Design your own dream interplanetary transfer station

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

willpittenger

Guest
This thread was inspired by the Discovery Channel series <i>2057</i>.<br /><br />Supposed that in 50 years we send our first manned mission to Mars. Using the technology you think might be available in 2057 (ignore the hype from the show if that helps), what would the station where we assemble our interplanetary spacecraft be like?<br /><br />Assumptions:<li>The craft used to go to Mars will be too large to launch as one piece. Instead, it will be assembled in orbit. This calls for a "drydock"-like structure in space. It would serve as a template and support structure before the craft is ready to be "self-supporting". (The words in quotes are used because we have no equivalent word that is better suited.) Hence, we need a station.<li>The craft's crew may train there before leaving.<li>If the station is at least somewhat ready before the Mars mission leaves, it might be used to support later missions to the Moon.<li>Some fuel and materials for the station and/or craft may come from the Moon.<li>The orbit would be optimal for beginning a journey to Mars. However, a trip to the moon needs to be considered as well.<br /><br />Questions that need answered:<li>Please state how far out you would put your station. LEO? GEO? Earth/Moon L4 or L5? Farther out?<li>We have to assume that robotics will not completely take over EVA duties. However, I think we need a picture of what they would do.<li>How do you expect to reach the station?<li>Would the station handle traffic going both ways?<li>What about radiation and micrometeorite shielding?<br /><br />Additional rule:<li>You can use components designed for other space stations (even ISS if you find the components relevant). However, actual flight ISS that in orbit are not eligable -- not matter what shape they are in. The problem is their orbit is wrong. Stick with stuff that either hasn't flown or is in the correct orbit (or at least close to the right orbit).<br /><br /><font color="blue">Edited on 1-29-2007 at</font></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
K

kane007

Guest
I would have a duel keel station consisting of 2 station elements connected by a 1 to 10,000+ kilometre long tether.<br /><br />The bottom "station" would be located at equatorial LEO - around the 400 - 600 km mark. This would be the habitat. The upper "station" would initially be located at 1 km higher altitude, but over time would be extended out further, as technology progressed. The further out, the greater the energy that could be imparted to the departing cargo - essentially free departure propulsion.<br /><br />I like the name - "Gateway Station".
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
I added an additional rule that I forgot. You can't use just any existing station. Either you have it on the ground or it is in an orbit that can be used to access Mars and/or the Moon. If you can conceivably move the items to the correct orbit, that works. However, please note that the new rule effectively prohibits taking something from the ISS orbit to the access orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
R

rocketman5000

Guest
I think that the objectives of the station need to be clearly defined. As I see them.<br /><br />-Build ship<br />-Protect ship during constrution and extended stays<br />-fuel/refuel ships<br />-host crew<br />-ship and receive persons/cargo from earth.<br /><br />As such I have some simple things I think would capitalize and make the most efficient.<br /><br />-Space tug - this short range ship would tow ships from near orbits to the station to the docking area. This could allow disposible cargo ships to be more cheaply delivered to the station with only a rudimentary guidance system. (lessens reaccuring costs)<br /><br />-Dry dock - similar to the cliched docks of Star Treck. this would be an open frame where different componets of the ship could be hung from while under construction. Ideally the frame would have sections that could be hydraulically extended to accomodate different spacecraft geometry. The frame work would have multiple locations that a robotic arm could attach to and could "inch worm" itself around the structure to allow greater access with limited number of robotic arms. <br /><br />-Robotic Arms - similiar to the Canadian arms. They seem to work well now, so why change them? <br /><br />-MCP space suits. If you are building large number of spacecraft it would be nice to be able to move around easily.<br /><br />-Remote power nodes - these nodes would have supply of O2, power and thruster gas for EVA. Some could be supplied to the ends of the Robotic Arms so the astronaut could be moved around similarly to work sometimes done from the spaceshuttle. <br /><br />-Inflatable modules-as cliched as they have become today large modules for sleeping storage, command and control, training and general storage. <br /><br />- lastly artificial gravity. A section of the station (crew quaters and training potentially) could be swung around a axis over top the drydock area. The crew members could work in zero g and the benefits it has for moving large construction o
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
Two items. First, the dry dock will need to serve as a jig of sorts. Second, how would you light the dry dock? Even if you limit excursions to when the station is in sunlight, you put a covering over most of the dry dock. It will be dark in there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
I didn't see the Discovery 2057 show, but have some thoughts.<br /><br />The best location would be Earth-Moon L1 followed by other LaGrange points. L1 offers constant access to all Earth and Lunar points, plus to interplanetary orbits. <br /><br />The main features of an assembly/transfer station are the tank farm and the keel. The tank farm can be storage, processing, etc and many possible configurations. The keel is either a truss or reinforced tube, the tankfarm, habs and other hardware is attached and serviced from it. <br /><br />At roughly 320,000 km distance(http://www.ottisoft.com/samplact/Lagrange%20point%20L1.htm), we can assume nearly constant sunlight, with occasional Earth/Moon eclipses. Perhaps a halo orbit of L1 could be engineered, in which the station is always pointing one axis towards the Sun. This allows the station to have a "hot" side (work bays, Explorer assembly) and a cold side with superconducting power coils and passive cooling to make cryogenics. Storage should be designed to expand to a range of volatiles. The basic system is a keel and tankage. The arrangement could be one long keel, spherical or in a cube. The cube might make sense, built from tubes and nodes, with the Hab and tankage inside. It'd give you 6 "jigs" to build from and good protection. <br /><br />Using a system advanced on what is available/nearterm, to assemble an explorer craft you would start with a Node attached to the keel. This would be accessible either through the keel (hollow tube) or docked next to the station's extensive Hab. Other components are attached as they arrive: an inflatable, more nodes, a control block and more inflatables. The outfitter crew works from the first node downward to the last control block, then attach custom hardware to the craft. External work is done by Canadarm, occasional EVA and workpod. A robotic nuclear tug or other departure stage finishes the stack, far away from the transfer station's habitat. The exploration crew arrives by space <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
R

rocketman5000

Guest
One of the reason I placed a nuclear reactor in my dream design was to have an excess of power. Lighting under the protection would ideally be provided by LED unless a more efficient means of lighting was found by then. <br /><br />Also remember you would no need to light the whole drydock at one time on a routine basis. You would only need to light areas where there was current construction being completed on<br />
 
K

kane007

Guest
The tether station would be able to gather power from passing trough the earths magnetic fields, generating current . Additional solar panels could then provide direct current to the tether for orbital adjustments.
 
S

scottb50

Guest
With the Module system I have been proposing you would not need drydocks or extensive manipulation equipment. Modules would simply dock together like Legos as needed. Once docked the Module would be accessable to all the other Modules and could be outfitted or modified for specific uses as needed.<br /><br />As an example five Modules would used for the Station core. New Modules would be added by simply docking them to the core. Once docked they could stay docked, adding to the Station, or be undock for other uses.<br /><br />Lunar or Martian transports would we built the same way. Modules docked to each other to form the core Vehicle and then to the Station to allow outfitting and transfer of payloads. Once complete the Vehicle undocks from the Station and redocks when it comes back.<br /><br />If each Module throughout the system is identical they could be produced extremely cheaply and individually configured as needed. What I have in mind is a TSTO launcher using these Modules as both SRB housings and propellant tanks for a fly-back first stage with an upper stage using the same Modules as propellant tanks and payload containers. Once in orbit the upper stage Modules would then be used for other purposes as needed by outfitting the Modules with material brought up by subsequent missions. Upper stages would also be used as Tugs for orbital transfers or as propulsion Modules for Vehicles.<br /><br />The Modular concept would allow maximum flexibility for different missions. Lunar and Mars missions would use cycler Vehicles, a three, five or more Module core with other Modules added as needed for cargo and personel. Depending on the mass of the assembled vehicle mutiple Tugs would dock to the Vehicle to provide propulsion and the assembly would undock from the Station and proceed to Lunar or Mars orbit.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Q

quasar2

Guest
i`m wondering this: would it be easier to move between L1 & L5, than Moon Launches? is L5 a larger area than L1? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Q

quasar2

Guest
i`m thinking that a station could also be used for recycling Space Junk. i`m certain this will become economical once PermRes is reality. could junk be gathered "in" L1, L5, the Lunar Surface? i`m certain a junkyard would need to be away from working/living areas. i`d spend alot of my time doing that probably if i were PermRes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
Here is how I would tackle the problem. <br /><br />The 'Dry Dock' being a frame the length of your biggest module and the width of you biggest module. Have one or two, (or three) robotic arms - akin to Canadarm II (as others have proposed). <br /><br />The frame would assemble the crafts on one of its side (while you can have hab module on the other side for crew). It adds a module then 'climbs' the craft so to add the next module. So the 'Dry Dock' itself is not huge but it gets the job done no matter how long the craft your constructing is.<br /><br />This type of construction is used in some tall buildings where the building 'grows' underneath a frame that protects from wind and has internal cranes. <br /><br />This method has also been used in constructing several .5 km long rotational irrigation machines in the Sahara desert. I'm sure its a very common technique.<br /><br />The 'Dry Dock' should be in LEO or just above LEO to reduce cost of construction and support of the dock itself (less fuel needed to get there).<br /><br />Hab modules should include crew quarters, operations module (control dock navigation and the (multiple) robotic arm(s)), and an airlock for EVAs.<br /><br />If shielding is necessary I would use frames and fabric to shield the craft on one side. Nothing too extensive since the craft should be equipped with its own shielding, or you add its shielding as any othe module as you go.<br /><br />It may not be pretty but it would be functional.<br /><br />For power, you are going to have to rely on solar panel, because otherwise we would have people on Earth going out of their minds if we had nuclear power in LEO. I may want to assist the solar panels with large reflectors thus making the panels more effecient.<br /><br />Alternatively power could be supplied by hydrogen fuel cells. The supply of water could be used by the dock's crew or even by the craft if there is excess.<br /><br />Also for stabilizing (maintain orbit) propulsion, use ion drives. But <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
i`m wondering this: would it be easier to move between L1 & L5, than Moon Launches? is L5 a larger area than L1?>>><br /><br />I think it would be easier to move from the surface to LEO then move to the Moon or Mars. While L1 & L5 sound great it would still take more to go from the surface to either and to the moon or another point. Launching directly to either location would be pretty much the same as launching directly to the moon, then you still need to get from there to the moon.<br /><br />Either point might have usefulness for reducing station position keeping costs for telescopes and such, but beyond that I don't see a great deal of practical reasons to use them as staging areas between Earth and somewhere else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

solarspot

Guest
If materials are being launched from earth, than I'd say the Larangian points are near useless... They become useful once we start mining materials from asteroids or the Moon for export to orbit...<br /><br />Or atleast that's what I've heard about the subject...
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> If materials are being launched from earth, than I'd say the Larangian points are near useless... They become useful once we start mining materials from asteroids or the Moon for export to orbit... Or atleast that's what I've heard about the subject...</i><br /><br />Building at the Lagrange points, especially Earth-Moon L1, is building for the future. We should use LEO for learning, but plan large infrastructure higher up the gravity well. L1 is uniquely positioned in that regard, with constant access to both the Earth and Moon. <br /><br />Bringing ISRU propellants back from the Moon or other places and dragging it all the way down to LEO might not make sense in the mid-long term. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
L1 is uniquely positioned in that regard, with constant access to both the Earth and Moon....<br /><br />I would think the payload capble of going from Earth to L1 would be pretty minimal with pretty much any existing or proposed launch vehicle. Basically the same as what could be sent to the moon.<br /><br />As often repeated LEO is 99% of the way to everywhere. As far as dragging propellants from the moon down to LEO it really doesn't make sense period. To assemble vehicles and launch them from the moon makes a lot more sense, but before we can do that we have to get there first. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts