I don’t want to dampen your enthusiasm for space, Theory5, but you should better research your ideas before posting them, then
back up your claims with links or references. Hypography’s rules requiring this, not only to prevent readers from getting false information from our site, but to prevent members, such as you, from believing incorrect things that that they have either imagined or heard or read from unreliable people or writing. This only works, though, if your follow the rule.
Though your really should debunk your post on your own, here are a few references and remarks concerning some of the post’s more obvious mistakes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theory5
Are they just glory hogs and want to claim MARS for the US (hehe 'red' planet, maybe we should leave it for the chinese)?
...
We landed on the moon and we put an american flag there! We practically claimed it and now I think it was just to keep everyone else off of it. (This is MY moon, go get you own!)
...
Space needs to be a sort of cease fire zone where we can work together. Not how earth is now with everybody squabling like a bunch of kids: "He attacked us first!" "Give it baaaaack its MINE!" " THATS IT, Im telling the UN on you!"
|
On Oct 10 1967, the US, the states of the former USSR, the UK, and several other nations, by ratifying the
Outer Space Treaty agree that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". It also essentially prohibits offensive weapons in space.
These nations were joined at later dates by nearly all countries with significant space programs, including China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theory5
I know that the ideal space station would be a rotating ring ...
|
Although the advantages of simulating gravity via centrifugal force on a spacecraft are considerable, the idea was considered, planned, and manufactured (the
CAM), then rejected, for the
ISS.
Spinning all (eg: a spinning ring) or part of (eg: the ISS’s CAM) a spacecraft like the ISS create significant complications for such things as docking spacecraft, reduce its utility for science missions, and increasing the risk of dangerous mechanical failure. In the case of the ISS, these disadvantages and risks ultimately were deemed to outweigh the benefits, and the CAM was never flown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theory5
I read somewhere that NASA was working on an inflatible module that would be used for a science lab.
|
This is a neat idea, that I and others would enjoy reading about. Theory5, why don’t you find where you read this, and post a link to it, with your comments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theory5
C'mon you have more space than you could possible use, yet you keep the astronauts (along with the other types of 'nauts) pent up in these narrow tubes! Its like keeping a dog in a crate in your back yard!
|
The
Zvezda module (one of two modules flow to date too large to fit in a shuttle bay), its largest section a cylinder with outside diameter 4.15 m, is actually pretty roomy – larger than many bedrooms in typical houses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theory5
And before you ask, yes I am completely aware of the fact that you can get trapped in mid-air in space.
|
This is, I’m pretty sure, a science fiction myth.
From 1972 to 1973, US astronauts aboard
Skylab, a space station constructed from a 17.8 m long, 6.6 m outside diameter
S-IVB, demonstrated that it’s possible to “paddle” in an air-filled microgravity environment, changing one’s orientation and position much like a (very clumsy) fish swimming in water. (I’m unable to find any text describing this, only televised video’s of it)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theory5
Make it Better! #2: Space suits! We have been using practically the same design that we have used since the eagle landed over 30 years ago.
|
The US
Apollo/Skylab A7L spacesuit used in the moon-landing missions, was last used in space in July 1975. Beginning in 1984 with the first space shuttle missions, the
Shuttle EMU Suit was used. Although superficially similar in appearance, sharing the same bubble helmet, and manufactured by the same contractors, the two suits are substantially different, most notably in that the A7L is flexible and “worn” like a suit of cloths, while the EMU has a rigid upper body that one “climbs into”, attached to the flexible “pants” of the suit by a bearing-mounted ring seal. Unlike the A7L, which was custom-made for each astronauts, the EMU is “three sizes fits all”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theory5
Design Flaw #3: Solar Panels! once again, there are no property lines in space. Or you could surround the space station modules with solar panels, instead of those akward things sticking out of the sides.
|
Having solar panels not attached to a spacecraft adds several complications, including
- How to get the generated electricity to the spacecraft – an “extension cord” would be required
- How to keep the panels pointed toward the sun – each panel assembly would need to have an attitude control system, such as attitude control jets or gyroscopes, and tracking and control systems to control them
- When the spacecraft changes orbit (which it does both for routine orbit corrections, and to avoid possible collisions with bodies and swarms of bodies detected by radar), the panels would need to also – each panel assembly would need an orbital maneuvering system, such as orbital maneuvering jets, and a guidance and control system to control them
Given the power requirements of the ISS, rigidly attaching its solar panels seems to me a simpler, more robust design, than attaching them only by power cords, and having each operate as an independent spacecraft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theory5
How about we build a factory in space, make it a joint operation of course, but make it so the world can build their space vehicles and parts up there so we only need to launch shuttles for resupply, and not for space station modules or ships. Think of what we could build without the constraint of having to put it on the top of a rocket and fling it into outerspace!
|
I agree that, in order to progress in the exploration, use, and colonization of outer space, space factories are essential. However, keep in mind that such spacecraft, were they to be able to manufacture anything without having raw materials flow up from Earth, would need either to travel far beyond Earth orbit to where raw materials can be found, or have these materials brought to them by other spacecraft. There’s very little raw material available in Earth orbit, and what material there is – primarily junk from discarded and failed spacecraft – is energetically costly and difficult to catch.
The nearest source of raw material energetically easier to get than from Earth’s surface is the Moon, but getting material from the Moon’s surface, while energetically less costly than lifting it from Earth, is still no free ride, requiring either spacecraft similar to the Apollo landers, or large systems built on the Moon, eg: a lunar “gun”. Other material is available that isn’t in a gravity well even as deep as the moon, and of high quality, but requires space flight longer than to Mars.
The need to research one's posts
