Our next station; or, Space Resource Reseatch Outpost and Depot

Terraformer · 2016-09-13 16:03:23

Carrying on the discussion from O'Neills vision today.

What does our research station - and depot, since that's also a required skill and makes launching missions so much more easier - need? So far I've got tanks (fuel and water), a centrifuge (for partial gravity research), a habitations module (also the centrifuge?), and a construction shack (mylar and spaceframe, as GW Johnson has proposed). What else? Labs?

In short, what do we need for a station that will serve as a good basis for a serious and sustained effort to colonise space?

Void · 2016-09-13 22:08:39

Sounds good teraformer, but I don't want to stink up this topic, so good luck.

Void · 2016-09-14 17:15:10

OK, I guess you get me.

I thought about it, and realized that I was quite confused on what kind of station, and what it would be for, and if I would even want one.

I realized that China wants one.

I took a look, and Russia wants one. Or so it is said.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a … ation-iss/

The ISS has been a hallmark—perhaps the hallmark—of post-Cold War cooperation between the US, Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada for more than two decades. But as its retirement looms, the partners have failed to strike a concrete deal about where to go next. NASA has been slowly building a deep-space exploration program that all but excludes Russia. Back on Earth, the political relations between U.S. and Russia are going in the gutter, complete with American sanctions against Russia and Russian fighter jets buzzing American warships.

So nationalism is on the rise in space. Carl Sagan pushed the ISS, supposedly because it might help nations work together in space, but I think we are in a new phase in the oscillation of time and events.

Science was at the forefront of the previous era. We know something about the effects of microgravity on humans, it's mostly bad. Cross pollination did occur with engineering solutions being shared or swiped.

I think emphasis under a set of nationalist space programs may tilt more towards the neglected engineering in space, and less towards general science.

I don't know if the high thinkers and doers have stations in mind, but I have seen some talk about a station associated with the Moon, not really sure why. (Not criticizing ether).

It seems that parts of the corporate & American amalgam in space may be able to land loads on the Moon in a few years, if they want to.

If that is so, then we might think of what is on our wish list for the Moon, because we don't know if there will be another space station, and Mars will not be about wishes, but even doing it at all.

So the mission I would want to the Moon would be to send a nominal 2 person crew to the surface. Objectives:
1) Show that it could be done.
2) Take samples.
3) Experiment with an actual machine to try magnetically and otherwise to see if you can extract a metallically beneficiated ore from the ubiquitous lunar dust.
4) Leave behind a terrarium with plants and small animals, probably internally powered by an electric system with solar panels to recharge, and also the terrarium buried with some soil. Burial of that object would be an experiment in itself, to see what it is like to do that kind of work on the Moon. Could you test Mars suits on the Moon? Even better.
5) a) observe the terrarium remotely until it dies.
5) b) send a return mission to collect the terrarium and bring it back. Maybe just to the ISS before it is destroyed. There the contents of the terrarium could be analyzed.

After that/those missions, it would be more clear, which way to go with a station. On the Moon? Not on the Moon? No station at all?

Last edited by Void (2016-09-14 17:40:39)

GW Johnson · 2016-09-15 12:03:36

There cannot be giant projects in space unless we can use sources in space for the construction materials. No one really and truly has a clue how to do this. But some sort of lab (aside from the assembly shed) would be a good place to experiment with it.

There needs to be another lab (distinct from the assembly shed and the space materials lab) where real construction methods can be developed for shaping and joining the materials we do have in zero-gee / vacuum conditions. None of that is known yet, either, and we are going to need such capabilities.

With any of the three facilities, I am not talking about man vs robot, I am talking about basic approaches and processes that either man or robot could use.

You could put the same sorts of things on the moon as well, where at least some "local" source materials are. Plus it's a stable and safe place to experiment with nuclear propulsion.

But start with a space station. Work up to a moon base. All this would likely happen whether we decide to go to Mars first or not.

GW

Void · 2016-09-15 12:35:27

All of what you guys propose make lots of sense to me, this is a case where I would prefer to let the adults drive.

I will also say that as far as NASA focusing on Mars only and skip the Moon, that only made sense if your objective was to drop a couple of people on the planet, prance about, plant a flag, and go home never to return.

Otherwise if you are going to Mars to stay, you are going to want to have the rehearsals that GW has mentioned, since you will be require to do similar on Mars, if you intend to stay there.

I am glad that somehow the USA and associates seem to have a secret/corporate program that could include these rehearsals, and I am also glad that China and other countries are interested in the Moon, as I think it will be unlikely that the USA will be able to ignore the Moon for too long for competitive reasons and for pride.

elderflower · 2016-09-15 14:12:32

Well, you might be able to capture a few thousand tons of metallic asteroid, using a nuclear rocket to alter its orbit until it was captured and circularised. Then how would you convert it to alloy steel sheets. I just can't see a rolling mill in earth orbit as realistic. It has to go on either the moon or Mars.

GW Johnson · 2016-09-15 16:03:39

What I said needed doing need not be done seqentially. In point of fact, massive parallel is better.

Any ship that can take a crew to Mars and back in safety and good health is capable of visiting any inner planet, any NEO, or perhaps even the main belt. That ship is not a giant in-space construction project. It is likely more than one vehicle, but it is very unlikely to require anything more than the assembly-by-docking of modules that we used to build the ISS. As an undertaking, it is about like the ISS at most; done right, considerably less. The key difference is recovery and re-use of hardware.

We had this Mars mission architecture in 1956. Since about 1990 or 1995, we have had every technology required to build it, and to do with it better than they ever thought back then. Since then, the technologies have improved further: we now have very practical electric thrusters.

What's needed to visit the moon we had in 1967, and we flew it in 1968, then 1969 all the way to the surface. I would hope we could be a little smarter about how we do it today, but I see no evidence of that with the government boondoggle called SLS/Orion.

Nevertheless, any of several rockets and upper stage technologies and capsules available today or "tomorrow" (meaning next year) could get us there again. It disturbs me nobody has popped up with a better lander yet. Although, there are some intriguing new concepts out there.

To do anything really large in space requires processing asteroid or lunar surface mass into usable engineering materials. That is something about which we as yet know absolutely nothing. But that is not a prerequisite to go back to the moon, nor is it a prerequisite to go to Mars, the NEO's, Venus, or Mercury! I don't think it is a prerequisite to go to the main asteroid belt; others might disagree. However, it is required to build really large space stations (of the sort Tom Kalbfus talks about) or space power satellites. Or space elevators. Many ideas writ large.

We need the ability to visit NEO's and main belt asteroids to flesh out the space materials processing ability, and also to protect our home from dangerous asteroid impacts (a really, really good reason to have manned and unmanned space efforts). But like I said, any "proper" ship capable reaching Mars can do that mission as well. As long as you forget the "usual Apollo-style throwaway stage and module model". Build one (or two or three), use it (or them) for all these things.

The sooner we start these projects, the sooner we start succeeding in all these areas of endeavor. Success breeds popular support. We've seen that before. But it is a chicken-and-egg problem, at all levels, not just technical.

Start succeeding in more than one of these areas of endeavor, and you get a beneficial snowball effect. We've seen that before, too.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-09-15 16:13:21)

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-01 17:34:13

for Terraformer ... You created this topic in 2016, and it's been out of view for a while ... here is an update generally in line with what I ** think ** your topic was about:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10 … ket-newtab

Each of the three announced bidders brings certain strengths to the competition, which adds intrigue to the competition. Axiom has a head start, and the company was literally created for this purpose. The Nanoracks-led Starlab project has a keen understanding of how to commercialize low Earth orbit and Lockheed's experience in building spacecraft. Blue Origin and Sierra Space have deep pockets and a broad team.
It's an exciting time for those interested to see how nonprofessional astronauts adapt to living and working in space and find ways to make money there. Taylor, who is raising funds for Starlab, equated this moment in human expansion to the point at which life first emerged from the oceans on Earth. Humans aren't certain what they're going to do in low Earth orbit or how they'll be able to survive in the harsh environment. But it's the next step. "When life left the ocean and flopped onto the beach," he said, "that’s kind of where we are as a civilization now."
Let the flopping commence.
reader comments
563 with 178 posters participating, including story author
Eric Berger
Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA, and author of the book Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston.
Email eric.berger@arstechnica.com // Twitter @SciGuySpace

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-09-13 16:03:23

Our next station; or, Space Resource Reseatch Outpost and Depot

#2 2016-09-13 22:08:39

Re: Our next station; or, Space Resource Reseatch Outpost and Depot

#3 2016-09-14 17:15:10

Re: Our next station; or, Space Resource Reseatch Outpost and Depot

#4 2016-09-15 12:03:36

Re: Our next station; or, Space Resource Reseatch Outpost and Depot

#5 2016-09-15 12:35:27

Re: Our next station; or, Space Resource Reseatch Outpost and Depot

#6 2016-09-15 14:12:32

Re: Our next station; or, Space Resource Reseatch Outpost and Depot

#7 2016-09-15 16:03:39

Re: Our next station; or, Space Resource Reseatch Outpost and Depot

#8 2021-11-01 17:34:13

Re: Our next station; or, Space Resource Reseatch Outpost and Depot

Board footer