-15T22:04:04+0100

IT Minion said:
There is atmosphere, it's just thinner.

Thinner = fudge all.
Which is why NASA has to invent a sky crane to lower Perseverance onto the surface.
The sky crane used fuel to power the rockets.
It had to carry that fuel there, obviously.

Now consider the challenge of doing that, but with a 100t payload.

Great on paper, not so in reality.

pete01 · 2026-04-15T22:07:38+0100

noseall said:
We have landed stuff there yes

Don't you find that amazing?

Brigadier · 2026-04-15T22:08:31+0100

pete01 said:
We've already landed stuff on mars successfully haven't we?

IIRC, over half of what we've tried to land on Mars, we've either smashed into the surface or missed the planet completely.

And that's stuff weighing a tonne or so at most.

You can't land a microwave oven - intact anyway - on Mars with just a parachute.
Much less humans, or a 100t habitation module......

Highway Man · 2026-04-15T22:09:11+0100

noseall said:
Like a spare spacecraft? Or a handy water recycler or two? Or a filling station on Mars?

The needs of humans haven't changed. Nor has the duration of the trip. Nor has the 8 million things that need to happen and not go wrong whilst we catapult a few barmy folk on the mission of a lifetime.

I would 100% volunteer to go

pete01 · 2026-04-15T22:11:24+0100

Highway Man said:
I would 100% volunteer to go

You could grow potatoes in your own shyte when you get there

Dec27 · 2026-04-15T22:11:55+0100

aveatry said:
I had to make the call, watch it from 3 miles away at the famous countdown clock, and miss the rest of the attractions or watch it from 5 miles away at the main building and see everything else on offer.
The thing is you have to decide because it goes into lock down a few hours before and you can't not travel around the site.
So I went up to the countdown clock but headed back to the main complex to do all that was in offer there and saw the launch from there. It was a fairly big rocket with 2 boosters. And still impressive from 5 miles.

I think we had a similar situation. I can’t remember all the details, it was our first time in Orlando and we loved it all

A comic con conference was on. We went to the all stars game in the old amway stadium. Diddy had floor seats

We even did that medieval knights place.

Oh, and we got married on coco beach.

IT Minion · 2026-04-15T22:13:22+0100

pete01 said:
Aerobraking to slow?

It makes the target you have to aim for narrower and makes the sums a lot harder. They have to make sure they're getting enough braking without using regolith braking instead, burning up or squashing the pilots through too much G force, or just failing to brake enough and flying off into the black.

pete01 · 2026-04-15T22:15:36+0100

IT Minion said:
It makes the target you have to aim for narrower and makes the sums a lot harder. They have to make sure they're getting enough braking without using regolith braking instead, burning up or squashing the pilots through too much G force, or just failing to brake enough and flying off into the black.

Im obsessed with all this stuff, I find it amazing how clever some people are...

pete01 · 2026-04-15T22:17:48+0100

I also find it a bit weird that we leave rubbish all over mars...seems a bit naughty.

IT Minion · 2026-04-15T22:18:11+0100

Brigadier said:
Thinner = fudge all.
Which is why NASA has to invent a sky crane to lower Perseverance onto the surface.
The sky crane used fuel to power the rockets.
It had to carry that fuel there, obviously.

Now consider the challenge of doing that, but with a 100t payload.

Great on paper, not so in reality.

The sky crane was to land the package softly and make sure the landing stage didn't squash it.

I just checked, the aero braking took the velocity down from approx 5,800m/s to 470m/s. Then the parachutes brought it down to 100m/s. Then the sky crane took it the last 1km to the ground.

Space stuff...

Similar threads