Could we get this into space?

[All Seeing Eye]

Would it even be remotely possible to get something weighing 100,000+ tonnes into space using current methods?

Ok i'll be more specific, could we take this and modify it slightly for it to be space worthy (in other words stick some engines on it and make it airtight) and then blast it into space? Obviously the flight deck would be covered over and made into some kind of hangar.

Well?

How about just 80,000+ tonnes?

EDIT: Damn, wrong forum, this should be in Science and Technology.

 

[Timo]

Were we to make either of those spaceworthy, I'd think a necessary first step in both cases would be to tear them apart into their basic components and then completely rebuild them. Which means that they could be launched into space in pieces using current or currently projected rockets and then assembled up there.

You can't make a wet-navy ship airtight easily. Even if she has been built with NBC protection in mind, this is usually achieved by letting the ship be leaky as all hell but then overpressurizing the interior with clean air. That's basically the exact opposite of making the ship capable of holding one atmosphere of pressure within.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[All Seeing Eye]

I think this should be the future design of a space craft. A large hull housing the crew quarters and aft engines and a flight deck on top covered over as a hangar with the bridge atop. Makes sense. It's just getting something like that into space.

 

[USS KG5]

It's just getting something like that into space.

Well logically you would build it in space - though one would argue on a spaceship the need for a raised island is not great. After all there is no flight deck to look down on, and no benefit in seeing a long way with Eyeball Mk 1.

Also of course the carriers are built in terms of size to accomodate 85 combat jets and supply them for a reasonable length of time, as well as accomodate the 6000 odd personnel needed. Why would the spacecraft be that big?

If you assume this was an interplanetary ship - designed to take the makings of a colony - I see your point, in fact it might need to be bigger. You would need massive cargo space and room to accomodate the colonists comfortably for some time. Also smaller craft launched from the mother ship could be useful.

 

[Deckerd]

Surely it would have to have a living accommodation which was spinning? Artifical gravity belongs with transporter beams.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Surely it would have to have a living accommodation which was spinning? Artifical gravity belongs with transporter beams.

I was thinking along the lines of the people just floating around the ship to be honest. I don't see the necessity of gravity on a space vessel. To keep your muscles working there'd be a gym.

An idea I was thinking of is having handles running along the walls of the corridors, if you want to get from say your quarters to the canteen area you grab one of the handles on the wall and click on a computerised wall map for the canteen, the handle then sets off in the direction of the canteen with you holding onto it and floating all the way there. There would also be a button on the handle, if you accidentally let go the button would release and the handle would stop moving so you could grab a hold again and continue your journey.

 

[Deckerd]

You have the problem of bone deterioration with no gravity. Astronauts who stay up for months on end lose a significant percentage of their bone density. There would be other obvious problems, like not being able to operate in a gravity for a long time after re-entering a gravity field. I expect there might be other long-term health problems, including fertility.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

You have the problem of bone deterioration with no gravity. Astronauts who stay up for months on end lose a significant percentage of their bone density. There would be other obvious problems, like not being able to operate in a gravity for a long time after re-entering a gravity field. I expect there might be other long-term health problems, including fertility.

Ok so how could we address this problem?

1) The crew quarters and all the other rooms below deck could be located in a spinning section within the main hull of the ship

OR

2) An area inside the hull could be dedicated to gravity simulation and everybody must train in this are daily to prevent bone degradation.

 

[Timo]

Or then space travel on that scale won't happen until we develop a pill that prevents bone loss. Which might be much easier to do than the construction of a spinning spaceship, or even the imposing of a training regime on the astronauts.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Unicron]

Moving the thread, as requested.

 

[USS KG5]

You could just spin the whole ship - mount the main engine on the centreline and have thrusters for manoevre and to spin the ship. As it is in space once you start it spinning you would have to pro-actively apply a force in the other direction to stop it - there is no friction from air or from something it is hanging from.

 

[Captain Intrepid]

Why not one of these?

 

[Lindley]

I can just imagine what such a space vessel might look like.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Why not one of these?

It can't carry aircraft/spacecraft for interplanetary travel.

Anyway, with a big enough rocket we would theoretically get something as big as a modified destroyer/frigate or aircraft carrier into space, right?

 

[Psion]

Why not one of these?

It can't carry aircraft/spacecraft for interplanetary travel.

Anyway, with a big enough rocket we would theoretically get something as big as a modified destroyer/frigate or aircraft carrier into space, right?

The thing is, an aircraft carrier is a very useful vessel, but it's designed to work in a very specific place: on Earth in a proportionately sized-bathtub. As noted, artificial gravity of some form is mandatory, and the only ways to do that right now are tricks involving spin or acceleration. So let's design this thing with two counter-rotating habitation sections for artificial gravity, and a fixed central axis section with the engines, any dangerously radioactive devices, sensors, and auxiliary vehicle bays (since landing on a spinning habitation module is unnecessarily tricky).

As far as those auxiliary craft are concerned, what are their missions? Space combat? Planetary landing? Each will have vastly different technical requirements, and a craft that can land on an Earth like world and take off again is beyond our present technology. So we have to assume either a much more energetic fuel supply than anything currently used (antimatter?), an engine that is ridiculously efficient, or possibly a means of nullifying gravity to lessen the apparent mass of the craft and its cargo (and that last bit nudges us dangerously close to science fantasy.

As you can see, a vehicle properly designed for its environment comes out looking very different from one designed for a different environment, even if the functional requirements are the same.

As far as getting a destroyer or frigate or even a carrier into orbit ... yes, in theory, but the rocket involved would be enormous, and there wouldn't be just one of them. Maybe a cluster of Orion-style nuclear pulse detonation engines would do the trick, but I'd like to observe that launch from a ... safe distance.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

As far as those auxiliary craft are concerned, what are their missions? Space combat? Planetary landing? Each will have vastly different technical requirements, and a craft that can land on an Earth like world and take off again is beyond our present technology.

But the gravity of Mars for example isn't as great as Earths, so it shouldn't be that difficult to take off and exit Mars atmosphere if the craft doing it has sufficient thrust.
Secondly, if the vessel was exploring the outer planets and their moons even the gravity of many of these are lower than Earths.

As noted, artificial gravity of some form is mandatory, and the only ways to do that right now are tricks involving spin or acceleration.

I already mentioned a way of getting around that by having a rotating central section or having an area dedicated for daily training exercises.

 

[sojourner]

Is this what they call "drawing the cart before the horse"?

Tachyon, with all the trouble you are going through to get an aircraft carrier into space AND rebuilding it to make it spaceworthy, wouldn't be easier to just design and build something from scratch? If you are going to take a wet navy vessel into space, your best bet would be a converted submarine. already air tight and ment to run for months at a time without resupply. You could even use a ballistic missile sub and replace the missiles with "space fighters". Another option for gravity of course is the use of very powerful accelleration from your engines. 1 G fo thrust = 1 G of gravity in the direction of movement. Of course you would have to arrange your deck layouts to take advantage of this.

 

[Psion]

But the gravity of Mars for example isn't as great as Earths, so it shouldn't be that difficult to take off and exit Mars atmosphere if the craft doing it has sufficient thrust.
Secondly, if the vessel was exploring the outer planets and their moons even the gravity of many of these are lower than Earths.

Sure, but half of Earth's g is still a lot of g. You still need enough fuel to land your ship on the planet and have enough to take off. Maybe if you could use wormholes or broadcast power from the mothership so the landing craft don't need to carry more than just an emergency supply with them, you'd have the conditions you need to land and take off at will.

I already mentioned a way of getting around that by having a rotating central section or having an area dedicated for daily training exercises.

And what keeps your hull from spinning the opposite direction from your rotating central section? Let alone deal with the precession problems of a single rotating mass.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Sure, but half of Earth's g is still a lot of g. You still need enough fuel to land your ship on the planet and have enough to take off.

Well I would hope in regards to Mars some kind of fuel base would have been built on the planet previously for resupply. Also there's no reason I can see why a craft couldn't have an extra large fuel tank for such a task, surely a large enough tank could escape 38% of Earths gravity. Maybe as an alternative a fuel tank could be deployed to the planet from the main ship.

And what keeps your hull from spinning the opposite direction from your rotating central section? Let alone deal with the precession problems of a single rotating mass.

I'm not a master of engineering but i'm sure something could be done to sort this out.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

The OP may be interested in a similar project initiated by the Japanese in 1973...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Blazers