Can we PLEASE start assembling larger ships in earth orbit??

[emudude]

I saw a news article a year or so ago where Russian scientists wanted to construct an "orbital construction yard" to build ships that can embark on longer distance trips - with crew - within the solar system. At 300m a rocket launch, and with the proposed additional 6 billion added onto nasa's budget, we could build something pretty sizeable, especially taking the recommended option of international cooperation

 

[docm]

Need a plasma engine and a reactor first. Otherwise it's boost & coast - more a manned bullet than a real spacecraft. Once you have that Bigelow-style habs can make up the bulk of the rest.

 

[emudude]

I don't see the reactor as being a huge problem, given our massive experience with nuclear submarines that can go for x years without refuelling...the plasma engine is on its way too Good point about the bigelow modules. Looks like we have ourselves a rudimentary ship

 

[MeteorWayne]

I saw a news article a year or so ago where Russian scientists wanted to construct an "orbital construction yard" to build ships that can embark on longer distance trips - with crew - within the solar system. At 300m a rocket launch, and with the proposed additional 6 billion added onto nasa's budget, we could build something pretty sizeable, especially taking the recommended option of international cooperation

Sure, are you going to cough up the several billion personally?

 

[bushwhacker]

pocket change lemme grab the checkbook... wayne why you always such a downer? the man asked a simple question the least you could do is be courteous.
Kirby Lance

 

[MeteorWayne]

Sorry, after nearly 6 decades I've become a pragmatist and a curmudgeon

 

[emudude]

Haha, a fair remark Wayne, suppose I deserved that one I was just trying to illustrate the type of funding that is being thrown around and potential alternate uses...I can't afford to give up 6 billion though, or I'll never be able to afford my 10b mecha-hamster of doom :mrgreen:

 

[Couerl]

Well, we could always put the U.N. itself into orbit with all those extra nukes. Might actually help clean up the Hudson. :lol:

 

[menellom]

The modular approach is arguably the simplest and cheapest. For now at least we need to stop thinking of interplanetary spacecraft as ships/cruisers/etc and more like 'space stations that can travel between planets'.

A couple of (heavily shielded) modules, a plasma engine, and a small reactor and you've got a 'mobile station'. Of course we've still got a ways to go before something like that will be possible, but it could happen optimistically happen within the next decade or two.

 

[emudude]

That's a great point menellom...modularity is definitely the key...and hey, we already have an orbiting outpost where workers could perform spacewalks to connect the required modules already who says there isn't a practical use for the ISS

 

[MeteorWayne]

I agree as well. In the long run, the only way to bring the cost down is to create more standard products that can be fit together for the specific mission.

Now the moon might not fit into that category at first, or sorties to some NEO's, but for a long term presence in space, it seems like the right direction to me.

 

[danhezee]

This is an interesting article that is not only relevant here but in most of the other discussions in SB&T


http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/04/14/ ... rket-2016/

Patton discussed how Bigelow Aerospace of Las Vegas is looking to use the Atlas V as part of its plan to build its private Sundancer space station. The effort would begin with the first of seven assembly flights beginning in 2014. Commercial operations would begin the next year, and in 2016 Bigelow would launch a second space station.
If that sounds like a lot of launches, it is. Bigelow would need 20 launches or more annually by the late 2010s for assembly, supply and crew transport.

That’s a staggering number. It’s a couple of launches per month. That would require substantial production from American rocket makers. It would generate a lot of high-paying jobs. And Cape Canaveral would have a difficulty time launching all of them.

 

[sftommy]

I was surprised NASA was contenting itself with building one rocket to the moon.

Technologically we're not that far away from creating an ISS clone that would always be making continious trips to the moon, being serviced when it returned on its earth flyby, and picking a new lander from earth as needed.

An Atlas V launch every two weeks wouldn't be a bad thing, and their ought to be some economies of scale to push the price down.

 

[MeteorWayne]

It wouldn't be a bad thing, except there's nothing to launch every two weeks, so it would be a total waste. When there is a reason to launch every two weeks with a specific launcher, then the costs will go down. Check out the Missions and Launches forum for an idea of how many actually do so per month. it's nowhere even close to that.

I'll try and collect some stats for 2009.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Just for a reality check, I looked at 2009 Launches. I used the best list I could find, from spaceflight now. I didn't count the Taurus XL failure.

In total, there were 72 launches, an average of 6 per month.

However, they were spread among 21 launch vehicles (and that's counting the Deltas as different ones)

There were 11 Soyuz (< 1/month), 10 Proton, 8 Delta 2s, 7 Arienne 5's, 5 Atlas 5's, and 5 STS launches. So for most, the launch rate is about 1 every other month or lower. 14 of the launch vehicles had 3 or less during the whole year, 8 had only a single one.

 

[Lycurgus]

I totally agree!!

I had the same thought before I saw your link.

Let's build a ship in orbit that can go to any destination. Come back to Earth for refuel and drop of cargo/payload/samples. Eventually figure out ways to refuel at other planets.

Please vote for this idea here:

http://opennasa.uservoice.com/forums/90 ... -makes-bir

 

[StarRider1701]

Yes. building things in space! Bigger ships that require several launches and assembly in orbit - OK. Space stations with some industrial capability - Yeah! Anything that gets us to thinking of building in space works for me. The more we build up there, the more we CAN build up there...

A spaceship that can go anywhere and just come back for fuel. If it is fueled by hydorgen, anyplace it can find ice it can replenish the hydrogen, oxygen and water supply as long as it has a bit of energy. It might even be able to collect hydrogen molecules in space as it goes from one place to another.

 

[sftommy]

It wouldn't be a bad thing, except there's nothing to launch every two weeks, so it would be a total waste.

Atals V as launch vehicle for the X-37 Variants that are to come, is the closest we have to an operable space taxi. The Air Force would want a small fleet of these ready to go at some point which will mandate the ability to launch some number of them in numbers or in quick turn around.

If the model proves successful it could be used to ferry constructions parts (but not large completed assemblies) as well as personnel to any construction projects.

Atlas V launch cost was $138m in 2004 anone have todays cost?