NASA space ship

4 kilometers wide and 16-40 long? That's huge, LS! Especially for our technological level. Maneuvering such a thing would be damned near impossible though. The slightest mistake and you could put too much strain on the structure to crack it. Then good bye inhabitants when it vents its atmosphere explosively. Not to mention hauling up that much breathable air and soil and water would be prohibitively expansive, and you would have governmental regulators crawling all OVER it, sticking their oars into the building process 'why did you use fastener 32b-518E instead of E23-H43 which is government regulation? Those working conditions meet OSHA and the EPA standards? You are using union astronauts, correct? Your crews had better have filled out form 238b and the Extra-territorial Tax form 678E before they start working again.'

Zakharra wrote:4 kilometers wide and 16-40 long? That's huge, LS! Especially for our technological level. Maneuvering such a thing would be damned near impossible though. The slightest mistake and you could put too much strain on the structure to crack it. Then good bye inhabitants when it vents its atmosphere explosively. Not to mention hauling up that much breathable air and soil and water would be prohibitively expansive, and you would have governmental regulators crawling all OVER it, sticking their oars into the building process 'why did you use fastener 32b-518E instead of E23-H43 which is government regulation? Those working conditions meet OSHA and the EPA standards? You are using union astronauts, correct? Your crews had better have filled out form 238b and the Extra-territorial Tax form 678E before they start working again.'

You are starting to sound like a Sollie, no offense.

Lord Skimper wrote:
You are starting to sound like a Sollie, no offense.

Well, according to the books, Sollies build the greatest civilization in human history, that dominate all known space for more than five hundred years. Generaly speaking, this made "sound like a Sollie" a compliment...

And i've argee with Zakharra: the solid-hull space colonies like O'Neil desing look more efficient.

The problem with big starships is that they take huge amounts of energy to shift and need incredibly strong construction to hold under any usable accel. Until we develop things like super-strong alloys, artificial gravity and/or tensor fields, we're limited to designs which would not be out of place on the Babylon 5 series.

Interestingly, NASA asked for the design schematics for the Starfuries.

Happy New Year's Day ... where ever you are. This Excellent Forums circles the planet. I love it here ... what little time I have to enjoy it. 2015! Wow!

Thucydides; I did not imply to rain on your parade. Sorry. If one studies history, one finds that nearly all the great stuff was due to simple $greed$.

The human condition. The great moon race was the result of many different conditions arriving together on target. We did it in about 10 years. Wow!

The United States, (nearly) in World War 2 totally defeated a world power in less than 1000 days. Wow again. The Whole World today could do most anything.

Somehow all of us would have to pull together for the greater good? All of us? Perhaps through a world wide optional private $subscription$ for BIG money?

But that is non likely. Greed seems to work the best. Now if we can discover some vitally important reason for returning to the Moon ... or Mars, then YES!

Until that happens nations here on Earth are going to continue business just like before. Don't rock their boat. Have we even examined a Mars price tag?

$Ouch$! Right now it is not doable. That plus the naggy fact we do not yet have the proper tech. Maybe in 100-200 years, along with that good reason to go.

"Honey, want to go to Mars again? Let me ask our private starship how long it will take and how much credit it will cost. We can certainly afford it."

"Jennifer, (the small private star ship) how long will it take and how much will it cost to return to the Mars Rover sites? About 30 minutes each way? 1000 credits?"

"Why so long of time? Oh ... local traffic. It is the holiday season. I forgot that. Why 1000 credits? Oh ... I forgot about the maintenance schedule."

Get the idea?

HB of CJ (old coot) Cm.

Not really raining on the parade HB, I know there are many hoops to jump through (maybe even hoops of fire) but there is nothing that is really impossible from a technical standpoint.

If you read Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars", he points out that at 1994 prices his Mars Direct program could be achieved for as little as $6 billion dollars. As an aerospace engineer who worked in the industry (for Loc-Mart), he was well aware of the "overhead" which artificially boosted the price and the negative incentives for companies like his to keep costs down.

Another telling example is that SpaceX prices its service for a fraction of ULA, despite similar performance between the Atlas and Falcon 9. Indeed, the only things that an engineer from 1950 would find strange about a Falcon 9 is some of the construction methods (like friction stir welding), and the electronic "brains" (which would also puzzle our engineer looking at the Atlas). It is the difference in management structures which allow SpaceX to price a launch at $50 million to LEO, while ULA charges $400 million.

So in terms of costs, we are almost there even with conventional rocket technology, and without the expense of developing new technologies and infrastructure to build laser thermal rockets, launch loops, "Startran" maglev launchers or "skyhook" orbital towers.

I might also point out that one of the best ways to get around the solar system is solar sails. Sails built in space can be extremely thin and light, and can build up impressive speeds (even accelerating 1mm/sec2 can get you to Mars in about 120 days). Obviousy for larger colony structures the sail will be vast, but sending supplies on small "ISO container" type ships would only need a modest sail.

Once the cost comes down a bit more, and there is some other associated R&D done (i.e. Bigalow inflatable modules with long term life support systems built in), then I think one of the other motivators to settlement can kick in: the desire t get away and live "free". Many people will risk all to move out and be able to live their religious, social or economic dreams without interference, and if the colonies can be reasonably self sufficient then we may see something like the Mayflower setting out with a cargo of dissenters looking to live without the establishment church breathing down their necks.

So the economics are getting close, and even if an iron clad economic reason never is discovered, I can see a multitude of small colonies eventually being created to fulfill other desires and imperatives.

This quote from XKCD seemed appropriate:

The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.

When Wilbur Wright was asked "What use is a flying machine that can only travel a few hundred yards" he responded "What use is a new born baby"?

quark wrote:This quote from XKCD seemed appropriate:

The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.

HB of CJ wrote:At least in the foreseeable future? Right now we do not have the technology and most certainly we do not have the money.

We have both the technology and the money.

The will to SPEND the money in space however, THAT is completely lacking.

The Moon race of the 1960's was a fluke.

Sadly, that is probably close to the truth.

Giving up the ability to build the Saturn V pretty much doomed the future from any Moon or Mars trips, as noone since then have been willing to spend the resources for getting that kind of hardware again.


#####

fallsfromtrees wrote:Try suggesting a nuclear rocket anyplace inside the moon's orbit, and the eco-freaks will go bonkers.

Anyone not insane will "go bonkers".


#####

Thucydides wrote:The next generation SpaceX rocket is designed to have similar performance to the Saturn V of Apollo fame

Heh, no it isn´t. The Falcon 9 Heavy that is supposed to start up this year, has less than half the lift capacity to LEO, and roughly a THIRD of the TLI capacity as the Saturn V.

The Falcon X and XX are not even actual, serious projects yet, just initial proposals and "brainstorming" as the company itself called them.

And even the initial Falcon X is still LESS capable than the current Falcon 9 Heavy.

If allowed to finish, NASAs SLS is more likely to become the next real superheavy lifter, as it´s also meant to be capable of heavier loads than the Saturn V.

But with all the stupid bickering against it, who knows if it will ever finish.

Had NASA been given all the wasted money and a clear and simple mission statement, they could already have a working rocket.

I'm not suggesting we go out and try and build a 4 mile by 20 mile space ship, I think we should make an Aircraft carrier sized ship with docking capability for reusable shuttles or the like. Not the space shuttle we had which was not where near as functional as a shuttle should be, take off dock land take off again without months of prep in between, a week of checks sure. Thinking of a space plane. Takes off like a plane, lands like a plane, goes to orbit and docks with space ship. Perhaps vertical landing for use on other planets (mainly Mars or the local Moons)

Soup Can design, not looking like an aircraft carrier. Think Campbell's soup can with a super structure out the centre of one end with a small nuclear reactor on it fairly far from the Soup can. Further away the less shielding required. Coldness of space helps with cooling and in emergencies the further away the better.

Rolling to centrificate gravity. Ion drive nested next to the nuclear reactor. Slow but steady and not needing refuelling, such a ship can take any crew to anywhere is an easy manner. Easy to get their, easy on the pocket book, once the ship is built, easy on the crew. No gravity is extremely destructive upon human physiology.