Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Deeper Space Exploration reusing space exploration vehicle.

  1. #1

    Deeper Space Exploration reusing space exploration vehicle.

    Hi I am new and did not see a thread that dealt with this topic specifically, sorry if I overlooked it.

    It seems like space exploration beyond NEO, possibly Mars, but definitely the Moon and other near earth objects could be done easily by combining resources and even using heavy lift vehicles currently in service. How difficult or inefficient would it be to to create a permanent/reusable, large capsule that could be sent to objects and returned to NEO to be refurbished and resupplied for a new trip? The vehicle could be assembled in space, like the ISS. The additional missions would then only require smaller Vehicles to ferry supplies and crew.

    Even if you don't man rate the Delta Heavy, you would not have to send the crew up on a rocket that large.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,448
    Perhaps I am miss understanding "sent to objects" = the ISS = international space station. The ISS is less than ideal as an assembly point, but we could make do, if our international partners in the ISS agreed. I say yes, even though it is slightly hazardous to the humans at the ISS, and would interfer with some of the experiments in progress and likely soon. It would help justify the high overhead cost, extend the useful life of the ISS, and produce valuable data on how to build the next generation of low earth orbit space station for assembly purposes. Likely by the time we actually started assembly, there would be a strong movement to decomission the ISS, so the useful life might be extended considerably. Neil

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by alabanana View Post

    It seems like space exploration beyond NEO, possibly Mars, but definitely the Moon and other near earth objects could be done easily by combining resources and even using heavy lift vehicles currently in service. How difficult or inefficient would it be to to create a permanent/reusable, large capsule that could be sent to objects and returned to NEO to be refurbished and resupplied for a new trip? The vehicle could be assembled in space, like the ISS. The additional missions would then only require smaller Vehicles to ferry supplies and crew.
    I would suggest a reusable/replaceable outer shell with a more permanent inner capsule. The shell may be refurbished or replaced after each trip.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by alabanana View Post
    How difficult or inefficient would it be to to create a permanent/reusable, large capsule that could be sent to objects and returned to NEO to be refurbished and resupplied for a new trip?
    I guess I can think of a couple of issues. One is that at least at present, you would still need to lift the fuel into LEO, so there isn't much saving there. Then, bringing a probe back would mean you would need extra fuel to get it back to earth. And then finally, I think that a lot of time, space probes are designed fairly specifically for a certain environment, so I wonder if it would require a lot of work in space between missions for repair, maintenance, modifications, etc., which would be extremely costly compared to work done on the comfortable environment on earth. If someday there is a way to get fuel into LEO from either the moon or an asteroid, for example, then maybe it would be more economical.
    As above, so below

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,018
    There really isn't any 'cheap' way up there. The less complex the mission--the less docking, refueling, rube goldbergering you do, the better off you are. Do all your fueling on ground level--have everything in one LV and get rid of volitiles as quickly as you can.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,094
    If we ever get ISRU up and running, something like NAUTILUS-X would be perfect. Like the LM, it looks ungainly to eyes used to the swoopy curves of earthbound birds, hugging the thin skin of atmosphere or those who are destined to return to it.
    But this ship, once she goes up, she is never coming down, flying free and clear above all sky, all air, all gravity.
    That's real flying that is.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,018
    Here we learn of a poor sod who wants to make a "real" Enterprise:
    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....se-in-20-Years
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technolo...173540774.html
    http://www.universetoday.com/95099/e...e-in-20-years/

    The biggest stumbling block is really only a political one, in that he wants to raise taxes and cut defence--AND social programs and the Dept. of Energy. Now both sides of the spectrul would be angry. Discovery anti-gravity would be easier.

    Now, everything he calls for would be more doable if he were to call for a smaller version of this:
    http://www.resinilluminati.com/showthread.php?t=6739

    I mean, wasn't the first SS Enterprise supposed to be a ringship anyway? http://fleetyard.net/works-in-progre...prise-xcv-330/

    Wait until the year 2966 for a 1:1 working model and call it the Solar Trekkie from this TTA like book: http://supergalacticdreadnought.blog...s-weapons.html

    A small ringship with an engine at one end and a lander/lifeboat/Orion capsule at the end of a long stalk might take only ten or so SLS launches. A big project, yes--but NOTHING compared to what he wants. What is more, it would have a great use as an end of life ring station or 1g cycler.

    Misc
    http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/...talodd-a.shtml
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...2/#more-109772 An SLS version would be a nice cycler
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/beyondapollo/
    http://www.kschroeder.com/my-books/p...tellar-cyclers
    Last edited by publiusr; 2012-May-20 at 08:56 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,000
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    Here we learn of a poor sod who wants to make a "real" Enterprise:
    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....se-in-20-Years
    http://www.universetoday.com/95099/e...e-in-20-years/

    The biggest stumbling block is really only a political one, in that he wants to raise taxes and cut defence--AND social programs and the Dept. of Energy. Now both sides of the spectrul would be angry. Discovery anti-gravity would be easier.
    Saw that on the news yesterday. Thier website must be getting swamped with Trekkies now that the news is out there. I finally got in this morning to look at thier numbers.

    They think they can get about $50B per year. They use comparisons like NASA's budget during Apollo and comparing the percentage mostly to GDP instead of budget to hid the fact that it's more than double NASA's budget now.

    NASA can't get money now for space. How these people think that its "conceivable" we could divert funds to almost quadruple the space program is beyond me. Especially, when there's going to be large added expenses in building a shell that "looks" like an entertainment prop. Not only is there the shell, but I doubt the configuration is close to an optimal layout.

    But; It is an interesting concept, and something worthy of what a Trekkie would come up with.

    BTW: I love thier thoughts on a backup plan. If it's not finished in 20 years, we'll just take longer.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    But; It is an interesting concept, and something worthy of what a Trekkie would come up with.
    And also, note that he calls it the "first generation" Enterprise, implying that there will be a "second" and "third" generations, implying that the silly things that they have in the later versions of the Enterprise, like warp drives and teleporters and the like, are actually possible.
    As above, so below

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    And also, note that he calls it the "first generation" Enterprise, implying that there will be a "second" and "third" generations, implying that the silly things that they have in the later versions of the Enterprise, like warp drives and teleporters and the like, are actually possible.
    I don't think it can be said he is implying that. There is a lot of theoretical, but physically possible, advanced propulsion concepts, without resorting to magic.
    Personally, I would like to see a more practical design for a bird of the highest sky, a swimmer of the endless ocean.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,000
    Quote Originally Posted by ravens_cry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    And also, note that he calls it the "first generation" Enterprise, implying that there will be a "second" and "third" generations, implying that the silly things that they have in the later versions of the Enterprise, like warp drives and teleporters and the like, are actually possible.
    I don't think it can be said he is implying that.
    Correct. There's no implying involved. Gen 1 is the first 20 years of a 100 year plan that they have layed out.
    I can't remember what's in those future generation craft, and I'm having trouble getting into thier site again. But; if you can get there, it is described.
    http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,094
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    Correct. There's no implying involved. Gen 1 is the first 20 years of a 100 year plan that they have layed out.
    I can't remember what's in those future generation craft, and I'm having trouble getting into thier site again. But; if you can get there, it is described.
    http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/
    I am also having difficulties It says there is no wp-config.php file.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    405
    i was on the site yesterday...looked at the traffic figures and it was gettin a lotta hits since some net media sites picked up on the story. I also noted however thqat the average stay was about 30 seconds.
    i like the concept of what he is trying to do. i just wish it didnt have to rely on it looking like something from a tv show to get peoples interest.
    theres a lot to be said for an open science project for an interstellar ship...which this wasnt

  14. #14
    I notice they don't like to leave a soyuz in orbit for more than 6 months. Shelf life for future craft will have to be longer, but how much longer in the near future? 2 years for Orion? That may be a limiting factor for some time to come.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,018
    Trust me, I have no problem with folks thinking big--but this? No. No way.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,094
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    Trust me, I have no problem with folks thinking big--but this? No. No way.
    Even as a Trekkie, it's more than a little goofy. I'd rather see rather something like the practical grace of Nautilus-X than this.

Similar Threads

  1. Sea exploration vs Space exploration
    By jumpjack in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2008-Aug-08, 05:42 PM
  2. Crew Exploration Vehicle
    By Rocket Man in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 2007-Feb-12, 03:51 PM
  3. The Crew Exploration Vehicle
    By John Kierein in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-21, 11:06 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-12, 07:56 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2004-Nov-03, 12:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: