1/9/2024 0 Comments Gravity on marsThis system could provide the option to both land and take off from the red planet. One idea was a Legged Landing System based off the Lunar Lander. What type of landing system will get our astronauts and colonists safely to the surface?īack in 2007, scientists considered four possible solutions to get astronauts to the surface. Once we get there, the challenge becomes landing on the planet’s surface. But on Mars, iron and steel would be the cheapest building material.Traveling to Mars is just the first leg of the journey - when Earth and Mars are closest to each other, the trip will take a mere 260 days. On the moon, such technology would probably build things from aluminium alloys and glass with bricks thrown in for building construction. Will we have mature nanotechnology by the time any expedition could leave? Probably, but the degree of nanotechnology and additive manufacturing we have now means that most on planet equipment will be built in situ, perhaps before the (manned) part of the expedition arrives. There are lots of plans for trips to Mars that haven't kept up with the times. You could even build in a staircase or elevator to the center if building a large enough constantly rotating centrifuge on Mars.Įven if a couple of hours a day at 1 g was necessary for people returning to Earth, a minimal centrifuge would be light enough to be sent from Earth. How big a centrifuge, and at what cost? Various carnival rides, and revolving restaurants on tops of buildings should indicate that cost is pretty low. If the need for higher gravity is not full time, for example only during part of pregnancy, building a large centrifuge would cost a lot less than digging a big hole. There's a significant faction in NASA (some rather high up) and elsewhere that think that humans must *never* go to Mars if Mars does support life. If it does, there's a potential for harm both ways, Mars life harming us and us harming Mars life. It's a fairly good bet that Mars did support life of some form long ago. Why would we want to go back down into a gravity well when we just spent an enormous amount of capital to get out of one?Īnother downside / risk is Mars life. If we have the wherewithal to send humans to Mars long term, we would also be close to having the wherewithal to make a largish space station, one that is hospitable to people. Regarding the latter, that is an even bigger if. Perhaps there's no big problem with 0.38 g. Regarding the former, while zero gravity is known to be problematic to humans, nobody knows where the cutoff is between 0g and 1g that delineates harmful from not harmful. What low gravity issue? You are assuming that it is an issue, and you are assuming that humans will confront it. Yeah I understand now what he was referring to just didn't connect the dots from his post lol. Defining #\rho(r)# as the density at some distance #r# from the center and #\bar(r)#. You can use the shell theorem to find the condition that make gravitational force increase or decrease with increasing depth. What the shell theorem does say is that for an object with a spherical mass distribution (density is a function of radial distance from the center), it's only the mass below that counts. This is because the Earth's core comprises a bit less than 1/3 of the Earth's total mass but occupies a bit more than 1/6 it's total volume. The gravitational force halfway down to the center of the Earth is about 9% higher than the surface value. He's also correct in that gravitational force inside the Earth reaches a maximum value at the core/mantle boundary. You have to add the assumption of a uniform density to reach that conclusion. Putting words in glappkaeft's mouth, or fingers, he's saying that the shell theorem does not say that gravitational force decreases with increasing depth. I hope your not saying the shell theorem is incorrect ?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |