Slashdot Mirror


Nautilus-X: the Space Station With Rockets

astroengine writes "So we have a space station, now what? We've heard some rather outlandish ideas, but this is one concept a research group in NASA is taking seriously. By retrofitting the ISS with rockets, Nautilus-X will act as an interplanetary space station of sorts, including room for 6 astronauts, an artificial gravity ring, inflatable habitats and docking for exploration spaceships. When can we take a luxury cruise to Mars? 2020 by the project's estimate. It all sounds very 2001, but the projected costs of retrofitting the space station seem a little on the low side."

7 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Neat by Mr.Intel · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a damned cool idea. Probably won't happen, but still, an awesome second life for the ISS, and one that has an actual point to it.

    Yes, a very cool idea. The only catch? Increased costs for resupplying the thing. Even at Earth-Moon L1, it's out much further than GEOsats, which are orders of magnitude further out than the ISS is currently at LEO. Funding the retrofit is one thing, funding resupply and ferrying in/out inhabitants is quite another. Besides, that thing would have to live outside the earth's magnetic field. Water shield or not, I'd hate to be out there during a CME or X-class flare.

    --
    ASCII tastes bad dude.
    Binary it is then.
  2. Re:Neat by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hrm. Took me aback as well, that might just work with some serious modifications. Of course I don't see much point in going to Mars right away, we'd be better off concentrating on the mineral wealth floating around near to earth and using that to build orbital manufactories and further survey ships. Once we have a significant orbital infrastructure we can populate that level and look at going much further out, in style.

    I mean I get the whole wonder of the mission and so on, but there's a reason man didn't go back to the moon. We need real economic incentives to build onwards and upwards, realistically. Once we're up there in force it's a whole lot easier to go anywhere else.

  3. Inaccurate title. Read the @!#$&*$ article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, the Nautilus -X plan doesn't propose fitting "the" space station rockets and sending it to other planets (which would require making a goddamn huge rocket!), it proposes building "a" space station with rockets and sending it to other planets. The idea is to use a modular system that's actually built in space like the ISS to go to other worlds. Pay attention.

  4. Re:Fuel Costs by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
  5. About time by oic0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I keep waiting for us to do something halfway exciting in space. Instead we blow our money on being world police. Screw all that. Cut the military budget in half and we could have a colony on mars.

  6. Re:Money by similar_name · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I doubt we can afford this

    NASA's budget for 2010 was ~18 billion dollars of a 3.55 trillion dollar budget. Making up a mighty half a percent of our budget. We can certainly afford it, even in these rough times. Whether it's a priority or not is up for debate.

    I doubt if anyone will consider it seriously.

    You are probably correct.

  7. Re:Neat by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hahah, alright so. You construct an 11km high tower/launch ramp, a compressive tower the same as cell towers as a truss of smaller elements. A reasonable height-to-base ratiomight be 20:1. So a 10 km tower would have 3 base points 0.5 km apart, assuming you have a triangular cross section for the tower as a whole.
     
    Each principal column would in turn be a truss with 3 sub-columns spaced 25 meters apart, which in turn are made of tertiary columns 1.2 meters apart and 0.06 meters in diameter each. The tertiary columns have a wall thickness of 0.03 meters. This puts you above the denser elements of the atmosphere. Its not nearly as hard as it seems, Frank Lloyd Wright designed mile-high skyscrapers back in the 30's.

    Then you run maglev/railgun type vacuum tubes up the length of it, therefore using extremely cheap electrical energy to power the vessel through the first stage, which I think should put the ship into LEO at 7g, althoughyou'd probably still need a booster stage.

    If you could launch at 10000 ft above sea level, you could reduce your velocity change to get into orbit by approx. 250 m/s. However, you need about 8000 m/s to get into orbit. A 3% improvement, which would actually be a serious improvement. A RL-10A has an Isp of about 450 seconds; thus, exhaust velocity Ve is about 4400 km/sec. Structure and payload mass fraction is exp[deltaV/Ve]; a RL-10A powered vehicle could achieve a maxium amount of structure plus payload to 8km/sec of 16.3%. Typically about 5% of this is actually payload. A 3% decrease in delta-V to orbit increases this to 17.3%. This increases the *payload* to 6% of the gross lift-off mass -- a 20% increase in payload.

    Imagine the benefits of launching higher and a lot faster.

    This has the effect of vastly reducing the cost to get to LEO and from there to proper orbit and eventually escape; if it was as cheap to get to orbit as it is to cross oceans, we'd already be on Mars.

    So lets talk mineral wealth. The most detailed study of an asteroid, Eros, collected by NEAR shows that it contains precious metals worth at least $20 trillion. If Eros is typical of stony meteorites, then it contains about 3% metal. With the known abundance's of metals in meteorites, even a very cautious estimate suggests 20,000 million tonnes of aluminium along with similar amounts of gold, platinum and other rarer metals.

    That is just in one asteroid and not a very large one at that. There are thousands of asteroids out there.

    So once you make it economical to get up there, you need to build out an infrastructure. There are lots of theories on how to do this by aseroid resource extraction, I'm wavering towards the "rubble pile" asteroids which come pre-demolished, I can go into more detail if you like.

    Let's be clear though, unless a launch tower would drastically lower costs to space, the initial buildout has to be for space and by space. Then once orbital manufacture has reached a sufficiently advanced level, you can send manufactured goods, worth many times their wieght in gold, straight back to earth markets.
     
    /borrowed from many sources, I haven't the time to do the maths right now.