Topic Actions
Topic Search
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests
NASA space ship
| NASA space ship | |
|---|---|
by Lord Skimper
» Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:03 pm
|
|
|
Lord Skimper
Posts: 1736
|
Instead of NASA sending a row boat out to the Moon or Mars and having a barge floating in orbit, instead let us make a local system space ship. Use Centripetal gravity and simple rocket engines and make a 50+ crew size space ship that flys to the Moon orbit from Earth Orbit, and Earth Moon orbit to Mars. It would be much better than just making "Row boats" to take 6 or so Astronauts to the Moon or Mars etc... After a couple trips it might even be cheaper let alone much safer.
________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars. |
| Top | |
| Re: NASA space ship | |
|---|---|
|
by fallsfromtrees
» Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:10 pm
|
|
|
fallsfromtrees
Posts: 1960
|
I really should know better, but what the hell is centripetal gravity? Granted my degree in physics from Caltech is 40 years old, but I've never heard of that. I have heard of using centripetal force to simulate gravity, but not centripetal gravity. ========================
The only problem with quotes on the internet is that you can't authenticate them -- Abraham Lincoln |
| Top | |
| Re: NASA space ship | |
|---|---|
|
by Thucydides
» Mon Dec 29, 2014 7:10 pm
|
|
|
Thucydides
Posts: 689
|
If you are talking about something like the Mars Cycler, you might consider the amount of time and effort needed to build the ISS, which could be considered a scale model of what such a spacecraft might be like (minus the propulsion system and shielding needed for deep space travel).
We could barely build the ISS (and the way things are going, it would be virtually impossible to recreate it at the current time), so how do you propose to build a vastly larger and more complex "cycler"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler We need to gain some real world experience before we can consider something like that. The sands of Egypt are littered with the stumps of broken pyramids that builders experimented with for centuries leading up to the great pyramids of Giza. |
| Top | |
| Re: NASA space ship | |
|---|---|
|
by Lord Skimper
» Wed Dec 31, 2014 3:53 am
|
|
|
Lord Skimper
Posts: 1736
|
Wasn't thinking of the cycler but more of a Stargate type ship. Without the fancy engines. It would be more a test bed for nuclear engines and ion drives solar sails etc...
Not so much the ISS which is fragile and too small. ISS is much to small to have a spinning artificial gravity capability. Which would allow for longer duration flights without so many problems for the crew. Cost is subjective again. The bailout showed that billions/trillions of dollars can be added and spent without changing much. 1-3 month of stimulus spending on high tech jobs and aero space would build such a ship. Might as well have something to show for a stimulus spending spree. Sell it as a comet buster for testing and redirecting comets or asteroids. One interception and everyone will be singing its praises. ________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars. |
| Top | |
| Re: NASA space ship | |
|---|---|
|
by Thucydides
» Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:20 am
|
|
|
Thucydides
Posts: 689
|
There are several issues here.
The ISS is an example of what we can build in the here and now. It weighs aprox 700 tons so the scale and scope of this sort of construction *could* be applied to a structure of similar size and mass designed to rotate and provide artificial "gravity" for the crew, something like the spaceship in the movie "Interstellar". The real problem is that right now, we no longer have many of the capabilities to create such a structure. Once SpaceX has their Falcon Heavy on line, the issue of throw weight will be reduced (lifting and assembling a few large modules is easier overall than lifting and assembling a lot of little ones), but a work platform like the Space Shuttle with its seven man crew, large work bay (payload bay) and manipulator arm isn't available. Using SpaceX as an example, you would probably need to launch several "Dragon" capsules for the work crew and a custom robot or teleoperator device to manipulate all the pieces and assemble them. The second issue is that a "Stargate" type spacecraft (or pick your own favorite SF craft) is beyond our capabilities right now. Remember, to operate in deep space you need shielding for the human crew and electronics, which in turn needs a far more powerful engine to accelerate or decelerate. We also need an efficient life support system that can operate for years on end with minimal inputs, something which has not been demonstrated yet. Lastly you need a mission. The best "comet buster" would be an ORION nuclear pulse spacecraft which can launch from Earth and accelerate at 100"G" to impact the comet with a massive amount of kinetic energy, not something a human crew would survive: http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/unmann ... orion.html A Mars Cycler has a mission, so the configuration has a list of known constraints that can be worked around. This applies for any sort of spacecraft (or any vehicle here on Earth, for that matter). Once you define your problem, the solution becomes visible. Lastly, throwing money at problems may not result in a viable solution. You can ask the executives of Microsoft how that worked for Windows Vista or the Surface Tablet, or Lockhheed with the F-35 program. |
| Top | |
| Re: NASA space ship | |
|---|---|
|
by Dilandu
» Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:24 pm
|
|
|
Dilandu
Posts: 2541
|
Well, we could go a bit more far with nuclear-pulse rockets... They are prefectly possible, and they could build in relatively little time.
------------------------------
Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave, Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave. (Red Army lyrics from 1945) |
| Top | |
| Re: NASA space ship | |
|---|---|
|
by fallsfromtrees
» Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:27 pm
|
|
|
fallsfromtrees
Posts: 1960
|
Try suggesting a nuclear rocket anyplace inside the moon's orbit, and the eco-freaks will go bonkers. ========================
The only problem with quotes on the internet is that you can't authenticate them -- Abraham Lincoln |
| Top | |
| Re: NASA space ship | |
|---|---|
|
by HB of CJ
» Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:12 pm
|
|
|
HB of CJ
Posts: 707
|
Excellent Topic and answers and thank you. I love this Forum! Is it most likely that we as a planet will NOT be seeing any serious efforts to return to the Moon or eventually go to Mars? At least in the foreseeable future? Right now we do not have the technology and most certainly we do not have the money.
Some or all of this might eventually change, especially if we can come up with some demanding essential reason for doing so? A planet threatening situation? Everything would have to come together for any of this future Moon or Mars stuff to happen. The Moon race of the 1960's was a fluke. HB of CJ (old coot) PS; Just gloomy me here, but I think we will NOT set foot on the Moon again for at least another 100 years ... if then. Mars? That may not happen for another 200 years. Again, technology must make the future cheap and doable. And ... we must have a very big real reason for going. Just my sad opinion only. |
| Top | |
| Re: NASA space ship | |
|---|---|
|
by Thucydides
» Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:49 pm
|
|
|
Thucydides
Posts: 689
|
Well HB, we should always remember Jerry Pournelle's warning that Despair is a mortal sin.
China has definite plans to go to the Moon, and India has also made some noises about doing so as well, so if nothing else, there may be an Asian "space race". (India successfully sent a probe to Mars, so they have the basic capabilities). America's government and government agencies might not have any serious plans to go anywhere, but private companies like SpaceX have demonstrated abilities to send ships into space and return (the Dragon only needs bureaucratic approval to be man rated), and Elon Musk is quite vocal in his desires to uprate SpaceX hardware to the point of launching ships to Mars. The next generation SpaceX rocket is designed to have similar performance to the Saturn V of Apollo fame, and once you have that, you can put some heavy duty hardware into orbit, including what is needed for a Moon shot or to send a version of Mars Direct to Mars. The real issue isn't "one off" missions like a Chinese, Indian or private Moon mission or trip to Mars, rather there is currently no long term economic payoff for doing so. Marco Polo could cross Asia on foot to seek out the source of the riches coming down the "Silk Road", and about 200 years later, Henry the Navigator could send expeditions to seek ways to reach the Indies by sea, since the Ottoman Empire had choked off the European end of the Silk Road (and Isobella would want to find ways to avoid paying royalties to the Portuguese by sailing West rather than around Africa). Everyone had a huge incentive, because the projected payoff was so vast. In space, not so much. The estimated payoffs are pretty vague, but the costs of going out to the asteroids, mining the Moon for 3He or other schemes is pretty high. There needs to be a real, identifiable product or service that will recoup the cost. Maybe it will take to the end of this century to find that payoff and start making large scale construction on an asteroid or Jovian moon, but people will be heading out to do prospecting and exploration a lot sooner. Happy New Year! |
| Top | |
| Re: NASA space ship | |
|---|---|
|
by Lord Skimper
» Thu Jan 01, 2015 4:43 am
|
|
|
Lord Skimper
Posts: 1736
|
A Segmented http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/theme/dream/try.html Shimazu Try 2004 pyramid could be a way to build a ship in orbit. Using a bubble like material to base your design upon then make a hexagonal or octagonal cylinder to use pyramid sections to make a very large ship.
The Try 2004 city is made for 1 Million people on Earth. Less if you need supply air and water and food but say 6 per cylinder section connected together and 4-10 sections long would give a rotating for gravity ship that is not only huge, each section base being about 2-3 KM across and 2 KM tall. With suspended buildings and internal tubes to travel between them. Then once enclosed the outside park sections could be implemented and the ground level area would be settle-able. with 24-60 million people room (on Earth) say 1% of that room for 240,000 to 600,000 people in orbit a Try 2004 segmented cylinder rotating to make centripetal (based) gravity. 4 km in diameter and 16 to 40 km in length would be a big ship. But it would also be a safe ship. Nothing is too big in space it just takes time to move it up to speed and back down again. but with minimal resistance (gravity) even a small ion engine could get a large vessel moving over time. ________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars. |
| Top | |