Mars One Studying How To Maintain Communications With Mars 24/7 143
braindrainbahrain writes "Mars One, the low-credibility effort to colonize Mars, is at least funding some interesting concept studies for their alleged plan to colonize the red planet. One of the most interesting is the effort to maintain uninterrupted communications with Mars. This is not as trivial as it may sound, as any satellite in Martian orbit will still have to deal with occultations between Mars and Earth due to the Sun. Surrey Satellite Technology will be performing the study."
Trivial (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not as trivial as it may sound...
Really? from...
the low-credibility effort to colonize Mars...
Yes frome these people, it *is* "trivial".
Seriously, let's not waste money and time with these people when there are serious scientists that are not getting the support they need for serious research.
Re: (Score:2)
It's so trivial it's already been solved in science fiction.
I bet if they dropped KSR a line he'd tell them specifically who worked it out for him :p
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
wow (Score:2)
"Mars One , the low-credibility effort to colonize Mars, is at least funding some interesting concept studies for their alleged plan to colonize the red planet /quote Someone seems to not have much faith
Identical twins (Score:4, Funny)
Send one twin to mars, the other twin stays on Earth. They telepathically communicate. Oh wait, wrong novel?
Re: (Score:2)
It's an obvious attempt to represent textually the drawn-out syllables indicative of sarcasm when spoken.
I didn't RTFA, but I assume... (Score:2)
idiocracy (Score:2, Interesting)
Can anyone think of a more credible or likely way to fund a trip to mars? It's not public funding..if putting fucking honey boo boo on Mars it's what gets the effort funded I'm ok with that. How else do you get the citizens of idiocracy to fund the effort?
Re: (Score:3)
if putting fucking honey boo boo on Mars it's what gets the effort funded I'm ok with that.
I think most people would have no problem sending them to Mars. It's already a one way trip, so that's a win-win.
Re: (Score:2)
if putting fucking honey boo boo on Mars it's what gets the effort funded I'm ok with that.
I think most people would have no problem sending them to Mars. It's already a one way trip, so that's a win-win.
I think most people would like to see Honey Boo-Boo launched AT the Sun, not put in orbit around it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you want an utterly idiotic venture to get funding in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
idiocranial projection (Score:3)
It's the opposite of idiocracy. You see, we gave the finger to Darwin a long time ago with our medical science... Mars is a hostile and unforgiving environment. Ship a constant stream of idiots there and only the strong and less stupid survive... Radioactive resistant ones survive longer. Mars One has a chance to rekindle evolution. We'll waste a bunch of life burrowing into the ground, but that's the best place to avoid cosmic rays, and after that it wouldn't even necessarily have to be a death senten
Re:idiocranial projection (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You see, we gave the finger to Darwin a long time ago with our medical science...
Not really. Now we're simply evolving for different things, like resistance to side effects of medication, and resistance to antibiotic-resistant superbugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come up with a good enough argument for why they should fund it.
Of course, that would require thinking them as rational human beings rather than idiots. This, in turn, would require some amount of control over your own mind and attitude. Since you post as an AC, I presume you're already aware of having a problem, so now all you need to do is take conscious control over your personal development and steer it towards being less of an arrogant p
Lagrange Points (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
L3 won't help you (neither will L1 or L2). L4 and L5 would. The big thing here is the cost. This is like a 1.3% tax on all Mars missions, which to date NASA has seen as cheaper than putting in relay satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every 780 days (Score:5, Informative)
Once per synodic period (779.94 days) you will lose 10 days or so during superior conjunction, or ~ 1.3% of the time. NASA gives its spaceships at Mars a vacation (for the rovers, generally a long integration X ray spectrum of some rock). If Mars One really worries losing contact even for that little, they can either build a cycler, or put a relay somewhere else (say, orbiting Venus).
Re: (Score:1)
Once per synodic period (779.94 days) you will lose 10 days or so during superior conjunction, or ~ 1.3% of the time. NASA gives its spaceships at Mars a vacation (for the rovers, generally a long integration X ray spectrum of some rock).
So that's what they're doing when they're analysing a rock "really well" http://xkcd.com/695/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
10 days? They'll lose material for one episode. Easily solved: Mid-season clip show.
Re: (Score:2)
Using Earth L4 and L5 is more reliable.
And lower delta v too. I can't be bothered to look up the delta v for Earth-Sun L4/5, but it'll have an arbitrarily low (though long time) delta v trajectory from any of the Earth-Moon Lagrange points (the "interplanetary highway" [wikipedia.org] stuff). In contrast, orbit around Venus requires substantial delta v just to get into orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
tvshower29 (Score:1)
Obvious solution. (Score:2)
Run the whole thing from a abandoned United States Army Air Corps desert base [wikipedia.org] and 24/7 communications won't be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting fact about that movie - the desert scenes were shot on Mars.
What't the point of this? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that more telephone sanitizers and middle managers will be born here, and we need funds and fame to get them to keep getting on the B-ships. 24/7/355 isn't quite buzzword compliant. Also, tensions may run high -- blackouts are key times for mutiny. You know, sort of like on Skylab? [vice.com] On a different planet it could be far worse, "And the cameras are coming back online folks -- OMFG! WTF?! Managers are caught in the middle of a hostile take over! Audio is out: Not a single phone is sanitized
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of Mars One is to be funded by broadcasting 24/7. If there are 10 days of disconnections (as some other post says, I don't know the details), there are 10 days of loss in advertisement.
Lagrange Points! (Score:1)
Why do we not have relay communications equipment at lagrange points L4 and L5? Am I missing something here, even if we aren't talking about this study?
What? No need? How about we create a need!
Re: (Score:2)
Because we don't have that many things to relay to. It's not worth launching a whole new comsat - and an expensive one too, given the power needs and extra delta-V to make earth escape - up there just to avoid the occasional week or so of interrupted communication to robotic missions. More practical to just put the rovers into a holding state and wait for the signal to come back.
24/7 ? (Score:2)
Shouldn't they be using Martian units? I know a Martian Day is a bit longer than 24 hrs, not sure about their weeks
Re: (Score:2)
The week is an arbitrary unit that has nothing to do with rotation or orbit of the sun or the moon. Different communities have had different week lengths throughout history.
4 satelites should cover the setup. (Score:1)
Essentially you could do it with two, but 4 gives you the redundancy needed. Start by putting a satelite in orbit around the sun on Earth's orbit, but leading by 120 degrees. A second trailing by 120 degrees. At all times you'll have at least one unobstructed LOS path to Mars, and most of the time 3. That said, the distance is enough that it would be a good idea to double the possible paths. Put two more satelites up in orbit of the sun, on Mars orbit, one leading by 120 degrees, one trailing by 120 degrees
Re: (Score:2)
Heh! I'm just imagining Martian colonists using UUCP. I'd lo
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully, these days we have maps and won't have to bang our way to mars. UUCP wouldn't be a satisfactory solution, however, because it's designed to get instant confirmation of delivery before retiring a job from the queue. What is needed is a new daemon that sends messages via UDP with high redundancy and keeps trying to deliver as time slots become available until receipt is reported.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the problem with IP is the TTL and Timeouts that are configured. a ttl of 255 seconds is built into IP, (and any protocol riding on IP like UDP) which means that the packet is considered dead after 255 seconds (or the combination of x seconds and y hops adding up to 255.) Switching to IPv6 does not help, as the only significant change to the field is the name, where it changed from Time To Live to Hop Limit. It is still an 8 bit field, meaning it is a maximum of 255. If the protocol when switching
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the problem with IP is the TTL and Timeouts that are configured. a ttl of 255 seconds is built into IP, (and any protocol riding on IP like UDP) which means that the packet is considered dead after 255 seconds (or the combination of x seconds and y hops adding up to 255.)
That's a matter of convention, and it's up to the receiver to decide whether to discard a packet or not. Nothing prevents a gateway from jiggering those numbers, either.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll see your two, and raise you to "one".
A single satellite just a few million miles above (or below) the orbital plane of our solar system will always have line-of-sight to both Earth and Mars (and also to Jupiter and Venus, as a bonus). Even our own relatively huge moon won't occlude that.
Of course, "uninterrupted" has problems other than actual occlusion by a planet/sun/moon. CMEs could always knock out communications n
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, to some degree a single satelite solution would be possible. It would work best as a solution for mars if it were to orbit the sun perpendicular to the earth-moon line at opposition, with an eliptical orbit with a period such that at opposition, the satelite would be either as far north of the sun as the orbit would allow, or as far south.
I would still argue for relays at L4 and L5, but then there are more than a few people interested in setting up stations there anyway. Possibly easier to establish wo
Starlite Starbrite (Score:1)
How to keep in touch with life on Mars (Score:2)
A TV test pattern, a radio, or an old landline touchtone phone. Problem solved.
I don't see a problem (Score:2)
Interesting problems ahead (Score:1)
Put a communications relay satellite ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
space cred = 0, so what? (Score:2)
Funding (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: classy (Score:2, Insightful)
No. Just realistic and sober.
Space mission faster and more ambitious than NASA financed by reality TV and application fees?????
Crew selected by casting?????
Seriously? It's a scam. Nothing else.
Not one of these hopeful wannabe astronaut will even step aboard something remotely similar to a rocket.
Re: classy (Score:5, Informative)
Space mission faster and more ambitious than NASA financed by reality TV and application fees?
They did manage to get the Moon landing done is fairly short order - in the 1960s - (obviously not as ambitious as going to / living on Mars) but, sadly, present-day NASA is crippled by the fear of people actually dying, LOTS of bureaucracy, politics (internal and external) and Congress. If the Government (meaning "we the People") *really* wanted to be on Mars, we'd be there.
Back in the day... (Score:1)
Now? The government can't even build a healthcare website that works. Maybe they don't want it to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing a trip to the Moon to a trip to Mars belies your complete cretinism.
Google "distance" and compare that of the Moon to that of Mars.
Except for the part where I said, "(obviously not as ambitious as going to / living on Mars)". I know their respective distances and delta-v budgets; I can read and learned *some* math/physics for my BSCS - way back in 1987. The fact is, since we can *actually* send things to Mars, we *could* send people, if we wanted to.
And really there's no need for rude name-calling.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Crew selected by casting?????
I heard on the radio a person who has been short listed for this. She sounded like one of the hectic/hyper women* who will be talking constantly. If that's indicative of their crew selection then I'm going to start a sweep stake on when the a crew member murders the rest.
* She's probably has big tits and is pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. Though the plan is far-fetched, they are approaching it seriously and have some "credible" people on the team. To me, the most "low-credibility" aspect is their ambitious schedule. For many folks, the sheer audacity of the plan also hurts their credibility. But this may change somewhat in the next few years, as more and more privately funded space projects make headlines.
A few examples:
- both Virgin Galactic and XCOR start service to paying passengers
- SpaceX launches first Falcon Heavy, first man-ra
Re: (Score:2)
We had an on-TV competition back home, to find the first person from our country to "go into space" (non-orbital), ticket paid by the TV show! ... ...latest news, someone else, completely unrelated to the TV show, is now training to become an astronaut, and will likely be the first one.
Some woman won, and was told she would be the first one
(have not been able to find anything about what happended to the TV show contestant).
Re: (Score:2)
Sure would be interesting if you had the guts to put your handle out there when making these claims of "Not one of these hopeful wannabe astronaut will even step aboard something remotely similar to a rocket." so come 2023-2024, when the first four colonists land on Mars, we can show you what a doubting Thomas you were back in 2014.. Frankly, I believe Mars-one has a FAR better chance of accomplishing this than any government or consortium of governments.. Anyway, I wish them all the luck in the world and
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at his "team [mars-one.com]", you see half of it is artists and online social media strategists. This company is designed around social media and conning people out of money. Mars is a distraction to them to use to collect gullible people's money.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to test how much lag existing technology can handle, but let's please do it here on Earth before we test it across the solar system.
Re: (Score:1)
Latency isn't really that difficult to deal with.
The protocol mainly needs to know how much data can be sent for how long (blindly) before expecting ACKs.
Retransmission would require larger buffers (enough for about 20 minutes of data).
If you intend to browse an earth website from Mars, you'd need an earth based gateway to ensure it actually worked.
Of most everyday applications, aside from telephony, banking would be a big challenge. Secure sites time out too quickly for any Martian to hold a connection lon
Re: (Score:1)
Only two are needed. Minimum. One would work, but there would be times that both it and Mars could be out of reach (solar storms and such).
60 degrees ahead of mars and 60 degrees behind.
The big problem is that they would need to be resupplied with fuel to maintain their position - roughly every 5 years.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't you use the Sun-Earth L4 & L5?
Arguably, the big problem is when Earth and Mars are on opposite sides of the sun so that direct communicatiosn become impossible. Which is what you address with 60 degrees ahead and behind Mars. The advantage to the la grangian point is the stability that would mitigate the need for fuel for maneuvering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just need some relays (Score:5, Informative)
Put some satellites in orbit around the sun. Enough of them and you'll always be able to see at least one of them from either planet, and they can relay between each other.
"enough" being one (or more). One satellite in Earth's L4 or L5 Lagrange points, and you have sight around the sun. If you don't use that natural gravity saddle, you might want to use a gravity hole, such as Jupiter to put another, though to stop Jupiter from getting in the way, you'd still need to use a Lagrange point, I'd recommend L1.
This doesn't seem like a hard problem. You can even launch three, Earth L4 &L5, and Jupiter L1 to have redundant and diverse coverage. Though no idea if they were looking for something in a more stable orbit, as Lagrange points take corrections to remain in. Or if those sorts of details were the point of the study.
Re: (Score:1)
What's the feasibility of a neutrino beam for communication?
One of those could probably shoot through the sun - eliminating a ton of relays and launches.
It's not entirely [wikipedia.org] science fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Already been thought of, seventy years ago!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Equilateral [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Put some satellites in orbit around the sun. Enough of them and you'll always be able to see at least one of them from either planet, and they can relay between each other.
This doesn't seem like a hard problem. You can even launch three, Earth L4 &L5, and Jupiter L1 to have redundant and diverse coverage. Though no idea if they were looking for something in a more stable orbit, as Lagrange points take corrections to remain in. Or if those sorts of details were the point of the study.
"As of March 2013, Falcon 9 launch prices are $4,109 per kilogram ($1,864/lb) to low-Earth orbit when the launch vehicle is transporting its maximum cargo weight." [wikipedia.org] This is currently one of the cheapest ways to get to LEO. L4 and L5 are a lot farther out and Jupiter...hahahahaha. I doubt a private entity would be able to fund this. As was said somewhere above, the chances of this stunt getting to the point of putting people on the surface of Mars is laughable. It will probably take them a generation just to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There would never be a rescue mission. It's a one-way suicide mission.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the need for continuous communication.
They want to fund it by showing it on TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, good question. It does seem that the intersection between the set of people who have the scientific mindset and unflappable temperament ideal for operating effectively in life-threatening situations and the set of people who have entertaining "TV personalities" is probably very small.
Possibly empty.
Re: (Score:2)
/*
* [...] Note that 120 sec is defined in the protocol as the maximum
* possible RTT. I guess we'll have to use something other than TCP
* to talk to the University of Mars.
* PAWS allows us longer timeouts and large windows, so once implemented
* ftp to mars will work nicely.
*/
(from /usr/src/linux/net/inet/tcp.c, concerning RTT [retransmission timeout])
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, not FTL communications. I was thinking communications over long distances that wouldn't have many of the drawbacks of using radio. Oh well.. But I'm pretty sure NASA has been working on using laser communications between the Earth and the Moon, haven't they?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Quantum Telegraph (Score:4, Funny)
You mean utilize quantum entanglement? Maybe by the time someone is actually ready to go to Mars, they'll have developed the idea far enough to actually do it. Until then: Lasers.
Yes, a laser so powerful it will punch a hole through the sun.
Re:Here's another project that needs funding (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Technologically it's possible. The issue is resourcing. It'd be a mega-project, ranking as one of the most expensive things mankind has ever done. Is there the political will or public drive for something like that?
As for desireable, that's easy. We have to get off this planet sooner or later, because somewhere out there is the Big Fuckin' Rock that's going to hit us. Perhaps not for a few years, perhaps not for a few million, but it will happen.
Re: (Score:2)