/sci/ - Science & Math

what do you mean by true orbital construction? i thought the ISS was build up there

>>6956750
I mean for the construction of single spacecraft that are far too large to lift off from the earth's surface, and could be much better designed if it could be built all-at-once, like a normal ship or building. The ISS is definitely impressive, but it had to be assembled modularly over time and rocketed up piece by piece. It's purpose is not for constructing other heavy spacecraft without dealing with the huge gravity of the Earth; it's more just an experimental habitat. And so far it has cost far more than any other single building project in mankind's history (not that that you wouldn't expect it)

>>6956746
It will take an extremely long time. To have proper construction you need all the industry, so you will need smelters, energy production (we don't use electricity to power smelters)... all the way to glass construction, an epic dock that can fit what you are constructing. It is basically trying to construct something on a new country/island with nothing. I suspect it will happen after we are a space faring species (if ever).

>>6956746
I thought this was a Wildberger thread :^(

>>6956789
maybe nuclear power could be used to generate energy/heat for smelting/welding/etc?. Once a single "shipyard" is built, we would easily be able to build other shipyards/habitats/docks using it. It'd just be getting over that first enormous hurdle of creating the first one itself along with building the infrastructure and industry to support it

Building shit on the moon would make more sense. or in lunar orbit with parts manufactured on the moon from local materials.

Too bad there's no way to get something like a cargo airplane to be able to escape earth gravity

And then even if you could get it into orbit, you'd have to slow it down from re-entry speeds every time... fucking space

And what about the extremely deadly gamma radiation that permeates your ship once you leave low earth orbit/the earth's magnetic field?

>>6956789
>we don't use electricity to power smelters
you wot?

>>6956865
Maybe you could use a powerful electromagnet as a radiation shield. It could create a "bubble" around your ship that deflects ionized particles n' shit

>I think ideas like "space elevators" are retarded, and I cant see a working/economical method where we get enough raw materials off the earth and into space to do any significant expansion (or am I wrong?)
You've got to get raw materials from somewhere, recycling debris is definitely not enough for a big ship. The most obvious choice aside from Earth is the Moon and to get stuff from the moon an elevator is a very practical choice and feasible with current technology levels.

>>6956746
>How long until true orbital construction is a reality?

It will never happen. You've watched too many scifi movies where there's ZERO energy cost to get anything done in the story. In reality the energy and overall economic cost means that NOTHING will be done off-Earth. We're stuck here on Earth since we insist on getting a big fat ROI on our investments every fucking year.

>>6956889
I like this idea, it sounds somewhat feasible. The moon is not exactly the most resource abundant place, but it's still far more effective than trying to bring shit from earth or to try and mine a passing asteroid...

It would OFC be far far easier for payloads to escape the Moon's gravity.... All the mining/production/industry would happen on a manned facility on the surface, and all the actual ship assembly would happen in lunar orbit, as it would be much easier to launch cargo off the moon than off the earth.

The biggest hurdle in this case is building the original habitat/production/mining facility on the moon in the first place... All the parts would have to be brought over from earth on small rockets.

And before anyone is willing to even start going on manned spaceflight missions (even to the moon), we are going to need a better way to protect ourselves from space radiation. Until this problem is solved no one is ever going to seriously even consider manned space expansion.

>>6956746
There is a lot of orbital debris out there, but it would definitely have to be taken to a manned processing/recycling facility (maybe one on the moon?) to be made useful

>>6958447
>The moon is not exactly the most resource abundant place
What do you think it's made of?

>>6956746
>Right now we just use rockets, and that is the greatest limiting factor towards all our space endeavors thus far.
No, the greatest limiting factor is that there's simply no demand for the things outside earth orbit that is high enough to create a supply that generates a profit.

>>6956746

orbital construction isn't as easy and straightforward as it seems, and kinda unfeasible for large structures.

>>6958585
>orbital construction isn't as easy and straightforward as it seems, and kinda unfeasible for large structures.
It is basically a hard version of constructing stuff on a uninhabited desert or on the moon. Actually the moon is significantly easier do to not being in orbit and having gravity to move things in one direction.

>>6956857
>the moon
>not Mars
Ya fucked up

>>6958715
>Ya fucked up
no u.

More than double surface gravity, no magnetic field to protect you from radiation,
atmospheric pressure at half a percent of earth's, making it pretty much a vacuum, no helium-3.

>>6958797
Why is there no Helium 3?
Mars gets solar wind.

>>6958606
its all for shit if we cant even get the thing off the moon.

Thats why it needs to be assembled in-orbit. At least until we make some revolutionary new flying ship technology that allows us to just cruise on to and off of planets

>spend years building 60,000 mile space elevator
>asteroid flies through it

>>6959229
Fun thinking.
>spend years living on Earth
>asteroid flies through it

>Spend years living
>Aging kills you

What exactly should we do then?

>>6959214
just need a ship w/ a nice gravity drive, M8