Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Robert Zubrin's Mars Gashopper Airplane 124

Posted by michael from the boing-boing dept.
Fraser Cain writes "Universe Today has a story about Robert Zubrin's (Mars Society President) Martian Gashopper Aircraft proposal to NASA. It uses solar power to liquefy carbon dioxide and then use it as a propellant to take off, fly hundreds of km above the surface of Mars like an airplane, and then land vertically again."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Robert Zubrin's Mars Gashopper Airplane More

Robert Zubrin's Mars Gashopper Airplane

Comments Filter:

  • Here and now? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FractiousWeasel ( 685179 ) * on Friday November 26, 2004 @02:52PM (#10926835)
    Is it possible to use this technology here on Earth? We certainly have the carbon dioxide for the fuel. Are higher temperatures or gravitational forces a showstopper?

    • Re:Here and now? (Score:5, Funny)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @02:54PM (#10926851) Journal
      The limiting feature of the gashopper is the electricity required to pressurize and heat the carbon dioxide propellant. This process consumes a lot of power, and the gashopper would need more than a month using its solar cells to refuel and recharge its batteries before it could take off again.

      I guess if you only travelled a few hundred yards a month, it might work.

      I'm pretty sure gravity is an issue, though. Gravity's a real bitch. Newton should never have invented it. Or he should have at least patented it so noone could use it.

    • Re:Here and now? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- ( 624050 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @02:57PM (#10926868) Journal
      The Carbon dioxide is much more concentrated on Mars than on Earth. It would take a lot longer to get enough for fuel, and you would need more propellant to overcome Earth's larger gravity.

      • Re:Here and now? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by realdpk ( 116490 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:32PM (#10927062) Homepage Journal
        The global warming people indicate that carbon dioxide is a major problem and is coming from factories and the like. Could they not cap off the factory chimnies or whatever (I honestly don't know) and at least try to do something useful with it?
        • The question one must focus on is that WHAT does burning CO2 produce ? If it produces CO as one of the byproducts, we arent necessarily improving the situation much - CO is a lethal gas for human beings. On a place like Mars where you dont have to worry about poisoning humans no one could care less but the same doesnt apply on earth.

      • Re:Here and now? (Score:5, Informative)

        by InfiniteWisdom ( 530090 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:48PM (#10927142) Homepage
        I don't think CO2 is essential to the system... it just happens to be the most handy gas available on mars. Its really like a VTOL aircraft with jet engines except that the gas is heated electrically rather than by burning fuel. An earth-based gashopper would just use air.

        • Re:Here and now? (Score:3, Informative)

          by thinkstoomuch ( 609530 )
          CO2 has a relatively warm freezing point, -78C, compared with -196 for nitrogen, and -182 for oxygen. So, it's convenient for that reason too. I'm sure you could make a similar system for our atmosphere, though liquid nitrogen is trickier to deal with than CO2.

      • The other side of the coin is that an Earth vehicle can save energy by using lift to take off horizontally, because the atmosphere is thicker. A martian one will probably need to take off vertically, and won't experience lift until it reaches a much higher cruising speed. Once at that speed, it can fly a long way without as much drag, but once you want to land you have to worry about slowing down, so the device had better measure its fuel carefully or have a large wingspan that is retracted just before la

    • Re:Here and now? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Egekrusher2K ( 610429 )
      They've done test flights here on Earth, so I'm assuming it works here.

    • Interesting question. From the article: The simplest gashopper could actually be quite light, as little as 50 kg (110 pounds). That's using Earth gravity conversions. The same 50 kg would weigh about 41 lbs on Mars.

      But this little beast will use most of its propellant on forward motion, and acceleration relates to mass, not weight. Density of atmosphere will be the other factor, affecting the amount of lift the wings generate.

      • Re:Here and now? (Score:5, Informative)

        by r00zky ( 622648 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @04:19PM (#10927289)
        > The same 50 kg would weigh about 41 lbs on Mars.

        Do martians use the imperial system now?

        For the imperial impaired (like me) 41 lbs == 18,6 kg
        • Problem is, kilograms are properly a unit of mass, not weight (or force). Mars has about 3/8 the surface gravity of Earth (I think), so something that weighs (exerts a downward force of) 88 lbs on Earth weighs about 33 lbs on Mars. But it will still have a mass of about 40 kg.
          • Ok, weight should be expressed in Newtons like any other force.

            F = m * a
            Just multiply for 9,8 here in Earth and for 9,8 * 3/8 (or whatever) in Mars.
    • If you let it roam around earth a little bit, it will get most likely stolen ;-)

  • Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by over_exposed ( 623791 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @02:56PM (#10926858) Homepage
    While the mobility is an interesting concept (being able to move 100+ km at once), how does this change the vehicle's ability to analyze more area? The other crafts "can only examine a few square metres of ground"... at a time. But then it moves and does it again... The only differences I see is that the gashopper does it's analysis of the "few square metres of ground" then hops ~100km away only to analyze a "few square metres of ground." How is this spotty analysis better than continuous examination? Maybe it could be used in conjunction with other crafts of old style. The gashopper gets sent to interesting locations to determine if they should send a more traditional land-based craft? One thing is does have going for it is the ability to refuel itself.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Egekrusher2K ( 610429 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:00PM (#10926895) Homepage
      You're correct in one aspect, that it can only examine a small area at a time. However, with this new vehicle, they aren't limited to one geographical feature set. With the rovers, we are limited to flat terrain that is navigable by wheeled autonomic vehicles. With this, we can fly down to the bottom of a chasm and take readings down there, where there may be a better chance to find some sign of life (ie an area of Mars that is more well preserved than others).

      • Re:Interesting (Score:4, Informative)

        by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@NOSPAM.gmail.com> on Friday November 26, 2004 @04:05PM (#10927209) Homepage
        With the rovers, we are limited to flat terrain that is navigable by wheeled autonomic vehicles. With this, we can fly down to the bottom of a chasm and take readings down there,

        Only so long as the bottom of the chasm has quite a bit of open and reasonably flat terrain, and as long as the chasm is several times wider than the wingspan of the Gashopper. (And the winds are low.)

        All this become possible once we develop terrain avoidance software considerably more sophisticated than the current generation, and a computer considerably more powerful, yet lighter and less watt hungry than the current generation...

        In short, this is a typical Zubrin proposal. Long on wildly handwaving the advantages (while throwing darts at NASA), and very short on a realistic assesment of the problems and challenges that lay between here and there.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 )
      This thing could hop around and get a broader view of the planet, compared to the rovers which move what, a meter or two a day?

      The terrain might be completely different 100km or so away, but the dirt thats 10 feet from here is probably exactly the same as the dirt you're currently on.

      This thing would no doubt have more luck stumbling upon a deposit of water ice or finding bacteria or something of the sort.

      The article talks about this being a good way to blast off if you wanted to make a return trip back
    • Remember though, it can analyze ground that we haven't seen close-up at all. It has the ability to travel to rough, or mountainous terrain, or explore into a canyon which are places that our current landers cannot reach. For now we have been limited to flat, rather uninteresting surfaces of mars due to mobility limitations.

    • It's all about (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's all about the statistical analysis. You need a wide array of samples to get an overview of a planet's surface. We just don't have that capability right now (at least to the degree that this would offer).

      This will allow us to get a more general picture of specific areas of the planet Mars, rather than the ant-like views that we get from the rovers; that's not to say they aren't important. They are, because they give us very specific information.

      It'll be really nice to see this project eventually re

    • Besides being able to refuel itself, and cover immense amounts of ground especially as compared to a rover, there's also the aspect that it will pick itself up and shake itself off, thus ensuring that we can avoid any more conversations on slashdot about why the latest vehicle doesn't have wiper blades to brush the dust off the solar panels.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:3, Informative)

      by Dorsai65 ( 804760 )
      It also gives mission control a better idea of what they might want to look at next: during a hop, take a few photos and send them back for review and planning. That and the photos can be stereoscoped to give a better idea of terrain features. No more landing in a crater they can't get out of :-/

    • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

      by radtea ( 464814 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:47PM (#10927135)
      The advantage this concept has is one of sampling scales. We know very little about Mars in terms of its global minerology, etc. I'd say "geography" and "geology" except some pendant would insist that the correct term is "areology" or "gnu/areology" or something.

      In any case, landing in one or two spots tells us about those spots, but we'd really like to know about over overall structure of the planet. On Earth, for example, we have big structures like the Canadian Shield. Landing on one spot and then moving around will tell you that, yep, you got granite over here, too. What we'd like to do is sample on a coarse scale, so we could see that a few 100 km away we've got completely different geology.

      That's where the gashopper comes in. It's an extremely clever concept. The Martian atmosphere is mostly CO2, and the cycle of boost, glide, land and recharge could go on for a long time. It's a great way to explore a new planet on a scale that's never been done before.

      --Tom
      • I'd say "geography" and "geology" except some pendant would insist that the correct term is "areology" or "gnu/areology" or something.

        On behalf of the pedants, I must make two observations. First, it's GNU/areology--the capitals are important.

        Second, it's only appropriate to use the GNU prefix if the Magratheans [wikipedia.org] have provided full blueprints for Mars along with the distributed, completed planet. Said plans must be under the GNU GPL (General Planet License).

        Glad I could help out.

      • I'd say "geography" and "geology" except some
        pendant would insist...


        Do you often have problems with your jewelry criticizing your writing? Mine is oddly silent on the issue.
    • I'd worry about any automated aircraft having to perform risky landings on rough terrain. Response-time between Earth and Mars is sufficiently slow that direct remote-control would be difficult at best. It's the repeated landing that's scary.

      Unless this thing has a reusable airbag mechanism.
    • The current rover landing design can't go to many many places because it is far too dangerous to attempt to land on much of the surface of mars with the rolly-airbag ball technique, among other reasons. With this hopper, maybe they could land somewhere near the poles (which are too dangerous/expensive to land near) and then hop there in a series of hops, getting data along the way. Some of the best landing sites for the rolly-airbag landing are also the least interesting. This lets them spread out from d
    • One thing occures to me, this assumes you do all your data collection while on the ground. I would think there would be some utility to the data collected while flying. You are much closer than an orbital satalite, yet up high enough to observe an area many meters wide and as long as your flight path.

      Mycroft
    • because 100km away there may be a basaltic dike intruding in a sedimentary ridge, or there might be a granite outcropping or a sand pile.
  • This guy is Out There.

    Or maybe I'm a Luddite. It just seems like an unusual focus for one's life's work.

    Oh yeah, and I have to make an obligatory "global warming" mention, just like everyone else.
    • I have to make an obligatory "global warming" mention, just like everyone else.

      Considering that they are going to liquefy the CO2, I think that the fact that Mars is very, very cold is an important factor in their plan.

      But I guess you can't say the words "atmospheric CO2" in public without people parroting "global warming". Nevermind the fact that it's extraterrestrial CO2 we're talking about...
    • Well, considering Mars could use a little more CO2 in its atmosphere to prep it for colonization, global warming is a good thing :P

  • Nose full of "science" (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jonboy X ( 319895 ) <jonathan...oexner@@@alum...wpi...edu> on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:00PM (#10926892) Journal
    I love that diagram on the website. Future press conference transcript excerpt:

    Reporter: "Yes Mr. Zubrin, it's certainly an impressive design. What will be in the nose of the craft?"

    Mr. Zurbin: "As you can see from this diagram, the nose of the craft will contain "science". Next question."

  • Liquifying CO2? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crovira ( 10242 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:00PM (#10926893) Homepage
    CO2 sublimates, doesn't it? Might not make any difference for their application though.

    Its a good idea NOT to have to import hydrocarbons as the nearest filling station is back here, far far away. CO2 is pretty plentiful.

    The wings holding the solar panels would have to be self-cleaning though.
    • It's sublimates, but you can force it to liquefy under pressure. This was actually a point of contention between a friend of mine and his highschool chemistry teacher. They made a bet. He won, then the container exploded and cracked the fume hood. Thankfully, it was due to be replaced in a few weeks anyways.

    • Re:Liquifying CO2? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Cid Highwind ( 9258 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:19PM (#10926996) Homepage
      CO2 sublimates, doesn't it?
      It does under Earth's amospheric conditions. You can liquefy CO2 by putting it under high pressure (5+ atmospheres, IIRC). When they release the liquid CO2 it'll probably produce gas and small crystals that will sublimate away, like what happens when you discharge a CO2 fire extiguisher on Earth.

      It would be neat to watch a rocket powered aircraft that trails dry ice snow instead of smoke and flames...
    • The wings holding the solar panels would have to be self-cleaning though.

      Well, they'll have pressurized CO2 on hand, they could use some of it to dust off the sloar panels.
      If the output of the panels drops below a set threshold, simply blow the dust off with a little bit of the propellant (it must take quite a whole lot more of it to lift the 100lbs craft than it would take to clean its wings).

  • Kinda small (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by MyIS ( 834233 )
    I know it's OT but it reminded me of an obscure reference...

    - ...but Mr Burns...
    - *click* Hop in.

  • "the gashopper would need (Score:3)

    by Sai Babu ( 827212 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:05PM (#10926933) Homepage
    more than a month using its solar cells to refuel and recharge its batteries before it could take off again."

    This may well be a feature. Conventional wisdom, when fishing or hunting, is it pays not to move around too much.

    Easily tested on earth too.

    A really big one might help with moon mining as proposed here [abc.net.au]. Of course it would literally have to hop as wings are useless on the moon. Low gravity may make the concept practical and gas could be 'waste' from the He3 extraction.

    Imagine a whole mining-processing plant hopping about the moon.

    • A really big one might help with moon mining as proposed here. Of course it would literally have to hop as wings are useless on the moon.

      The plan is to use stored, compressed atmospheric gasses as propellant for a winged aircraft.

      Sit back, and think about this for a second.
      Now, tell me again about how this would work on the moon except for the wings.

  • Look at the diagram in the article (Score:5, Funny)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:07PM (#10926942) Journal
    This thing is equipped with a warhead of PURE SCIENCE!

  • Grasshoppa! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 ( 718736 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:14PM (#10926972)
    Snatch the CO2 from the air, grasshopper!

    When you snatch the CO2 from the air, then it will be time for you to leave.

    confucious

  • About Time (Score:5, Funny)

    by mordors9 ( 665662 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:18PM (#10926989)
    Them martians have been scaring people on this planet for years with their UFOs. Now it's our turn.
    • yeah, but theirs don't often land somewhere and park it for a month or two at a time... If they did, I'm sure some hick would have submitted his blurry pictures to the National Inquirer already. What we really need to do is modify the Mach 10 scramjet to work in martian atmosphere (don't ask me how, that's up to the NASA brainiacs) and just have it fly laps...
  • What kind of response times do you get from mars? I mean, could you interactively fly this thing, or would you just kind of point it and it would end up in some random location, in that general direction?

    If the latter, what's the advantage over, say, one of those tumbleweed style bots. What about a tumbleweed with "brakes", that can stop, expore, then curl back up into a ball and move along?

    Mars exploration sounds like a candidate for the KISS principle to me.
    • on the order of 1/2 an hour round trip communication times so it would have to mostly be autonomous - say launch to 50 km height, fly that direction at a steady altitude, land, send signal everything went ok, take data, await new instructions.
    • We could put up a constellation of GPS satellites around mars and have point-and-click navigation.

      Although I'm sure the cost of a venture like that would be prohibitive for a long time to come, I don't see gashoppers being launched there anytime soon either.

      This thing could also yield the benefit of loads of aerial photography to chart the surface with. Pictures from orbit are nice, but aerial photography is nicer still.
    • What kind of response times do you get from mars? I mean, could you interactively fly this thing, or would you just kind of point it and it would end up in some random location, in that general direction?

      I think there's about a 6 minute delay both ways...

      But have you never heard of artificial intelligence, autonomous robots, and autopilot? The thing could be told to go to places selected on topographical maps and fly there autonomously...it's not like there's a lot of air traffic to worry about. There's
  • pressurized gas. Does that mean I can fly around on Mars, too?
  • ...You aren't using gas from Uranus.

    HAahhahahah get it!?

    Oh, fuck off you aren't funny either.
  • Jet propulsion is sort of inefficient as a means of producing thrust- since you accelerate a little bit of mass to a high velocity, that requires more energy than pushing a large mass (as a propeller does) to a lower velocity. So wouldn't using the CO2 to drive a propeller or fan be more efficient (KE = 1/2 MV^2)?

    OR, we could reroute the contents of that forward compartment into the engine and create the world's first science-powered vehicle...

  • wtf?! (Score:1)

    by neko9 ( 743554 )
    Robert Zubrin's Mars Grasshopper Airplane... i need cofee asap
  • The gashopper could land at the edge of a deep chasm, examine the area, jump down to the bottom and get back out again I doubt it could completely ignore terrain. It could land at the edge of a chasm, and then fall into it.

  • Don't dream of Mars planes yet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by killbill! ( 154539 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @04:07PM (#10927223) Homepage
    I remember some dude that had created Mars planes on a simulator [x-plane.com], using real NASA-supplied data.

    His findings: low gravity and ultrathin atmosphere are bitches.

    For one, the ultrathin atmosphere (air density 1% of the Earth's) requires huge wings and a very high speed to generate enough lift.

    Taking-off and landing are almost impossible. The planes needs a speed of 400 knots to take off. Landing is very... hard because low gravity prevents you from using brakes, and low air density from using reverse thrust.

    Of course, the Gashopper isn't supposed to take off or land (it could not anyway). However, it'd still need massive horsepower and huge wings - all of which make it hard to cram the Mars plane into a space probe.
    Bottom line: if the plane has been successfully tested on Earth, it is unlikely to work on Mars.

    Disclaimer: I am not a Mars aerospace engineer. But that guy's findings were definitely interesting.
    • Sorry for replying to my own post (I did RTFA... but too fast apparently ;p), but I just noticed the plane is actually supposed to take off and land...

      It's even worse than I thought. It just won't fly.
    • Take off and landing are difficult... for HTOL aircraft. This is designed to use VTOL (vertical thrusters) to gain altitude, which won't rely on wings for lift; instead, the thin atmosphere and low gravity are beneficial, as both drag forces and gravity forces are reduced. During takeoff, this thing is basically a rocket, for which thin atmosphere and low gravity are benefits.

      Once it hits altitude, it begins to fly; it's going to need a huge wingspan to do that, true, but it can get most of the speed fro
    • I remember some dude that had created Mars planes on a simulator, using real NASA-supplied data.
      His findings: low gravity and ultrathin atmosphere are bitches.

      From RTFA, I got the feeling that the plan is for the wings to be mostly controll surfaces, and that the lift would come from the jet of CO2.

      Of course, the Gashopper isn't supposed to take off or land

      Vertical take off and landing using jets.

      I'm sure the good people at NASA's jet propulsion lab are gonna run the numbers better than "some dude"

    • huge wings - all of which make it hard to cram the Mars plane into a space probe

      Wouldn't be all that though: the first thing that comes to MY mind is an (essentially) inflatable wing - the solar panels can be flexible, and adding some lightweight shape-memory metal (nitinol) reinforcing members might do the trick. "flying" doesn't have to mean "go FAST", just "go". In fact, going slow would have its benefits: more time to detail the terrain thats being flown over.

      • Unfortunately slow doesn't work so well on Mars where the atmospheric pressure is 1% that of the Earth's.
        The lower the atmospheric pressure the higher your stall speed.

        Mycroft
        • Even with an airfoil designed for the combo of pressure and speed? Bummer. Still, the little beastie could "supplement" lift with vertical thrust.
          • More like ONLY with an airfoil designed for the pressure. Someone else in this thread linked to the Xplane site where they tried setting for mars pressure and gravity. One design that actually worked was like a modified u2, HUGE wings, and it still had to go over 500mph or stall. And it needed aircraft carrier type aresters to stop.
            Not shure how accurate his simulation is, but Xplane has a fairly high rep for a pc simulator (unluss I'm confusing it with another simulator) so it's not likely off by much.
  • As Paul Davies [astroseti.org] has said: "Mars was ready for life long before Earth. Being a smaller planet it cooled faster. Also, the effect of the asteroid bombardment was less severe. Mars has the volcanoes and water that most astrobiologists believe were needed to incubate life." So if we are here (via panspermia) after been born in Mars, we have to find there the fossils of our ancient relatives.

  • 110 LBS (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The gashopper is 1/3 the weight of the rover. Why is it that they start talking about adding more features, like mini-rovers, to fill in the extra weight? They should just send 3 of them. It will take 30 days for each of them to recharge for flight but you could just offset the take off times by 10 days each. You would have 10 days to study each small area. Or maybe you would stay with one of them that is in an interesting area and only spend a few hours on another. Or split up the group into 3 teams. Whate
  • Is this the same group of people who have the laughable reality show on the Discovery Channel? If it is, I would like to point out that these people fund themselves by looking only slightly more embarassing than a furry larping clan on satellite television.

  • He's not the only one.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by carambola5 ( 456983 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @05:01PM (#10927510) Homepage
    Last Friday (Nov. 19) was a big milestone for many small companies like Robter Zubrin's. This is when NASA announced its 2004 SBIR Phase I awards. And yes, this Gashopper is one of them.

    Check them all out at: http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/sbir2004/phase1/awa rds/2004topic.html [nasa.gov] There's really some innovative stuff going on. Also, to the future rocket scientists out there: if you want to work in aerospace, this is an excellent site to find small companies doing NASA subcontracting.
    • Looking down that list I couldn't help but notice one entry*:

      Microcide, Inc.
      2209 Niagara Drive
      Troy , MI 48083-5933
      John Lopes ( 248 ) 526 - 9663
      04-1-B3.04-8964 JSC
      Broad Spectrum Sanitizing Wipes with Food Additives

      That's one I'm not shure I want to understand

      *emphasis mine

      Mycroft

  • If it was anyone else but Zubrin... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dog's_Breakfast ( 771023 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:03PM (#10928123)
    If it was anyone else but Zubrin, I might think the idea had merit. Unfortunately, the more ideas I read from this guy, the more convinced I am that he's a nut case. Take a look at this article: http://space.com/news/aps_report_041123.html Zubrin's comments are down at the bottom. In this case, he's insisting that the Hubble Space Telescope was only made possible thanks to the space shuttle (Zubrin is a space shuttle fan - that ought to tell you something). In fact, Hubble was launched on the space shuttle only because NASA was desperately looking for a way to justify the cost of the space shuttle - it would have been much cheaper to send up Hubble on an unmanned rocket. And Hubble was deliberately designed so that it would need constant servicing by the space shuttle, again to justify the space shuttle (and now that the shuttle is grounded, Hubble is falling apart). Zubrin has an agenda. His agenda is not to support good space science, his agenda is to promote Buck Rogers gee-whiz "technology".
    • Not exactly. The shuttle is the only heavy lifter that was powerful enough at the time; maybe it still is. The Hubble was specifically built as large as possible, to go on the largest launcher. It couldn't have gone up on an unmanned rocket, except maybe the Saturn V or Energia... fat chance.

      Anecdotally, I recall hearing that the size/weight specs for the Hubble are the same for the last generation KH-?? optical spy satellites; these were also made as large as possible, for the same reason: to make the mir

    • Re:If it was anyone else but Zubrin... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Odd: I get the exact opposite impression from Zubrin's book; he has consistently decried the shuttle program as a huge waste of time and money. He has also described Nasa in short as a goal-less money-eating machine with no worthy purpose; and made rock-solid, scientifically sound proposals (a conclusion I reach by observing that thousands, rather than mere tens or hundreds of other scientists - including other Nasa scientists - agree that they are sound) for unmanned exploration of Mars followed by a huma
  • At this stage of exploration, wouldn't it make more sense to make a bunch of non-mobile, lightweight probes and pepper the planet's surface with them?
  • ....my only concern would be the stability and durability of the 'hopper during Mars' famed dust storms. AFAIK the winds there get to be something ferocious, and can last a long, long time. Even at the rarified air pressure of Mars, I'd guess this thing would fly like tumbleweed.
  • I wonder if it would be possible for larger versions of these to ferry rovers to various locations on the surface. The rover could roam around while the 'hopper compresses. When all is said and done the two dock with each other and set sail for another spot to explore.
  • why is all this complication with CO2 neccessary.

    Why not just make a helicopter ?

    Atmosphere is thin, but if they can fly conventional wing in it, why not use rotor blades ?

    Since they would probably have to be big, they could mount sollar cells right on the blades.
    That could take care of the dust buildup too...

Slashdot Top Deals

Too much is not enough.

Close