Was thinking about how the heck we will build massive starships in the future. Would it be easier to just go to find an asteroid somewhat close, somehow slap/imbed a giant engine on it (whatever the propulsion is) and then dig/mine the "decks" within the rock?
how to build massive starships in the future...
- Thread starter mizzou
- Start date
Something tells me that will never happen. What kind of structural integrity can you really expect from a massive piece of rock, not to mention all that extra mass that has to be propelled by the engines.
I think the general approach of modular design and assembly will persist. What will advance is the technology to make it happen like what are the panels made from, how they are assembled and reinforced.
Maybe in some areas (think modern medicine vs even 100 years ago), but in other areas engineers from 1000+ years ago built some pretty innovative bridges/structures that are well designed even by today's standards.
It's common to think we know so much more than our predecessors, but sometimes we come across an example that shows they did know a thing or two.
I would think we would be more likely to mine said space rock for the raw materials than we would actually use the hollowed out rock as the ship itself.
How large do you want it - and why do you want it to be "massive"?
Most ships featured in shows like Star Trek are comparable to current day Aircraft Carriers in total mass, and can easily be constructed the same way we do now: slowly, in a dry dock, with lots of robotic arms and welders.
Most ships featured in shows like Star Trek are comparable to current day Aircraft Carriers in total mass, and can easily be constructed the same way we do now: slowly, in a dry dock, with lots of robotic arms and welders.
One of the most promising approaches to interstellar travel is to have a giant focusing mirror (for sunlight) on both ends, one to accelerate the craft and one to decelerate it at the other end. One could go to alpha centauri in just a couple of decades that way. I wrote a paper about this my freshman year, lol Fusion reactors are generally too lame (in terms of energy density) to do much good. Antimatter reactors would cut it, but there is no known reasonable method to produce the needed amounts of antimatter. And shielding the thing would be a total pain.
Fusion reactors are generally too lame (in terms of energy density) to do much good. Antimatter reactors would cut it, but there is no known reasonable method to produce the needed amounts of antimatter. And shielding the thing would be a total pain.Building the infrastructure / superstructure shouldn't be all that hard even with today's technology. Look at the capacity of something like a modern skyscraper or airliner or ship.
One could build anything from personal sized to "small city sized" ships with the usual plastic, aluminium, titanium, fiberglass, epoxy, glass, steel, carbon fiber, et. al. materials.
The thing really missing for space exploration are good drive systems to allow any significant mass to be accelerated significantly, especially over long durations. Journeys even within the near solar system are usually done with the most energy efficient possible orbital transfers and still they can take months for the journey even between points of closest approach, and that is with relatively small payloads like robot probes / satellites. Yet they use some fairly large rockets just to accomplish that feat.
To send something like a manned laboratory or habitat cargo to Mars would require something more than an order of magnitude better than we have today and that's even for the "slow boat" trip. Even if you build everything out of aluminium, titanium, carbon fiber, et. al. you're probably still having to transport significantly more (order of magnitude?) payload size and mass than a normal space probe or orbiter would require. Then add on water, fuel for a return trip, et. al. and you have a problem of fuel / thrust / drive moreso than an issue of constructing a durable light weight habitat.
The main problems for the superstructure / infrastructure / system engineering of the overall structures, though, would be:
a) making ones that are actually air tight and don't leak too much over time.
b) making ones that are insulating enough not to leak too much heat out.
c) making closed ecologies to recycle air, water, soil, waste, et. al.
d) radiation and micrometeorite shielding of external threats
e) shielding against one's own drive / power systems if necessary
f) reliability and maintenance of all critical systems
g) being able to do significant construction projects from individual pieces away from earth since the overall units would be too big / heavy to lift from the ground, so we'd have to assemble them in orbit, on the moon, on Mars, whatever.
h) solving human factors like claustrophobia, exercise, boredom, human error, et. al.
That's probably all relatively doable relative to the propulsion / energy systems problems for which there are few attractively obvious solutions even for rapid / extended / high mass travel around our own solar system. One starts to need megawatts or gigawatts of power for lighting, environmental issues like heating / water purification, motion / thrust, engineering / factory / industrial / chemical needs, heating, et. al. and one starts to find one doesn't have fuel mass / space, or one doesn't have reactor technology to efficiently use the avaialble fuels, or whatever.
I don't see how using asteroids will really help, they weigh a lot and don't really give you much advantages in habitat / energy / space / whatever that you wouldn't already have in a manmade structure. I suppose you could do something like drive a comet around if you could use some of the light materials in it for reaction mass or energy generation or something but even so you'd be first needing energy technologies we don't have today.
One could build anything from personal sized to "small city sized" ships with the usual plastic, aluminium, titanium, fiberglass, epoxy, glass, steel, carbon fiber, et. al. materials.
The thing really missing for space exploration are good drive systems to allow any significant mass to be accelerated significantly, especially over long durations. Journeys even within the near solar system are usually done with the most energy efficient possible orbital transfers and still they can take months for the journey even between points of closest approach, and that is with relatively small payloads like robot probes / satellites. Yet they use some fairly large rockets just to accomplish that feat.
To send something like a manned laboratory or habitat cargo to Mars would require something more than an order of magnitude better than we have today and that's even for the "slow boat" trip. Even if you build everything out of aluminium, titanium, carbon fiber, et. al. you're probably still having to transport significantly more (order of magnitude?) payload size and mass than a normal space probe or orbiter would require. Then add on water, fuel for a return trip, et. al. and you have a problem of fuel / thrust / drive moreso than an issue of constructing a durable light weight habitat.
The main problems for the superstructure / infrastructure / system engineering of the overall structures, though, would be:
a) making ones that are actually air tight and don't leak too much over time.
b) making ones that are insulating enough not to leak too much heat out.
c) making closed ecologies to recycle air, water, soil, waste, et. al.
d) radiation and micrometeorite shielding of external threats
e) shielding against one's own drive / power systems if necessary
f) reliability and maintenance of all critical systems
g) being able to do significant construction projects from individual pieces away from earth since the overall units would be too big / heavy to lift from the ground, so we'd have to assemble them in orbit, on the moon, on Mars, whatever.
h) solving human factors like claustrophobia, exercise, boredom, human error, et. al.
That's probably all relatively doable relative to the propulsion / energy systems problems for which there are few attractively obvious solutions even for rapid / extended / high mass travel around our own solar system. One starts to need megawatts or gigawatts of power for lighting, environmental issues like heating / water purification, motion / thrust, engineering / factory / industrial / chemical needs, heating, et. al. and one starts to find one doesn't have fuel mass / space, or one doesn't have reactor technology to efficiently use the avaialble fuels, or whatever.
I don't see how using asteroids will really help, they weigh a lot and don't really give you much advantages in habitat / energy / space / whatever that you wouldn't already have in a manmade structure. I suppose you could do something like drive a comet around if you could use some of the light materials in it for reaction mass or energy generation or something but even so you'd be first needing energy technologies we don't have today.
irishScott
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,562
- 3
- 0
Whatever happens, IMO it'll have to be built in orbit after we put some mines on the moon. Launching an aircraft carrier sized ship from the ground to escape velocity is next to impossible with today's (and the foreseeable future's) technology, and shipping the raw materials from the ground to orbit would be ridiculously inefficient.
Unless we build a hugea$$ space elevator.
Unless we build a hugea$$ space elevator.
JTsyo
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2007
- 12,024
- 1,131
- 126
Originally posted by: irishScott
Whatever happens, IMO it'll have to be built in orbit after we put some mines on the moon. Launching an aircraft carrier sized ship from the ground to escape velocity is next to impossible with today's (and the foreseeable future's) technology, and shipping the raw materials from the ground to orbit would be ridiculously inefficient.
Unless we build a hugea$$ space elevator.
Yea, it would have to be build in space. Things build for space travel are probably going to be light and not suitable for atmospheric flight. Maybe we can just slap some engines on the ISS and let it go. Though I think spaceships for long distance travels would follow the spinning ring around a hub design. Unless of course they have drive that can provide at least 1/4 of a g for most of the trip.
PlasmaBomb
Lifer
- Nov 19, 2004
- 11,636
- 2
- 81
polarmystery
Diamond Member
- Aug 21, 2005
- 3,888
- 8
- 81
That doesn't seem right... the galaxy-class Enterprise seemed a lot bigger in comparison to the Borg assimilation cube. It's barely a pipsqueak according to that picture.
I think the only way this would ever happen (if it ever did) would be if someone eventually figured out ways to manipulate other dimensions to move at reasonable physical speeds but use time distortion to your benefit. Somehow create a black (worm) hole and have close to full control of it and it's effects on normal natural physical laws.
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,284
- 138
- 106
it is missing the death star. That was capable of intergalactic travel and would easily make everything else look like peanuts in comparison.The biggest problem I for see is not only making a propulsion system that can somehow avoid the speed of light problem (Warping space?) But one that can withstand the rigorous acceleration/deceleration that would accompany it. The only way I could see it would be to have some kind of energy shield to prevent wear. Even then, It would probably take a lot of energy to keep up.
I for one don't see it being a possibility in the near future, in the distant, well yes anything is possible, but this just seems to be almost too far for our reach.
FallenHero
Diamond Member
- Jan 2, 2006
- 5,659
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Cogman
The biggest problem I for see is not only making a propulsion system that can somehow avoid the speed of light problem (Warping space?) But one that can withstand the rigorous acceleration/deceleration that would accompany it. The only way I could see it would be to have some kind of energy shield to prevent wear. Even then, It would probably take a lot of energy to keep up.
I for one don't see it being a possibility in the near future, in the distant, well yes anything is possible, but this just seems to be almost too far for our reach.
http://www.merzo.net/
Try that on for size.
mpilchfamily
Diamond Member
- Jun 11, 2007
- 3,559
- 1
- 0
In order for us to start building massive craft for intersteller travel we'll have to establish a base of operations. Chances are we won't be doing it from a spacee station. It seams more likly we would establist a manufacturing base on the moon and build it out there. This offers a stable area for construction without the worry of having debrie drift off into space and possibly hinder movment in and around the construction site. The cunstruction would happen much like the construction of todays super aircraft carriers. Once completed would wouldn't be exspendiing as much resources getting it away from the moon as we would trying to pull it away from the earth. Though travel back and forth from the moon will be costly. You also consider the time spent in space. Even with advanced robot there will still need to be a human presence. Man could tolerate longer on the moon then on a space station and be able to perfom better in a environment with some gravity. But by then we may have artificial gravity.
Originally posted by: Cogman
The biggest problem I for see is not only making a propulsion system that can somehow avoid the speed of light problem (Warping space?) But one that can withstand the rigorous acceleration/deceleration that would accompany it. The only way I could see it would be to have some kind of energy shield to prevent wear. Even then, It would probably take a lot of energy to keep up.
I for one don't see it being a possibility in the near future, in the distant, well yes anything is possible, but this just seems to be almost too far for our reach.
Intragalactic not intergalactic
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,284
- 138
- 106
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Cogman
The biggest problem I for see is not only making a propulsion system that can somehow avoid the speed of light problem (Warping space?) But one that can withstand the rigorous acceleration/deceleration that would accompany it. The only way I could see it would be to have some kind of energy shield to prevent wear. Even then, It would probably take a lot of energy to keep up.
I for one don't see it being a possibility in the near future, in the distant, well yes anything is possible, but this just seems to be almost too far for our reach.
Intragalactic not intergalactic
even then, we still would have to be somehow exceed the speed of light to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. ( I guess we could just put a group of people in stasis for 1,000,000 years, shoot them off to somewhere Semi-near and hope they don't get clobbered by an asteroid (any volunteers?) If we discover how to travel quicker then someone could go wake those guys up and let them know their trip was somewhat of a waist TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter