Asteroid Soil Return Mission today ~1550hrs

[dobbslc]

The thing is we already have bits of meteor, comets and other space dust crash landing on earth every day, it's already here and has been for 4.5 billion years.!
There's a good chance we are "aliens"

 

[mike os]

The thing is we already have bits of meteor, comets and other space dust crash landing on earth every day, it's already here and has been for 4.5 billion years.!
There's a good chance we are "aliens"

Some consider it the likely cause

 

[Ross365]

i dont see the point in making a small station we have the technology to make better

as a spinning reference for artificial gravity spining capsuls on end of extending struts is too much weight

babylon 5 and the ark, the expanse used a spinning drum

the expanse used spinning plants within a drum for air

i dont see the point in building these when you can build a spinning space station with gravity



when these are far superior and simplier to build

I think the design of the current space station was very much influenced by considerations of what the Space Shuttle could carry in its cargo bay.

It's a bit sad, but probably true, that NASA wanted a shuttle and so there had to be jobs for that shuttle to do. One of the big jobs was to build the space station, but each component would be limited in size, shape and mass to suit the Shuttle.

I guess that the next space station will be limited only to what SpaceX can fit on top of its heavy lifters.

 

[gaz1]

I was reading something about this yesterday and apparently the problem with spinning space stations is that centrifugal force is still a thing in space and you're introducing a load of forces that would require much heavier construction than the current crop of space stations.

only because they dont want to build one

the structure is the same as a submarine which sufferes from crushing whilst in space its the exact opposite

if you was to build a loop lets say out of roller coaster 3 round tubes it can be very strong



it can also be built in sections of a loop this in turn will also provide an outer shell an inner shell all made out of thin material

as goes for the bearing using the same method of the roller coaster you can bridge the joins rather well by using an 8 wheel method 4 wheels would find the join sections rather well

weight is the issue i understand that but when your dealing with sections which is what we are doing anyway

not forgetting these are 1mm thick

can be used as internals as a wall frame can be joined in longer lengths

 

[Morrisman]

I was reading something about this yesterday and apparently the problem with spinning space stations is that centrifugal force is still a thing in space and you're introducing a load of forces that would require much heavier construction than the current crop of space stations.

They could run at reduced gravity I suppose, enough to keep one's feet on the ground, and maintain some bone strength. Like the moon, which is 20% of earths gravity.

 

[gaz1]

They could run at reduced gravity I suppose, enough to keep one's feet on the ground, and maintain some bone strength. Like the moon, which is 20% of earths gravity.

nasa,s own info

since this hasnt been tried in space its still only speculative

An artificial gravity level of 0.1 g can be achieved by a reasonably low rotation rate (5 rpm) at radius as low as 4 m (see Figure 2-04). Likewise at a radius of 4 m, about 15 rpm would be required to produce Earth gravity at the feet (although gravity would be 50% less at the head), or 21 rpm to produce 2 g.

so spinning a tube is more than ample enough to be done in space

the issue lies with the frame and also with the bearing and both can be beaten if you use roller coaster triangle frame work

as goes for landing on a spinning unit you dont want to be doing that so an extra landing platform can be built at any choice of point given

 

[Ross365]

I see that NASA used a C17 to get the 250g sample from Utah to Texas; looks like they wanted a safety margin.

 

[Erie Fred]

I see that NASA used a C17 to get the 250g sample from Utah to Texas; looks like they wanted a safety margin.
View attachment 418619

Morning news showed a helicopter took it there as a sling load. Not the plane.
Which I thought was stupid (using the copter)
EDIT:
Here is the news video I saw, and it's from BBC too:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/science-environment-66881285

 

[gaz1]

i had to look up the external tank size of the space shuttle since its just destroyed

however it can be reused rather well if it went further out with framing on it

the size of it is 154 feet long, 27.6 feet in diameter

the inside of it



if it was double walled with an external frame and covering wide enough for a crawl space then its a good point of a space station

sbr's can easily take this into space as is with 4 rockets

it could easily have extra framework inside of it so you could build an external landing area

 

[Ross365]

Morning news showed a helicopter took it there as a sling load. Not the plane.
Which I thought was stupid (using the copter)
EDIT:
Here is the news video I saw, and it's from BBC too:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/science-environment-66881285

I think the copter just took it a relatively short distance from the middle of the test range to the nearest runway capable of supporting the C17 and the C17 took it down to Houston. As the final step in a project that cost $1.1B, and was ~20 years in the execution, use of a big 4-engined jet was probably money well spent? I wonder if a C17 carrying no significant load can get along on just one engine?

 

[Erie Fred]

I think the copter just took it a relatively short distance from the middle of the test range to the nearest runway capable of supporting the C17 and the C17 took it down to Houston. As the final step in a project that cost $1.1B, and was ~20 years in the execution, use of a big 4-engined jet was probably money well spent? I wonder if a C17 carrying no significant load can get along on just one engine?

I can only go by the article, and video, they only showed the copter, lifting it from the desert, and setting it down at a lab, where they opened it up.
No mention of a air-o-plane.

 

[hotponyshoes]

nasa,s own info

since this hasnt been tried in space its still only speculative

An artificial gravity level of 0.1 g can be achieved by a reasonably low rotation rate (5 rpm) at radius as low as 4 m (see Figure 2-04). Likewise at a radius of 4 m, about 15 rpm would be required to produce Earth gravity at the feet (although gravity would be 50% less at the head), or 21 rpm to produce 2 g.

so spinning a tube is more than ample enough to be done in space

the issue lies with the frame and also with the bearing and both can be beaten if you use roller coaster triangle frame work

as goes for landing on a spinning unit you dont want to be doing that so an extra landing platform can be built at any choice of point given

I don't think the human ears like more than 3-4 rpm.
Plus a difference of 50% gravity between your feet and your head will probably cause more problems than no gravity at all.

Astronauts can do 6mths in zero gravity with no major health problems so I can't see any real need to spend the time/money/resources developing artificial gravity?
I'd think the metal challenges of long-term space occupation will over-take the physical implications?

 

[gaz1]

your not thinking right just like nasa

spin a used main booster rocket and you have gravity

then plants can be used with good effect.

The highest oxygen-producing plants include Boston ferns, weeping figs, aloe vera, spider plants, gerbera daisies, areca palms, peace lilies, golden pathos, money plants, and snake plants. These plants are not just aesthetically pleasing but are scientifically proven to improve air quality and elevate oxygen levels.

then you have an oxygen station

each main booster rocket or 4 sbr's can be stripped out of a main booster size unit that gives door ways and also sealed compartments

that main booster can carry a good payload for building the structure of a space station

connect 4 or 5 main booster rocket shells together and you have have a pretty big round space station its better than them burning back up in the atmosphere nasa's idiots need to go back to the drawing board or there intention is not to share its one or the other



we use the rounds in the pulley wheel for good use and they spin at high speeds

 

[julianf]

I didn't know that, I thought it was only the moon we had any regolith from, got any further information?

As @voipio pointed out, I was in error -

The Japanese got a sample from another one of the gang (or something - I clearly don't know much about this!) but not from the main man.

 

[Hopefuldave]

Can get on with building just about any size of station once you start harvesting the asteroid belt, it's full of nickel-iron lumps that dwarf the output of Port Talbot steelworks, just waitng for us...

 

[MattF]

There's a good chance we are "aliens"

Some folk definitely appear to be.

 

[Ross365]

I can only go by the article, and video, they only showed the copter, lifting it from the desert, and setting it down at a lab, where they opened it up.
No mention of a air-o-plane.

Yeah, they had a "lab in a tent" (set up to clean room standards) out in the desert, where I think they did a limited amount of disassembly, to get the sample container out of the landing capsule, then (I think) only that part went off to Houston. How far is Houston from Utah; I'm not sure but sufficiently far that I wouldn't put $1.1B in a single-engined copter to get it there (they often burn well when they crash) . I believe that the picture of the C17 which I posted, was the actual one waiting to do the flight. I imagine air traffic control kept the sky well clear of other traffic as it went by.

 

[mtt.tr]

This thread got odd, real quick.

 

[Parm]

This thread got odd, real quick.

have you got an internet video to verify this?
nope, didn’t think so

calling @gaz1, don’t let the side down…….