orbital facilities

soph · 2002-12-18 16:52:42

how feasible are orbital facilities, like hangars, or at least assembly plants? i know the 90 day report gives them a huge price tag, but lets take this scenario:

the public doesnt like nuclear power. so, lets say we send up an orion-class ship piecemeal with HLV's. then, we have a facility put the parts together (it could be designed to have parts that fit together, duh). we send up the nuclear fuel and engines such that they are not active, and can't affect the environment (i dont know if nuclear fuel can be frozen?). finally, we send up the crew and supplies, sending a mining "city" to an asteroid.

obviously, this takes out the HLV aspect of nuclear vehicles, but it still allows them to have great benefits as interplanetary ships. i think that the benefits, and the sidestepping of terrestrial politics, is worth the cost, assuming it can be built for under $150 billion. if we get to mars, and get some level of manned exploration and development of space, i think that we could find a good chunk of funding from the private sector.

Phobos · 2002-12-18 17:49:32

I think once we get space elevators up and running the types of scenarios you talk about will be cost effective possibilities. The way things are now though, I'm not too confident it can be pulled off considering the horrible financial wound inflicted just by the ISS. That thing is pure tragedy and it's just a few habs linked together with metal trusses. But if we're going to drain the world's economies on some two bit space station anyway I'd much rather see the money going towards the things you mentioned even the price tag would be a lot higher no doubt. If only NASA would chuck that money-wasting welfare machine known as the space shuttle.

soph · 2002-12-20 18:19:10

the space elevator would be great. would the space elevator allow us to avoid the need to launch anything from earth?

can you send me a link to that space elevator site again? i would like to see how they intend to make it economical. would the space elevator make space travel cheaper? i really think that is the bottom line.

if the space elevator could carry the weight of say, your average HLV at a similar cost, i think the space elevator would allow human and development of space to really grow.

Phobos · 2002-12-20 23:00:19

You can find the Highlift site http://www.highliftsystems.com]here. The space elevator won't be anywhere near as expensive to use as an HLV especially when it comes to getting payloads to GEO and beyond. The current elevator design only carries 20 tons to GEO but it'll no doubt lead to bigger, better, and less expensive elevators. It will make supplying bases on the Moon and beyond particularly cheaper since once you lift the payload to a certain point it can automatically be thrown on a trajectory to other destinations in the solar system without the need for rocket engines (except little ones for minor course corrections). You might also check out the http://www.robotics-society.org/climbing.shtml]robotic climber competition and the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/space-elevator/]Yahoo space elevator group.

PaganToris · 2002-12-21 02:05:24

Well SPACE ELEVATORS cmon now why use those things we have rocket ships and what not to take us to space hmmm but price! i duno YES it may be less and cheaper but yer odds of being DRIFTED off in to a unknown planet is 100-1 so now u tell me are they really good.
HUH U SAY DRIFTED OFF IN TO SPACE! well we are in te milky way galexey u will be drifted off in to sooe nebula to be burnt to a crisp!

soph · 2002-12-21 07:46:47

what are you talking about?

soph · 2002-12-21 08:15:56

phobos, would 20 tonnes be enough to support a mars direct launch? i dont remember the number he gave for weight, and im too tired to look it up again

Phobos · 2002-12-21 16:04:14

Well SPACE ELEVATORS cmon now why use those things we have rocket ships and what not to take us to space hmmm but price!

Space elevators have a lot of advantages over rockets. For one thing they don't subject payloads to high g-forces or a lot of vibration. Two, they're a lot simpler, no need for the complex engines, volatile fuels, or guidance systems used by rockets. Three, elevators don't spew toxic exhaust into the atmosphere if the lasers use environmentally friendly power sources. And most importantly, they have the potential to reduce launch costs drastically over those of rockets.

phobos, would 20 tonnes be enough to support a mars direct launch? i dont remember the number he gave for weight, and im too tired to look it up again

The elevator would be supremely useful for resupplying a Martian base and cheaply sending inflatable habs etc to Mars to augment the existing quarters of the crews. I'm thinking with modifications to the Mars Direct plan the elevator could be used for most functions. We'd simply send people up the elevator in a capsule and have them rendevouz with a cycler. And I believe the current plan is to send up three climbers spread some distance apart at a time so the capacity would be tripled even though you'd have to wait a bit longer for everything to come together. I think things could even get simpler and less expensive if we built the counterweight of the elevator up as a giant space station where the assembly of ships and equipment could take place after being sent up the elevator.

soph · 2002-12-21 18:41:40

orbital hangars! yay. nuclearspace, perhaps we can build orion ships in orbit! then those anti-nuclearists cant whine!

Now, how would they shield these ships from the atmosphere? would the "elevator capsules" be shielded?

another great idea would be to buld another elevator, coil up the ribbon, and send it in pieces to mars. then they could launch stuff back.

Phobos · 2002-12-22 14:41:14

Now, how would they shield these ships from the atmosphere? would the "elevator capsules" be shielded?

Yeah, the capsules would have to be completely enclosed life support systems with leg room because it would take several days to get to GEO a 100,000km high. I'm thinking the capsule could be largely inflatable since that would make attaching it to the climber a lot easier. Some people think sending an Apollo command module type vehicle up the elevator might fit the bill.

another great idea would be to buld another elevator, coil up the ribbon, and send it in pieces to mars. then they could launch stuff back.

I agree. A Martian elevator would probably be more complicated because it would need to avoid the Martian moons but I doubt if that's insurmountable considering that Brad Edward's design for Earth's elevator can actively avoid orbital debris.

soph · 2002-12-22 15:22:39

Several days is fine for normal cargo, but SSTO's would be better for things like people that want to get to orbit, or quick transfer of goods to orbit.

also, space elevators would never really replace SSTOs in terms of flexibility-a spaceplane could go anywhere on earth, or in orbit. if they combined the two, we'd really be going.

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-25 20:05:34

Would a Moon base be better than a launch from Orbit?

soph · 2002-12-25 20:17:39

from what zubrin says, no. according to rocket science...it would take more fuel and time to go to the moon first, and there would be no advantage from a moon launch.

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-25 20:52:34

ok, I really have to get some of Zubrin's books...

Phobos · 2002-12-31 22:00:37

also, space elevators would never really replace SSTOs in terms of flexibility-a spaceplane could go anywhere on earth, or in orbit. if they combined the two, we'd really be going.

True, I think space elevators in the long run will prove primarily useful for carrying huge payloads the way freight trains do now. People don't really rely on them for transportation but there essential for getting goods around. If we want to make large space settlements a reality I really think we're going to need space elevators to get goods to them. I think to that elevators might be good forms of transportation for people who couldn't withstand the high g=forces imposed by a rocket. Since I'll prolly be a 100 before I get to go into space I'll prolly be taking the elevator.

John_Frazer · 2002-12-31 23:31:38

soph (Dec. 18 02)
> the public doesnt like nuclear power. so, lets say
we send up an orion-class ship piecemeal with HLV's.
> then, we have a facility put the parts together (it
could be designed to have parts that fit together, duh).

Big parts. To Orion standard, they're built tough & big. Fasteners are huge nuts & bolts, easily handled in suit gloves.
The ship itself is designed sectionally, so the crew can take it apart at the destination asteroid. The habs and shop tools they lived with on the way out become part of the base they're building.
The facility which assembles the ship is actually parts of the ship itself! Habitation, EVA prep, tool handling, cranes & winches & arms etc.
Again, a carnival ride arrives packaged in a trailer. Certain parts come out first, to make steps & ladders for the workers to climb around on. The motors which drive the ride help winch parts together. Designed so people can make money without requiring engineering degrees from the workers, parts are big, dumb & simple.
After the show's over (all the money fleeced out of the marks), the parts go back to being ladders & scaffolds to take the thing down, pack it all away usisng the parts themselves to hold the trailer load together, and off it rolls.

> we send up the nuclear fuel and engines such
that they are not active, and can't affect the
environment (i dont know if nuclear fuel can be
frozen?).

Nuclear 'fuel' is a metal. Very dense, a golf ball weighs about a kilo.
Specially shaped so that chemical explosives ram it together to make it temporarily just a bit more dense, so the neutrons bouncing around in it make it go BOOM! (see your local terrorist or high school physics whiz kid for details).
This application of nuclear technology -bomb making- is put to special use in an Orion, to vaporize a propellant mixture. Water or plastic can be used in some cases, but tungsten is preferred for low bulk. This propellant is shot towards the ship's pusher plate, where the reaction of the impact pushes the ship forward. Only nuclear explosives can make the propellant hit the ship with enough energy to make an effective interplanetary drive.
So, each pulse unit (small, specially designed nuclear explosive device -one of hundreds to make the mission go) is the mechanism and structure to make it all work correctly, a big chunk of propellant, and the actual radioactive stuff of the nuclear fuel.
The propellant itself is over 2/3 of the mass (which bodes well for refueling for the return trip, at the destination). The plutonium 'pit' of the bomb is less than 10% of the bombs mass.
At launch out of the Earth's environment, we don't worry about the structure & mechanism or the propellant. We package it like any other part of the ship.
The tiny, heavy plutonium parts we take care of like they were our babies... Worth more than gold or platinum, very dangerous in the wrong hands (like W or the Pentagon), stable and damage resistant itself, but causing nightmares to the ignorant sector of the population who get bad dreams at the very mention of the word "radiation".
Remember that the crew of the Challenger survived the breakup of the orbiter. The impact with the ocean, 2.5 minutes later killed them.
We package the Pu bits specially so they'll fall away from a breaking up booster, re-enter the atmosphere at sub-orbital speeds, and make a hole in the ground -or better yet, deploy 'chutes & airbags to (relatively)gently land them.

> obviously, this takes out the HLV aspect of
nuclear vehicles, but it still allows them to have
great benefits as interplanetary ships.

Actually, it lets them focus on interplanetary travel, which is where they're really needed. Chemical can get us to LEO. It's totally false to say that chemical must be as bad as the Shuttle. Plenty of intelligent design choices can be made (just not in a government program) to lower costs and increase reliability.

soph · 2003-01-01 00:32:58

john, i think SSTO spaceplanes (nuclear powered) and the space elevator will replace chemical HLV's.

And we could make the parts of the Orion vacuum seal to each other, with multiple failsafes, so nuts and bolts are hardly needed. a computer programmed robot, or simply computer, could handle screwing it together. not hard.

for now, lets use the orions as the basis for mining centers in the asteroid belt. it will make us money, and keep people in space.

Tyr · 2003-01-22 15:48:08

A nuclear SSTO would be cool and highly effective, if it was allowed. If it crashed it would probably land in the sea where billions of tons of U and Th are dissolved by nature already, and if it crashed on land it would bury itself 50 feet under ground where it couldn't irradiate anybody, in other words-anybody close enough to the crash site to be irradiated woudl be killed outright by the impact!!! So I am for it, but legal realities stop us. Launch to Mars from the Moon doesn't gain anything, but launch from L1, assuming fuel launched up from the Moon, and Earth fly-by gravity assist are interesting concepts. As for a space hangar, some kind of inflated KEVLAR balloon and flexible sphincters instead of hatches would be interesting, but why can't we just assemble ships i the vacuum??? Granted, our first explorations of Mars can be like Mars Direct, but eventually we will use large ships assembled in space and refueled in space, with nuclear propulsion also. As for space elevators, they seem like far future stuff to me.

soph · 2003-01-22 15:56:19

it would help if you had a stationary parking point, like a space station, from which to put together the pieces of a spacecraft.

i think the space elevator is at least as close as a heavy manned mars mission, at this point. We want to develop low orbit quickly. If we can get capsules up to orbit, we can do all kinds of stuff in orbit, without really having to worry about earth landing. if we can get to the point where all heavy cargo lugging is done outside of our atmosphere, and all we need on earth is SSTOs to pick up the cargo, that would be great.

Tyr · 2003-01-23 13:21:06

One of the Lagrange points would be the place to locate for various reasons. Eventually, we will tap lunar materials like silicon, oxygen, aluminum, iron, magnesium, titanium, glass, ceramics, etc. We will also import light elements like H,C and N from NEOs or Mars and useful metals like copper that the Moon doesn't have much of. Our factories on the lunar surface and in space will grow and we will manufacture almost everything in space. There will be no more RHLLV launches from Earth, just SSTOs with people and small items like vaccines or microcircuit chips.

Also of interest is the use of mini-rovers and micromachines to bootstrap a lunar base by remote control. The machines self-replicate and even build larger copies of themselves and this seed becomes the giant redwood tree of space industry after several years. That will really cut down on heavy payloads from Earth also.

John_Frazer · 2003-01-29 13:59:02

Here's a design for an SSTO vehicle, and the payolad is most of the structural mass on the launch pad as a station volume.
Take everything the 90 day report talked about, and junk it. Take the ISS and junk it, along with the Shuttle -we'll use the simplest , cheapest, and most robust way to launch a station.

This design is for a multi-use station volume (sub-divided into rooms & such). Apply the same principle to a hangar volume.

I point out that a HLV-boosted, space assembled Orion ship doesn't need this. All you need is a place for tired crew to recuperate from EVA shifts, a workbench and control terminal for robotic assembly aids, and power, waste heat rejection, and communications. The hab volumes for the ship itself will do perfectly since all this equipment will be going on the ship. Possibly very little beside the ship itself gets launched to support it.

For much of the Orion ship, <a href="www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlec.htm" target="_blank">Shuttle-C</a> will do, or the Ares or equivalent.

For a station volume, the historic way is to put the station volume, mostly completely ready to go, on top of the booster. The first crew meets it soon after launch, and opens solar panels, attaches radiators, and is open for business.
Only if you deliberately design it to be overly expensive does it cost tens of billions to get what we've got in the ISS (as the 90-day report designed things too).

dicktice · 2003-03-29 12:14:23

I wouldn't recommend "junking" anything like the ISS, that's already in orbit. That would be like ripping up an ocean reef, in order to start with a sandy bottom...forgetting that things tend to accumulate for the betterment and convenience of those who live in the vicinity of reefs (fish for example, and people even). In Low Earth Orbit, not junking the ISS would be less expensive in time (which is irreplaceable) and financial re-investment (harder to get than initial investment) for e.g. general long-duration microgravity research, assembling hardware for expeditions in LEO, anchoring tethered Earth-escapes from LEO, and (how can anyone forget?) paid-for space tourism....

soph · 2003-03-29 12:27:02

Like I said in another thread, the demand, albeit small, created by the ISS is the only thing that is really keeping the private area going, in hopes of satisfying that demand. No ISS=no hopes for your X Prize candidates for any real revenues.

The vehicles created to serve the ISS might/will be cheaper than any government vehicles, which would fuel demand for private orbital development.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-12-18 16:52:42

Re: orbital facilities

#2 2002-12-18 17:49:32

Re: orbital facilities

#3 2002-12-20 18:19:10

Re: orbital facilities

#4 2002-12-20 23:00:19

Re: orbital facilities

#5 2002-12-21 02:05:24

Re: orbital facilities

#6 2002-12-21 07:46:47

Re: orbital facilities

#7 2002-12-21 08:15:56

Re: orbital facilities

#8 2002-12-21 16:04:14

Re: orbital facilities

#9 2002-12-21 18:41:40

Re: orbital facilities

#10 2002-12-22 14:41:14

Re: orbital facilities

#11 2002-12-22 15:22:39

Re: orbital facilities

#12 2002-12-25 20:05:34

Re: orbital facilities

#13 2002-12-25 20:17:39

Re: orbital facilities

#14 2002-12-25 20:52:34

Re: orbital facilities

#15 2002-12-31 22:00:37

Re: orbital facilities

#16 2002-12-31 23:31:38

Re: orbital facilities

#17 2003-01-01 00:32:58

Re: orbital facilities

#18 2003-01-22 15:48:08

Re: orbital facilities

#19 2003-01-22 15:56:19

Re: orbital facilities

#20 2003-01-23 13:21:06

Re: orbital facilities

#21 2003-01-29 13:59:02

Re: orbital facilities

#22 2003-03-29 12:14:23

Re: orbital facilities

#23 2003-03-29 12:27:02

Re: orbital facilities

Board footer