$700 million dream.

[rhapsodyinspace2]

MeteorWayne,I thank you for being the pragmatist and keeping me grounded ideologically, But dang it don’t keep me grounded physically! Lol

I would spend a lot of time and effort going into the mathematics of salvage recovery and get several pieces of debris at a time. If the Space Shuttle can dock to the Hubble, I could have computer models to keep from wasting valuable resources and docking with the debris.

It wouldn’t be like I would get up every day and run all over orbit all day wasting fuel. It would be a computer model. When it has debris to target for capture, boom…get the robotic tug out and get it.

First salvaging option would be spent rocket stages to start off with. Then moving into defunct satellite recovery. As to weather its with the satellites owners permission or if they have been abandoned that would have to be worked out!(Besides I could have my tug wait in orbit of the I.S.S. and next time maybe I can salvage a neato tool bag without having to go to home depot? Lol )( Umm…..OK, I would return the tool bag for a sandwich! Lol )

Does anyone know how much the Space Shuttle spent in fuel( Fuel spent in orbit only) in orbit just getting to the Hubble and then leaving the Hubble?

But you are right I need to learn more of the physics of this! But I am willing to learn! So where do I go from here?

 

[MeteorWayne]

OK, at least you're listening. It took everything the STS had to get to the Hubble. That's4.5 million lbs of LOX and LH2, plus the two SRB's which provide most of the thrust at liftoff.

After they got there, they had no propellant left to do anything but decelrate and go back to earth. They could not change the plane of their orbit (very important for salvage) and could not incease their altitude , only decrease it (If they wanted to come back, that is)

You seem to think that rocket bodies are in common orbits where you can make one change and get to multiple objects. It ain't like that. Every object is in it's own orbit. Changing altitude is possible, changing the plane (inclination) of the orbit costs massive amounts of propellant. Every plane change costs you more fuel than you could likely carry. That's why the LON (Launch On Need) mission was on the pad for the Hubble mission, because there was no way for the shuttle to align with the ISS orbit if something went wrong. Not enough propellant.

Before you start a salvage operation, you really should examine the density of such objects, what orbit they are in, and the physics of even dockeing with them.

Wayne

 

[rhapsodyinspace2]

MeteorWayne , I am here to listen and learn and put a cohesive plan together. So would just salvaging the spent rocket stages that go into orbit and have the tug there at the right time of launch be better off doing? Versus trying to salvage aged debris all over the place?

How much fuel is needed approximately for say, the Hubble trip?(orbital maneuvers only!)

Now my tug would stay in orbit at all times, it would never reenter the atmosphere!

And how do I go about that? How many pounds of fuel would one need. I must say I don’t even know how to give you a point a to point b example for this…So I am at your mercy! lol

 

[SpaceXFanMobius57]

Im hoping soon that companies like Space X will be able to establish bases on the moon to start mining operations. Private companies are the future of Space Flight! The moon has a wealth of resources that are just below the surface that are ready to be exploited for use on the moon and shipment back to Earth. It will take a bit for costs to come down to make shipping metals from the moon feasable but thats not stopping the infastructure that can be built from mined materials. Soon they could have a simiunderground resort for tourusts and such!

The best way for the tourist opion and basically any mineral moving in space is a space plane that can take off from a runway, scramjet to the edge of space then use rocket motors from then on. Its feasable all it need is money.

Though dropping minerals back to earth might be better achived by some sort of capsuel. Heck most probably a cargo container with a heat shield. The cargo containers could be made on the moon too! NASA isn't going to be able to do this becasue of polotics! Its time for Private Space Corperations!

 

[rhapsodyinspace2]

SpaceXFanMobius57, I hope so I am so ready to get out there and get something done! Yes private business will be the way to go! I don’t think right off the start much of what is mined from space will be brought back except for tourism type trinkets. The best thing is build, build, build, and wait for them to come to you!

I think we are a way away from having a space plane but we will see!

I am ready to go!

So what will you take with you?

I am still making my list and checking it twice! woo-hoooo!(take me one of those fancy nuclear power do-dads at $30-$40 million a piece!) :lol:

 

[vattas]

So would just salvaging the spent rocket stages that go into orbit and have the tug there at the right time of launch be better off doing? Versus trying to salvage aged debris all over the place?

It doesn't matter actually. The problem is the same - changing the plane of the orbit of your tug.
I won't give you exact numbers, but imagine, that almost half of your payload that you got to orbit must be the fuel that you will use to salvage just one spent stage.
You hope that there's enough fuel left in these stages to support your further operations? Even if it is so (which is not), how do you extract it? None of rocket stages are designed for this.
It would be much much easier, cheaper and "profitable" to go to the Moon and start mining than to do what you are proposing.

 

[rhapsodyinspace2]

So would just salvaging the spent rocket stages that go into orbit and have the tug there at the right time of launch be better off doing? Versus trying to salvage aged debris all over the place?

It doesn't matter actually. The problem is the same - changing the plane of the orbit of your tug.
I won't give you exact numbers, but imagine, that almost half of your payload that you got to orbit must be the fuel that you will use to salvage just one spent stage.
You hope that there's enough fuel left in these stages to support your further operations? Even if it is so (which is not), how do you extract it? None of rocket stages are designed for this.
It would be much much easier, cheaper and "profitable" to go to the Moon and start mining than to do what you are proposing.

Damn, Even if the Tug only weighs about 4500lbs? Does anyone know about how much fuel you would need? On an average basis?

Then if I did this I would definately need a fuel depot then right?

I am OK with that!

 

[SpaceXFanMobius57]

I'd give up on space salvaging at the moment and focus on Moon surface mining and tourism. We have the current tech to build a good space plane, its just the will, the smarts and money. Keyword MONEY! Space X needs to build up its money through sucessfull satlight launches and business contracts as well as a basic mining operation.

 

[Teru]

Ok, well just being the pragmatist here.

I think you vastly underestimate the propellant required to go tooling about in earth orbit collecting rocket bodies and defunct satellites. And I'd suggest that many of the owners of those objects would be less than happy about you grabbing their craft with proprietary technology.

I'd strongly suggest you look into the physics required for your salvage operations...I believe it's far more than you think.

If you want to be realistic, you need to examine this issue. Changing planes and altitude requires a LOT of propellant...more than can be launched in the mission you are proposing, IMHO.

Wayne

Hi Wayne,

The planetary forces of a planet will autommatically bring the space scrap down. Owners of these objects are countries and some are trans-national enterprises. Costs have be distributed evenly. Technological problems are not essential at all, but the value behind such actions. Physics are not even an element for our considerations, because of the advancment of technology.

The funding used for such research have to be based on the cost of economy. The lower the cost is, the higher chance of approval. The lower the technology required, the higher chances of successes for gainning its approval. Of course, the ability depends on technology.

Space is our future, but the planet is what we have now. The lanuching of such space project have to be based on technological inventions and advancement. Experimental projects are recommended.

Teru

 

[rhapsodyinspace2]

OK, MeteorWayne, I went to the physics forum and poised these questions to help me understand the mechanics behind these ideas. What else do I need to work on?

Oh, I wanna take one of those cool new nuclear power plant do-dads to! So I better budget $30-40 million in for that! I would also take solar arrays also! (Yes do-dads is a proper technical term! lol )


The Physics of orbital salvaging of space debris Is why I am here. Can someone inform me how the physics work in this application.

A few questions...

1) First question is I keep hearing its not a viable plan....OK, with that said, the least I would like to know is about how much fuel you would need to carry out a salvage operation.

A space tug (lets say it weighs 4,500 lbs.) would stay in orbit at all times, never re-entering the atmosphere and the salvage destination would be close to the I.S.S.

The salvaged item would be a Space Shuttle External tank.

2) So how much fuel would you need to take your space tug from point A(I.S.S. station) to point B(External tank) grab the external tank and get back to point A and park it in orbit?

3) How big would your fuel tank need to be?

4) Same questions but insert a defunct satellite?

5)What about the hardest, or farthest grab of space debris in a difficult orbit?

any help would be appreciated!

 

[MeteorWayne]

As I stated in that thread, it doesn't really belong in physics, as it's more of a space business question. But when I (eventually) move it here, I will leave it as a separate topic to address those specific issues. And I'll leave a copy in Physics for a few days.


Wayne

 

[rhapsodyinspace2]

Here is a partial list so far of what I would bring on the 2 payloads. We seem to get off topic alot so thought I would bring it back around... lol

What would you bring if you had just 2 payloads to get it into space!With the previous posts as guidelines on what it will be used for?


Food, water
Space toilet/water recycler
Air, Air recycler
Clothes
Toiletries
Medical items


Entertainment/ library(100 Terabyte memory in computer)
Communications package.

500 lbs. soil to grow your own food
seeds
Lights to grow plants under
Gardening tools, gloves

Workable algae tank

Working fish tank
Fish, fish food(Hmmm…Catfish)

2 space modules(NASA hand me downs)
Use 1 module for a small foundry.
Living module(sleep, kitchen, storage)

A space tug.( A robotic/manned tug to capture debris/work in space. Would like to bring 2)
radar

Robotics(Canadian robotic arm, etc.)

3 space suits( going to be working in a foundry better have spares)
Extra gloves.

Airlock(Prefer 2)

Solar array(Probably good sized one to)
Batteries for solar array and power system.(would be sweet to add the nuclear power plant to this list!)

Fuel( A lot of it from what yall say!)

From the top of my head, what else should I be adding to this list!

What else?

 

[SpaceXFanMobius57]

Space salvaging may work in the future with better tech, but not really now.

 

[MeteorWayne]

That's the point. It has nothing to do with technology, it has everything to do with the propellant required to even approach different objects in orbit.

Get some real physics here, folks... It ain't pretty if you think it requires little fuel.

 

[rhapsodyinspace2]

Ok, so it will take a lot of fuel. Using that example would it be 100 lbs. of fuel?, 1000 lbs. of fuel?(1000 lbs is whats left in the External tank I believe) So breaking even on fuel but having the tank to salvage would be exceptable!)

Is it possible or just not practical?

I am very open minded on this, so what is it?

 

[SpaceXFanMobius57]

Its just not practical.

 

[rhapsodyinspace2]

I know that, but want to do it anyway! So what size would the fuel tank need to be?

A lot of folks like their projects their own way, often thinking anyone elses view is impractical otherwise, we wouldn't have Space-x, Spaceship 2, or even the Falcon! We would all be making the same project along the same plans.

I want to do this, this way! And the tug would be a great emergency vehicle in orbit in a pinch.
So work with me! lol

So think of it as an ambulance in space with nothing to do but fart around with debris during slow times. lol

It sure couldn't hurt!

 

[rhapsodyinspace2]

MeteorWayne these were in the USE OF EXTERNAL TANK IN SPACE>page 35 of space business and tech. forum here at space.com.


by lunatio_gordin » Sun Aug 14, 2005 5:42 pm
I believe for a while they had an offer of three ETs into orbit for anyone who could make use of them. I don't know if that still stands... I read a book about it, maybe three years ago. No one could really figure out how to conver them to livable space once they were in orbit.
lunatio_gordin
planet
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:00 am
Private message
Top
Report this post
Reply with quote

by najab » Sun Aug 14, 2005 7:23 pm
It's actually 5 tanks...and the Presidential Executive Order still stands.
najab
solar system
Posts: 2453
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:00 am
Private message
Top
Report this post
Reply with quote

by lunatio_gordin » Sun Aug 14, 2005 7:26 pm
Now that i think about it, it's definitely five, because they had a picture with them linked together forming a ring that would spin...
lunatio_gordin
planet
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:00 am
Private message





***************************************************************************************

And this was to the fuel question about the external tank going into space.

by tomnackid » Mon Aug 15, 2005 11:14 am
I once read that it actually takes MORE propellant to insure that the tanks are on a reentry trajectory into the Indian ocean than it would to take them all the way into orbit.

The main thing stopping tanks from being used as building materials in orbit is an advanced space infrastructure. NASA will only release the tanks to organizations that can insure that they will be maintained in stable orbits. So far no one has been able to make that kind of commitment.
tomnackid
planet
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:00 am
Private message
Top
Report this post
Reply with quote

by lunatio_gordin » Mon Aug 15, 2005 3:38 pm
guess that's why they shut down, huh 
Why did they change the location for dumping the ET? is it because there was too many islands to hit in the Indian ocean, or because of going to the Space Stations? or is it just easier to send it into the pacific?
lunatio_gordin
planet
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:00 am
Private message
Top
Advertisement

Report this post
Reply with quote

by nacnud » Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:24 pm
Given that the pacific is almost 1/3 of the globe it must be hard not to target the pacific 
nacnud
solar system
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:00 am
Private message



Like i said With the Space Shuttle winding down Its hard to say if the Presidential Executive Order would still be in effect! lol

So with all that said and done and the possibility of the External tank going into orbit, What would the answers to my physics questions be?

Even as impractical as it may seem!

At the least how big a fuel tank would I need on my tug?

any help would be appreciated! Thanks in advance!

 

[vattas]

Here is a partial list so far of what I would bring on the 2 payloads.

Food, water
Space toilet/water recycler
Air, Air recycler
Clothes
Toiletries
Medical items

etc etc

That probably makes 20 maximum payloads of the shuttle. As for the fuel required to move shuttle external tanks to your desired orbit - do your homework. Calculate the mass you want to move, calculate orbital parameters, calculate delta V required, choose etc. etc. Formulas are available for free (you can try wikipedia as a starting source).
Now you questions sound like "I want to move something from somewhere to somewhere. How much fuel do I need?". The answer is "probably a lot".
Also, I suggest you to imagine analogy of your salvage "business" here on Earth. Try to imagine how much costs to start this business at the south pole, and then run it getting 2 items the size of shuttle external tank per year (imagine transportation of items of such size). Then multiply operating costs by 100.

 

[access]

well what i would do is develope a rover that was cheap enough and small enough that i could build four soft land them on the moonand then charge about $1000 a minute to drive them. who would pay that much? well depending on the capabilities small space agancy and universities. maybe really rich kids but i doubt it