It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
I would like to use a combination of a tube, and a magnetic system.
For a length, have it run parallel to the surface, building up momentum without directly fighting gravity at first. This reducing the amount of energy required to get things 'rolling' so to speak ... then at a certain determined speed/distance it slowly curves upwards into the desired angle of ascent.
The second part is magnetic ... like a monorail type system. Levitating the ship takes away the friction ... more of the force of the engine is used for pure thrust ... but I am not done yet Use the magnetic force assist in take of and acceleration until the point the switching of the magnets can no longer keep up with the (increasing) velocity, then the magnets are set to pure opposite poles to keep things frictionless and allow the engines to do the rest of the work.
I feel this would be the most efficient launch set up
Originally posted by Freedom ERP
I like the idea of a space based construction yard Octavius.
Traditional rockets? That's all we have today but what about a huge lift to space?
We launch the whole thing as part of the ship
Manufacture fuel at our destination, complete what ever mission we have and then reverse the process on the way back.
Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
That would make the ship have to be exceptionally large. Im not talking about a small crane and dock to be brought back to earth after mission completed, im talking about a permament structure. One which would need to be large enough for a crew, research centre, and all the modcons such as greenhouses and things.
No, this thing would be large. It would need to be assembled up there. Then the ship would be built to make sure all things are good to go, take off and landing mechanisms and so on.
Your idea has merit, but still it is a tad uneconomical. Why create something to manufacture fuel there when you can just have larger fuel pods?
I think you might have misunderstood what I said. We launch everything in sections and assemble it in orbit. Instead of launching two sections for crew quarters, we launch one. We use it during assembly of the ship and for the mission. I am suggesting that we use the assembly station in Earth orbit and then take it with us and use it in orbit around our deatination.
Why waste energy in hauling a large quantity of fuel (mass) all the way to our destination when we just take a small plant capable of making fuel, with us?
If we think of using "traditional" rockets to get all the sections of our ship into space, (same as we are doing for the International space station), what currently is the largest by weight/volume/size we can blast up?
Is it safe to assume we would use the International Space station as the platform for the construction yard or would we need to create our own.
Ignoring the politics (and yes a very simple notion), it would seem sensible to use an existing environment.
the engine is the key to a craft.
If we were able to locate, or develop some kind of new propulsion possibly antigravity related I think that all the other pieces of the ship could easily be created through various means. Including product sponsorship, hobbyists who hold varying degrees, etc.
There are a number of people developing or experimenting with Anti-gravity propulsion (the use of magnetic fields to repel, or shield gravity), however there results while encouraging are infantile and in no way close to a viable propulsion system. This is the problem. We would have to probably fund a scientist for years possibly and even then there is no guarantee he would come back with results. Thoughts on this problem?
Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
because you cant make fuel from nothing, its either bring the fuel, or bring the components to make fuel AND the plant.
There are a number of people developing or experimenting with Anti-gravity propulsion (the use of magnetic fields to repel, or shield gravity), however there results while encouraging are infantile and in no way close to a viable propulsion system. This is the problem. We would have to probably fund a scientist for years possibly and even then there is no guarantee he would come back with results. Thoughts on this problem?
Why Anti Gravity?
Ive always found the concept tough to realize mostly because the lack of control, or the amount of energy and thought you need to put into simply controlling your craft.
No, Anti gravity isnt the answer. The hardest part i can think of now is constructing a viable space station which can be built in separate pieces and then constructed by remote, WITHOUT killing the crew.
Anyway, probes are boring, they only give data based on what they were created for, etc, etc.
1. The purpose of the ship ( ie deep space exploration or say... local exploration)
2. Mission length. If missions are going for several years, A ship would be hard to resupply. Would have to be self sustaining.
3. Propulsion. I think building it in space has merits. It takes a incredible amount of energy just to break through the gravitational force of the earth. Building it in space you have a head start. Fuel the engines would use would have to be easily obtainable or again.. self sustaining. Why not something along the lines of a Ion engine. If I remember correctly they have had one running for several years in a lab.
4. Crew. How many. How long will they be gone.... Their needs and comfort..so forth
5. Communications. That where I think technology will really lag behind. With current technology..anything past say Jupiter or Saturn still takes a day or two to get back/forth to earth
There is a 95% certanty that the chemicals necessary to make fuel can be extracted from the soil of most planets.
Sell what, there’s nothing to sell. Many private companies have had the model to go to space but its always in a commercial sense, rarely if ever exploration
As to our current propulsion systems they are uneven, and loose a lot of energy.. Having 3 million gallons of fuel to lift 4 men into orbit is ridiculous. There have been some successes with plasma but that’s way off.
Propulsion is the key. Unless we find another kind, plasma, magnetic, etc this project would never get off the ground. Fuel costs, fuel productivity would be a great hindrance.
Again a space station is a terrible idea. You have to have craft that is large, or runs off a fuel that has much lower cost v. payload weight. Look at our current space station, it’s a piece of crap. One of the reasons is we can only take small little modules there every so often. Building a space station before you build a craft that can easily get to and from it is putting the cart before the horse.