It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How would you design a future spacecraft's...

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 22 2005 @ 04:05 AM
...controls, computers, and sensor systems, given current and near future technologies(i.e. things like OLEDS, nanotube sensors ect.)?

I personally would want a standard system, a series like Mark I, II, etc., with perhaps a few custom tweaks due to the ship. Each series would obviously incorporate the newest technologies that are on the market and/or in the labs.

Once we get transit to orbit via spacecraft or spaceelevator, I believe we should create orbital construction yards that can pump out spacecraft like automobile plants pump out cars.

Please give your ideas, I am interested in your designs you are thinking of.

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 11:45 AM
I wonder what the new shuttles being built by NASA are going to be like..
And what about the ERVs being planned for Mars..They ought to be cool..

Pioneering Manned flight is back in the spotlight after say 30 years..
And this time its gonna be interplanetary..

posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:05 PM
Hmm... since there has been a lack of interest in the thread I thought I would post some recent findings.

Zyvex is developing a mini-masspectrometer based on Nanotechnology for Spacehab. The new device will be 90% of the weight, and more reliable then its current counterpart that weighs close to 100 pounds(new one is the size of a box of cards). To me this represents the future of spaceflight, ultra-efficient, compact, multi-use equipment!


Note to NASA:

This is what you should be doing to encourage future development of Spaceship systems and sub-systems! Give contracts out to Nanotech companies to come up with solutions! I bet if you did this your ships would be much stronger, lighter, intelligent and spacious! My two cents!

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Sigma]

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 11:15 AM
it really depends on how near term tech we are talking.

power plant - small-med sized fusion power plant at least capable of producting 1-5 megawatts constant power flow.

propultion - partical acelarated hydrogen plasma Ion drive system.

trinium and nomral hydrogen are ionized and accelarated and heated into a plasmatic state with the help of the on board fusion power plant. The plasma stream is accelarated up to 31.5km/s (normal speed for a conventional ion drive system) because the gas that is used for the ion drive is wast/exess fuel from the reactor it gets used twice and saves on fuel. The problem with normal ion drives is that they accelearte slow but can get up to very high speeds. But sence we are using a fusable fuel as the propelent have ajustable choke point in the motor's exost nosel. So as super heated plasma comes screaming down the line into the exost nosel it hits the choke point causing the remaining H3 and H1 to fusion into H2 this releases large amounts of extra energy and because it is already moving very fast in one direction it will tend to stay moving in that direction. Also because the gas is Ionized and in a plasmatic state it can't cross magnetic fields so it would keep the blast/exost from the motor from melting the exost cone/motor. So more or less it would be making a Minnie HBOMB powered drive system producing a directional force of a few million pounds of thrust. For a very small amount of fuel, so you have the power of a chemical rocket but the range and high top end of a Ion drive system.

and yes I'm not pulling this out of my butt do a search on fusion drive systems. Because you are using H3 and H1 the radation from the use of the motor is extreamly short lived and would be exeptible for use for ground take off's because all the nutrons are used in the reaction all that is produced is alfa and bata radation with little or no gamma radation which is easly blocked by very minor shielding. Unlike fision systems that produce nutrons and gama radation on a large scale.

another posible way to get around this would be to ionize normal rocket exost. normal rockets exost exits the nosel at 10,000-15,000 mile a hour. But there is lots and lots of it. It also has lots of mass so more pushing power. But a Ion drive pushes out its gases at 70,000-90,000 miles a hour. but because there is so much less of it and the particals have very little mass they have very little pushing power but they can build up to high speed's. Now if you could some how ionize the fuel and oxidizer during the burning prosses or right before and exelarate the exost as it exits up to 70-90,000 miles per hour you could make convetional rocket motors 7 to 9 times more effecent. Right now it cost around 100,000 bucks a pound to bring somthing into orbit using the shuttle but with this drive system it would bring it down to 11,111 dollers a pound.

standard guidence and life support.

frame I would make it flyable in space or atmoseric places.

would take of and land like a plane takes alot less energy to fly up using the lifting force produced by wings then to just brute force shoot somthing strait up. I would have the motor exost nosals have ajustable alinment and oriatation. so similar to the Ospra in alowing motor tilt so that it can still land verticly if needed also you would not have to change the oriatnation of the ship for corse corections and slow down burn manovers Just flip the moters around and fire them in the needed direction. All that would be needed would be a Z axis manover ie spin the ship on its axis tell you get the moter pilons lined up with where you want them. With this system you could also use the main motors to slow down the desent speed of the space craft on reintry with out losing the propor angle of desent and still have the heat shielding in the right place.

take it or leave it and yes I know I can't spell deslexia is a pain in my butt and I don't have time to wast on spell checkers 8). Not to mention I like to see the spelling freaks get mad 8)...

top topics

log in