Permanant plans to colonize space

[baktothemoon]

Here's the way I look at our current plans to explore space. I like the current plan for the CEV, but I worry that the program could easily get the ax just like apollo did. It is more permanant than apollo since we will likely establish a moon base, but it is still a one time use vehicle since we have to launch a new or refurbished one every time. Here's my plan to explore space: First NASA should start a mutual relationship with private industry to help private industry develop an orbital vehicle and a space station similar to the one being developed by bigelow aerospace. This space staton would serve as a spacedock for NASA. From here NASA would develop a fully reusable orbital vehicle that would never return to Earth. The vehicle would be built with the HLV that the CEV would use. It would serve as a kind of shuttle between Earth and any point up to mars. The vehicle should include a command and habitation module that would be Trans-Hab like and support a crew of more then ten. There would be a supply module that may use the Trans-Hab design but would not be required to use it. The spacecraft would be nuclear powered either by an RTG or an actual reactor. For propultion the vehicle would use NTR's similar to the technology developed in project NERVA. These engines may be of the gas-core type but not necessarily. For secondary propultion the vehicle would use nuclear electric engines along with solar sails for flights past the moon. There is no earth return capsule in this design because the vehicle would return to the spacedock to be resupplied and refueled by rockets from either private industry or NASA. The crew would arrive through the private industry's orbital vehicle while NASA would launch new landers and other equipment that would be needed. No part of the system other than the resupply lift vehicles would be expended. Everything that left the spacedock would return to be resupplied, refueled, and re-crewed. This way there would be a fleet of permanent re

 

[baktothemoon]

Actually it is two ships, the first ship is the one with the habitation module and the engines. This would serve as kind of a ferry, it would never land on either the moon or mars. It is almost like a small space station with engines. It would transport the landers and any other payload while also providing the astronauts a place to live. It would remain in orbit like the apollo command module while the lander descends and returns. The crew would transfer back to the main vehicle and return to the spacedock. Then a new lander would be launched for another mission along with the payload. But the main ship would always remain in orbit. This concept could be used for both the moon and mars because you already have big enough habitation and supply modules, all you need is different landers and payload for where you are going. Think of it as a cross between the shuttle and the space station. Astronauts could both live in it and explore without the main ship landing or returning to earth. It would be a true space ship because that is where it would remain.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[baktothemoon]

You are right, using the full design with the habitation, and service module would be overkill. But since I intended this to be a modular system that is assembled in orbit the design is scalable. If you just wanted to go to the moon you could have a smaller version with no habitation module and a smaller service module, but with the same engines. You wouldn't need a whole new system to have two versions because it is a modular design and that would save money. The smaller version could probably make the trip multiple times without refueling because it has the same engines as the larger version and without the weight of the larger modules it could probably carry more payload, which would be good for building a moonbase. Plus you would be able to do two things at once: build a moonbase while still doing exploration with the larger one.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[dragon04]

"Permanent" space colonization is currently a luxury. Not a need.<br /><br />And while I'm all for it, I feel we're still not thinking outside the box. NASA is committing billions of dollars to revisit the moon. IMHO, this is not vision. This is redundancy and a waste of taxpayer dollars.<br /><br />I fail to understand this overwhelming need to maintain a manned space presence with no imperative to do so. We went to the moon with what will be over 40 year old technology when we do it again.<br /><br />I think what SHOULD have been done post Apollo would have been to not re-do the moon, but to look towards the future in terms of centuries rather than decades, and commit money and resources to the expansion of H. Sapiens in an effective and economical way.<br /><br />I see lots of posts from people who consider it the 8th Deadly Sin to not put men and women into space the same way we have for going on 50 years. And to what end?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Why bother comeing down from the trees? I mean there is all this friut up here and it's nice and safe from wolves. Who needs all that savana? Waste of time trying to go bipedal...<br /><br />/flipant

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">. . . what will be over 40 year old technology when we do it again</font><br /><br />This looks suspiciously like circular reasoning. It appears that you have bought the false statements that ESAS / CEV is 40-year old technology. Doubtless you've seen the refutations of that false claim but you reject them. Having adopted a bogus conclusion, you turn around and use it to justify the reasoning behind your non-support for human spaceflight, which was your starting point.<br /><br />The simple fact is that it is impossible, by definition, to use 40-year old technology. Today's technology is what will be used, again by definition. Any resemblance is more in the approach than in the technology, a key difference. If you look at the actual technologies in detail, you will have to admit as much.<br /><br />How you can honestly claim to be "all for it" and ask "to what end" in the same post is beyond my comprehension.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[baktothemoon]

"This is redundancy and a waste of taxpayer dollars."<br />Not true, circling around in LEO for the next hundred years would be redundant. This time NASA is thnking outside of the box because they are breaking out of being locked into LEO and doing less and less wiht their budget. We are not going to do the same things with the moon that we did with apollo. With apollo we just stopped and looked around, with the CEV we can actually start building a base, and now we can do things with the moon that we couldn't do back in the 70's. We can extract useful materials from the resources on the moon and possibly find water or Helium 3. <br /> "look towards the future in terms of centuries rather than decades"<br />This is not practical or possible. We can't plan for what will or will not happen centuries from now and we don't live long enough to see what will happen. The only planning we can do is on the terms of decades and that spurrs development and innovation.<br />"commit money and resources to the expansion of H. Sapiens in an effective and economical way."<br />Space exploration is an effective way of expanding H. Sapiens both as a race and as a population. Apollo caused new inventions and innovations acrossed the map that have greatly improved our lives. Everything from satellite dishes to cordless tools and advances in medicine have come from the space program and a second moon program is likely to cause more innovation that will tricke down to Earth. The space program DOES advance our race and it will continue to, and for that we should continue to push toward colonization. <br /><br />"And to what end?"<br /><br />The end is colonization of every inch of the solar system that we can, and that begins with the moon. The reason why I posted this concept was to provide a vehicle that could advance the speed and efficiency at which we achieve that end. The vehicle IS outside the box because it is a permanent system that can be modified, improved, and is a true spaceship that w

 

[gunsandrockets]

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=64990<br /><br />"Hybrid advanced propulsion and quick trips to Mars"

 

[ldyaidan]

I agree. Saying that space colonization is not a need, in my opinion is short sighted. We are rapidly using up our current resources, as well as an increasing, unsupportable birthrate. We have to be able to go someplace, and we have to find new resources to support ourselves. The possibility of getting completely wiped out by a space rock is another very real, although remote, posibility. If we do not plan for the future of mankind, there will be no future for mankind. <br /><br /> When my children were born, they did not "need" a college fund. But, now that my oldest is graduating from college, I'm certainly glad that we planned for that well ahead of time. I see the necessity for colonizing space to be very much the same, but on a larger scale.<br /><br />Rae

 

[mlorrey]

Neither "need" nor "luxury" have ever been a valid excuse to demand or deny individuals their rights.<br /><br />I frankly don't care who thinks humanity doesn't "need" space travel. The bare fact that a person cannot go anywhere on this Earth to be free of the oppression of government should be indication enough that we 'need' manned space travel. That government control of every aspect of human life will only expand into the future means the need for a means of escape into space is only going to become greater. <br /><br />Those that do not see it as valid are the same sorts of folks who sat self rightously in Europe while those seeking liberty went to the Americas.

 

[baktothemoon]

I agree, space colonization is inevitable and natural. We cannot remain on Earth for all of eternity, Earth cannot support our species forever. I think we should use vehicles like the one I proposed to ferry colonists to their destination and for exploration. I think that right now NASA should focus on trail blazing with permanent, expandable, and innovative systems that would allow us to do that. They should clear the road to the major objects in the solar system and private industry should follow them. Space offers us virtually unlimited resources and land, it is wasteful not to put it to use. We should push ahead with space colonization soon. We should focus on systems and concepts that will allow us to colonize quickly and efficiently so that some of us can reach open space and others can reach freedom in the stars. Here's another topic for discussion: How should we colonize space? <br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[danwoodard]

Nevertheless the early pioneers paid for their own passage and lived off the land. This cannot be achieved in space without very substantial advances in launch vehicle and spacecraft technology and reductions in cost. Maybe Rutan or Falcon can do it, but quite a few entrepreneurs have tried without success.

 

[baktothemoon]

"but quite a few entrepreneurs have tried without success."<br /><br />True, but then again space tourism has never before been a reality, and the cost is bound to go down after a few years. As we travel in space more cheaper tech will have to be developed and it will be. I bet that after Bigelow gets his space station up then people will start looking toward the moon. <br /> <br />"cannot be achieved in space without very substantial advances in launch vehicle and spacecraft technology"<br /><br />We already have most of the tech that we would need, we have invented NTR's, inflatable modules, nuclear power for colonization, and regolith technology. All we have to do is have NASA develop some of the major technologies and then help private industry put it up into space. By the way, if you want an idea of a better, more permanent way that we could do space colonization then see my first post on this thread and the first couple responses.<br /><br />"early pioneers paid for their own passage and lived off the land."<br /><br />There may not be the same type of land that we have on Earth on the moon, but there are the same inorganic resources on Earth as on the moon and we can put them to use. Other technologies will substitute for the lack of other resources. The colonists who come to the moon will have to pay for their passage, but they might be able to pay less if the company that sends them there makes money by doing things like selling any Helium 3 that the colonists find.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[4p0110]

Sure, they could pay for their passage as a private citezen turned colonist, however, perhaps it would be better to send their own employees, or to have a contract for x number of years before they can make a lucrative gain from their findings, like indentured servents in the early colonial days. Yes, we can colonize the moon with what we already have, and I'm all for it. However, I believe that the problem right now is a purely political one, and not one of finding the resources for it. Up until a few years ago, a majority, if not all spaceflight was only from govenrment organizations. Corporations are now just beginning to get the right ideas, instead of selling them, some of them are trying to do something productive with their excess funds, branching out so to speak. However, now more than ever, we need to watch how these events unfold, because we don't know where this will lead. Yes planning ahead is good, but it can only do so much. <br /><br />Your turn,

 

[mlorrey]

Actually, while pioneers learned to live off the land, they were generally not self-capitalized. Most went over on the dime of speculators who backed colonies in hopes of profits. Labor was generally tied up in long term indenturements, even white slavery, before England gained control of the African trade from France in 1713's resolution of the War of Spanish Succession (among some other concurrent wars).<br /><br />It is notable that colonists sold themselves as slaves or virtual slaves to attain freedom for themselves and their descendants.<br /><br />There are significant reasons why LV cost has not come down significantly until recently. However, adjusted for inflation, launch costs have in fact dropped by nearly half since the 1980's. Here's an interesting graphic from Futron on price/demand elasticity for different sectors of the launch market:

 

[oxrxixoxn]

You guys might want to check out the Space Colonization poll located on the home page of the Space Settlement Institute. It's at www.space-settlement-institute.org. (It's free.)