I've been following the discussion on Geodesic Domes etc. in the SpaxeX Mars section and a very valid point is made, I believe, that the bigger the dome (volume) the more likely it will float away!Another point is that solar radiation and solar storms do not come in line of sight from the sun. Robotbeat says solar radiation can come from any angle as the radiation itself as it travels out from the sun spirals etc. So just building your dome in a permanently shaded spot on Mars does no good regarding protection from damaging solar radiation.Both of these are major show stoppers in one sense. But can we turn them around?What about a massive domed rover, with as many feet of regolith on top to provide excellent radiation protection, but big enough (volume of air) to almost float away.It could move around the surface of Mars, perhaps even fly around, science/habitat building could be done directly under it, mostly protected from radiation by the RoverDome above.Think of how big some of the ships are here on Earth at 1g and imagine how big they could be on Mars at 0.38g.:-)
Solar radiation is effectively shielded by the Mars atmosphere. Still have GCR to deal with, but it's not too bad at low altitude.If you built against a tall vertical wall of rock, you'd almost halve your GCR dose. Should be below 100mSv/year then, good enough.
Quote from: Aussie_Space_Nut on 11/12/2016 11:19 pmI've been following the discussion on Geodesic Domes etc. in the SpaxeX Mars section and a very valid point is made, I believe, that the bigger the dome (volume) the more likely it will float away!Another point is that solar radiation and solar storms do not come in line of sight from the sun. Robotbeat says solar radiation can come from any angle as the radiation itself as it travels out from the sun spirals etc. So just building your dome in a permanently shaded spot on Mars does no good regarding protection from damaging solar radiation.Both of these are major show stoppers in one sense. But can we turn them around?What about a massive domed rover, with as many feet of regolith on top to provide excellent radiation protection, but big enough (volume of air) to almost float away.It could move around the surface of Mars, perhaps even fly around, science/habitat building could be done directly under it, mostly protected from radiation by the RoverDome above.Think of how big some of the ships are here on Earth at 1g and imagine how big they could be on Mars at 0.38g.:-)Just one clarification - not "float away"... Rather, we have to contend with the structural joint along the perimeter since if it fails, the top part of the dome will shoot up and that would be a bad day.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/12/2016 11:30 pmSolar radiation is effectively shielded by the Mars atmosphere. Still have GCR to deal with, but it's not too bad at low altitude.If you built against a tall vertical wall of rock, you'd almost halve your GCR dose. Should be below 100mSv/year then, good enough.Ok so that's a good thing with respect to the DomeRover, less regolith required on top.Quote from: meekGee on 11/12/2016 11:34 pmQuote from: Aussie_Space_Nut on 11/12/2016 11:19 pmI've been following the discussion on Geodesic Domes etc. in the SpaxeX Mars section and a very valid point is made, I believe, that the bigger the dome (volume) the more likely it will float away!Another point is that solar radiation and solar storms do not come in line of sight from the sun. Robotbeat says solar radiation can come from any angle as the radiation itself as it travels out from the sun spirals etc. So just building your dome in a permanently shaded spot on Mars does no good regarding protection from damaging solar radiation.Both of these are major show stoppers in one sense. But can we turn them around?What about a massive domed rover, with as many feet of regolith on top to provide excellent radiation protection, but big enough (volume of air) to almost float away.It could move around the surface of Mars, perhaps even fly around, science/habitat building could be done directly under it, mostly protected from radiation by the RoverDome above.Think of how big some of the ships are here on Earth at 1g and imagine how big they could be on Mars at 0.38g.:-)Just one clarification - not "float away"... Rather, we have to contend with the structural joint along the perimeter since if it fails, the top part of the dome will shoot up and that would be a bad day.Valid point for the structure of a fixed dome.What would the volume required for the DomeRover to almost float be? Given that volume goes up by the cube is there a crossover point where the size of a floating DomeRover falls within the bounds of what can actually be manufactured? Volume of air/tonne of structure at a given sweetspot.
Ok. So the pressure of the air inside the fixed dome, small pressure maybe but over a vast area, causes the dome side to pull up whatever is anchoring it down.Has nothing to do with it floating. Just a pressure vessel failing.
Solar radiation is effectively shielded by the Mars atmosphere. Still have GCR to deal with, but it's not too bad at low altitude.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/12/2016 11:30 pmSolar radiation is effectively shielded by the Mars atmosphere. Still have GCR to deal with, but it's not too bad at low altitude.Not accurate. See McGirl et al. 2016 for recent model and physically meaningful results.
Add a storm room...
ChronicQuote from: MikeAtkinson on 11/13/2016 06:44 amAdd a storm room...No, that doesn't solve the dosage problem, and your interpretation mangles the authors' findings, badly. GCRs produce the higher surface dosage in the study, and GCRs don't flare. They persist. That's what the authors mean by the word, "chronic". Net net: for multi-synod missions, your "storm room" has to become the hab.
Quote from: LMT on 11/14/2016 12:49 amChronicQuote from: MikeAtkinson on 11/13/2016 06:44 amAdd a storm room...No, that doesn't solve the dosage problem, and your interpretation mangles the authors' findings, badly. GCRs produce the higher surface dosage in the study, and GCRs don't flare. They persist. That's what the authors mean by the word, "chronic". Net net: for multi-synod missions, your "storm room" has to become the hab. Um, but the original reason you posted that study is to counter my claim that solar radiation really doesn't matter on Mars. A claim which the study actually supports! Table 4. The worst flare in decades, and it is 0.6cSv. That's it! Averaged over decades, that's like 0.1% of your total dose, maybe less. Other storms would be similarly reduced in intensity. Solar radiation (other than maybe UV, though not as bad as deep space) simply doesn't matter. It's about GCR, as you said and as I also originally said.