Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

space ship design


danielost
 Share

Recommended Posts

true, but the main ship can be the same.

Why? A spacecraft landing on Mars needs to be built to tougher tolerances than a spacecraft landing on the Moon because of Mars's higher gravity. It also needs to be streamlined because Mars has an atmosphere while the Moon has none. This is why pretty much every design of a Mars landing spacecraft is cone-shaped with a heat shield underneath, which is completely different looking from the Apollo Lunar Module.

And presumably a colony ship isn't going to lift off, so it presumably can be built as a single vehicle, while an exploration lander which needs to be able to lift off again is likely to be a two stage affair. All these factors mean that the internal design is going to be completely different, which in turn means the outside is going to look completely different too.

the main reason to building the ship in orbit is radiation shielding.

What? Why?

Radiation shielding can be installed just fine here on Earth - in fact probably more easily than in space. And whether it's installed on Earth or in space, the shielding has to be taken from the surface of the Earth into space. It's just that if it's installed on Earth it can be tested and replaced if needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why? A spacecraft landing on Mars needs to be built to tougher tolerances than a spacecraft landing on the Moon because of Mars's higher gravity. It also needs to be streamlined because Mars has an atmosphere while the Moon has none. This is why pretty much every design of a Mars landing spacecraft is cone-shaped with a heat shield underneath, which is completely different looking from the Apollo Lunar Module.

And presumably a colony ship isn't going to lift off, so it presumably can be built as a single vehicle, while an exploration lander which needs to be able to lift off again is likely to be a two stage affair. All these factors mean that the internal design is going to be completely different, which in turn means the outside is going to look completely different too.

What? Why?

Radiation shielding can be installed just fine here on Earth - in fact probably more easily than in space. And whether it's installed on Earth or in space, the shielding has to be taken from the surface of the Earth into space. It's just that if it's installed on Earth it can be tested and replaced if needed.

I see your problem, a ship built in orbit is to big to land on any planet. the lander is a separate ship just as lunar module was. Apollo didn't land on the moon only the lander did. Apollo was to big and didn't have the fuel to land. the same thing will be true for any mars mission ship.

Edited by danielost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
Apollo didn't land on the moon only the lander did. Apollo was to big and didn't have the fuel to land.

Which part of the following comments did you not understand?

The Apollo spacecraft consisted of three parts: The Command Module (the conical capsule for the astronauts), the Service Module (the cylindrical unit containing engine, propellant and so on) and the Lunar Excursion Module (the two-stage spidery craft that landed on the Moon).

No, it was called the Lunar Module, which is why I called it the Lunar Module.

I fail to see how Derek and Peter could have made it any simpler, but still you get it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Dunning and Kruger had it so right.

In this case I suspect even Dunning and Kruger would be astounded.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your problem...

Sorry, but no, I don't think you do.

Spacecraft design is a highly technical activity. It's limited by a series of factors which you seem to be completely unaware of, and is essentially unaffected by aesthetics.

a ship built in orbit is to big to land on any planet.

It's not whether a spacecraft was built in orbit which is going to determine whether it could land on a planet.

A spacecraft which could land on Mars would require a number of specific design features, such as rocket engines, a heat shield, a control system and a life support system. All these things are, very simply, easier to assemble and test on Earth by people who don't need to wear spacesuits. Additionally, no one has yet demonstrated the techniques required to fill fuel tanks in zero G. It's just a darn sight easier to fill them here on Earth in a gravity field.

the lander is a separate ship just as lunar module was. Apollo The Command and Service Module didn't land on the moon only the lander Lunar Module did. Apollo The Command Module was to big and didn't have the fuel to land. the same thing will be true for any mars mission ship.

In fact there were a heap of other design reasons for separating the lunar landing functions into a separate spacecraft.

1. As the Lunar Module was only ever operating in the Moon's gravity, it was built to much lower tolerances than the Command Module. This allowed it to be much lighter.

2. The designers of the Command Module never worked out a satisfactory system for managing a landing on the Moon. For one thing, if the astronauts were lying back in their launch couches, they wouldn't be able to see the surface of the Moon in order to land. And if they stood up so they could see out the windows (which would have needed to be larger, with all the problems that entailed) they'd need a second set of controls.

3. Landing the Command Module on the Moon would require an additional "Crasher" stage rocket designed to do most of the decelerating during the descent to the surface. Separation from the crasher stage would have occurred only a short distance above the surface of the Moon, with little room for error if there was any problem with the separation or with starting the Service Module engine.

4. The Saturn V rocket as designed wouldn't have been strong enough to launch the Command and Service Module along with the crasher stage and send the lot off to the Moon. Instead it would have been necessary to use two rockets and link up the CSM and crasher in Earth orbit before heading off to the Moon. Two launches per mission increased the chance of mission failure.

5. Being a lot taller and heavier than the LM as used, the CSM standing on the Moon would have had a higher centre of gravity, increasing the risk of toppling on landing.

6. Being a lot taller than the LM as used, the CM would have been more dangerous to climb out of in order for astronauts to get to the surface of the Moon. The LM had a porch built into the Descent Stage. Any equivalent on the CM would have had to be incorporated into the CM's outside surface, or installed by the astronauts. Neither would have been as safe as the LM's porch.

But you're right that there's no practical way a single spacecraft can both transport the astronauts to Mars and land them there. The two functions are so different that they most practically require two separate spacecraft. This is simply one situation where a generalised spacecraft won't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which part of the following comments did you not understand?

I fail to see how Derek and Peter could have made it any simpler, but still you get it wrong.

your not even worth talking to anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

your not even worth talking to anymore.

Why, are you bored with me pointing out that your posts are utter nonsense? That is easily cured, stop posting utter nonsense.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, are you bored with me pointing out that your posts are utter nonsense? That is easily cured, stop posting utter nonsense.

I am bored with you twisting what I say and with you arguing with me over a the meaning of a word. words have different meanings to different people, depending on where you grow. such as the word nuke, means anything nuclear, from a microwave to a nuclear sub. to you it means weapons only. instead of correcting my meaning how about talking about the subject of my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

I am bored with you twisting what I say and with you arguing with me over a the meaning of a word. words have different meanings to different people, depending on where you grow. such as the word nuke, means anything nuclear, from a microwave to a nuclear sub. to you it means weapons only. instead of correcting my meaning how about talking about the subject of my post.

The subject you posted is laughable. Your argument is basically this:

A real spacecraft to Mars should be built to the design of a non-existent, fictional ship, because you like Star Trek. And you posted that in the science section

There is no need to twist your words Daniel, you condemn yourself with every post you make.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? A spacecraft landing on Mars needs to be built to tougher tolerances than a spacecraft landing on the Moon because of Mars's higher gravity. It also needs to be streamlined because Mars has an atmosphere while the Moon has none. This is why pretty much every design of a Mars landing spacecraft is cone-shaped with a heat shield underneath, which is completely different looking from the Apollo Lunar Module.

And presumably a colony ship isn't going to lift off, so it presumably can be built as a single vehicle, while an exploration lander which needs to be able to lift off again is likely to be a two stage affair. All these factors mean that the internal design is going to be completely different, which in turn means the outside is going to look completely different too.

What? Why?

Radiation shielding can be installed just fine here on Earth - in fact probably more easily than in space. And whether it's installed on Earth or in space, the shielding has to be taken from the surface of the Earth into space. It's just that if it's installed on Earth it can be tested and replaced if needed.

the landing craft for a mars mission would be part of the mission equipment. You might need two landing craft for a mars mission incase of emergency. there will be no help from earth. a moon mission could get help from earth maybe. if you guys would rather sit in chair for six months, let me tell you it is no fun.

Edited by danielost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the landing craft for a mars mission would be part of the mission equipment. You might need two landing craft for a mars mission incase of emergency. there will be no help from earth. a moon mission could get help from earth maybe. if you guys would rather sit in chair for six months, let me tell you it is no fun.

That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

i thought a an enterprise designed ship was impossible. true it isn't a cruiser. but we don't need one yet.

http://www.unexplain...e-actually-work

Firstly, a propulsion system isn't a spacecraft. It's like comparing a turbofan engine with a DC-3.

Secondly, the evidence the em-drive works is by no means conclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, a propulsion system isn't a spacecraft. It's like comparing a turbofan engine with a DC-3.

Secondly, the evidence the em-drive works is by no means conclusive.

Thirdly the image is an atists impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

what made no sense. do you not know what mission equipment is. on the enterprise mission equipment, would be tricorders, shuttles(if needed), transporters, and what ever else they need to finish the mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thirdly the image is an atists impression.

before any ship is built it is an artists impression. again we call them blue prints usually. Besides the artist drew up what nasa told them to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, a propulsion system isn't a spacecraft. It's like comparing a turbofan engine with a DC-3.

Secondly, the evidence the em-drive works is by no means conclusive.

I was not compareing the engine to nothing, infact I didn't say anything about the engine. second I don't care if that engine works or doesn't. what I cared about was the artist impression of the ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any ship built with present day technology for extended voyages would have to have a means of simulating gravity. It is far from certain our species could breed and thrive in anything much less than a one G field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) · (edited)

what made no sense.

Just about everything you have said in this thread the space section.

do you not know what mission equipment is.

Yes he does, you don't apparently.

on the enterprise mission equipment, would be tricorders, shuttles(if needed), transporters, and what ever else they need to finish the mission.

Ignoring for a moment that Star Trek IS NOT REAL a shuttle or a transporter would NOT be classed as mission equipment, any more than an Apollo Lunar Module or a Saturn V or a B2 bomber would be classed as mission equipment.

Edited to add

If you asked a D-Day veteran what equipment he had he would tell you about his weapon, the contents of his kit bag, his radio (if he had one). He would not include his landing craft (or the aircraft he jumped out of). These he would consider transportation NOT his equipment.

If you asked the Captain of one of the ships what equipment the ship had he would tell you how many landing craft it was equipped with. Context is important.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
typos.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

before any ship is built it is an artists impression.

Any ship that only exists as an artists impression is also an artists impression. So what? Just because someonme paints something it doesn't make it real.

again we call them blue prints usually.

You might, people that know what they are talking about don't. An artists impression and a blur print are not the same thing.

Artists impression:

sketch or drawing of someone or something, produced when no photograph is available.

Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/artist's-impression

Blue print:

A design plan or other technical drawing

Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/blueprint

The artists impression in the story you linked to is most definitely NOT a blue print.

Besides the artist drew up what nasa told them to.

And what did NASA tell him Daniel? Was it "paint a ship to this exact design"? Maybe it was it, "paint any futuristic space ship you like"? Was it, "paint a ship that looks a bit like it came out of Star Trek because the public will like that"? I don't know what the answer to that is and neither do you, but the context is, once again, important.

Have you asked yourself why NASA provided an artists impression and not a photograph? It is because that ship is not real. It exists JUST as an artists impression, a pretty picture. NASA has no plans to build that ship, they don't even know if the Em drive works yet. That ship is as real as the starship Enterprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

I was not compareing the engine to nothing, infact I didn't say anything about the engine. second I don't care if that engine works or doesn't. what I cared about was the artist impression of the ship.

Let's try and summarise your argument in this thread so far.

  • You asked what a good design for a space ship to take humans to Mars would be.
  • You proposed the USS Enterprise not based on any scientific or engineering reasons but because you like Star Trek.
  • People that do understand the science and engineering explained to you why the fictional Enterprise would not work as a real spacecraft to take humans to Mars.
  • You ignored the people that do understand the science and engineering and continued to argue that a non-existent ship for a 50 year old science-FICTION TV series is better for a Mars mission than NASA's REAL Orion spacecraft which is designed by REAL scientists and REAL engineers to undertake a REAL mission to Mars.
  • You now seeming to be arguing that the people that do understand the science and engineering are wrong because an artists impression of a non-existent spaceship looks a little bit like a non-existent, 50 year old, science fiction spaceship.

Daniel, if you ever wonder why you have such credibility problems re-read your posts in this topic.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nothing is real until it is built. the orion spacecraft is not real. you are not real. no one is real. now leave me alone white dwarf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nothing is real until it is built. you are not real. no one is real.

Very mature response. You could have gone with something like "I was wrong", but I have a feeling that you are not very good at saying that.

the orion spacecraft is not real.

The Orion spacecraft is quite real. Here is a picture of it being recovered after its first testflight:

US-Navy-Orion-NASA-USS-Anchorage-spacecraft-NASA-photo-posted-on-SpaceFlight-Insider-Copy-647x452.jpg

now leave me alone white dwarf.

Next time you want to adress someone atleast have the decency to try to get their name right. (Hint: Its in large letters at the top of the post just before your own)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.