/sci/ - Science & Math

bump

>1.Large upfront cost

biologyfag here, dont know much about outer space other than terraforming theories.

Anyway, I like your logic. My only question is how long this orbit is? It could be inefficient, no?

And on a realistic note, I seriously doubt we have a single politician visionary enough to fund lunar development. Hell, these are the people that barely gave out money for the Genome Projects...

>>1208100
Voters think moon bases are cool

>1.Large upfront cost
Yeah right, why not One Shuttle Per Child while you're at it?

Not a bad idea, I like it.

My orbital mech is a bit rusty, but what you're proposing is essetially a transfer orbit, like the Hohhmann transfer used to get to Mars, right?

>>1208162
Yep then use that from the moon to get to mars
1/6 earth gravity=happy spaceships

>nuke drive
>relatively low upfront cost
>relatively low operating costs
>extreme Δv

>>1208217
there is a treaty banning nukes in space

if we have the money for the initial investment, there's no reason not to just make a space elevator (of tether or fountain variety, either of which we can do today).

>>1208311
>nuclear warheads=/=nuclear engines

>>1208326

Space Elevators can't be done with today's tech. However, in ten years we'll have the nanotech to do it.

Lofstrom Loops for the win.

Also fuck yeah the Bifrost Bridge a.k.a Lightcraft.

>>1208337
we have the technology to do everything now, and have for a long time. when people say 'we don't have the technology' what they mean is 'we can't gather the common support' (funding). if we know how it would be done, we know how to do it. we'd have to invent plenty of new tools to get it done, but the same is true for any large construction.

and that's only the tether design, we could build a fountain this minute. the technology is already being implemented for conventional construction, radio towers.

>>1208406

>we have the technology to do everything now,

>Current technology is not capable of manufacturing practical engineering materials that are sufficiently strong and light to build an Earth-based space elevator.

From Wikipedia (Sue me)

>>1208423
>not capable of manufacturing practical engineering materials

the key word here is 'practical'. it's impractical due to the cost. and it will always be impractical until the stasis-seeking majority believes otherwise. just like the electric car, roadable aircraft, free wireless broadband, wireless power, solar/wind/etc. renewable power, etc.

they've all been possible ever since the first crazed engineer imagined them (the industrial revolution), and have taken so long to propagate solely because people are resistant to any change, even change for the better.

A new spaceplane is a lot cheaper then a space elevator

bump

>>1208507
i'm not sure i was clear hear, it's impractical due to the ECONOMIC cost, which is determined almost exclusively by demand. demand is practically non-existent so the cost is stratospheric (heh pun).

troll threads get bumped but a plan to make a moon transfer network does not

/sci/ i am disappoint

>>1208010
Good idea OP

Now go do it!

I've been contacted by some kind of artificial intelligence that wants to help me reclaim control of the Von Braun from whomever... or whatever is now in charge. I don't know where it came from, but I must confess I'm happy it is here.

you would need to get your space plane up to orbital speed at the fastest point in the orbit. If you need to get to the same velocity as the station why not just make the trip in your ship?

Also, I would imagine that the savings in fuel from having a jet engine for maybe 50km in the atmosphere would be lost by the fact that your rockets will have a shit ton more mass for the next 200km, since they have to push the engines and wings (which would have to be pretty heavy with all the heat shields etc). Also, it wouldnt be able to just eject the fuel tank like a shuttle to reduce mass (as this defeats the whole reusuable thing).

>>1209029
So what would be a good alternative?

>>1209067
Space cannon, fuck yeah!

>>1209067
A space shuttle like is currently used. Traveling away from earth takes energy, as you need to overcome your gravitational potential energy. You cant cheat and use a space station to get you further from earth than your kinetic energy would normally allow. The whole station thing is an unecessary step, since everything that goes up will need to be paid for in fuel. It would be easier to just take your VASIMR or whatever up with the shuttle.

The whole jet thing would only be a good idea if it was light enough that the gains early on would outweigh the excess mass it adds, which i dont think would be the case.

Since space shuttles are reusable anyway, apart from the fuel tanks, the only thing that would really make for cheaper trips to the moon would be a new generation of more sophisticated shuttles, which i think NASA is doing anyway

>>1209103
pic related. Could work if it was long enough, the mouth tall enough, and the accelleration smooth enough.

>>1209131
Forgot my pic :(

>>1209106
>you cant cheat and use a space station to get you further from earth than your kinetic energy would normally allow
I really don't see why not

>>1209106
>Elliptical orbits won't take you farther away from the earth

WTFAMIREADING

>>1209138
If a launch rail is ever actually developed, it'd mean Jules Verne was right YET AGAIN, the fucker.

As you dock and undock from the 3 space stations, there is a risk of deorbiting one of the 3 stations. The highly eliptical space station will be at most risk of collissions because elliptical orbits can be unstable.

All 3 space stations would need Vasimir's.

The air breathing high altitude to leo jet? How would that work? You pretty much need a flying aircraft carrier for that.

Build the flying aircraft carrier, and make it bigger than a B-52 then you might have a big enough piggy back to get you from air to LEO. Even then I think the aircraft that took off that floating aircraft carrier would need boosters too.

>>1209479
>As you dock and undock from the 3 space stations, there is a risk of deorbiting one of the 3 stations. The highly eliptical space station will be at most risk of collissions because elliptical orbits can be unstable. All 3 space stations would need Vasimir's.

Problem solved
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-vehicles/hydrogen-powered-nasa-vasimr-to-be-
tested-on-iss/

>>1209479
>The air breathing high altitude to leo jet? How would that work? You pretty much need a flying aircraft carrier for that.
>Build the flying aircraft carrier, and make it bigger than a B-52 then you might have a big enough piggy back to get you from air to LEO. Even then I think the aircraft that took off that floating >aircraft carrier would need boosters too.


http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre.html

bump

>>1208010
(Con)
Once on the moon build factories there to create more space infrastructure. In the long run it's cheaper to launch things off of the moon. I envision a future where the only things carried off of earth is humans. Then once you have a lunar industry going you can create an orbital shipyard to create a fleet of interplanetary spacecraft. So that we can reliably colonize the red planet.

1.can you know the exact position and momentum of a particle at the same time?
Why?

2.You: If an astronaut on the moon drops his or her pen, will it:
A) Float away
B) Remain floating where it was dropped
C) Fall to the surface of the moon?

Why?

3.The _____ off a planets orbital peroid is proportional to the ______ of its _______

4.What is the equasion for photosyntheisis?

5.How does the sun produce energy? what is it primarily made up of, and what state of matter is it?

6.What is an solar eclipse?

7.Why is the moon red during a total lunar eclipse?
Why?

8.What is hotter blue or red fire?
Why?

9.Explain the life of a star

10.How old is the universe?

Why don't we just use light craft?

There's probably a lot of delicious resources there, too. He3, HELL YEAH FUSION POWER!

Protip for you OP: If you don't want to sound like an astromech n00b you need to replace the word elliptical with eccentric when you're talking about orbits. All orbits are elliptical to some degree, and this degree is known as eccentricity.

>>1209902
I know i know

>>1209858
Because they'll make you gay.

>>1209971

>>1209302
>>1209375
Total energy = kinetic energy + gravitational potential energy

Elliptical orbits (or eccentric or whatever the fuck they are called) have constant total energy. You trade GPE for KE at the lowest point and vice versa at the farthest point. Since to dock with the station without destabilising its orbit you have to be at the same speed and trajectory, and thus same KE and GPE per unit mass, riding on the space station has no advantage, since you already have the same energy as it. In fact, in order to dock you will be entering the same orbit as the station. So your options if you want to be in this orbit are
a) perform a complicated and risky docking procedure with an expensive station during a limited window when the launch point, orbit and moon are aligned properly
or
b) do not perform a complicated and risky docking procedure with an expensive station and get identical results with fewer restrictions on the times at which you can launch

An elliptical orbit would certainly take you further from earth, but having a fancy space station unfortunatly doesnt allow us to violate conservation of energy

>>1210120
then find a new way to dock with it

>>1210120
Stop killing my fun I just want to do this IRL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Q3X5Gw5I4

>>1210120
Thank you for the constructive criticism

>>1210150
Would'nt work. If you have less velocity than the station (so if you got in front of it then tryed to jump on as it passed) it would have to accelerate you, meaning it gives you energy and it slows down, so the orbit will be destabilised quickly.

So unless you shoot the astronauts and all their shit out of some big cannon (good luck findinhg volunteers for that) it won't work.

If you are going to shoot some kind of smaller vessel from the shuttle to the station, why not just use the small vessel to take the last leg down to the moon?

>>1210231
What about using the stations so that we don't have to build big expensive spaceships. Its much cheaper to build 3 separate spacecraft(earth to LEO, earth orbit to lunar orbit, lunar orbit to lunar surface). Its like building a private plane is cheaper then building a F-22

>>1210267
That would work as far as the physics goes, but the logistics would probably be a nightmare. Coordinating all those dockings would likely suck. Also, without getting the shuttle to orbital speed, i don't know how it would still be there in a few months when its time for re-entry, so you might have to have some kind of re-entry vehicle on your station too

>>1210372

Just use computer controlled docking

>>1210372
The ISS keeps a soyuz vechile for reentry if they need it

Hey guys, since the biggest problem is to bring reactive mass up there, wouldn't it be possible to build magnetic ramp on the Earth space station and the Lunar one and use them to propel a capsule between one and the other ?

Obviously the ramp would need to be long and with a powerful acceleration, but if the space station have enough mass, and by switching the direction you could keep the orbit mostly circular.

Plus if you can "catch" the capsule at the reception.

No money, no job, all we need is a choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXdAIJK62Qc&feature=related

>>1212994
No need a VASIMR shuttle would only need sunlight and argon to get from station to station

>>1208761
No. We LACK a sufficiently strong material to build it. We can't make such a material economically or uneconomically.

In fact, we currently haven't even got THEORIES on how to even approach producing a strong enough material.

>but carbon nanotubes...
aren't magic and aren't strong enough even if we could make strands of singular tubes that were 40000 kilometers long.
>but carbon n...
no, they aren't
>but
NO

>>1213150
and plus how to the hell are you suposed to get from the elevator to the orbiting station

>>1213162
wouldn't the elevator and the station be connected?

>>1213162
see
>>1213165

But still, unless you can come up with something better than CNT, then it's still a no.

Is Vasmir the one that uses antimatter? Or is it the nuclear one?

Why are you guys talking about this anyway? I thought Nasa ended the manned space flight program.

>>1213100
Argon is still reactive mass, but if you mean that it is extremely economical/efficient : I'm thinking about going from Earth orbit to the Moon orbit, I'll see if it can be fast enough to go through the Van Allen Belt without exposing the crew too long.

>>1213162
That the bigger problem with Space Elevator, to build it you would need to have already an excellent access to space.

>>1213165
not if its on a eccentric orbit

A space elevator is a stupid idea

let it go

>>1213200
Worried about Ban Allen belt?
>The physicists Robert P. Hoyt and Robert L. Forward proposed the concept HiVOLT (High Voltage Orbiting Long Tether) as a potential means to drain the radiation belt of high energy particles. The proposal involves deploying highly electrically charged tethers from satellites in orbit. Charged particles within the radiation belt encountering these tethers would be deflected by their large electrostatic fields onto paths that intersect with the atmosphere, where they would be harmlessly dissipated. Simulations have suggested that the inner belt could be drained to 1% of its natural electron flux within two months of HiVOLT operation.

>>1213240
You're a stupid idea.

>>1213240
It's not a stupid idea, we just don't have the materials technology to make it.

Still, remember that we still could make one on Mars with current tech.

>>1213263

It IS a stupid idea though.

Sure it's technically possible but it's also massively vulnerable to attack.

>>1213267
By terrorists or UFO's?

>>1213267
no its the monoliths we have to worry about

bump

bump

the thing is its cheaper and more technologically doable to make a SSTO spaceplane then a space elevator.

bump

Sorry OP, Hohmann already thought up the cheapest way, though the longest

The main advantage of the space station step is by fueling on the space station you are breaking up one big launch phase into a few smaller ones.

Think about it this way: If you have to bring all your fuel with you on your initial spacecraft, the mass increases as you add more fuel. But if you bring your fuel up separately, your launch vehicle on the shuttle doesn't have to be as big.

You use the same energy expenditure (delta V * KG) to get it all into orbit, but you don't have to design as massive a launch phase.

That is, unless you are somehow

>>1213962
*unless you somehow get fuels from space which would require less delta-v * KG

>>1213965
Water on the moon for liquid oxygen

bump

>>1213958
lulz from the preview image I thought it was something orbiting some guy with sunglasses.

non op bump

bump

I never heard what problems there were with a large electromagnet cannon.

We'd make a large Maglev-like inclined plane to launch things into orbit, facing the ocean, just in case someone doesn't convert imperial to metric.

>>1213962
Actually the REAL advantage of doing it step by step is to reduce the complexity and the weight of each vehicle by specializing them.
You only need an aerodynamic profile for an atmospheric shuttle, you don't need landing gear on a Orbit to Orbit spaceship, and you only need landing gear on an airless planet lander.

The type of fuel/remass can also change depending of availability.

>>1215033
Also this

>>1208006
ｗｗＷ._ＡNＯN_+_M_-_ｍ_+_ｔaＬｋ_.ｓｅ hfx c xviv p jkwnrmkq up kunyowuf pwpn u rnb ynsamsdcc

bump

>>1214846
Monies. Shits expensive.