Question Construction in orbit

[MrrNeko]

Wouldn't it be better to build, things like space ships / stations, directly in orbit instead of building them on the ground and then putting them into orbit?

 

[Catastrophe]

Sounds reasonable. Presumably supply of parts could be scheduled with other launches, rather than one enormous launch after construction on Earth.

Cat

 

[MrrNeko]

I was thinking about the mounting system for the hinged top and 4 guides inside the Starship.

Thanks to this, thanks to the guides, it would be possible to insert plates with a side of about 5-6 m into the Starship.

Then in space in orbit, you could tilt the upper part of the Starship and then thanks to the guides we would take out the plates that we brought with us.

Then these plates could be joined first with screws and then additionally welded.

 

[Catastrophe]

Having established the idea, do you think it is helpful to go into the minutiae?

Cat

 

[MrrNeko]

I think so. I also wonder why they haven't introduced it yet?
Thoughts:

1. When building in orbit, you don't have to limit yourself to the shape and size of your ship

2. It may be logistically difficult, but a bit hard for me to believe

 

[Catastrophe]

1. You are still limited by the energy to get it all up there.
2. Don't understand what you mean.

It will be better when you can manufacture on low gravity planet (e.g., Mars) my mining and producing steel locally.


Cat

 

[MrrNeko]

1. Yes, I am energy limited to move the load upstairs

2. Here both our thoughts connect.

Namely:

Collecting asteroids from space and transferring them to Mars

+

Mining ores on Mars itself.

Then the easiest way will be to take the ship parts that we made on Mars into Mars orbit and put them together.

Of course, it is still worth making ships in earth orbit, because it will be a while before the colony on Mars is ready to process ores.

It's also good that Starship has about 100 tons of load capacity

 

[Catastrophe]

"2. It may be logistically difficult, but a bit hard for me to believe"

I did not understand what was hard to believe.

Cat

 

[Wolfshadw]

Collecting asteroids from space and transferring them to Mars

Why this? Why not just mine and refine on the asteroid itself? As Mars approaches during it's annual orbit, transfer the refined ore to Mars orbit.

-Wolf sends

 

[IG2007]

I don't think it is possible to build things directly in earth's orbit. In case of planets like Mars, it might be possible though.

 

[MrrNeko]

"2. It may be logistically difficult, but a bit hard for me to believe"

I did not understand what was hard to believe.

Cat

I wrote that it is difficult
is to believe that the operation of combining individual elements into a ship in orbit is difficult

 

[MrrNeko]

Why this? Why not just mine and refine on the asteroid itself? As Mars approaches during it's annual orbit, transfer the refined ore to Mars orbit.

-Wolf sends

As far as I know, we do not yet have a method of smelting ores and creating various components in space because we did not need it yet.

It would be a good method if everything in space was in one place.

Therefore, it is best to take the asteroid with you to orbit and then to the surface of Mars.

 

[MrrNeko]

I don't think it is possible to build things directly in earth's orbit. In case of planets like Mars, it might be possible though.

As far as I know, we do not yet have a method of smelting ores and creating various components in orbit because we did not need it yet.

It would be a good method if everything in space was in one place.

Therefore, it is best to take the asteroid with you to orbit and then to the surface of Mars.

 

[IG2007]

As far as I know, we do not yet have a method of smelting ores and creating various components in orbit because we did not need it yet.

It would be a good method if everything in space was in one place.

Therefore, it is best to take the asteroid with you to orbit and then to the surface of Mars.

I don't want everything to float around

 

[MrrNeko]

I don't want everything to float around

Ah, that has nothing to do with a lot of things going into orbit.

I think it will look like this:

1. Expedition for an asteroid / space pebble,

2. Return to Mars / Earth orbit

3. Bringing the asteroid to the Earth / Mars surface

4. Smelting the asteroid, designing the ship and creating its parts on the surface.

5. Lift everything up and put it in orbit into a ship

 

[Catastrophe]

I think it will take a lot more energy to move even the smallest useful asteroid than to bring in the smelting equipment and ship the metal back.

Regarding:
"As far as I know, we do not yet have a method of smelting ores and creating various components in space because we did not need it yet. "

As far as I know, we do not yet have the ability to move asteroids around.

Cat

 

[MrrNeko]

I think it will take a lot more energy to move even the smallest useful asteroid than to bring in the smelting equipment and ship the metal back.

Regarding:
"As far as I know, we do not yet have a method of smelting ores and creating various components in space because we did not need it yet. "

As far as I know, we do not yet have the ability to move asteroids around.

Cat

My Thought:

In orbit, we can create a ship with more engines.

Or we can send some ships for the asteroid to break it open and bring it back in pieces

 

[Catastrophe]

1. "In orbit, we can create a ship with more engines."
You still have to get the stuff up there.

2, "Or we can send some ships for the asteroid to break it open and bring it back in pieces"
Means carrying loads of useless debris. Also I don't think breaking open an asteroid is as easy as a few words might suggest. Explosive on a low gravity asteroid could blow loads of stuff out into space, including the part you want.

Cat

 

[Helio]

In the early 1930’s von Braun proposed 900 launches necessary to build two or three ships capable of a Mars mission, with return. Much of it to be built in space.

It’s far easier to do detailed work on Earth, so only the large hull sections assembled in space might be the economical approach.

Buzz Aldrin has pushed for a base on Phobos for greater efficacy. This might be ideal for receiving iron from the Belters.

 

[MrrNeko]

1. "In orbit, we can create a ship with more engines."
You still have to get the stuff up there.

2, "Or we can send some ships for the asteroid to break it open and bring it back in pieces"
Means carrying loads of useless debris. Also I don't think breaking open an asteroid is as easy as a few words might suggest. Explosive on a low gravity asteroid could blow loads of stuff out into space, including the part you want.

Cat

My thoughts:

1. Carrying out parts is easier and we are not limited to only one shape and size of the ship

2. You can collect asteroid blocks in order to:

Pre-check it,

It will be something valuable for scientists,

Or you can send unnecessary pieces in a package to burn in the atmosphere.

You can also send asteroid pieces to earth for sale

 

[MrrNeko]

In the early 1930’s von Braun proposed 900 launches necessary to build two or three ships capable of a Mars mission, with return. Much of it to be built in space.

It’s far easier to do detailed work on Earth, so only the large hull sections assembled in space might be the economical approach.

Buzz Aldrin has pushed for a base on Phobos for greater efficacy. This might be ideal for receiving iron from the Belters.

My guess:

Things like engines can be folded on the ground and put into orbit

 

[Catastrophe]

I will give you my honest "best guess":

It is obvious that it will be worthwhile to process raw materials where they occur. Who wants to move Mars nearer Earth to get some iron ore? Silly question to illustrate my point.

Moving fuel for furnaces is cheaper than moving dross to extract metal.

If the Moon has enough easily available raw material, that is the first choice.

Otherwise, next choice is Mars, unless asteroids of sufficient raw material are economically exploitable. Maybe both options can be advanced.
The only thing Venus is good for is sulphuric acid.

Beyond that is beyond our reach for centuries, IF the human race survives the next few decades.

Cat

 

[MrrNeko]

I will give you my honest "best guess":

It is obvious that it will be worthwhile to process raw materials where they occur. Who wants to move Mars nearer Earth to get some iron ore? Silly question to illustrate my point.

Moving fuel for furnaces is cheaper than moving dross to extract metal.

If the Moon has enough easily available raw material, that is the first choice.

Otherwise, next choice is Mars, unless asteroids of sufficient raw material are economically exploitable. Maybe both options can be advanced.
The only thing Venus is good for is sulphuric acid.

Beyond that is beyond our reach for centuries, IF the human race survives the next few decades.

Cat

The only problem is that we do not have the appropriate technology to process ores on site. We cannot create artificial gravity. Therefore, we have to take asteroids into orbit and then to the surface.

 

[Catastrophe]

"The only problem is that we do not have the appropriate technology to process ores on site."

As I have already pointed out, neither do we have the appropriate technology to move asteroids around.

Would you like to give us some sample calculations to illustrate your suggestion?
And explain where this energy is coming from?

Cat

 

[MrrNeko]

"The only problem is that we do not have the appropriate technology to process ores on site."

As I have already pointed out, neither do we have the appropriate technology to move asteroids around.

Would you like to give us some sample calculations to illustrate your suggestion?
And explain where this energy is coming from?

Cat

My Thought:

In orbit, we can create a ship with more engines.

Or we can send some ships for the asteroid to break it open and bring it back in pieces

1. "In orbit, we can create a ship with more engines."
You still have to get the stuff up there.

2, "Or we can send some ships for the asteroid to break it open and bring it back in pieces"
Means carrying loads of useless debris. Also I don't think breaking open an asteroid is as easy as a few words might suggest. Explosive on a low gravity asteroid could blow loads of stuff out into space, including the part you want.

Cat

My thoughts:

1. Carrying out parts is easier and we are not limited to only one shape and size of the ship

2. You can collect asteroid blocks in order to:

Pre-check it,

It will be something valuable for scientists,

Or you can send unnecessary pieces in a package to burn in the atmosphere.

You can also send asteroid pieces to earth for sale