Infrastructure : Foundry module

[Phenix]

Shields are a need to protect mankind from radiation sources and sensible materials.

This thread is intented to describe how we can produce those kind of infratructure.

Remember without shields, if we want humans to go mining tugged asteroids, we will ruin the project because heavy casualties.

To reuse junk materials floating in space, a foundry module more specifically a space oven with large solar panels would be the first industrial infrastructure needed to agglomerate metals.

The location would be at best at Earth's orbit.

From the agglomerate still hot metal extracted from the Foundry module and manipulated by tugs, the prefab metal factory module transforms the raw metal to prefab metal parts for shields, transforming infrastructures, spacecrafts, orbital class propulsion engines, etc...

The prefab metal factory module is attached to the foundry module. A great piece of advanced engineering I think.

To manipulate and transit materials from one module to another, tugs are small spacecrafts tools fitted for dangerous work in space.

A Tug factory module would manufacture the Tug. The Tug factory module is attached to the Prefab metal factory module. In the early process of tug construction with electronics, robotics, propulsions, etc ... astronauts are the assemblers and will come with the necessary products mentioned above. There are a real jobs out there.

This infrastruture is decitaded to manufacture ceramics or composite elements for coating the prefab metal products. The idea is to armor products against radiation.

Examples of use : Shields, Spacecrafts and Infrastructures coating.

[Rhyshaelkan]

Do you have a link to where you found this information? Great concept, need more information to make it launchable.

[Phenix]

I understand, but all what I am saying for this kind of infrastructure or other threads comes out from my imagination most of it. Believe me, I would have put some links.

Although, I am really glad that you have put your inputs on this one, as I understand you are an expert in metallurgy :D.

[Rhyshaelkan]

I understand, but all what I am saying for this kind of infrastructure or other threads comes out from my imagination most of it. Believe me, I would have put some links.

Although, I am really glad that you have put your inputs on this one, as I understand you are an expert in metallurgy :D.


I wish I were an expert ;) I know what you are saying. I need Autocad, or some other program so I can put some ideas up for show.

However, I am no inventor. I use what is already available. As things stand of this moment. I will not be the one building the gadgets to go into space. And doubtful they will be my ideas either. I will just add my $100 for The Venture, when it comes time.

It is fun to theorize. But it will take someone with the know-how to make it happen.

With my fabrication skills could I come up with something? Oh sure. I think up crazy stuff all the time. But who would listen to lil 'ol me? ;) We are talking rocket-science here! LOL

Sorry for screwing up your post there for a second. My bad. haha

[Phenix]

I am sure that you are under estimating yourself. Go ahead and make a try ;)

[Rhyshaelkan]

With the ability of some metals to self-weld themselves. Ceramics could also be used to handle, roll, bend(maybe), and support metals while in-process.

Just as some vices on Terra have copper jaws to prevent marring the item being held. Ceramic jaws in space can prevent self-welding. Also acting as insulators during welding processes.

Ceramics can be sintered to form astro-crete slabs used for radiation shielding, platforms, roads, most anything concrete can be used for on Terra. Such can be used in astro-shipyards. Or for making habitats in space.

While this link is for lunar-sintering. I am sure it will work for asteroidal materials too.
http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/DOCS/EIC049.HTML

[Phenix]

Well that's intersting and above my expectation. I would see that module being attached to the Foundry module and the Prefab metal factory module.

[Rhyshaelkan]

You need to expound more on your ideas to make them work. Or find links to webpages.

We are trying to make PERMANENT possible. Not just theorize about space. Theorizing can go down in the off-topic sub-forum.

[Sam Fraser]

We certainly welcome all input, but Rhys is right. As much as possible, we don't want to be designing things from scratch in AutoCAD. Our focus is using existing technology and drawing from published research so we can make great strides in the near term. For example, Mark Prado has a collection of books (can't remember the titles) that describes various studies and even prototypes presented at various space science conferences. It was full of space-related mining and processing research that I thought had never even been considered. Rhys has also been finding dead links on the website to published research like http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/onlinebks/ResourcesNearEarthSpace/resources14.pdf This is useful - it's research someone else has already done and paid for!

Of course, I don't want to dampen anyone's enthusiasm and creativity. It's fun to design stuff yourself! It's just that you might be (unpleasantly) surprised how much has been done already in various labs around the world (but let's face it, mostly in the US). And the reason many space advocacy or interest organisations go nowhere is because of NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome. They become too obsessed with and proud of doing everything themselves, rather than taking a more practical route of using something already studied, designed and built by others. PERMANENT doesn't want to become another talkfest or blog full of speculation and theory, but achieves nothing in the end. It's just a question of digging around and seeing what's been done already, and putting it altogether in one package.

[Rhyshaelkan]

On shielding, an materials engineer from another forum had this to say.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,55473.msg1330694.html#msg1330694

The discussion continues on further. Until you see my own questions in that thread. :) "Cray" goes on to quote this (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5532&page=29) study for shielding.

It sure seems the tech is there for our plans. We just need the funding to make it happen.

[Phenix]

Thanks Rhys and I understand your point ;)

[Phenix]

I am still thinking of where and how such complex should be build in the first place :

LEO, HEO or in L(X) locations ?

[Phenix]

I would guess that the Sun-Earth L4 location would be the best location candidate. It has as the L5 location a large volume where many manned made objects would not be submitted to Earth's gravity as illustrated below :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lagrange_points2.svg

But I am not sure, and here are the questions I am adressing to astro-physicians :

What kind of influence does the Solar winds have on L4 as its volume is located ahead of Earth's orbital trajectory ?

Would the Moon gravity, while it's orbiting Earth, have some drifting influence on objects in the L4 volume location ?

[Rhyshaelkan]

The cool thing about L4 and L5, the interactions between the various bodies tug and pull an object to keep it there. An object in L4 and L5 will orbit in said location, drifting within the boundaries but not leaving. Very stable, but at the same time, also quite variable.

The cross-section vs. mass of a station/object in L4 would not be great enough for solar wind to have an impact. You would need a big sail for solar wind to greatly perturb an object in L4 or L5.

[Phenix]

There are three reasons where I think the L4 location is the best candidate for implementing the main industrial complex and the main fuel station. (see http://www.permanent.com/i-zero-g.htm)

1) From what I have observed: When orbiting the Sun, most NEAs have the same direction as Earth being counter clock wise. Spacecrafts to rendezvous with L4 would use small energy to travel.

2) All cargo spacecrafts would use very little propellant to travel from a mining site to the SMF, refuel the station and detach the asteroidal minerals bags. The cargo spacecrafts would head back to the mining site with empty bags waiting at SMF to be attached to the cargo spacecraft.

3) All materials being manufactured at the SMF that are to be used at Earth orbit would be conditionned with heat shields manufactured as well at the SMF. The shuttle cargo spacecraft fitted with aerobraking heat shields will use very little propellant to drift to Earth and let the gravity attract the spacecraft. Small propellant would be used to steer the spacecraft to plot the best trajectory to slowdown the spacecraft using aerobraking. The spacecraft would then orbit Earth on needs either at LEO or HEO. Once the payloads are delivered it would head back to L4 and rendezvous to SMF with its remaining propellant. At SMF it would get refuelled and be ready for the next trip cycle if needed.

[joertexas]

There are three reasons where I think the L4 location is the best candidate for implementing the main industrial complex and the main fuel station. (see http://www.permanent.com/i-zero-g.htm)

1) From what I have observed: When orbiting the Sun, most NEAs have the same direction as Earth being counter clock wise. Spacecrafts to rendezvous with L4 would use small energy to travel.

2) All cargo spacecrafts would use very little propellant to travel from a mining site to the SMF, refuel the station and detach the asteroidal minerals bags. The cargo spacecrafts would head back to the mining site with empty bags waiting at SMF to be attached to the cargo spacecraft.

3) All materials being manufactured at the SMF that are to be used at Earth orbit would be conditionned with heat shields manufactured as well at the SMF. The shuttle cargo spacecraft fitted with aerobraking heat shields will use very little propellant to drift to Earth and let the gravity attract the spacecraft. Small propellant would be used to steer the spacecraft to plot the best trajectory to slowdown the spacecraft using aerobraking. The spacecraft would then orbit Earth on needs either at LEO or HEO. Once the payloads are delivered it would head back to L4 and rendezvous to SMF with its remaining propellant. At SMF it would get refuelled and be ready for the next trip cycle if needed.


We need to check the energy requirements for these maneuvers to determine which options are the most feasible.

JR

[Phenix]

Joe,

Have you find out how much energy requirement would be needed for those travels options ?

Thanks

[RaresH]

That looks like some good options for a sizable industrial infrastructure. While it isn't necessary for smaller missions like the proof of concept we are discussing it would be in the best interest of developing a foothold in the l4,l5 regions of space.

[joertexas]

Joe,

Have you find out how much energy requirement would be needed for those travels options ?

Thanks

I'm still trying to figure out how to use GMAT. So far, I can't get it to plot a heliocentric orbit, nor can I figure out how to get elapsed time and total delta vee expended. I really need a programmer's help with this thing. I've contacted a professor at the University of Texas, and he's helping me as his schedule permits, though..

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

I doubt I would be of any use. It is taxing my brain to write a script for my investing. The compiler was even worse.

[Phenix]

It is taxing my brain to write a script for my investing. The compiler was even worse.

Rhys, could you elaborate about your script you have in mind ? I am not sure what you are relating the compiler for.

[Phenix]

That looks like some good options for a sizable industrial infrastructure. While it isn't necessary for smaller missions like the proof of concept we are discussing it would be in the best interest of developing a foothold in the l4,l5 regions of space.

I am giving some perspective to the global picture. Please, share your thoughts on developing a foothold in the L-4 and L-5 locations that would help the Space economy. From where would you start from ?

[Phenix]

I'm still trying to figure out how to use GMAT. So far, I can't get it to plot a heliocentric orbit, nor can I figure out how to get elapsed time and total delta vee expended. I really need a programmer's help with this thing. I've contacted a professor at the University of Texas, and he's helping me as his schedule permits, though..

JR

Thanks Joe,
Why would you need a programmer for ? Is it because you need some Information system implementations from what the professor has provided in the math area ?

[Rhyshaelkan]

I am trying to make a simple script to enter the market(using SMA crossover) and exit the market(stop and trailing stop) using Ninja Trader. The built in compiler made the code look weird.

Having finally gotten the code to compile, and turned on my data-stream, the script does not want to enter the market. So that is next on my plan. Find out why the script has issues.

I want to generate funds so I can help fund PERMANENT or my own private space program :D

But now I am waaaaaaaay off topic.

[joertexas]

Thanks Joe,
Why would you need a programmer for ? Is it because you need some Information system implementations from what the professor has provided in the math area ?

GMAT uses scripts, and I'm not really familiar with programming..

JR

[RaresH]

I am giving some perspective to the global picture. Please, share your thoughts on developing a foothold in the L-4 and L-5 locations that would help the Space economy. From where would you start from ?

And you're right in your suggestion. L4/l5 is a great start for building a manufacturing and refueling hub. That is when we actually get to that point. I would have suggested the same thing for an industrial hub. An economic boom would then spur further development with the natural next step being colonization.

Our mission would be a proof of concept and we may actually work in conjunction with other privateers probably planning on building in Leo initially. Bigelow comes to mind.

[joertexas]

And you're right in your suggestion. L4/l5 is a great start for building a manufacturing and refueling hub. That is when we actually get to that point. I would have suggested the same thing for an industrial hub. An economic boom would then spur further development with the natural next step being colonization.

Our mission would be a proof of concept and we may actually work in conjunction with other privateers probably planning on building in Leo initially. Bigelow comes to mind.

One of my other objectives for accessing GMAT - or any other trajectory program I can find - is to see how these points can be used in conjunction with our asteroid mining project. We must obviously start from LEO, but what is the next step?

JR

[Phenix]

We must obviously start from LEO
JR
Isn't LEO being crouded with satellites and hazardous objects, very expensive in terms of energy consumption for transports and station keeping, collision risks, etc ?... Why not GEO ?

[joertexas]

Isn't LEO being crouded with satellites and hazardous objects, very expensive in terms of energy consumption for transports and station keeping, collision risks, etc ?... Why not GEO ?

LEO is the first step, since it costs the least energy to reach from the surface.

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

Aye. Even if you take a cursory glance at SpaceX' Falcon 9 Heavy's capabilities. They drop off dramatically(relatively) after LEO.

Mass to Low Earth Orbit (LEO): 32,000 kg (70,548 lbs)
Mass to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO): 19,500 kg (42,990 lbs)

[Phenix]

Ok friends :)

I would suggest that we try to give as much answers on the WHY by evaluating the pros and cons on NEO and GEO first step infrastructures and enumerate them.

I'll start :)

PROS on LEO:
- Less fuel to reach LEO from ground rocket launch.
- Easier access for transportation with fallback capabilities to ISS for life support.

CONS on LEO:
- Croudy.
- Communication interference.
- High collision risks.
- Solar oven time exposure to Sun could be unsufficient.
- Transport for minerals and volatiles requires a lot of energy to travel from and back to an asteroid.
- Infrastructures relocation (mobility) would be very expensive even not feasible on energy requirements.

PROS on GEO:
- Less satellites (I think) thus lower collision risks.
- Solar oven time exposure to Sun would be good.
- Communication and solar power advantage.
- Transport for minerals and volatiles would require less energy from source to destination and vise versa.
- Infrastructures relocation (mobility) would require little energy.

CONS on GEO:
- More fuel to reach GEO from ground rocket launch.
- One way fallback to ISS in case of life support failure.

[JohnHunt]

Well Phenix, why are you excluding the lunar surface as the first place for an industrial infrastructure? The huge advantage is that it has in situ resources which LEO and GEO don't have.

[moonus111]

PROS on LUNA
- Massive cis-luna resources, opens access to extremely massive energy reserves that dwarf all other current sources
- significantly eases budgetary requirements for all other space missions
- launch to GEO/LEO easier to obtain from Luna
- Trade: energy for volatiles/organics makes for lucrative industry (think silk road)
- minimizes modern "apocalyptic" warfare's psychological effects
- potential to replace a bucket of current industries (telecom, computing, energy, etc)
- nascent technologies stand to benefit (space faring, nanotechnology, etc)
- good test bed for many of our solar systems other environments (moons)

CONS on LUNA
- Budget required, much higher than LEO/GEO
- non-existent volatiles (hotly debated today)
- ~3 day long supply chain
- NO current infrastructure
- Minimal experience in the environment
- Wars (or wanton destruction) has an amplified effect over terrestrial versions
- Teaties banning use being negotiated Current
- No hegemony in place
- considered insane by general population
- fetal development considered impossible (notwithstanding possible solutions)

Neutral effects
- requires significant stocks of biomass for habitation
- radiation shielding issues
- short term robotic missions
- fertility paradigm (28 days)

I'm sure I missed some of the points...

[joertexas]

PROS on LUNA
- Massive cis-luna resources, opens access to extremely massive energy reserves that dwarf all other current sources
- significantly eases budgetary requirements for all other space missions
- launch to GEO/LEO easier to obtain from Luna
- Trade: energy for volatiles/organics makes for lucrative industry (think silk road)
- minimizes modern "apocalyptic" warfare's psychological effects
- potential to replace a bucket of current industries (telecom, computing, energy, etc)
- nascent technologies stand to benefit (space faring, nanotechnology, etc)
- good test bed for many of our solar systems other environments (moons)

CONS on LUNA
- Budget required, much higher than LEO/GEO
- non-existent volatiles (hotly debated today)
- ~3 day long supply chain
- NO current infrastructure
- Minimal experience in the environment
- Wars (or wanton destruction) has an amplified effect over terrestrial versions
- Teaties banning use being negotiated Current
- No hegemony in place
- considered insane by general population
- fetal development considered impossible (notwithstanding possible solutions)

Neutral effects
- requires significant stocks of biomass for habitation
- radiation shielding issues
- short term robotic missions
- fertility paradigm (28 days)

I'm sure I missed some of the points...

Okay, I gotta ask... what is the fertility paradigm?

Also, one neutral to con effect I'd add is that we don't really know if a .16g environment is healthy in the long term (years), but that problem won't really surface for a while..

JR

[moonus111]

Yeah I put that .16g thing in there under the fetal dev point, but there is a solution to the problem. Building a L5, or moon orbiting station for rotating people to and from the moon. This station would be one of those toroid, or cylinders rotating for artificial gravity. The purpose would be to save the bone mass of inhabitants.

I just had to fit the word paradigm in there. I don't know how to categorize the whole gaia selene concept. A Woman's cycle is 28 days, the tide washes and is governed by the moon, and the moon is/was a symbol of fertility. If men go to the moon, to stay there will be a pretty high biomass requirement, 100-1000 lbs per lb of men/women. This is extremely poetic, but how to express it or categorize it as an advantage/disadvantage is beyond me.... more like purpose.

you've probably seen chippros stuff:
http://gaiaselene.com