/sci/ - Science & Math

> didn't mention artificial gravity
> thread will still be 99% about simulating it via centrifuges

Bump

propulsion= a long, vacuum filled tube made of nanotubes, extending out of earths atmosphere at a tangent to the planet & ion thrusters

simulate gravity with a centrifuge

>>1037701
There's different types of centrifuges though.

Maybe your entire spacecraft is divided into two counter-rotating cylinders. Or maybe it has an internal flywheel and a rotating swing-carousel system so that you can maintain the artificial gravity even while accelerating.

bump for awesome

Fuel = Should be anti matter, or nuclear.
Life support = Big ship, and alot of stable plant

For radiation protection use lead

ITT: ask a bunch of trolls to become NASA engineers

>>1038901
Nasa engineers you say?

Lol.

humancentepeid

>>1039024
This.
Is.
The shit.
I support this thread.

I propose a dual-mode propulsion system. An onboard bi-mode nuclear reactor could power nuclear pulse propulsion and be used for atmospheric or strategic maneuvering to burn a bimodal rocket system.

The nuclear reactor could generate thermal and electrical energy to help sustain life support. Using conventional membranes, CO2 could be removed from the atmosphere and oxygen could be replenished from water electrolysis. There also must be a way to remove carbon from CO2.

Waste management could be as simple as the current technologies available on shuttles.

For landing I recommend a Harrier-type of thruster/gear system, using the hydrogen/nuclear rockets thrusters.

The construction of the ship would likely have to be twin, mono-piece shells with a regenerative buffer between the two. You'd like to avoid space dust creating holes as much as possible, so a regenerative bullet-proof glass-like mechanism could be alright. Carbon shells are conceivable.

Depleted uranium is a conceivable radiation protection material and aerogel could be used for thermal insulation of the avionics and the cabin.

This design does require fuel cells to be present for thrusters.

I have no idea how much all of this would cost...

>>1039101

I'm guessing that it would be possible to protect the aerogel using some kind of highly heat-resistant material. Tiles are too brittle. Electromagnetic repulsion could also be used on the shell to protect against space dust.

>>1039101
a lot. not sure if it would cost more than the shuttle though.

>>1039151

>protect the aerogel

why does aerogel need protection from heat?

>>1039151

While this craft uses a different kind of atmospheric navigation )spoiler), thermal energy from atmospheric friction could be an issue.

... I was having vision of glass-coated aerogel...

>>1039170

Not from heat but from physical damage.

>>1039211
I see. I misread your post then.

Electromagnetic shielding would only be partially effective against debris and space dust, a dual system which incorporates both a physical shielding and an EM shield would be the most effective.

... Yeah.

NASA is experimenting with a quartz honeycomb structure for heat shielding...

Quartz(aerogel(depleted uranium(carbon-60 shell(regenerative filler(carbon shell(avionics(cabin

Two things: in areogell would be great fr insulation, since it is INCREADABLY light and an INCREADABLE insulator, both perfect properties for a spaceship.

Second, to cut costs, the ship shouldn't be used for landing on planets; earth or otherwise. This is because weight would be a problem for a ship like that (long mission = heavy craft). Best use planet to ship ferries like the (now scraped) space shuttle and have a mars lander seperate from the ship. Cuts cost, and the lander could be used like an escape pod in case of emergancies.

I hear alot of VTOL ideas, probably in response to Avatar, butthink about weight and the thrust needed to life a craft of that size. It's unrealistic

That's my two cents

> cheaper then
cheaper, and then current options?
maybe you meant cheaper THAN
how can you americans fail at your own damn language?

>>1039270
>how can you americans fail at your own damn language?

>Americans... your own language

wat

>>1039270

To be fair, it's England's language and not theirs. They even accept the incorrect spelling of some words (like colour) because they don't know any better.

>>1039263
>aerogel
Melting point is too low

>>1039280
Poster means "the language you speak natively" by "your own". You fail too, for not knowing this.

>>1039299
>>1039289
>>1039270
chill out. someone used incorrect grammar, it happens, point it out and move on. you really don't need to turn it into an orgy of blatant generalizations based on an individuals geographic location.

Hm, first stage space shutle thrust required is 1,225,704 lbf.

Current typical bimodal rocket engines output 15,000 lbf.

Perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves in designing a ship capable of space travel AND landing capabilities.

Nuclear reactors + aircraft is a very, very bad idea. I don't think spacecraft can handle it better.

DONE

This thread is now about renewable and cost effective orbital stations.

Before finding a destination, we should first ensure we are capable of getting off this planet.

For point 4. Can we make it so it doesn't need to enter earth's atmosphere so we can design ignoring air resistance? Use a conventional shuttle to get people into space then use the spaceplane of the future purely for mars and back to earths orbit

>>1039386

Radio isotope generators have been used on spacecraft and rovers in the past.

>>1039302
anon is right. aerogels melting point is 1,200°C (2,200°F), shuttle reentry temperature reached 1650°C (3000°F)

>>1039386
You see this plane?

It had a nuclear reactor powering it.

>>1039405

Short term (Now):
Sea Dragon
Super Nexus Nuclear Gas-Core

Near term (Five to ten years):
Spaceplanes (Skylon, scramjets)

Long term (Twenty years):
Lofstrom Loop
Space Elevator

>>1039302

for reentry, yes. But if the ship deosnt need to enter the atmosphere and instead uses a shuttle system, areogel will work perfectly.

>>1039430
I can dig it

>>1039431
I looked up sea dragon orbital station.
I found a page with this on it
does that mean we get to build a longassmotherfuckingrailgun?

>>1039101
nuclear pulse propulsion would radiate the earth

>>1039302

That sucks.

>>1039431

A launch loop. Where? The Sahara desert?...

What else to do with a huge sandbox?

>>1039460

That's fun, but you still need to get to the space station.

I propose a combination of scramjet and VASMIR engines. You use Scram jets to get a very high altitude, After you get to a high enough point activate
boosters. Then enter a spiral around the earth(pic related) then once in space use the VASMIR engines to get to mars in only 39 days. Yay for no rocket fuel.

>>1039409
>For point 4. Can we make it so it doesn't need to enter earth's atmosphere so we can design ignoring air resistance? Use a conventional shuttle to get people into space then use the spaceplane of the future purely for mars and back to earths orbit
>spaceplane
>never enters the atmosphere

what the fuck am i reading

>>1039461
I don't think it's possible to actually radiate entire earths. That'd probably take some kind of cosmic-scale engine the likes of which we wouldn't be able to comprehend.

Irradiating small patches of the earth on the other hand...

Getting into orbit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_Skylon
Getting to mars:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/11/vasimr-engines-plus-200-mw-of-nuclear.html

The rest i hire some engineers to solve.

bump

It's
shuttles
all
the
way
down.