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.

 

How would you develop a space program?

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
How would you develop the a space program? What would you goals be?

Couple of rules:

You have to use Known technology available or soon to be avalible now. It can be old technology or cutting edge. If its a real solid idea you can have it.

Research and ideas that were never created but use known and realistic technology is allowed.

Assume resources are not unlimited, you have a budget, a very high and flexible budget like NASA 1964.

Assume we have no ET contact.
...............................................
My first goal would be to find a cheaper method for reaching orbit.

I would look at 5 ways.

1st Reviving the Orion project: I would Spend A good half of the budget on creating a number of nuclear propulsion craft. Mission would be:

1st Part over 5 years. Orion test phase.
OT1 - 880t Unmanned test Launch, deliver a simple pay load (no point wasting a chance to put a few commercial satellites up there or a new telescope) , Land
OT2 -880 t Unmanned test Launch orbit the moon , land 3 rovers at 3 sites for testing for appropriate landing sites, test a possible future manned landing module, land a small 2 person habitat module for future use. Return home and land.
OT3 -880 t Unmanned test Launch Circle mars, land 3 rovers at 3 sites for testing for appropriate landing sites. Return home and land.
OT4-880T 5 Man mission, land on the moon, spend 2 months on surface with ship in orbit. Set up the habitat module and expand with a 2nd module. Return all home and land.
OT5-880T 5 man mission, land on moon, deploy a escape module, a small mining and a small manufacturing module to the habitat, leave a crew of two behind, return home.
OT6-880T Unmanned, launch, be placed in permanent obit of mars.

Second part with development to start after successful OT1 mission with missions to start after straight after OT5. Orion Interplanetary phase
OI1 - 4000T Unmanned test, Launch travel to moon, drop off supplies then travel to mars land and act as a initial habitation module on the red planet.
OI2 -4000T 5 manned mission , travel to moon, drop off supplies then travel to mars and land. Ship will not return. Will contain a mars escape module that will allow all 5 colonists to reach mars obit and dock with the OT6 craft for return home incase of trouble.
OI3-4000T 5 manned mission, land on the moon, ships is not design to return but be joined to the moon base to add more space and manufacturing and mining modules. A new escape module will be added to the base and the option for the 2 men who have been 1.5 to 3 years to return home will be there.

Phase 3 This will be using the Advanced interplanetary and basic interplanetary design depending on mission.
OAI1- 10000 t Unmanned test mission. Will put a Refinery and shipyard in orbit of earth.
OI4- 4000T 8 will be stationed on the new shipyard. 2 will polite the ship to near earth objects and set up automated resource extraction robots. The ship will permanently remain in orbit and travel from NEO/Moon and mars and deliver ore and other resources to the shipyard. Main purpose will be to construct cheap 1 way return capsules for resources and personnel to return to earth. Also fabricate new modules for use on the moon and mars.
OIA2- 10000t 5 man mission 1st part of the mission will be to deliver any needed supplies to the moon and mars, 2nd part of mission will be to Saturn and its moons, aim will be to deploy probes and rovers on its moons to check for resources and good landing spots., priority will be Titan. OIA2 will remain in the solar system for future exploration and transport assignments, crew will be returned home from the shipyard station.

Phase 4 Permanent habitability space station. The design will be 1 8 million ton super Orion. construction to start mid way through stage 2.
SO1-8,000,000 tons. 100 manned. Will place a space station in orbit of earth. will be designed to spin to give centrifugal style artificial "gravity". Purpose will be to allow those living on the moon + the shipyard to rest and recuperate in a "gravity" environment. Will also contain more advanced manufacturing and refining facilities to support the shipyard and production facilities on the moon and mars. Also act as transfer hub for personnel coming up from earth.

OIA3-10000 tons, Transport to transfer 2-4 thousand personnel to the SO space station and moon and mars bases. Ship to be kept in orbit and used for future personal and supplies transport.

OI4- Used to transport and crew habitability module to Titan and place it and a landing team on a appropriate site. colonisation of Titan to proceed.

END OF EARTH BASED ORION LAUNCHES

In the mean time form day one of the Orion project I will be looking into the following 3 method of orbital transfer to provide a non nuclear option.

2) Orbital airship. Basically it is what it says. A airship that can reach LEO. It floats to the very edge of the atmosphere at 33K then uses conventional chemical or electric rockets to get it the rest of the way.
en.wikipedia.org...

Possible use as a earth to LEO personal transport.

3) Skylon: A single-stage-to-orbit spaceplane using the SABRE, a combined-cycle, air-breathing rocket propulsion system, with a designed re-usability up to 200 flights each. Project to cost £650/kg rather than the £15000/Kg that Chem rockets use.
en.wikipedia.org...
Possible use a personal transport and light cargo transport.

4) Space elevator: Again it is what it says a giant elevator that goes form Earth to LEO.
en.wikipedia.org...
Use as a cargo transport.

Would be a long term project.

5) Launch loop also known as a Lofstrom loop is a proposed system for launching objects into space orbit using a moving cable-like system situated inside a sheath attached to the earth at two ends and suspended above the atmosphere in the middle. The design concept was published by Keith Lofstrom and describes an active structure maglev cable transport system that would be around 2,000 km (1,240 mi) long and maintained at an altitude of up to 80 km (50 mi). A launch loop would be held up at this altitude by momentum of a belt that circulates around the structure. This circulation, in effect, transfers the weight of the structure onto a pair of magnetic bearings, one at each end, which support it.

Would make good personnel and cargo transport system with costs as less as $3/kg!
en.wikipedia.org...

Like the space elevator would be a long term project with a long build time. I would favour this over the space elevator.

Hopefully one of these 4 methods would provide a good way to get people and supplies from earth into orbit without the need of a nuclear option.


So ATS what would your ideas be?

edit on 17-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I think you have some great ideas. As for as the technicality of operations, I think the best approach using today's technology is to use heavy lift reusable launch vehicles. The goal here would be lowering space entry cost per pound as low as possible. I think the airship is also a fascinating idea.
More importantly though, I would do everything possible to renew public interests. Probably the best way to do this is to finally get a manned mission to Mars. Not in 30 years, not in 15 years, but more like 5-10 years, since it's difficult to be excited about or even optimistic about such far off plans that probably will change with every administration anyway.
I would also continue this trend towards privatization. This is probably the real key - to find a financial incentive for corporations to explore space outside of tourists paying thousands for 2 minutes of weightlessness. Government space programs,as we've all learned with NASA, go nowhere as inefficiently as possible. It will probably be something related to mining asteroids or helium on the moon. Once the corporate interests takes hold, I think space colonization will occur rapidly.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Ok, I'll bite.

Though the thread is a little ambiguous on the intention of the space program
Be it launching satellite/equipment to space or humans... Each area has their own special needs.

But what I would look at is mag-lev + railgun technology to launch a sled with the rocket/craft on it to mach 4 or some speed near that... then launch it like a ballista bolt (minus the sled).
Then kick in some conventional rockets to kick it the rest of the way.

.: ETA :.
Upgrading the target Mach speed considering the SR71 can do 3,500 km/h.
edit on 17/12/2013 by Sovaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by cleverhans
 


In regards to manned travel... I think the greater incentive would be to not walk on Mars.
But to setup a space base on the Moon.

From there you can create a secondary launch platform for further exploration without the worry of defeating Earth's gravity first.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by cleverhans
 


Yup there to be a heavy launch system.
Nuclear propulsion the best bet short tearm, its design team estimated it could lift 8 million tons for the price of a shuttle launch!

I agree the best way to spark intrest is to do something amazing and quickly. Again orion can do that. The plans from the 1958 predicted 10 years from start to staturn! Plus solid large ships like out of startrek will appeal more than the tin cans we use now.

As for private companys yes they can play a apart but our govements need to help in getting the infrastructure ready.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Sovaka
reply to post by cleverhans
 


In regards to manned travel... I think the greater incentive would be to not walk on Mars.
But to setup a space base on the Moon.

From there you can create a secondary launch platform for further exploration without the worry of defeating Earth's gravity first.


Yeah forward base on the moon first. Its just logical really for the reasons you stated.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Sovaka
Ok, I'll bite.

Though the thread is a little ambiguous on the intention of the space program
Be it launching satellite/equipment to space or humans... Each area has their own special needs.


Thats the point its your space program so you decide the proritys :p



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


That's why I posted an idea that would be safe for either venture



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Since I cannot rule out the Off Worldlier connection I guess I am out. If not that is where I would have started. To acknowledge the hidden technologies would be second and from there an honest reason for space exploration and the importance that reality will play in the future of our planet and resources, our children's educational process and a greater expanse of future technologies to protect our selves from unknown variables.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
None of the space program even happens without the ET input, whether behind the scenes inspiring, or providing a crash site.

So ruling out that....lol. Thats like asking how to design the wedding reception but not renting the facility.

In any case, it wouldn't be with the known and erroneous sciences.

Would like to look into how they grew that mercedes benz from a seed. Was it crystal seed? I've heard they grow on vines, elsewhere and continue to grow in space. Which would mean size wouldn't be a problem either.

Also portals are the way you'd travel long distance. It shouldn't take long. But it would be via cavitation or cold fusion.

Orion? I'd go to Alpha Centauri first, there are humans there.
edit on 17-12-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Had to star and flag you, but you know people do not want to know this yet. This may mean we will have to wait a few more generations. Just a blink of the eye really. We sound like fools because we continue to insist that the world is not flat...



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Once there, I would start with space stations sort of like gas stations on earth.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Your revived Orion Project would only work if you can get it all into orbit for any kind of launch, but not actually using the nuclear detonation itself from launch from Earth.

Here is why:

Domestic issues: people of any country using this type of propulsion to lift out of Earth's gravity would be in a uproar (in today's modern world. I know way back when, we had no issues about detonating nukes all the time above around, on the surface, in the air, in the ocean.......but we are all a bit more educated as to what nuclear fallout can do nowadays) over the possible contamination and radiation exposure from fallout from detonation.

International Issues: The US, and several other countries have all signed nuclear test ban treaties concerning the test of nuclear detonations above ground and in the atmosphere. The original 1963 treaty is pretty much acknowledged to have been what killed this idea in the first place back then. A country can not just ignore these treaties that they have agreed to and start detonating nukes above ground. Other countries would not stand for it.

Environmental Issues: I think we've screwed up the Earth enough as it is. As anxious as I am to get people back out into space, I do not believe it should be at the cost of our environment.

If you can get all your equipment off the Earth and past LEO (other countries would be quite nervous about having something like that in LEO), and construct your space ships from there, and launch from there (or the moon), then I don't see a problem with it then.

So you'll have to use something else to get out of Earth's gravity well. Using nuclear detonations to do so, even short term, would not be a good idea.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Step one: buy rocket
Step two: ???
Step three: profit

Regards,
Rewey



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I posted a similar thread a while ago: "Design your own space mission" www.abovetopsecret.com... where you can read my ideas for a series of missions involving photography.

As for the whole space program in general, I'd just like to see humans doing what they should've done a long time ago: go to Mars, go to asteroids, poor money into new propulsion systems and life support systems instead of pooring it into the so called "defence" and new ways to kill each other.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   

eriktheawful

Domestic issues: people of any country using this type of propulsion to lift out of Earth's gravity would be in a uproar (in today's modern world. I know way back when, we had no issues about detonating nukes all the time above around, on the surface, in the air, in the ocean.......but we are all a bit more educated as to what nuclear fallout can do nowadays) over the possible contamination and radiation exposure from fallout from detonation.

I think we should just ignore the hippies. This is mankinds future at stake here. We ignore them when it comes to war so why not this?


eriktheawful

International Issues: The US, and several other countries have all signed nuclear test ban treaties concerning the test of nuclear detonations above ground and in the atmosphere. The original 1963 treaty is pretty much acknowledged to have been what killed this idea in the first place back then. A country can not just ignore these treaties that they have agreed to and start detonating nukes above ground. Other countries would not stand for it.

I would AMEND the test ban treaty to allow space based launchs. And if i even if it was ignored if the USA or EU did so what? What is anoyone going to do? No one will start ww3 over it.



eriktheawful
Environmental Issues: I think we've screwed up the Earth enough as it is. As anxious as I am to get people back out into space, I do not believe it should be at the cost of our environment.

There wouldnt be any, or it would be minut. Simple was to stop the fall out if place a large metel base at the launch site simple.

eriktheawful

So you'll have to use something else to get out of Earth's gravity well. Using nuclear detonations to do so, even short term, would not be a good idea.

Its the best Idea. Its the only way, there no other way we have at tge moment that would work without some mega construction work.

Mankind is just going to have to bite the bullet.

We should stop ignoreing WHAT IT FRONT OF US! Its out there we can take. We just need to stop being scared of the method.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


You don't have to be a "Hippy" to be worried about the ramifications of how something may impact the environment or people.
Nor can you just amend a treaty. You have to introduce a new treaty and get other countries to ratify it.

Wars have been fought over less, and started over less (look at us the USA....we bomb people all the time without a second thought).

The Orion Project is right now the only real technology we have that would allow us to reach the nearest stars within, or just outside a single generation. Other groups have looked at it and amended the idea. However, they all involve launching such a craft from orbit or from places like the moon. All you need to do is get the stuff needed into orbit or set up the infrastructure on the moon.

We already have the knowledge, technology and infrastructure to get people and cargo out of Earth's gravity well without involving the detonation of nuclear material. You even listed other methods that we can use (or are close to in technology) that can be used that also do not involve detonating nuclear bombs inside of the Earth biosphere.

Many of those other methods are a lot safer, though some of them are not without risks. Take the space elevator for example:

If it suffered a catastrophic failure (IE the cable or tether parts), depending on where that happened (say quite far out from LEO to Geosynchronous orbit), it would fall to Earth along the length of the equator.

Depending upon it's diameter and what it is made up of, it would either burn up as it did so (would be the best thing to happen), or instead, it would survive reentry and would impact at orbital speed........all along the equator.
A single meteor impact can be bad. Having the same thing happen in a continuous line around the Earth? Very bad.

So even non-nuclear options might pose a threat.

However, if it were up to me, I'd use the already existing infrastructure to get stuff up into orbit or on the moon and expand from there, even possibly using the Orion propulsion once it's in space to get to other places.
Meanwhile, I'd expand research into other areas for getting out of Earth's gravity well, especially if I have the budge to do so.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   

eriktheawful


You don't have to be a "Hippy" to be worried about the ramifications of how something may impact the environment or people.

If it irrational fear then your a hippie


Thing is most the saftey problems with Orion can be eliminated or near eliminated to a point were it less risky than half the stuff we presently do, even the fallout.


eriktheawful
Nor can you just amend a treaty. You have to introduce a new treaty and get other countries to ratify it.

Then do it. We should at least try.


Thing is with your way you reach the same place as my way but slower. Problem with the slow approach is people lose intrest. My way we could be flying round saturn with a decade, that would get people intrest going.

edit on 18-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Actually, your way is slower.

Again: we already have the infrastructure in place to get things into space NOW. You said "if" we had a unlimited budget in your OP.

We can already get stuff to build NOW. Using the rockets we have NOW. Building said rockets (that have been designed, tested, and used) NOW.

Did you see the response to applications for the one way trip to Mars?? Do the same for Human Orbital Colonies. Do the same for a colony on the Moon.....and watch the number of applications.

We already have everything we need to do those things NOW. And we could be doing them NOW.

Not spending years waiting to redesign the original Orion Project (and the manufacture of the propulsion system), design, placement and building of the launching systems...and the ship itself (which includes all the testing...the failures and redesigns that go with them, etc.

Instead, you could get lots of people up there NOW and start making things up there to build your Orion ships in orbit, or on the moon.

BTW - I'm sure people thought that anyone worried about Fukushima were having unreasonable fears too............



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   

eriktheawful


BTW - I'm sure people thought that anyone worried about Fukushima were having unreasonable fears too............


Huge diffrence between the two.

This what annoys me. People see nuclear and lumb it all together in 1 catagary.


Problem is with sending people on one way trips useing convential means is that the intial resources they will have to start off with will be small as you can only get a a few tons in orbit at a time useing current means. This makes early colonisation attempts more dangrous.

With a dozen Orion launchs from you could anything you want in orbit or on the moon/mars plus redundant safty features. Infact if you jump straight to makeing the large orions you could probably put everything you need in orbit in just 2 or 3 launches then never have to worry about launching anther one ever again.



And yeah the problems you pointed out with the space elavator concern me too, which is why I would be for in favour of the launch loop. Though the Skylon program seems very promising and orbital airships although useless for delivering any sort of heavy payload could be a simple way to get humans up to a LEO transfer station.
edit on 18-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join