ESA encounters boil-off, goes Kerbal

[DerekL1963]

20 minutes ago, Rune said:

That's engineering.

Well, duh.  I never claimed otherwise.  And only an idiot would handwave away a problem as "only engineering".  Engineering at this level is hard.

 

20 minutes ago, Rune said:

We haven't built ECLSS that last longer than six months without resupply, because we haven't tried to do it. Grab the component of the ISS, overbuild, test to destruction lots of times, then pack enough spares, and a few extra. And do it by triplicate if it's vital.

Here in the real world, we're going to have mass and volume limits.   It simply isn't that easy.
 

21 minutes ago, Rune said:

Turns out gravity and rockets work the same way everywhere.

Here in the real world, Mars has an atmosphere.   An atmosphere and flight conditions that are all but impossible to duplicate on Earth.   Sure, we landed the Shuttle after a few tests...  But those came after the better part of century's experience with terrestrial aerodynamics.  And a couple of decades worth of practical work on high speed aerodynamics.  And the better of a decade of practical work on lifting bodies.  And extensive flight experience with tailless and delta wing vehicles of a wide variety of sources.

We not only have but an infinitesimal amount of experience on Mars - but nobody seems to plan on getting any.  With only one except that I'm aware of, the plan is to commit to no-return for the first time the very first manned landing. 
 

30 minutes ago, Rune said:

But this mission plan in particular is, technologically, well within reach.

In theory, yes.   That doesn't mean it's practical.  There's a ton of known unknowns that we haven't even begun to address.

[tater]

54 minutes ago, DDE said:

The should not have involved Roscosmos, us Russians and Mars just don't seem to mix.

Mars is Russia's kite eating tree.

[Rune]

2 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Well, duh.  I never claimed otherwise.  And only an idiot would handwave away a problem as "only engineering".  Engineering at this level is hard.

Engineering at any level is hard. We still do it, when we have the will to. If it's doable, it's doable. By definition. Another question is whether it will get done, or should.

4 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Here in the real world, we're going to have mass and volume limits.   It simply isn't that easy.

I never claimed it was. But if ISS has sustained a permanent crew for decades, I'd say we have the capability to do it, if we put our mind to it. It obviously won't get done if we never try.

5 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Here in the real world, Mars has an atmosphere.   An atmosphere and flight conditions that are all but impossible to duplicate on Earth.   Sure, we landed the Shuttle after a few tests...  But those came after the better part of century's experience with terrestrial aerodynamics.  And a couple of decades worth of practical work on high speed aerodynamics.  And the better of a decade of practical work on lifting bodies.  And extensive flight experience with tailless and delta wing vehicles of a wide variety of sources.

I'm sorry, are you saying that the mathematical models that validated, for example, Curiosity's skycrane, wouldn't handle a manned lander doing a much larger portion of the descent under engine power? You cannot hide under supersonic retropropulsion anymore, now that SpaceX routinely demonstrates it, after developing it on the back of a freaking cargo delivery program. So what exactly is so impossible about designing, testing, and using a martian lander, that you can't do it within the multi-billion budget such a program would command?

8 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

In theory, yes.   That doesn't mean it's practical.  There's a ton of known unknowns that we haven't even begun to address.

I never said it was the most practical. I said it's a more than decent baseline, showing that between us and mars there are only the dragons that we want to imagine, and a bunch of rocket launches. Now, is there the political will to do it? Of course not. The official line can be summed up as excuses to avoid saying 'we ain't paying what it would cost'.

 

Rune. And obviously the plan can be improved. My first post in this thread was pretty much all about that.

[sh1pman]

5 hours ago, tater said:

ESA contemplating a crew mission to Mars is pretty comical, they can't even land a robot there reliably... nor have they ever sent crew, well, anywhere.

On the other hand, there are now two Schiaparelli craters on Mars!

[Green Baron]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

The should not have involved Roscosmos, us Russians and Mars just don't seem to mix.

Hey, the ExoMars TGO is fine, we had our fun with Schiaparelli and that what apparently happened to the Breeze stage after separation doesn't count. Entertainment and thrill included

[Bill Phil]

Of all the Mars mission studies, von Braun's 1948 study is my favorite. Something like 37 thousand tonnes launch mass. And this was proposed nearly 70 years ago! It's so insane, yet also realistic in some respects. It basically involved a fleet of giant "ships" to take a full blown expedition to Mars. Not a crew of four, but 70, in ten seperate vehicles. Now that is Kerbal.

[_Augustus_]

1 hour ago, sh1pman said:

On the other hand, there are now two Schiaparelli craters on Mars!

I didn't even think about this one.

[DDE]

5 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

I didn't even think about this one.

That one comes from the Scott himself.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

9 hours ago, DDE said:

Russians and Mars just don't seem to mix.

Here you go

Btw, this one

Spoiler

is not a Mars-only flight, but also a Venus fly-by.

8 hours ago, tater said:

Mars is Russia's kite eating tree.

This just demonstrates, whose probes and rovers the Martians treat just as harmless children's toys, and whose ones they are really afraid of as a hardcore science.

[DDE]

43 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

is not a Mars-only flight, but also a Venus fly-by.

Gravity assists of that kind are found in a lot of Mars mission plans.

43 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

whose ones they are really afraid of as a hardcore science.

Reconsidering strategy.

Current disguise inadequate.

Updated disguise required.

Deploying neutron cannon.

Edited November 23, 2017 by DDE