Space

7286 readers

51 users here now

News and findings about our cosmos.

Subcommunity of Science

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

SpaceX's Starship notches major flight test milestones, breaks up over Indian Ocean in final moments (www.cnbc.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

recycle materials in space to build space parts/ships/stations

If you mean in orbit, that's orders of magnitude harder than reaching the Moon, and possibly harder than colonizing Mars.

We don't have some scifi "gravity plating", with some force fields to keep air in, to build a space dock, or a factory on a space station. Microgravity is fun for the first half hour, after that moving stuff around is a whole challenge on itself, something like screwing in a screw, or a lightbulb, is a separate challenge. Most of the knowledge about processes and logistics we use down the gravity well, with an atmosphere made primarily of nitrogen, goes out the window in microgravity.

The nearest "practical" place to recycle any materials, would be the Moon.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Yes it's hard, which I acknowledged by saying if they have ambitions, go big and recycle materials in space. But you make it sounds like it's nearly impossible, which I doubt.

We know how to keep air in space stations and capsules, without involving force fields or any other sci-fi tech.

For sure, building in space it different from building in earth gravity, but that doesn't necessarily make it impossible. There already have been experiments and small-scale demonstrations in space:

In 2014, the NASA, in partnership with Made In Space, Inc., demonstrated a fused deposition modelling on the International Space Station and published a summary of zero-gravity experiments in 2019.

Another example is a microgravity extrusion experiment in the ISS between from 2021 to 2023,

I assume it's easier to start by building small parts, and progressively build larger parts, until hopefully we're able to build most ships parts. The assembly can presumably happen in the vacuum of space, without air. There's potential for ultimately building ships in orbit larger than anything we could lift with a rocket.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

SpaceX, in a perfect world, just wants to be the railroad to facilitate others who want to build stations, bases, mining, recycling, etc.

As far as the greenness of rockets, recycling would be 5th in the 5 R's:

Refuse: refuse to use wasteful rockets? I don't really know how to apply this one.
Reduce: I suppose rideshares and vehicles with multiple hosted payloads are good
Reuse: See: SpaceX
Repurpose: Wet workshops?
Recycle: energy intensive and would need tons of infrastructure to process and use on orbit

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

While you are correct. Human experience wise.

We have long had theories and full maths on centrifugal force's needed to create a gravity like enviroment

Its really more about the will and dedication to develop such ideas.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

The difference between theoretical math vs. applied math, is that one gives you spherical cows in a vacuum, while the other needs to take into account valve intake shapes and positioning so they can relight the reentry engines while fuel is experimenting those centrifugal forces.

"Will and dedication", is what SpaceX is doing right now: getting stuff explode until they manage to account for all the variables you need to plug into the formulas... and this is just for the easy rocket science.