/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9617193

Once they can refine raw resources to whatever materials they need while in space, then you could see large ships being built.

I don't know if they will be ever be built but one thing I'm sure is they won't be like that.

A spaceship the size of a modern aircraft carrier would need heat radiators the size of jamaica

We would need to be able to build in space first.
>>9617209
This pretty much.

>>9617193
>Building it in space like the space station doesn't seem feasible for anything large scale and solid.
Why doesn't it seem feasible?

>>9617522
Doesn't the fact that the object your trying to build is constantly moving is a problem to you? You'd have to send parts and keep them somewhere while a team assembles it all the while in space.

>>9617558
The Sun and the Earth and everything else is constantly moving.
You decide on an orbit and the delivery rockets home in on it.
They just dump out their cargo and maybe tie light lines to it so it doesn't drift away.
There's no wind and no major forces acting on anything. Except for residual motions imparted by the workmen, everything stays where it's put.

Really large structures can ONLY be built in space. Like a telescope with a mirror five miles across.

>>9617371 is correct. Almost all SF spaceships are stupid designs.

I'm venture they'd be assembled in space with a way to cheaply send the components up bit by bit. On that I'm thinking space elevator...? Is that the only idea to send things very cheaply into space we have right now?

>>9617209

This is the correct answer. Currently everything has to be made of what will fit on top of a big tube.

>>9617695
not even close, we got multiple ways, some of which can be made with existing, mass producible materials and tech

>>9617789
Which ones are the most promising (cheapest) and most practicable (uses as much current tech as possible)?

>>9617805
Probably launch loops or orbital rings, though orbital rings require a significant amount of material to make and would probably demand some degree of space industry to manufacture

>>9617193
>aerodynamic design
>in space

OK scifi tards, time to stop

>>9617828
>no fun allowed
people will make a ship however the fuck they want, if they are the ones paying for it to be built

Does a spaceship really need to be any shape at all if it is never is intended to land on or take off from planets?

if humans invent advanced ai and put it in independant robots that can do what humans do, then yes, we could see large spaceships. The robots could take their time building them. Robots can live forever. So they could work on a spaceship for thousands of years if need be.

>>9617849
Robots need maintenance

>>9617840
needs to be able to handle its thrust
needs to have a center of gravity in line with the thrust
need to optimally use resources for construction

>>9617856
>Robots need maintenance
right, they'd maintain themselves.

>>9617838
you're telling me some megacorp who is spending billions on building a big ship is not fully utilizing every possible square inch of this thing. That the money spent on huge spaceships (as mentioned in OP) would be wasted on aesthetics?

Sure for small pointless shit that the elite have built, I agree with you. But if you're looking at any true sense of purpose you're not going to be worrying about aesthetics. Well except for the iShip 1S

>>9617193
Once we figure out how to weld in space then we can build space ships like we build any big ship here on earth. The problem with big ships is that every extra ounce of non-fuel needs exponentially more fuel. We don't have anything efficient enough to make big stuff worth the effort

>>9617879
>iship 1S

>>9617901
welding in space is no different to welding on Earth
the problem is that NASA is a buncha faggots who deliberately no nothing in space