Building a large scale modular spacecraft in space?
Discussion
Hey 30v Thats what Im talkin about! After I wrote my posts above, my mind started wondering. Imagine if it were done and it worked. A community of 00s living up there. Independently. Would be a bit of a game changer with regards to the importance of life on earth. After all, the nuclear button only remains unpressed because of MAD. Suddenly, I'gone off the idea of extra-terrestrial colonisation. Rather depressingly, I suppose you could get around it by pointing nukes at them too ...
Edited by slybynight on Monday 25th July 00:10
It has got to be organic I'd have thought.
A bit of DNA jiggery-pokery and you get a spacecraft to build itself by growing, superstructure anyway. All you need are the raw materials and water and hey presto.
I predict that within 500 years we will be flying all over the gaff (universe that is) in giant hollowed out Potatoes!
Peppers may be better as they are already hollow but are no way as cool as flying spuds.
And in terms of weapon systems, forget phasers and photon torps, they will be mounted with giant spud guns and here is the really clever part.... they'd have an almost unlimited supply of ammo.
A bit of DNA jiggery-pokery and you get a spacecraft to build itself by growing, superstructure anyway. All you need are the raw materials and water and hey presto.
I predict that within 500 years we will be flying all over the gaff (universe that is) in giant hollowed out Potatoes!
Peppers may be better as they are already hollow but are no way as cool as flying spuds.
And in terms of weapon systems, forget phasers and photon torps, they will be mounted with giant spud guns and here is the really clever part.... they'd have an almost unlimited supply of ammo.
MartG said:
I'm half surprised SpaceX haven't figured out a way to reuse Falcon 2nd stages by using some fuel to put them into a parking orbit ( instead of deorbiting them ) where they can be retrieved, refueled in orbit, and used as booster stages for a Mars mission
IANARS, but I would guess it has something to do with engine nozzle shapes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzleMost of my knowledge on this comes from a Scott Manley video, but roughly speaking (IIRC) the nozzle has to be matched to the ambient air pressure, so a second stand engine nozzle operating in the upper atmosphere will require a different shape to an engine nozzle designed to work in vacuum.
MartG said:
I'm half surprised SpaceX haven't figured out a way to reuse Falcon 2nd stages by using some fuel to put them into a parking orbit ( instead of deorbiting them ) where they can be retrieved, refueled in orbit, and used as booster stages for a Mars mission
I was reading the other day about the Musks 'rant' on turning Tesla into a factory making factories making cars - the press taking their normal 'he's gone off on one' approach. However thinking about his whole living on Mars target perhaps the plan is to get Tesla investors to build von Neumann self replicating machines - throw a couple of hundred tons at Mars and come back in a decade when it's turned into a full facility.AshVX220 said:
Thanks for this Ash - I've just finished page 1 and its really good stuff! - an excellent centralised resource for "stuff" too!
Eric Mc said:
One of the original mission scenarios suggested for Apollo (and the initial front runner - favoured by Von Braun and his team) was to launch the Command Service Module on one Saturn V and launch additional fuel tanks on a second Saturn V 90 minutes apart. The two elements would dock in earth orbit and head off to the moon as a single craft. This original scenario had the Command Service Module fitted with legs and the entire craft would descend down to the lunar surface.
That's the reason why two Saturn pads were built (39A and 39B) and it's the reason why the VAB has a pair of doors - to allow two Saturn Vs top be assembled and wheeled out in quick succession.
I was looking at a picture of the VAB a few weeks ago and wondered why it had two doors.That's the reason why two Saturn pads were built (39A and 39B) and it's the reason why the VAB has a pair of doors - to allow two Saturn Vs top be assembled and wheeled out in quick succession.
Here's some nice photos of this gigantic building. :
http://imgur.com/gallery/jZi5P
Beati Dogu said:
Eric Mc said:
One of the original mission scenarios suggested for Apollo (and the initial front runner - favoured by Von Braun and his team) was to launch the Command Service Module on one Saturn V and launch additional fuel tanks on a second Saturn V 90 minutes apart. The two elements would dock in earth orbit and head off to the moon as a single craft. This original scenario had the Command Service Module fitted with legs and the entire craft would descend down to the lunar surface.
That's the reason why two Saturn pads were built (39A and 39B) and it's the reason why the VAB has a pair of doors - to allow two Saturn Vs top be assembled and wheeled out in quick succession.
I was looking at a picture of the VAB a few weeks ago and wondered why it had two doors.That's the reason why two Saturn pads were built (39A and 39B) and it's the reason why the VAB has a pair of doors - to allow two Saturn Vs top be assembled and wheeled out in quick succession.
Here's some nice photos of this gigantic building. :
http://imgur.com/gallery/jZi5P
Edited by MartG on Monday 8th August 20:44
There was also the proposed Saturn C-8 rocket, which was truly massive. 430 feet (131 m) tall compared to 363 ft (110.6 m) of the Saturn V, with a larger diameter as well. It had 8 F-1 Engines on the first stage, hence the name.
It was so big that the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, that would have been tasked to build the first stages, did not have the roof height to do so.
They went instead for the smaller Saturn C-5 (later called the Saturn V) with "only" 5 F-1 Engines on the first stage and the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous method of getting to the moon.
It was so big that the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, that would have been tasked to build the first stages, did not have the roof height to do so.
They went instead for the smaller Saturn C-5 (later called the Saturn V) with "only" 5 F-1 Engines on the first stage and the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous method of getting to the moon.
Beati Dogu said:
There was also the proposed Saturn C-8 rocket, which was truly massive. 430 feet (131 m) tall compared to 363 ft (110.6 m) of the Saturn V, with a larger diameter as well. It had 8 F-1 Engines on the first stage, hence the name.
It was so big that the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, that would have been tasked to build the first stages, did not have the roof height to do so.
They went instead for the smaller Saturn C-5 (later called the Saturn V) with "only" 5 F-1 Engines on the first stage and the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous method of getting to the moon.
Yes, the C-8 would have been a beast ! The 1st stage fuel tank actually extended below the top of the engines in order to reduce the overall height so it could fit in the VAB.It was so big that the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, that would have been tasked to build the first stages, did not have the roof height to do so.
They went instead for the smaller Saturn C-5 (later called the Saturn V) with "only" 5 F-1 Engines on the first stage and the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous method of getting to the moon.
I make a 1/144 resin kit of it
The business end, showing the bottom of the fuel tank
NASA dont built rockets, they pay extraordinary large sums to others to do so.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff