New Mars Forums

This story with Europe's manned spaceship is a bit more complicated. There appear to be two competing proposals.

1) "CSTS/ACTS" one that is worked with the Russians as part of the Soyuz upgrade/replacement. It appears that would look like Orion with size of 18-20 mT and 6 crews. That would be launched on Russian rockets from Russia.

2) "ATV evolution with Viking capsule" one, that is still kind of short on details, but it would seem to be 9 mT ship for 3 crews that would be made from ATV propulsion module + 3,3m Viking capsule launched on top of Ariane 5. Being only 9 mT heavy would mean that it could be launched directly to HEO or Moon orbit by upgraded Ariane 5 (ECB).

First one is classic copy of Orion that could go to the moon with extra EDS launched with another rocket.

Second one looks like very interesting to me, since it would use Ariane’s strength (cryogenic upper stage) to compensate for the higher cost of a rocket (compared to Soyuz). Having direct manned access to HEO would allow Europe to meaningfully participate in any manned mission beyond LEO. And since neither Europeans nor the Russians seem likely to build HLV anytime soon, that puts them into position where they have to be more innovative in what kind of approach can they use. SEP/NEP assembled in LEO from 25 mT pieces, spiraled to HEO where the crew from Earth would board it would be one such approach. Having fast, relatively cheap (1 Ariane 5) and simple (no LEO dockings) manned access to HEO would make that kind of thing much more realistic and doable.

We will see what they will decide in November. I personally (if it could actually get to HEO by itself) very much like the second one. It’s basically cheap version of Ares IV that is designed for the Moon, but can also go to ISS.

The only thing you would need to launch is "material" (dirt). After it is in orbit, the smelter would reprocess it and make it into something usefull (=plates).

Why an insulator?

Any station would have more problems with the question of how to get rid of the heat then with how to stay warm.

Oh yeah. Arianespace or ESA are really bad at providing anything other then the PR. You can find some interesting data, but that is usually buried somewhere in some obscure reports or from “anonymous sources” on the various forms.

That number actually seems high to me, but it’s a “consensus” number that most do agree on. It seems high, considering that the Ariane 5 was designed for the Hermes, but it does include abort system and modifications for the rocket itself.

As for ESA bureaucracy, I think it’s not that bad comparing to NASA. It could be better but since ESA never had any huge program like Apollo, it never grew too big. ESA itself is surprisingly small organization considering what it does. Ariane 5 is expensive rocket, but they kind of compensate this with an excellent launch site (near the equator) and good reliability (if you ignore first “learning problems”). After all they are quite successful with GEO lunches.

I don’t know about that.. Soyuz launches from Guyana seems like an indication that Europeans seek some kind of manned launcher, but other than that it’s all fuzzy. But, considering that Europeans are masters at diplomacy and the “red tape”, I wouldn’t dream of predicting what will happen in next decade. We will see.

Probably a game of cat and mouse.. The Russians are trying to get as much as possible out of “cooperation” and the Europeans want to put ATV technology to good use. Europeans are famous for their looooooong negotiations, but the end results usually aren’t that bad.

Rotating smelter would in affect be a dry-dock, since this is not a situation where you need to keep water away from the area where you work. You only need gravity to make plates. You don't need it to weld them together (it would actually be easier to weld them in 0g).

Vacuum is quite a good environment to make an outer shell in. Once this is done and you can fill that shell with air, you don’t need any extra equipment to work in there. That means that you don’t need EVA to change a light bulb or install power lines. It’s a safe, T-shirt environment.

Let me repeat how it would be done:

1. Build small “construction station” out of 3 parts and rotate them
2. Send it (or send material to it) to where it will be able to make plates
3. Use robotic tug/welder to bring material and position/weld plates
4. Weld together a “big station”, fill it with air so that you can work inside
5. Complete the station, move “construction station” somewhere else or simply integrate it into the finished station.

If I stay with aircraft carrier comparison.. sure, they would congratulate me for a good idea on how build a ship in the middle of the sea, maybe even under the sea, but why would anyone want to do that, if you can build ship in a dry dock?

What is wrong with rotation to make Gs? I don't see any flaws in it, you do? Why shouldn't we create 1 G environment, pour plates, then simply weld them together?

That is exactly what I am talking about. Ok, let me go more into details on how and why this would work.

First you send central “docking section”, then you send “manufacturing section” and then you send “living section”. With those three sections you build a long (200 m) station that rotates (kind of like the NEP ship in the proposal).

I personally don’t think that we need nuclear power and that solar power could provide more then enough power. In that case we unfurl 2 large wings (200 x 100 m) and “hang” them onto the main support structure. That way we get about 10 MW of electric power that we can use it to either move our “construction station” to higher orbit by using electric propulsion, moon orbit, NEOs or Mars orbit (Phobos and Deimos) or power our smelter. If nuclear power would be preferable then it would look a lot like NEP on a link. That thing should weigh anywhere from 50 mT to 200 mT (or more) depending on how big we build but what are we talking about is in the range of Mir station.

After everything is working, we must find material to melt into plates. In LEO that could be used upper stages, old satellites, junk, used parts of ISS,.. anything that could be economically brought to the “construction station” would be transferred there with our “welding robot/tug”, cut up, melted and converted into plates. There is probably not enough material in LEO to make this worth it, but it could be done.

But my focus isn’t on the LEO (since it lacks materials in any great quantity) but on NEOs or the Mars moons. You move your “construction station” to some easily accessible NEO. You pick up pieces of one, melt them, store O2 and store plates (maybe even start building station). When we have enough of them use O2 as propellant (SEP/NEP) for our station to move it back to high earth orbit (probably via moon flyby). You can further lower it (via SEP or aero braking) to LEO, but HEO is also good orbit to put a station in.

To make everything work you need: SEP/NEP propulsion, small smelter, living section, docking section, power source (reactor or solar wings), tug/welder (ATV/progress with robotic arms basically) and a way to get people to LEO (preferably to HEO). Nothing that couldn’t be done or hasn’t been done already.

The price of all this construction would be the development and cost of hardware, lifting 200 mT to LEO and support for multi-month (year) mission. You would still have to put things inside of your station to make it useful, but that could be done over time. You don’t even need to develop special “space hardware” since you can go to your local shop, buy things and they will work without modifications. You could pack it to survive high stress (high g) trip to LEO, put it into container, pick that up in orbit and later assemble it inside a station. That would make further construction/upgrades as complicated and expensive as renovating a house or a ship. To put things into prospective: a nuclear aircraft carrier costs about $4,5B to build and that station would be about as big as a nuclear aircraft carrier.

SEP/NEP “construction station” would also serve as a great ship for a mission to Mars, even if that mission would require further development of lander and surface capabilities. Putting smelter on the Moon has an advantage of a readily accessible material, but the problem arises as to how you put that material back to orbit and the need for a lander.

Yes, we would probably need rotating thing from the start. But why is that such an impossible thing to build?

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. … 019854.pdf

I agree. NEOs should be the real focus of exploration all along. NEO exploitation would actually enable economical space and human flight. Value of water in LEO is more then the value of gold on Earth just because it is so hard to bring it from a deep gravitational well. We need water, propellant, structural materials and everything else in orbit, and we need it cheaply.

Mars and Moon will only be “flags and footprints” until the price of space flight falls drastically. Sure, they might be very interesting destinations, but any space travel needs lots of propellant and materials which are no good to us down on Earth. NEOs are conveniently already strewn all over the solar system with smaller delta-v then from the Moon and already in 0 g environment, so they can be slowly moved by high isp, low thrust engines closer to Earth.

Phobos and Deimos have already moved closer to Mars by themselves..

I agree. But I would not call them floating colonies, since they would not float on anything. They will be either small modular orbiting stations like ISS/Mir in LEO or maybe even rotating space stations built in HEO from NEO resources if we will invest enough money in space manufacturing/transportation.

Rotating space station around Venus would be a bargain (to build and maintain) compared to a floating cloud city in Venus atmosphere.

And the cost for such prison would be..

The danger for people onboard the rockets would be the same.

You would reduce "collateral damage" for the people on the other clouds, but the question still remains why would you want to risk rocket landings and takeoffs from such a dangerous place, if the alternative (rotating city 500 km higher) is so much safer. Any problem in orbit would cause you to simply abort the docking and try again later. Abort on the Venus would be much more trickier, since the rocket is heavier then air and would fall to the surface (air friction).

Actually the opposite is true. Almost all of the vast majority of human expansion was driven by some kind of economic incentive.

I would call this “political propaganda”. The Irish went to US because the potatoes failed. The Mexicans go to US because they hope for better living conditions (if not for them – for their children).

Vikings went to Greenland simply because there was not enough land where they were born to feed themselves. Who goes and who stays is “decided” by those in power. Those that have barely enough land (food) to feed themselves don’t want to share that with others (they would all die). When you are faced with an option “go with me somewhere you will survive” or “die from hunger” any danger soon becomes quite acceptable.

Advantageous place in the world economy is important, because it allows you to trade something to get something else in return. Arabs have oil, and they don’t have to worry about what they will eat. Sub-Saharans worry about that since they don’t have the oil. Even if you suddenly banned the food exports to the Arabs they could find solutions with money (build lots of greenhouses in the desert?), while those without money don’t have this option (notice the lack of greenhouses in Sub-Sahara).. To simplify: How you live is dependant on how much it costs to live. The cost is basically how much work something needs (based on supply and demand). The price reflects that. A 2 kg shoping bag of food is cheaper then a 2 kg shoping bag with laptop in it. If you can't make anything yourself then you must buy it from someone else. But you must also sell something yourself to get the money to buy those things.

Why is that important in any space colonization? Ok, first of all.. where could people live (and I am not talking about 6 people, 3 years stays)?

A colony on a planet or a moon seems like an obvious choice, but would Moons gravity (0,17 g) or even Mars gravity (0.38 g) be enough? I doubt it. The Venus (0,9 g) would be ok, but the place is an inferno. The space stations could make any gravity simply by choosing how fast it would rotate, so this would be ok also. Which would be cheaper?

a) Large rugged cylinder made from 1 m thick slabs of iron from the iron asteroids (melted by the sun) and slowly delivered to high orbit to be used as a space dock. Built as large as needed (capable of housing millions of people if needed) and made to last for centuries. Safe with a lot of space, more accessible (high delta-v + low thrust), easy to build and maintain,..

b) Large balloon made from high-tech fabrics, in need of a constant attention, weight limited, small capacity, hard to get to (high delta-v + high thrust), and hard to build..

And you need things cheap to have any hope of them supporting themselves.. grow food first, build laptops later if possible (or export something to Earth so you could pay for those laptops).. While the station could serve as a dock where you would assemble/build spaceships, the cloud city would be as useful as cloud city on earth. And even a "cheap" space station like this would cost A LOT OF MONEY..

I would think that the speed is more related to the quality of the rails. When you are going 200 km/h any “bump” will have a large effect..