Search results

Try using the little button, I was just correcting your statement. You said the Boris bus number was a yearly number, it wasn't, it was weekly.

You know we don't have any coal or Oil power plants anymore? And right now our power is only 10% gas. It's mostly low emissions: 25% wind, 25% solar, 15% nuclear, the rest from biomass and interconnectors because they're cheaper than local gas.

Boris said: "We send the EU £350 million a week, let's fund our NHS instead" So no, you're taking out of your cavernous backside.

That's discussed in the Mars reference mission plan. They've got extensive experience running those things and include 20% mass for replacement parts and 30 days 'open loop' supplies to allow for repair time.

It's the same issue that has been there for every space mission with humans ever.

That's what bottles are for. 800g a day per person, halved or quartered. It's hardly a difficult problem.

Water recycling is done routinely and very effectively at 98% efficiency. O2 recycling is only around 50% efficient on the ISS but they're aiming for 75% for the equipment being developed now. I can't be bothered with the maths but that is a greater than 50/75% reduction in O2 needs as it...

I think it's due to using a higher ranked source when there's duplicate material.

If only we'd all switched over to EVs.

One single launch of the new generation of SHLV could put 12 tons onto Mars surface with a soft landing. No one thinks a Mars mission would be a single launch from earth.

That's from their documents. The Mars entry for curiosity was aerobraked until it could deploy parachutes then used some little rockets to hover whilst it lowered the lander and then fly off to the side a bit. They hit the atmosphere at transfer speeds and no rockets fired until they'd slowed...

Those rockets were tiny. 400kg of propellant to land twice that mass of payload.

I doubt we're planning on landing 100 tons at a time on Mars any time soon. 100 tons in low earth orbit probably means around 50 to transfer orbit, then maybe 12.5 landed on Mars using Curiosity as an example of around 1/4 mass to vehicle. A mars ascent vehicle probably starts at 22 tons, so...

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.

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.

There is atmosphere, it's just thinner.

It's a very big algorithm with psuedo random noise added.

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.

We've kept people alive on the ISS continuously for 26 years. That's built with leaky 1990s Russian hardware. Shipping sufficient food and air is nice and simple. We've kept people in space for over a year multiple times. The danger for long stays in space is prolonged zero G, so in theory...

What breakthrough would that be? Are you just worried about travel times?