UAV's instead of rovers.

pioneer0333 · Oct 23, 2005

I have heard that NASA does have ideas and plans to launch a UAV to mars. I want to know why they did not think of this earlier? I mean just compare the information gain of a UAV over the use of a rover. Would they not be able to gain and learn many times more data from aerial surveys of Mars. I also think that if they fashion miniature drones on the UAV to drop at promising sites as you fly, you can increase data gain and at the same time setup up way points for future vehicles sent there. My main question though, is does anyone know when they plan to launch the vehicle? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jcdenton · Oct 23, 2005

I don't know the answer to your second question, but I'm willing to bet the reason why there hasn't been a UAV mission to Mars is because of the high-risk of landing over the rugged terrain in Mars. Perhaps now they plan to use vertical take-off and landing drones? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tshearn · Oct 24, 2005

If you ask me NASA is a 1 step forward and 3 steps back kind of crew..Every thing they have done so far was already thought of like 30 years ago but had no money to build it then..Seems there even haveing a hard time trying to figure out how to get BACK to the moon..Wasent anyone takeing notes then?? To me NASA has limited there thinking to the most safest and cheapiest route..Astronauts used to be test pilots,Was Yeager safe or lucky or just plain good? i just dont get why they limit there smartest guys to think in a box..By the time a UAV gets going the aliens will have already arrived

Saiph · Oct 24, 2005

Will ariel surveys provide more information? Possibly, but of a different type than a ground survey. You can't get rock samples for instance. Also a lot of the information you'd glean from such a survey can already be done by orbital maping. Also, a flying vehicle is just harder to construct than a ground one, let alone figuring how to deploy it. Now, TSHearn, as far as the criticisms of nasa goes: If you create an institution, you do limit your thought a bit, this is because your work needs to be compatible with everyone else. Any radical thoughts often require a massive restructuring of the entire system, and when the system gets large, that isn't easy (or often advisable) So you do get some "stuck in the box" ideas when dealing with old programs. However, that's one reason why they contract outside companies pretty often. Cheapest, safest route: What else would you want? NASA's learned, a fatality is a really bad thing. It costs far, far more in resources, time, money, and reputation than any investment into safety that would have prevented it. Take a look at the difficulties that have arisen due to the columbia disaster. And...with NASA's relatively restrictive budget, cheaper is the only way to accomplish all the science they'd like. Now, as for going back to the moon: That's basically a pool of knowledge that's gone. Yes, we have notes, blueprints etc. But all the people that already knew that material are retired or passed away now. You've got to train a new group, and you don't just throw them the old stuff and say rebuild it, you say, this is what worked last time, knowing that, lets do better and go back. Throw in a less generous budget, and it just takes time. You've got to re-design, build and test new engines (and likely better ones). I can't imagine that taking less than 3 or 4 years. New rocket bodies and all the other systems will also take time. And if we want t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

formulaterp · Oct 24, 2005

Keep in mind that the atmosphere on Mars is about 100 times thinner than that of earth. The UAV's used by the armed forces would never be able to fly on Mars. You can't use a jet engine because there isn't enough O2. Any propeller you use would have to be huge, which requires a powerful engine to spin it. Your only feasible power source would be solar, so you can't fly at night, and you would need a huge array of photovoltaics. All that stuff weighs a ton, and it has to survive re-entry, so you'd need a giganormous rocket just to get it to Mars. For all the difficulty and expense, what's the payoff? Sure hi-res aerial pictures would be nice, but we have 3 satellites in orbit which pretty much provide this already. A fourth orbiter (MRO) is on it's way which will provide even better pictures. Besides the point of the MER missions were to conduct basic geological research. Geology (or is it Marsology) is often best done on the ground. This is not to say a UAV would be useless. Perhaps a self-inflating blimp with an attached instrument package would be feasible.

tshearn · Oct 24, 2005

Saiph, i can agree on a few points you bring up..I have great respect for NASA and men and women who work there..I just dont understand a couple of things..The foam was what brought down the last shuttle and after a couple of years of intense probeing we launched again, only to find out that we use the same foam ( which can be distroyed by a touch of the hand) and another one could have been lost..To me thats like saying your car wont start, looking at it for a year then replaceing the tires hopeing that fixed it..They skirted the main problem(foam) trying to find something else..Wheres the logic? Yes, safe is good..But would we have gotten where we are today by playing the safe road? I personally dont belive so..Each person who has died doing there job, be it test flight or astronaut is nothing short of being a hero to me, its a risk they were and are willing to take for greater good..But being to safe ( which NASA is becomeing) makes them dig for problems that are not there and could or will cause death because they look over the simpleiest and most of the time , right solutation.I guess thats what i was trying to say in my first post..

formulaterp · Oct 25, 2005

So what is "the simpleiest and most of the time, right solution" to the foam problem?

pioneer0333 · Oct 25, 2005

Maybe a type of giant "net wrapped around the external tank". I don't know. It would be like pantyhose for the tank. Maybe trap the foam inside the net. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

pioneer0333 · Oct 25, 2005

You are right about NASA greatly testing everything it uses in it's program. But I think that danger is just a part of the deal. Nothing in the world is safe, not driving, flying, eating, walking, or anything else for that matter. Heck a person could kill himself just by leaning over and picking up a quarter,"loses balance and splits head open". But don't get me wrong, safety is first. I just believe that you have to take risks sometimes to get ahead on the right track. "X-Planes for example" provided tremendous data and knowledge. But they carried great risks and consequences to obtain that knowledge. And finally, I do not and will never criticize NASA, they are the only ones with the BALLS to continue pushing the limit. My hat is not just off for them, I threw it away in order to give a proper salute. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tshearn · Nov 2, 2005

To not use foam?? Or at least not a foam which can be destroyed by a simple touch of the human hand??

formulaterp · Nov 2, 2005

The external tank foam is necessary to insulate the cryogenic fuel used by the orbiter. You just can't do away with the foam. Heavy-duty foam would add too much mass which would have to be brought to orbit, reducing the shuttles effective payload. There are solutions of course. Such as placing the foam inside the ET. Mounting the orbiter above the ET. Using all solid, or noncryogenic fuels. None of these are simple, obvious, or cheap to implement. They would require a complete redesign, assuming they were even feasible. Give the folks at NASA a little credit. They're not idiots for crying out loud.

CalliArcale · Nov 2, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Seems there even haveing a hard time trying to figure out how to get BACK to the moon..Wasent anyone takeing notes then??<hr /></blockquote> Oh, they know how to get to the moon. The science of that is known. Now they just have to decide specifically how they're going to acheive it. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Fundamentally, it's not a science problem. It's an engineering and logistics problem. NASA knows what is required. Now they have to design it (a process likely to take several years because of the neccesary design decisions that have to be made), build it, test it, fix it, test it again, and finally fly it to the Moon. NASA knew how to get to the Moon before it was even given the task of doing so in the 1960s. Von Braun was aiming for the moon when he was a teenager, and had a pretty fair idea of what was needed. But it takes a lot of work to actually design and build the spacecraft to get you there. Take the aviation industry, for instance. Most jetliners look pretty much the same. Heck, even the massive A-380 isn't all that revolutionary. They're using the same science they've been using for decades, ever since the DeHavilland Comet and the Boeing 707. So why do manufacturers have to spend many years and millions of dollars to come up with a new airliner? It's not because it's revolutionary, or because some high-paid artist is creating a new "look" for it. It's simply because engineering takes time to do right. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Was Yeager safe or lucky or just plain good?<hr /></blockquote> A bit of all three, really. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

CalliArcale · Nov 2, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I have heard that NASA does have ideas and plans to launch a UAV to mars. I want to know why they did not think of this earlier? I mean just compare the information gain of a UAV over the use of a rover. Would they not be able to gain and learn many times more data from aerial surveys of Mars. I also think that if they fashion miniature drones on the UAV to drop at promising sites as you fly, you can increase data gain and at the same time setup up way points for future vehicles sent there. My main question though, is does anyone know when they plan to launch the vehicle?<hr /></blockquote> NASA has considered UAVs which are actual airplanes on Mars for years, but until very recently, the technology just hasn't been there. The air density problem was solved ages ago; the U-2 and SR-17 both fly at a comparable atmospheric pressure (which is why their pilots wear pressure suits). The propulsion problem has also been solved. Rocket propulsion really isn't practical for this, and it's doubtful that Martian thermals will permit long-term gliding, again due to the thin air. But propeller research has come a long way. Not long before its tragic demise, the unmanned and propeller-driven Helios aircraft set a new altitude record for conventional powered airplanes, breaking that set by the SR-71. (Buran and the Space Shuttle don't count for that record because when they fly, they are unpowered and constantly losing altitude.) So it is possible to fly on Mars. The trickiest part of all actually has nothing to do with the mechanics of flight. It's the software. UAVs on Earth do not actually pilot themselves; they are piloted by a human with a joystick sitting behind a computer, usually on the ground. This is not practical for a Martian UAV unless it is deployed during a manned Mars Mission, and even if it were part of such a mission, the UAV would be confined to an area within radio contact o <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

tshearn · Nov 2, 2005

Hey, calm down down there formulaterp, i didnt call anyone a idiot..sheesh..I do understand the purpose behind the foam and you are not correct about it, the reason its used is to stop any ice build up on the tank itself..Read here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54654-2005Jan6.html These people do it, http://www.ncfi.com/space_shuttle.htm You ever put glue on the side of a coke can, let it dry the fill it with water and freeze it, when you take it out of the freezer and it starts to sweat you can just rub your finger over the glue and it falls off..Epoxy on the other hand bubbles up, but they both mean the same thing, whatever the glue is holding wont be there for long.. A solution is out there and before the space station was built it was offered to NASA to use, its called the Energia i wont post my opinion on it i will just let you read and make your own mind up. http://k26.com/buran/Info/energia_-_buran.html

CalliArcale · Nov 3, 2005

FYI, Energia also used foam to keep ice from forming on its exterior, and foam shedding was reportedly observed. It is not clear how much of a problem it was for Buran; with only a single flight, there's not much to go on. However, foam is a very common way of dealing with the ice problem in the industry. For instance, you may notice that Delta IV common booster cores have a very familiar orange color. It's unpainted foam. Also, Energia-Buran was never offered to NASA. The program was cancelled long before NASA would've had any interest in it. It's a pity in some respects; in its two flights, Energia seemed to be a very capable booster. Alas, it doesn't appear to have had much political support within the Soviet Union, and after the coup in '91, any remaining hope of funding dried up quickly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

tshearn · Nov 3, 2005

Hi Calli, Youre right, the Buran was nevered offered to NASA but the Energia booster system was since it can lift 100 tons at a time and the ISS could have been completed in 5 or so missions..I will find the link and post it.. I also agree with you that the use of foam is comman for the ice issue, and on a delta booster its use would inflict zero loss of life since its just a frieghter ..Unless it fell on someone..With the so called new pact with china-russia it will be interesting to see what booster comes into play..But the foam should really go and take the problem out of the loop or just get a better epoxy or a more controlled mixing system. UAV's, I need to do a little more research into lift to drag on it but it seem at first thought that a larger lifting surface is needed with an oversized (if propeller) prop, maybe a larger engine to produce enough thrust in thinner air ..Once lifted ide think it would go way to fast with any kind of power, pitching the prop wouldnt do much for it,IMO..But it sure would look funny.

Search

UAV's instead of rovers.

pioneer0333

Guest

jcdenton

Guest

tshearn

Guest

Saiph

Guest

formulaterp

Guest

tshearn

Guest

formulaterp

Guest

pioneer0333

Guest

pioneer0333

Guest

tshearn

Guest

formulaterp

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

tshearn

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

tshearn

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page