Ideas for habitable space
-
The topic was "ideas for habitable space". An interplanetary vehicle also counts as on-topic.
You just shoved the interplanetary vehicle into the topic, as you said here:
Lets say we built a gigantic ship that makes water, O2 and other stuff recycling them over and over again using solar power. that maybe possible. But the thing is that, only a few hundred thousand of people can go. The resources on earth are otherwise not enough. But even then we have to propel such a large ship at escape velocity.
Space Station and Interplanetary vehicles are different in terms of usage. Space stations are mainly for habitation for long or short periods of time and could act as a orbiting laboratory and a test bed for the design of new space hardware, Interplanetary vehicles on the other hand is where you apply that research and hardware + the habitation part and the ability to achieve sufficient velocity to escape its planet/moon/star and travel to other celestial bodies under its own power. A space station can become a interplanetary/interstellar craft depending on what engine you can install on it, but that is - however, light years off topic.
I was talking about making water from oxygen and hydrogen.Not purification of polluted water.
We don't even need to combine Hydrogen and Oxygen on Earth because that would be no utter point in doing this because it's too damn expensive and we've got water everywhere. Even if we can produce water and give it to people in Africa - it would be too damn expensive even for a "humanitarian" mission.
We take them from earth. Or from other planets. once there is a good amount and a machine that can economically recycle it it can sustain humans unless there is a population boom.
Why deplete the resources of your planets, where theres water in the asteroid belt and the Oort cloud, and beyond interplanetary space, asteroids of other star systems? We could be harvesting water and lessen the amount of dangerous space rocks at least. You get a dV advantage (again, this purely depends on the distance of the asteroid your going for) if your gonna go for the asteroid belt than extract water from [insert gas giant in Sol here] Because, you need to brake once you've hit your lowest point of orbit (Hoffman transfers), gather water, then the need once again to get back to Earth, asteroids have weaker body that planets, which saves alot of dV (As said again, this depends on where you'll be heading at to extract water) And you just can't magically have a increase in population where a system can no longer support the number of its inhabitants in.
-
Funding for space projects mostly comes from the government, but..we got SpaceX, they're doing resupply flights to the ISS - but, they need funding from NASA to build their Falcon 9 rocket.
Good point. It's likely the,well, spacecraft will also include private companies, if the whole private spaceflight thing goes well. It seems that it's going relatively well, except with maybe that Falcon 9 rocket you mentioned. What's your opinion?
Now, the problem is the rocket, the N1 - they hardly made any repairs or tweaks during they're tests, all flights resulted in failures, 100% failure out of 4 tests, the N1 had a greater take off capacity than the US Saturn V, but alot heavier since it uses Kerosene, while the Saturn V uses a mix of Kerosene-Liquid Oxygen which saves a rather lot amount of weight.
I've heard those N1 rockets were modified German missiles. That probably could explain the failures. -
I've heard those N1 rockets were modified German missiles. That probably could explain the failures.
Well, the German V2 used during World War II was the basis of all launch vehicles today, it was more or less successful, alot of it was launched towards London which killed 2,000 people and injuring more than 6,000. The USSR at that time was quickly competing to get to the moon before the US did, they didn't do any proper testings of their rockets, plus, their chief rocket scientist, also known as "The Chief Designer", Sergei Korolev died, so there wasn't really much experts in developing the N1.
Good point. It's likely the,well, spacecraft will also include private companies, if the whole private spaceflight thing goes well. It seems that it's going relatively well, except with maybe that Falcon 9 rocket you mentioned. What's your opinion?
Private companies will most likely dominate the "Space Industry", just yesterday, Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo, a spaceplane for suborbital flight made its first rocket-powered test flight. Its purely commercial, costing about $200,000 for each passenger.
-
Well, the German V2 used during World War II was the basis of all launch vehicles today, it was more or less successful, alot of it was launched towards London which killed 2,000 people and injuring more than 6,000. The USSR at that time was quickly competing to get to the moon before the US did, they didn't do any proper testings of their rockets, plus, their chief rocket scientist, also known as "The Chief Designer", Sergei Korolev died, so there wasn't really much experts in developing the N1.
No testings? A dead lead designer? Sounds like a recipe for disaster, especially with the kerosene fuel. I suppose they had some awfully lax safety standards too.Private companies will most likely dominate the "Space Industry", just yesterday, Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo, a spaceplane for suborbital flight made its first rocket-powered test flight. Its purely commercial, costing about $200,000 for each passenger.
I think I've seen that before. I saw a picture of their WhiteKnightTwo in Guinness Record 2012 once. $200,000? Seems awfully cheap compared to other things. Does it take people anyway in particular or does it just take them to the edge of the Earth's atmosphere like the WhiteKnightTwo?
