Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by XCV330, Feb 6, 2019.
OK that's interesting to know, I didn't know of the measurements of the original LEM module. Thanks.
It is quite a big beast with surprisingly not that much habitable interior space -- although, psychologically, microgravity conditions make such cramped volumes seem larger effectively.
Funny you say that I watched Apollo 13 the other night and the inside of the LEM looks so cramped. Yet it wasn't small by any means, most of that being the lower half, I wonder how big the crew part of Bezos lander is.
Do we even know the dimensions for the mockup that he displayed? It looked to be taller than the descent stage of the Apollo LM but perhaps not as wide. I assume his crewed version will not require a separate ascent stage if he can source and produce LH2 and LOX locally. Quite a lot of internal volume in the old LM was taken up by the ascent engine, life-support equipment, and storage racks. I think modern CAD tools would better optimise the available volume within mass limitations. In addition, Bigelow-type expandable modules are a definite possibility for extended manned stays. Eventually, robotic systems should be able to construct more permanent structures from local materials.
More info from space.com:
Blue Origin appears pretty agnostic at best about NASA's Gateway (or LOP-G) station that is the only thing really on record to be built right now. If LOP-G is built in low lunar polar orbit, it can really open up the moon and eventually other solar system missions. I agree with Lockheed Martin on this: why not get a head start on that and use the upcoming EM1 mission to send the power and propulsion module on first instead of what will essentially be a "See, we did it" mission to show SLS can do things.
I don’t see Amazon building a giant station in space that’s 90+% “wasted” mountain, river, and forest. How are they going to make any money off of that? Where are the Amazon warehouses and supply plants? Those habitats could only be affordable to the top 1% of the top 1%. Maybe as an escape from the pollution and threat of uprising or nuclear/biowarfare below. They’d be a mockery of the world below left to become something out of the FC Borg future — population 9 billion, all miserable. And how absurd is it to imagine the billionaires and trillionaires up there playing on anachronistic farms with red barns and tractors from the 1970’s?
I see what you did there.
No one can own property or claim sovreignty (sigantures of the Outer Space Treaty) over the moon and other bodies beyond earth. Ergo, no one can tax them.
There are a lot of reasons for wanting that kind of access. For starters Blue Origin is not Amazon. Bezos sells a billion of his stock each year to fund it, though.
There is no reason to think these habitats would be only affordable to the top 1% of the 1%. Why would that be?
The case FOR the moon is that it makes a very good preliminary supply center for building making a lot of materials that can be useful for a space based economy. glass for pv panels, aluminum, titanium, oxygen. What the moon doesn't have a lot of are things like carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen, which can be obtained elsewhere. It also doesn't have a lot of water, but it has enough to get started. Using the moon, with automation, combined with mass driver launch allows a bustling construction program to build the first lagrange point habitats. Those would be used for farming, manufacturing and living spaces for the people involved. These would not be as glamorous as latter period habitats but neither would be be slums.
But the question becomes: what is the economy based on for those who live up there if it isn't just a place for trillionaires to play? For starters enough solar power to meet any demand earth can have beamed down cleanly and safely. Likewise minerals from asteroids would eventually be cost competitive with those on earth.
That's how Kerblam gets started don't you know? They even have a logo and all though it more resembles Dominos logo. But basically Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace Amazon.
^^ I may be a cynic in this matter, but I don’t think that when we’re really able to reach space, old treaties will be honored, either directly or indirectly.
It would be great to harness the resources of space for the betterment of all, but we don’t seem to be doing so with the resources of Earth, so, again, I’m cynical.
Good point, you think it's bad we can't manage what is on Earth it will be a shitstorm in space.
I heard somewhere the meek inherit the earth. Good luck to them. Everyone else gets everything else.
I'm not certain whether the People's Republic of China ever signed up for those old space treaties. That country now seems destined to play a big role in space exploitation. Anyway, tearing up treaties appears to be back in vogue.
Hey look at your POTUS he doesn't tear up treaties just ignores them.
My POTUS? I'm British, don't you know, old bean. Pip pip!
Oh my mistake sorry old chap.
In terms of property rights in space. the US has a law that does allow companies to keep whatever resources they mine in space, as long as they are US based. Luxembourg's new law goes one further by allowing those properties legality via the grand duchy, as long as the company has an office within the country itself.
The way the rule works now is, you can't actually own real estate in space (and yes, this will have to change, when claim jumping starts to occur and it gets nasty.. but space is really big ) , and while property rights to satellites are a bit of law that's established, the best bet for holding a claim on ore or manufactured goods made in space would be this model.
So Luxembourg may win the space race.
Oh, um.... me, too! (Do you think I can get away with claiming this until Trump isn't POTUS anymore, mates?)
Virgin Galactic looks to finally be moving in to Spaceport America, in New Mexico. That's a pretty good sign that they are getting ready for passenger flights. It's a bit of a race now for the suborbital tourism market between Virgin and Blue.
Separate names with a comma.