Hey, your mentioning nuclear furnaces here.
Well it could hardly be a coal fired furnace now could it?
Perhaps we can just call it a furnace and leave it at that?
Because i believe that spacecraft will require a hell of lot more fine tunning then an almost non-moving orbital superstructure, not to mention a more hand on approach.
I don't understand.
There is no such thing as a non moving orbital superstructure... to remain in orbit it needs to maintain that orbit, which means propulsion and the ability to manouver to avoid the largest debris in orbit.
It makes more sense to completely build modules on the ground and then sit them on the back of a large rocket like Buran is placed on the back of an energyia rocket. Once placed in orbit other modules can be docked to it and then a whole lot of smaller tank based rockets can then ferry fuel up to the finally built module based long range space ship.
Having some sort of manned space port would just add to the cost... you have to get the whole port up there in addition to all the components and fuel as well as fuel for the port to retain its orbit etc etc...
Building up a spaceship in orbit would be just as easy in open space as the modules themselves would allow internal access to systems and external work can be done via space walks or robots.
Hopefully most of the assembly would be done on earth minimising the amount of work in space to perhaps docking and turning things on.
Basically the dock is meant to house workers there supplies and equipment while earth sends the modular components to be assembled, similar to how the Americans build there aircraft carriers.
The cost of building a structure to house all those workers, and the risk of working in space would not make it viable. the 300 ton ISS cost billions and takes from 6 to 12 people.
It would make rather more sense to build modules on the ground and just dock them together in space and then when you are ready to leave earth orbit you load it up with fuel and supplies and accelerate away.
Ok, so who's going to maintain those "remote miners", where will these maintainers be housed, how is the water going to get extracted, where are they gonna find a rocket foul production facility, how are the maintainers gonna come and go from moon.
Why do you think adding people is the solution? How many people has the US sent to maintain that robot rolling all over Mars.
Not having to send humans is a huge advantage... it makes it cheaper and simpler... send a drilling machine weighing 3 tons to the Moon and it might require 40 tons of fuel to get it there. A human to maintain and operate it will weigh perhaps 80-100kgs but will require several tons of food and air to breath and water and might therefore require an additional 120 tons of fuel to get to the moon AND BACK. Drilling equipment can be left to either continue drilling, or lie dormant waiting until it is needed again.
Drilling by remote control wont be easy, but once mastered can be sent on very long range missions to asteriods and the moons of other planets... the mining results could help pay the costs of the otherwise scientifically interesting missions.
The Russians have developed a fuel cell that runs on Diesel fuel... imagine a moon near the triple point of methane... ie methane exists as a solid, a liquid and a gas on this small moon. Now imagine that AIP technology adapted to work with methane to generate electricity using the moons atmosphere...
See what i mean, at the end of the day before we go underground we'll need to prepare the infrastructure above ground first, which will still require some level of colonization.
Why?
Is it because that is what is shown in movies and sci fi tv shows?
A drilling machine that collects up the material it is drilling and can perform some basic analysis to determine what it is drilling could be landed on the surface and the first thing it does is drill down 5 metres and then start drilling sideways to create tunnels, using radar to look at the structure of rock to make sure it wont collapse and perhaps determine the structure and type of material around it.
The unwanted material can be collected up and moved to spoil piles near the surface, where it could be pumped into bags and used as a building material similar to sand bags on earth.
A few months analysing the material being dug out and we will have some idea of the value of mining in that area and also the potential for building underground and above ground structures.
Water content and rock structure and strength will influence decisions of where to dig.
The problem with the moon is still distance, and i think you just proved my point, think how easier it'll be to colonize the Moon or even Mars if we can avoid Earths atmosphere by building construction and launch platforms in our own orbit.
Hahahahaha.... sorry, but that is like saying NZ isn't so far away from Europe once you get to the US... building in orbit is hard and still has the problem of leaving earths atmosphere.
Having the construction facilities and the vast majority of the construction manpower in orbit makes it much harder and more expensive than having them all on the ground and launching them in loads and assembling and fuelling them in space.
A rocket going to mars will be hundreds of tons if not thousands of tons but 90% of that weight will be fuel. That means assembling three main 100 ton modules would require three Energyia launches of 100-120 tons each, and then dozens of launches to fuel the space craft with thousands of tons of rocket fuel. Constructing a 300 ton space ship in space and then launching up the rocket fuel would take dozens of launches for the space craft components and dozens more for the fuel... and would take years to assemble in space all the while vulnerable to impacts. In comparison construction on the ground is quicker, easier, safer, cheaper, though if one of the three launch vehicles fails and you lose one third of your space ship there could be problems...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
...
