What could a future earth space ship look like.

[Crazy Eddie]

This might be a slightly mad idea/question, but would it be possible/feasible to use a catapult type station to 'throw' ships and probes /.../

Didn't NASA once play with this thought?
I remember watching an animation on TV where this kind of system was installed in orbit around Earth and the moon.

Yeah, the problem with the idea is that the rotating station (called a "skyhook" or some other variation) is effectively a giant flywheel that functions as a momentum bank. The problem with this idea is, every joule of energy you impart on a ship is energy the rotating station looses; you'd have to build up that energy by sending something of similar mass or similar velocity to be captured by it or else it will eventually spin down.

I suggest the trebuchet design as an alternative to mass drivers, since I'm under the impression that mass drivers suffer from massive heat build up, even when used in atmospheres, so I could imagine that such a heat build up in void vacuum could be highly dangerous.

Well, the heat buildup is manageable in an atmosphere OR in space, and in the latter environment it's only dangerous to the driver's components and systems, but there are ways around that too.

The real problem with mass drivers is that they're huge, expensive, and you can only use them to send payloads into a pre-determined orbit. Nobody's going to do that until the parameters of those orbits are already mapped out; basically it's the high speed rail of space exploration.

 

[SilentP]

Yeah, the problem with the idea is that the rotating station (called a "skyhook" or some other variation) is effectively a giant flywheel that functions as a momentum bank. The problem with this idea is, every joule of energy you impart on a ship is energy the rotating station looses; you'd have to build up that energy by sending something of similar mass or similar velocity to be captured by it or else it will eventually spin down.

I wasn't under the impression that a station like this would be constantly spinning in any case, or does the winding down and up add extra complications?

Well, the heat buildup is manageable in an atmosphere OR in space, and in the latter environment it's only dangerous to the driver's components and systems, but there are ways around that too.

The real problem with mass drivers is that they're huge, expensive, and you can only use them to send payloads into a pre-determined orbit. Nobody's going to do that until the parameters of those orbits are already mapped out; basically it's the high speed rail of space exploration.

Hmmm, interesting. Maybe I'm not reading it right, but from what I'm inferring you seem to be implying that these mass drivers are surface based, judging from the phrasing 'send payloads into a pre-determined orbit', or do you mean that they can only fire payloads into a pre-determined orbit at the target planet/asteroid/moon etc.

 

[Silvercrest]

This is what I think(In my opinion) a future Earth ship will look like.
It will be more oval than round, with visible weapons on top and a shuttle bay on the bottom. It will have many antennas in different spots on top mostly and some on the bottom.

Which is the top and which is the bottom? Will it have a problem flying upside-down?

It's been mentioned more than once and by more than one person that what you're looking for is a Star Trek answer in the real world. Getting all misty-eyed and saying 'but guys we're talking about the FUTURE' doesn't change the fact that ye canny change the laws of physics, Jim.

I don't even see where I even copied off of star trek in my own ship description, but OK.

The bridge from on top will be concealed.

Referring to the cockpit or control room as the "bridge" is very Star Trekkian. If it didn't originate with Trek, it was popularized by it. Spacecraft in the real world don't use that term.

 

[Deckerd]

Yeah, that whole "Wikipedia is no valid source because it can be changed by everyone" is getting tiresome already. Wikipedia is a fine source. There is a version control, you can look up all the changes made to the article, and it references the actual sources of information. Scientific articles that matter are mostly written by scientists anyway and don't contain bullshit. And you can always double check.

Not to mention that Wikibooks, the academic reference wiki, is recommended by universities now.

 

[trekkiedane]

This might be a slightly mad idea/question, but would it be possible/feasible to use a catapult type station to 'throw' ships and probes /.../

Didn't NASA once play with this thought?
I remember watching an animation on TV where this kind of system was installed in orbit around Earth and the moon.

Yeah, the problem with the idea is that the rotating station (called a "skyhook" or some other variation) is effectively a giant flywheel that functions as a momentum bank. The problem with this idea is, every joule of energy you impart on a ship is energy the rotating station looses; you'd have to build up that energy by sending something of similar mass or similar velocity to be captured by it or else it will eventually spin down.

Both yes and no, yes the 'stationary' slingshot (momentum exchange tether is -afaik- the current NASA term) will need to build up momentum to give to the payload, this is however done electrically; tether propulsion.

Sling me to the Moon (Article).

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFKdYscRpVo[/yt]​

Not the animation I remembered, this one is newer.

 

[SilentP]

^ Excellent find, thank you very much for sharing that with us!

Thoughts on the video/article:

-90-100km long?! That's gotta be a hell of a strong tether to keep it's tensile strength over that kind of distance.

-It says that using this would reduce the amount of fuel needed by half. Now is that half that would be required for the return journey, or half of the one way trip? I would have thought you'd need some delta-v to slow down, or does that not count for trips to Lunar, where you can aim to enter it's orbit and not need to decelerate?

-The set up does seem remarkably simple in comparison to what I had in mind, and (unsurprisingly) a lot better. The use of Earth's magnetic field and solar panels to wind up the tether is ingenious.

 

[Deckerd]

That's a really interesting article, thanks. I recall someone on this forum declaring that elevators (beanstalks) would definitely be operating by the end of this century but from what that article is saying, it seems rather unlikely.

 

[trekkiedane]

^ Excellent find, thank you very much for sharing that with us!

Well, I just had to look it up (and of course I'd share it here).

-It says that using this would reduce the amount of fuel needed by half. Now is that half that would be required for the return journey, or half of the one way trip? I would have thought you'd need some delta-v to slow down, or does that not count for trips to Lunar, where you can aim to enter it's orbit and not need to decelerate?

Apparently this particular set-up is for near earth to Geostationary Earth Orbit, so the fuel saved is that which would be used to elevate the payload from a low orbit to GEO using conventional methods.

The idea I (very much) earlier had seen animated had two tethers; one near Earth and one near the Moon: one gets you on your way and the other one catches you once you've reached your destination.

 

[KJbushway]

This is what I think(In my opinion) a future Earth ship will look like.
It will be more oval than round, with visible weapons on top and a shuttle bay on the bottom. It will have many antennas in different spots on top mostly and some on the bottom.

Which is the top and which is the bottom? Will it have a problem flying upside-down?

I don't even see where I even copied off of star trek in my own ship description, but OK.

The bridge from on top will be concealed.

Referring to the cockpit or control room as the "bridge" is very Star Trekkian. If it didn't originate with Trek, it was popularized by it. Spacecraft in the real world don't use that term.

Referring to a bridge as concealed is actually opposite of Star trek. Your right BRIDGE didn't originate from star trek, and thats why by typing bridge, the ship isn't a relation to star trek. I mentioned Navy hallways one time does that mean I am in the Navy? Bridge simply refers to a control center. Its mostly used in military terms.

 

[Deckerd]

Roddenberry followed the naval ranks and nomenclature but really there's no reason why the air force isn't just as appropriate. After all, all of the professional astronauts produced by the planet so far have been pilots or specialist scientists.

The have some pretty cool ranks, in the UK at least, like Wing Commander and Squadron leader. Further up you have Air Commodore, which could easily be changed to No Air Commodore. Kidding.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yeah, the problem with the idea is that the rotating station (called a "skyhook" or some other variation) is effectively a giant flywheel that functions as a momentum bank. The problem with this idea is, every joule of energy you impart on a ship is energy the rotating station looses; you'd have to build up that energy by sending something of similar mass or similar velocity to be captured by it or else it will eventually spin down.

I wasn't under the impression that a station like this would be constantly spinning in any case, or does the winding down and up add extra complications?

You're thinking it would be stationary and then "wind up" only when it's getting ready to launch something?

Off the top of my head I think that would be kind of self-defeating in a number of ways, but it would definitely add quite a few complications. Most notably, the whole action-reaction thing where anything you do to spin the station has an exact counter-reaction so you'd pretty much have to spin two parts of it in opposite directions, expending twice the energy you'd normally have to. That's ALOT of kinetic energy to build up, and alot more to dissipate and bring the station back to a halt.

Hmmm, interesting. Maybe I'm not reading it right, but from what I'm inferring you seem to be implying that these mass drivers are surface based, judging from the phrasing 'send payloads into a pre-determined orbit', or do you mean that they can only fire payloads into a pre-determined orbit at the target planet/asteroid/moon etc.

The BASIC concept is for a surface-based mass driver. A space-based one in orbit would be easier in that you could align the driver to launch targets from LEO to a higher orbit without much fuss--and the Delta-V requirement is much lower so it would require less energy--but again there's the action/reaction thing and the driver would have to obtain more kinetic energy from somewhere just to stay in orbit between launches. The conventional idea is to have it both send and receive payloads so that the capture of a speeding object can make up for the energy deficit, but this get tricky when contingencies are factored in.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

-It says that using this would reduce the amount of fuel needed by half. Now is that half that would be required for the return journey, or half of the one way trip?

It's the amount of fuel you need to slow down when you get there, assuming there isn't a counterpart system at the destination point. Even entering lunar orbit, you still have to perform a braking maneuver at some point to remain in a circular orbit and not drift back into Earth's dominant gravity field.

 

[KJbushway]

Roddenberry followed the naval ranks and nomenclature but really there's no reason why the air force isn't just as appropriate.

Its mostly used in military terms.

-KJBushway ^

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Roddenberry followed the naval ranks and nomenclature but really there's no reason why the air force isn't just as appropriate. After all, all of the professional astronauts produced by the planet so far have been pilots or specialist scientists.

Actually, Soviet/Russian astronauts have more often been navy officers. Not for any particular reason except their familiarity with sophisticated breathing apparatus made them more comfortable using space suits. Alexi Leonov, IIRC, was a diver before he was an astronaut.

I've actually theorized that future astronaut rankings will probably have no relation to anything other than their predecessor astronaut programs. For example, a deep space exploration craft would have:

Flight Commander
Senior Most Officer, makes all command decisions on the ship

Flight Specialist
Second in command, actually pilots the ship and is responsible for navigation and docking maneuvers.

Senior Mission Specialist
In charge of the scientific department, all sensors and scientific equipment on board. On a combat vessel he would be replaced by the Senior Ordinance Specialist.

Junior Mission Specialist (or simply "Mission Specialist")
SMS' underlings, works with the onboard equipment from duty stations. On a combat vessel these would be replaced by Ordinance Specialists

Senior Payload Specialist
The de facto "Chief engineer," in charge of the ship's machinery and any manual labor involving payload and external operations; as such, he's the highest ranking crewmember who ever has to put on a space suit, and he's the one principally responsible for the planning and coordination of EVAs.

Junior Payload Specialist (or simply "Payloader")
Deck hands, basically. Trained to use space suits, manipulators, various EVA pods and robotic equipment plus any number of microgravity tools. Not exactly trained engineers, their main strength is attention to detail, coolness under pressure, and the ability to carefully and precisely carry out instructions dictated to them by the Mission/Payload specialists reading off checklists and/or schematics on board the ship.

Depending on the mission or the size of the ship, it might have a single man in each position, or it might have one of each senior specialist and twenty payloaders. A craft designed to make interplanetary voyages and then land on a moon or an asteroid might actually have two different flight specialists, one for interplanetary navigation and one specially trained for landings.

 

[KJbushway]

OK

 

[C.E. Evans]

Roddenberry followed the naval ranks and nomenclature but really there's no reason why the air force isn't just as appropriate. After all, all of the professional astronauts produced by the planet so far have been pilots or specialist scientists.

I think in such a scenario, we'd have "Starforce Command" and the "Starcraft Enterprise" flown by Colonel J.T. Kirk and his co-pilot, Lt. Colonel Spock...