Space Colonization Options (Orbiting Stations, planets/moons)

A

Since the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, a Lunar Elevator would actually be feasible.

I envision the Lunar Elevator being less expensive versions of a Bigelow Han that are stacked on top of each other starting on the Moon.

The first section would be connected to a base unit that would eventually provide air stored in tanks and electricity via solar power.

A crane would be needed to boost each new section up to the docking ring of the previous section where it would be inflated after connection.

Better yet, instead of a crane, the modules would for the space side of the elevator, all 250 miles worth, would be assembled but not inflated in space.

A lander attached to the Elevator via bungi like sets of cabling, would then descend to the Lunar surface. The bungi tethers would need to be at least 275 miles each for tolerance issues related to the lander descending to the surface.

Once on the surface, the lander would reel in the cables that would then slowly pull the elevator to the lunar surface. Once attached to the base, the process of inflating each module would begin.

The Elevator would be connected to a Bigelow orbital station that is equipped with thrusters to help correct altitude adjustments when need be and keep the Moons gravity from pulling the Elevator to the surface of the Moon.

Although a very costly project, the Bigelow Lunar Elevator would more than pay for itself at being able to transfer cargo and humans to and from the Moon without wasting money on fuel.

I thought about the Lunar Elevator a little more and the idea would work. the drawbacks however would be the cost of increased maintenance and upkeep due to small tears from small meteorites and having to replace damage sections.

The best option for lunar colonization would involve a Bigelow Orbital facility that a Lunar Lander that could descend from and ascend to from the Moon to without leaving behind the descent stage, which I'm certain Musk or Bezos could figure out.

A fuel storage tank, basically the Service Module from Apollo stripped of everything except for fuel containers, remote navigation systems and the fuel tanks own rocket engines.

In the image below we have three sections of the Apollo 11 mission. The Lunar Lander Section, Service Module Section and Command Module Section.

Now, the thrust to weight ratio to get all three sections to Lunar orbit has already been calculated and proven to be possible. What would change is the interior configuration of all three sections. Instead of housing systems for human survival, the lander and other systems, those systems that were not crucial to get the three sections to Lunar orbit would be removed and replaced by fuel, basically a smaller version of the External Fuel Tank used with the Space Shuttle.

The Fuel Tank would be remotely docked with the Bigelow Station where the Fuel Tank would provide fuel for numerous missions to and from the Moons surface as well as refueling manned craft that would allow more cargo to be carried to the Bigelow Station without having to add extra modules for return trip fuel. Two Fuel Tanks would be docked with the Lunar Orbital Station that could provide up to two to three years worth of fuel. The delivery vehicle would be re-useable and once it had sent the Fuel Tank on its way to the Moon, would return to the Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_(spacecraft)#/media/File:Apollo_Spacecraft_diagram.jpg

Actually, the above concept would work.

If we take all three Apollo - 11 sections from above and make them into one unit, add the landing struts, rocket motors along with the guidance and control systems from the Falcon 9 rocket and then place it on top of a Falcon X Super Heavy, the Trailblazer Fuel Container and Transfer System would work for a Lunar Landing.

https://spaceflight101.com/spacex-launch-vehicle-concepts-designs/

Having a fuel and transfer vehicle on the Lunar surface would have the advantage of building larger Lunar landing craft that didn't require additional fuel for the return ascent that also could be left on the Moon and used several times.

Think of the Eagle Lunar Lander that is able to descend to surface of the Moon, drop cargo off, fuel up via astronauts using the Trailblazer, and then return to the Mothership. Once docked with the Mothership, crew and cargo from the surface can be transferred to the Mother and vice versus.

Even if the Mothership is a Dragon X Module, the Lunar Lander could still dock with. But instead of simply letting the Lunar Lander drift off into space, the Lunar Lander 'could be returned to the the surface of the Moon via control from the Mothership or NASA using the Mothership as control platform.

Getting a fuel ship to the surface of the Moon will reduce a lot of waste and open up a lot of new ground.

 

I'd hope so, an M1 diameter is/was 4.28m, you'd only fit 23 in a 24.4m diameter shell. 6.675 MN was the thrust in a vaccum too, can't find an sea level reports. How close could you pack them. Aerospikes are notorious for the difficulty in keeping them cool.

 

Lunar starship looks like a neat idea.

Are aerospike engines any good for spacecraft?

 

How does the aerospike engine work?

 

Here's a video explaining them

 

I read the Aerospike Wiki and found Aerospike to be a very interesting design. Basically, the Aerospike engine creates the thrust along the v shape of bell housing exhaust thrust.

The Aerospike engine might be the preferred choice of rocket engines for Lunar descent and ascent. Using the least amount fuel as possible while getting a five man Hopper craft to and from the surface of the Moon, along with landing a cargo module and fuel module are critical for Lunar colonization.

The cargo module would have a two fold design.

1. Transport 100 tons of cargo to Moons surface.
2. Convert into habitable living space once the cargo has been off loaded.

 

Aerospikes work with atmospheres. Annular designs the best.

There is a new type of optical vortex called a STOV discovered by Scott Hancock at UMD.

Lauren Dreier used lace designs for a new construct called a Bigon Ring that may allow craft to be woven.

From blob photon torpedoes to the spun craft from “Beyond The Farthest Star”….materials research is slowly putting reality to imagination

 

So once the craft is in an atmosphere, switching over to the Aeropspike engine would function better than a conventional rocket engine. Such a design would require rocket engines in space to help the craft escape Earth's gravity. The only problem is, would the Aerospike engines be able to lift the craft off the ground and then take the craft into an altitude where the rocket engines would taken the craft the rest of the way into space?

Reusable rockets are cool and all, don't get me wrong. But a winged craft is much better.
Perhaps the Aerospike engine craft could settle into an altitude where a C-130 that has the internal volume converted into a fuel tank could refuel the winged craft with rocket fuel for the rest of the journey into space.

Basically the Aerospike Craft would launch, without rocket fuel, to a height where zero gravity begins to take over. The craft would dock with the refueling plane, fill its fuel tanks full of rocket fuel while topping of its Aerospike fuel and then continue into space.

 

Somewhere in the intergalactic void?

A winged craft in theory (like super speed stuff - think SR71 rather than 747) might allow you to get to about 1/10th of the delta-v you need to get to for orbit, at a low altitude, with more atmosphere to bust through. It's pretty insignificant for anything aiming to get to orbit.

Launching from Colorado rather than Florida has advantages (less atmosphere), but the disadvantages of logistics and the path not being over the ocean means that fails.

Yes you could have a multistage system where you have an aerospike on the first stage for flying through the atmosphere, then a second stage with rocket. Many rockets do have ASL tuned engines rather than using the same one, it saves a bit, and the rocket equation means that saves a lot. It's nothing to do with reusability - The F9 first stage is reusable, just the second stage that isn't.

Virgin Orbital's whole shtick is launching from altitude (so less loss in the atmosphere, bad weather avoidance, and of course orbit selection). Boosting from 500mph to say 3000mph before launch would add about 1km/s of delta-v, but what type of plane can do 3000mph while carrying massive cargo? An SR-71 reached 2000mph.

A C130 has a take off weight of 70 tons, half of which is the plane itself. An Falcon Heavy can put 60 tons in LEO.

An A380 is far more useful, with a take off weight approaching 650 tons.

The idea you might be thinking of would be a Stratolaunch, with a cargo capacity of 250 tons. It wasn't a goer, and only got as far as it did as it was Paul Allen's baby. The orbital part of it sits well in the "concept" stage.

 

Well didn't the old X15 almost make it into space?

 

Still a long way from orbital velocity.

Each shuttle orbiter came back at Mach 25!

Something the size of a trawler outran runt X-15 by leaps and bounds.

Put 3 liquid fuel engines on Super Hustler…get rid of the jets enlarge your drop tank, and have two RATO units to either side…and you have shuttle…a glider sopped on a skid tank but what had two giant bottle rockets hanging off either side to give it the run-and-go to git it goin’

Ye-haw!

Only ye’ got to spackle these special bricks on ye’ super hustler to keep the thang from meltin’

Starship will make an even noisier boom on return.

 

Would the Aerospike Concept potentially increase the exhaust potential of the Ion or VASMR engines?

 

An Aerospike that moves in the rocket nozzle makes the exhaust optimal at all altitudes in launch, reason why they have 2 stages is because the 2nd stage is made for vacuum. while the 1st stage is made for sea level optimization. An aerospike solves that problem, but adds weight. So its a kind of 6 of one, half dozen of another situation usually. Most use stages.

 

Here is another idea that might save money for Lunar landings.

Orion is going to be the go-to ship for Lunar landing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)

How technically feasible and challenging would using the Orion Command module be to land on the surface of the Moon using a reverse-Eagle Lunar Lander concept? The reverse concept of the Eagle lander would be: instead of a separate lunar lander, the Command Module would detach from the Service Module, couple to an Eagle type lander propulsion package and then land on the Moon. With the surface mission complete the Command Module returns to Lunar orbit de-couples from the lander propulsion package, re-couples to the Service Module and then returns home.

After thinking about the idea, a separate Lunar Lander that is re-usable and is able to be refueled via a permanent fuel station on the Moon would be technically more sound from an engineering viewpoint.

 

And Jeff Bezos is going to be on the first crewed ship to do a launch. But it will only be a sub orbital flight

 

Orion is not suitable for use as a lunar lander. The name of that program is Artemis and SpaceX has been selected by NASA to provide at least two landers based on SpaceX's Starship HLS. Provided that vehicle works, Orion seems pretty much redundant except for some deeper space missions perhaps, although Starship HLS is starting to make NASA's own efforts look very outdated. The plan is supposedly to use Orion to transfer crew to the Starship HLS-based lander for the landing and from the relaunched lander in lunar orbit to return them to earth, which seems kind of odd. It would seem simpler to use SpaceX hardware for the whole operation.

 

Moon Diver


Now here is a strange one: ULA Atlas V 501 AFSPC-5 lookked a bit odd.
https://space.stackexchange.com/que...he-payload-fairing-during-u?noredirect=1&lq=1

Vent fin I guess--but I don't seemm to remember seeing that before...

The TERRAN R rocket
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/06/relativity-reveals-terran-r/

Looks like Terra V

Best side view of Starship
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/06/one-spacex-raptor-engine-every-two-days.html

Firefly ship--not the series
https://sites.google.com/view/worldships/starships/firefly
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5367.msg2244288#msg2244288

NEPTUN
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/project-neptun-1967-german-rlv-study.37057/

Black Hole colony

 

I was just reading Mailer’s “Of a Fire on the Moon” and how the LOX of the Saturn V was equal to the breath Americans held for that moment

The equation is balanced…


Water from the air
https://interestingengineering.com/a-new-condenser-can-harvest-drinking-water-from-the-air-24-7

Radio signals
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-nightside-radio-reveal-exoplanet.html

This tech iis stunning
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-06-photo-video.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-hydrogen-energy.html
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-06-ai-electronics.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-magneto-thermal-imaging-synchrotron-capabilities-lab.html
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-06-nuclear-batteries-approach-carbon-free-energy.html
https://interestingengineering.com/genetically-engineered-supertrees-capture-more-carbon
https://interestingengineering.com/tesla-battery-recharges-fast-when-towed-at-70-mph
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-artificial-leaf-semiconducting-polymers.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-physicists-electric-fields-oscillations-tiny.html
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-06-techniques-bolster-memory-safety.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-mechanism-xfel-induced-diamond-unveiled.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-nanodiamonds-phase-team.html
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-06-smart-cement-durable-roads-cities.html

25 million year cycle
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-million-year-geological.html

Black hole breakthrough
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-physics-black-hole.html
The paper by Dr. Jonathan Gratus from Lancaster University and Dr. Paul Kinsler and Professor Martin McCall from Imperial College London demonstrates how the laws of physics break down in a black hole or "singularity."

New materials
https://interestingengineering.com/new-ultralight-material-is-tougher-than-steel-and-kevlar
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-06-inflatable-shape-changing-spinal-implants-severe.html

Better sensors
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-optical-superoscillation-side.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-method-radio-image-hidden.html


China's floating island
https://interestingengineering.com/...-floating-islands-designed-for-shenzhen-china
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-doomsday-glacier-stable.html

A quantum compass?
https://interestingengineering.com/birds-see-magnetic-fields-thanks-to-a-quantum-compass
Open blades
https://interestingengineering.com/new-open-rotor-engine-concept-might-cut-aviation-emissions-by-20

Electra
https://interestingengineering.com/usaf-signs-contract-with-electra-for-ultra-short-takeoff-aircraft

Microwave beaming and reception tech
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-06-inexpensive-scalable-method-metamaterials-microwave.html

Space patents
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Patents_help_build_a_global_map_of_new_space_industry_999.html

 

Wait for someone else to do it....a New-Beijing on Mars instead of a New-Washington?

China Announces It Will Put First Humans On Mars Before 2033
https://www.unilad.co.uk/technology/china-announces-it-will-put-first-humans-on-mars-before-2033/
https://gizmodo.com/china-hopes-to-put-first-human-on-mars-in-2033-report-1847163177

Doesnt seem to be officical but people linked to the industry are talking Mars base, Cargo fleets, more Robots and manned Missions, alien Cities etc

 

Hmmm ambitious