Beawulf Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Where should we be going with spacecraft design? Do you know of any groups that have ambitious plans for a new spacecraft? I think we should plan for the future and setup infrastructure for the construction and fueling of ships in orbit. This way ships wouldnt need to return to earth. Crew, supplies and cargo could be shipped into orbit as necessary on existing rockets like the delta 4 or atlas 5. We are going to do this eventually, might as well stop wasting money on projects that arent going to get us closer to our goals. NASA is going ahead with the construction of its crew exploration vehicles that are only 3 times larger than the apollo crafts, will carry 4 crew and can only be used 10 times. Seems like a step backwards, but at least they can leave Earth's orbit unlike the shuttles. They have designed them with methane thrusters which would be handy if they ever harvest mars' atmosphere for fuel, however I cant see a crew taking a trip to mars in something that tiny by itself. edit: topic edited to include space stations and bases, I'd be interested to hear any ideas along those lines, or of any projects being developed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 In the long run, your ideas are probably the best, they will have to come up with better designs for getting up there though, preferably more economical alternatives. In the short run, it's probably not going to happen because they can't afford to. The way things are looking now I'd bet that it is going to be commercial possibilities that will get things rolling again. Not just exploration and science. As for long term spaceplans, you probably got it right. Construction and maintenance of spacecraft in space seems very reasonable (but still expensive because of the skill involved). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted October 22, 2005 Author Share Posted October 22, 2005 Perhaps the first step in these sorts of plans would be to send out some sort of unmanned robot equiptment to begin harvesting materials from the moon. This would avoid having to sending some things into orbit. Naturally electronics and specialised things would still need to be sent up. Even if they dont get to construction for a few decades it would be sensible to start aquiring the materials now so it is all ready to go when they decide to move ahead. Actually maybe it would be worthwhile having the shipyard on the moon so it is close to the resources. I would so want to be involved with that!! *cheesy grin* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 are there any resources on the moon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted October 23, 2005 Author Share Posted October 23, 2005 are there any resources on the moon? There sure are. some of the more interesting elements there are hydrogen, aluminium, magnesium, titanium, iron, oxygen, calcium, uranium. Oxygen is especially abundant making up around 50% of the moon, obviously this isnt the form of a gas but is bonded with other minerals (sillicone, aluminium, titanium, iron, magnesium, calcium, sodium) infact almost everything is bonded with oxygen. In the process of checking my facts I came across www.permanent.com. It goes through alot of issues involved with making a foothold in space, with details on mining methods and locations, orbiting and terrestrial bases. A really good idea mentioned is the use of the main external tank of the shuttle. It is currently discarded to burn up on reentry, but could just as easily be left in orbit and used for construction. The external tanks are bigger than anything the shuttle could ever bring up (edit: in its cargo bay). Just imagine how much has already gone to waste. I just noticed that India is sending an unmanned craft to the moon 2007 to map the location of minerals on the moon in great detail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psheldrake1 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 A movable station would be great. Build it here, ship it to where you want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverick Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Oxygen is especially abundant making up around 50% of the moon' date=' obviously this isnt the form of a gas but is bonded with other minerals (sillicone, aluminium, titanium, iron, magnesium, calcium, sodium) infact almost everything is bonded with oxygen. [/quote'] oxygen is the most abundant element in the earth. theres bloody tonnes of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 The cheapest base is the one built underground. Spheres of glass are not an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlvsi Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 What was that thing the Talaxians used in Voyager, some kind of giant tower/lift. Is it at all possible? This in my opinion is our best hope in the short term until someone invents a more cost effective way to get into orbit. As far as I`m aware, getting up there is the most expensive and dangerous part, so once we combat that we flying(excuse pun). Don`t we already have ion drives? I also like the Bajoran solar sails. An idea just came to me, couldn`t we harness some of the massive amounts of geo-thermal energy to propell objects into orbit? Any ideas? I`d volunteer. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subspatial Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 What was that thing the Talaxians used in Voyager, some kind of giant tower/lift. Is it at all possible? I think it was a Mag-Lift (Magnetic lift) - On a high altitude 'Tether' thingo... Would be a bugger to build... You'd have to start building it in space first. ----------------------------- Perhaps we should build an orbital Refinery of some sort... ..like a Space Recycling centre.. to recycle all that space junk. It may also be more valid to 'Harvest' Comets... ... lots of water ... and minerals.... for fuel etc.. Or even stranger: A Large Catapult on the Moon :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 Oxygen is especially abundant making up around 50% of the moon' date=' obviously this isnt the form of a gas but is bonded with other minerals (sillicone, aluminium, titanium, iron, magnesium, calcium, sodium) infact almost everything is bonded with oxygen. [/quote'] oxygen is the most abundant element in the earth. theres bloody tonnes of it! That's true, but it takes alot more energy to take something out of the earth's gravitational pull than it does from the moon. Which is why I think it is better in the long run to obtain most of the materials needed from the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 The main resource worth getting on the moon is - helium 3. Those crazy Ruskies have said they're planning to have a base setup on the moon by 2015 to exploit H3. The benefits of H3 being that it would be of great use in fusion, generating little radioactive biproducts. Which would of course compliment the power monopoly that Russia is building for itself. Really, it's foolish to imagine there would be any commercial advantage in mining the moon for anything else, well except maybe a few rare minerals and elements but H3 is probably the most commercially compelling. Naturally self-suffiency would be important and that's why the prevalence of certain elements is important in that area. But really - if you're thinking long term, you've got to go for stuff that isn't going to have to worry about atmospheric flight. I mean, that's basically standard in most sci-fi B5, ST, SW etc. etc. Anything over a certain size. Of course - construction in space is going to provide a series of problems in itself, as the ISS has proven. You need to use those spacejet type things to bring the cost of getting orbital to a more affordable price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDad Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 In the process of checking my facts I came across www.permanent.com. It goes through alot of issues involved with making a foothold in space, with details on mining methods and locations, orbiting and terrestrial bases. A really good idea mentioned is the use of the main external tank of the shuttle. It is currently discarded to burn up on reentry, but could just as easily be left in orbit and used for construction. The external tanks are bigger than anything the shuttle could ever bring up (edit: in its cargo bay). Just imagine how much has already gone to waste. I just noticed that India is sending an unmanned craft to the moon 2007 to map the location of minerals on the moon in great detail The external tanks were designed with that purpose in mind. What was that thing the Talaxians used in Voyager' date=' some kind of giant tower/lift. Is it at all possible?[/quote'] As far as a space elevator... http://www.spaceelevator.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 The idea about fueltanks has been kicking around for quite a while, I'm sure I remember a news item on how Richard Branson intended to make a space hotel out of the tanks. Maybe with the success of spaceship one, he'll be more keen on that now. But yes, for the moment you need to be thinking Moon to Earth Orbit for any kind of mining operation and then jigger some way to get the stuff down to earth without blowing anything to smithereens. Space elevators are a good concept and remarkably common in sci-fi (I can think of... 4 writers that have used them off the top of my head). They're also pretty efficient as you're able to counterbalance forces, I believe. OH! They had one in Syndicate Wars. That was cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyran Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 use a lift to get into orbit if you make it long enough then the half above the atmosphere will hold it up then use the british idea of refueling inflight by scooping hydrogen as you go theres tons of it up there pop over to the asteriod belt and bring back your building materials alternatively read my book on the subject (not finished yet) only on page one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 It wouldnt be worthwhile mining anything to take back to earth except the rarest elements. They could construct a shipyard on the moon, with some gravity and proximity to mining operations they might be able to avoid the problems of construction in zero gravity. There definately wouldnt be any point in constructing something that is to be transported to earth's surface if it could be made here. But for objects that remain in space it would save alot of money in the long run. It takes 5% as much energy to put an object into low earth orbit from the moon's surface, than it takes to launch from Earth. That is ALOT less fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magestorm Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Actually, I know how to get payloads to orbit with little cost. Railgun. Shoot it into space. Right now, rockets not only carry the payload into orbit, but also the fuel. If we removed the fuel, the energy needed to get a payload into orbit is dramaticly reduced. So use magnetic fields to slingshot a payload into orbit. Once in orbit, it could meet up with a lagrange station, designed to catch and slingshot a payload to and from the moon. From this point, the station's rotation can be used to direct and send the payloads. Traffic incoming would increase the inertia, while payloads slingshot away from the station would slow it down a bit. With railguns on Earth and Moon, and Lagrange colonies in orbit, you'd have an efficient way to move supplies back and forth using almost NO fuel. Using Solar power here and on the moon, you'd be able to power this with no additional drain on our resources. While this wouldn't be the best for people, basic supplies such as food, air, and fuel for orbital crafts would endure it all easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 According to the Permanent site, the mass driver is only practical on the Moon because of the Earth's atmosphere... and I can see a fair few problems of firing things hilariously fast through a fair few km of air. That's definitely going to provide some technical issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magestorm Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Please. I'm not talking a railgun that is only 1-2km long. That wouldn't be near long enough. I'm talking about running a track that has a 6-8 mile radius, with a switching station at one point to release it. People do this kind of thing all the time. You'll even see it in the summer olympics. It is called inertia. You either have a lower delta v and sustain it, or a higher delta v to overcome the friction of the atmosphere. And if you want to really argur the point, there is always depressurizing a space around the rail, making it so there is no air impeding launch till the projectile is released from the track. For every naysayer saying it can't be done, there is someone else working on how it can be done. There were people saying we'd never make it to the moon. We made it. Mars? We're geting it down to a science. Landing probes on Venus and Titan? Been there, done that too. So is this possible? Yes. Just because someone wants to have their head up where the sun doesn't shine does not in any way change the fact this is something that can be done, if the proper use of our energies is applied to figuring this out. Or to other possibilities for getting things out into orbit. Just a matter of applying our energies and drives to accomplishing the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Well, I'm sure it could be done in one way or the other and at a certain point in time, should enough funds be extracted for it. But not in the way you're describing: A ) you would need an enourmous speed and if you really want to transport a mass, then to reach this speed, you'd need an incredible amount of energy (depending on the mass and speed) B ) you would need a very aerodynamic shape and special material to make certain that it doesn't instantly ignite itself or begins to change shape due to stresses caused by extreme temperatures My point, it would be not much cheaper (if at all) to do what you're proposing than what they are doing right now. So, as Tenebrae said, it could most likely be done, but it is not practical to do so. Some very quick calculations: You should know that Earth's escape velocity is over 40000 km/h. Take into account the friction of the air, a 'good' shape of the capsule and a weight of 100 kg and you'd allready need a starting velocity of well over 200000 km/h. It is very likely that the capsule would instantaneously ignite once it comes in contact with the air, once released.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now