Anybody want to help design a spaceship? It's just for fun. <br /><br />Rules are: Technology needs to be at least feasible within the next decade<br /><br />Purpose of ship: Super freighter, crew transport for earth - moon - mars trips.
- Status
Count me in! I like the idea, really a space<i>ship</i>. Not small specialized tin can. A big liner, ugly as h*ll because it travels in space only, massive redundancy. Mass? 100-500 metric tons. Yes, even HLLV wont fill up this baby with one shot but that's no problem, it has time to wait while 'moored' to LEO/LLO/LMO.
Yes, my idea is, build the frame in orbit, perhaps using smart metals, and then construct the inside of the ship with a modular design using DART automated technology. And then finally when you have all the systems in place, add the hull / radiation sheild to enclose it all. And perhaps bolt on an enourmous cargo container to its belly. <br /><br />
nice one... got extra :<br /><br />single person ship -- only pilot<br />freighter type, max length 17m<br />must be able to launch vertically!<br /><br />let´s see the art skills of the ppl here <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
Wow a spaceship ehh... heh heh<br /><br />How about we build it in orbit next to the ISS. The ship should be powered by VASIMR type drive with at least 2-4 nuclear reactors(fusion or fission) and have something on the order of tons of fuel so that it can achieve high thrusts.<br /><br />ooo mars and back in 4 weeks!
My idea is to use identical Modules, that snap together like legos. A core vehicle could use, lets say, four Modules and go back and forth from LEO to wherever. Crew and passengers would occupy the core Modules the number of other Modules attached; for cargo, or as specific use Modules at a destination could be infinite, as long as you attach enough Engine Modules, and propellant Modules, to boost the mass.<br /><br />I've been thinking 30x60 and 15x60 foot Modules, internal dimensions, being the primary building blocks of vehicles. The Core Vehicle would be a Large Module and a Small Module, inside the big Module. The area between the two Modules would be filled with water. <br /><br />It's also easy to see this same Core Vehicle taken down to the surface of a Moon, Planet or asteroid and used as a long term Station.<br /><br />The first trip to Mars would position a Vehicle in LMO. The second mission would be the Station Core, it meets the first mission Vehicle in LMO. Individual Station Core Modules are sent to the Surface and assembled remotely from orbit before the initial crew is sent down.<br /><br />Left in LMO would be a two Core Module base, remotely operated from the surface. Water Modules would be attached and replensished, or replaced, by Modules coming inbound.<br /><br />We don't need no stinking Nuclear! All we need is water. Who knows, getting some of it off the Planet my help deal with global warming. Not really, that's a joke. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
no no, ground use and maybe space... i still need a concept for my future multi-form plane project <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
lifting body configuration, electromagnetic ramjets or electromagnetic rockets for flight through the atmosphere.<br />in space: either the above mentioned rocket engine, or deploy an electromagnetic spider web to capture interstellar gas <br />and accelerate it backwards to gain impulse.<br />all powered by a small fusion reactor.<br />you can see you have redundancy if one of your modes of propulsion fails, in space or in the atmosphere.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
Very Nice, and if rotated around the longitudinal axis, could provide artificial gravity in the three outer sections. The three sections would have to be farther out from the center ship section though to provide long-term rotational artificial gravity to the crew. Closer the sections are to the core of the ship section, the faster the rotation to generate useful artificial gravity, the faster the rotation, the more crew disorientation and discomfort because of the layers of artificial gravity differences, ie: your feet weighing 50 lbs and your head weighing 10 lbs! :-( Not fun, and puker for the crew for sure!<br /><br />The configuration is nice though, and the outer sections run parallel with the longitudinal rotational access, and would make internal movement by crew have less affect on gravity differential! ie: if it were a rotating ring (donut shape) if the crew walked in the direction of spin, they would get heavier, if they walk in the opposite direction of spin they would get lighter, and eventually enter a weight less state. In your concept configuration, crew movement back and forth in a horizontal manner to the rotation, does not cause any increase or decrease in artificial gravity forces.<br /><br />This concept below uses your basic configuration, in a more advanced way. This is also the concept and configuration which the International Space Agency (ISA) is presently focusing it's main efforts on, for a candidate for the first Manned Mars Ship.<br /><br />We have humbly named the project, Earth 1<br />http://www.international-space-agency.net/iscp.html<br /><br />The four Mars landers would each carry a name, as proposed by the ISA Organization, and the 3 main contributing Nations to the International Manned Mars effort, program, and missions. The International Space Agency (ISA) Mars Lander would be named, Mars 1 in Flight and Landing, and once Landed it would then be name
I really like the modular design. I think that's the most immeadiately feasible.<br />A big spaceship like in Star Trek would probably definitely have to be built in outer space.<br /><br />As far as getting it built rather soon on a time schedule, we are already good at making modules, like the ISS. <br /> (By the way couldn't that be the most immeadiately practical<br />way? I mean build something out of space shuttle payload modules,for fuel and navigation, and 1 or 2 modules in the front for human<br />lunar landing, and other explorations) , for the moon and mars, or between here and mars, etc. <br />all this built out of space shuttle payload modules, virtually readily available, put them up there near todays ISS and assemble them, or send them near mars with smaller propulsion modules and then assemble them there. Build ENORMOUS permanent space posts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Others have posted some good ideas on modular designs, which are also what I had in mind.<br /><br />Here is the craft I'd envision, used primarily for Earth-Mars transport (it would be too extravagant to use for cislunar travel).<br /><br />It would consist of two main parts: a propulsion module using nuclear thermal technology, a la NERVA, and a crew module (although I think this design would work equally well with cargo only).<br /><br />The propulsion module would itself have two separate components: the actual engine, and the external fuel tanks that would power it. The fuel tanks would have the capability of being jettisoned in emergency circumstances; this is ostensibly to keep any malfunction capable of destroying the tanks (some Apollo 13-like explosion or whatnot) from destroying the engine as well.<br /><br />Here is the cool part: fuel tanks of any size could be attached to the permanent engine, depending on the needs of a particular mission. Furthermore, the crew module could easily be interchangeably replaced with a cargo module, again depending on the aims of a specific mission.<br /><br />The reason I selected nuclear thermal propulsion is because it's a technology that's simple, powerful, and one that we have long testing experience with, though it isn't perfect. With modern technology, I'm guessing R&D would actually be cheaper than it was originally (adjusted for inflation, of course). The fact that the main engine would be reusable would reduce cost, as would its overall versatility.
Thalion, Something Like This!? ;-)<br /><br />http://www.lunartransportationsystems.com<br /><br />http://www.lunartransportation.com
ok, here's a crude but common-sense design for a spaceship to Mars:<br />crew live in the front of the long cylinder, surrounded by propellant and consumables in the red tanks tanks in order to be protectected from radiation as much as possible.<br />the teardrop thingy at the front is the Mars LAV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
Nice, but I do not see where the fuel storage is?<br /><br />For the mass of such a ship, a large fuel storage tank area is needed, even if the nuclear option is used!
interesting thread. I just love it.<br />I used to wonder about moving the ISS to the moon somehow, but now I<br />realize that's not possible, but there are definitely even better alternatives, which<br />we could accomplish within a decade, as a matter of fact I think before the shuttles<br />alleged retirement, within 5 years we could make some kind of next generation ISS for extraterestrial orbits<br />actually 2, one at the moon and one somewhere between here and mars, or at least we could have a lot of modules ready for shipment, this reduces<br />the requirement to have a very large spaceship, because all the necessary things would<br />be at the space stations, so all we would need is a small transport thing and concentrate<br />the dollars and brainpower on making these spaceposts out of this world.<br />My idea is to honestly make the most out of our present day technology, and that<br />means making the most out the space shuttle payload module technology. We need to<br />stop daydreaming a little bit about the CEV plans to make a cape canaveral on the moon<br />and all these multi-century long projects, and get with the program. (now!).<br />It's much easier, affordable, to start building some extraterrestrial human modules for<br />our shuttle,<br />upgraded enough to make them lunar and mars capable and keeping an I on the ISS makes it more affordable. This is the simplest way to get with the program and honestly<br />accomplish a lot in the next 5 years. I know, we need a propulsion module,<br />(to deliver a module or a bundle at a time to lunar or other extraterrestrial destinations)<br /> but that's minor <br /> we are already inventing the CEVpropulsion module anyway, and it need not be too big (I think the current design <br />is already small anyway). I just love all these designs on this thread, keep up the good work.<br />(And don't forget to make the most out our current shuttle program, to facilitate in making your<br />dreams a reality with the incredibly <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Very interesting subject though personally I would prefer not to use nuclear thermal propulsion but either an O’Neil style mass driver engine with a brayton cycle solar power plant for propulsion, or possibly an electro-magnetic launch.<br /><br />
Perhaps an improbability drive ? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>
Okay, here's an older concept with legend overview. This a nuclear (Americium241 isotope) powered spacecraft. Isreali scientist Dr. Ronin claims this nuclear fuel could take a ship to Mars in just 2 weeks. It lacks any artificial gravity, counting on a short flight time. <br /><br />Go to: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010103073253.htm
I like it. <br /><br />But if you could start from scratch, how could you improve upon it?<br /><br />
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact- Started by Admin
- Replies: 13
-
-
Mars exploration, new rockets and more: Interview with ESA chief Josef Aschbacher
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram