Is space more like seafaring or aviation? It started out like the latter, but the former is a better model once we actually get serious about it.
[Update a while later]
Meteor craters, dinosaurs and spacefaring.
Actually, while I do think it’s a federal responsibility to keep an eye out for impactors, it’s not clear that it’s NASA’s job. It’s one of the things we need a Space Guard for.
I’ve always thought seafaring. I’ve even suggested submariners might make a good first group of colonists.
But then, I think if we were serious, we’d be launching battleship into space with Orion. Humans just aren’t that serious.
Or just Sea Dragon.
That’s true. Payloads are comparable and you don’t have to deal with the nuclear hysteria. Somebody get on the phone with Elon.
Plus he might find this to be a better launch site option since he is in the market.
Suggests an answer, though. Stop hiring airmen to work a navy problem.
To follow up, I wonder how much conflation is happening here. Perhaps launch craft are aviation which spacecraft are nautical, and this got confused in early attempts.
I think you’re right that launch vehicle are aviation but spacecraft are nautical, or perhaps we need to think of them as something that’s a little bit of both and yet neither one.
Places where the nautical parallels will break down are pretty numerous.
There aren’t harsh ocean waves to contend with, or a risk of running aground.
Spacecraft won’t face a continual battle against rust, corrosion, and rot.
Spacecraft can’t capsize or sink, and outside of LEO lifeboats or escape capsules are pointless, since it makes more sense to drift around in a bigger thing than a very much smaller thing.
Spacecraft aren’t constrained in shape and size by structural and hydrodynamic considerations. They could be more like a raft of lashed together houseboats than a ship. As such an assemblage gets larger, it would be more like a port than a ship.
George,
you just shot the Navy out of space all by yourself.
Trust me, if there’s no old paint and rust to be chipped, and no new paint to go down, there’s not a CPO in the fleet that will go out there!
Likewise, no waves means the mess cooks have to cook for EVERY meal. They can’t cook 50 pork chops for a crew of 300, knowing the greasy smell is going to chase all but the most salty ‘old salts’ off the mess decks.
NO capsizing or sinking means no abandon ship drills at 03:00, again, your monkeying with the Chiefs.
Shape, lines, angles, speed through the water are EVERYTHING to marine architects. They’d never be interested in space if stuff can just be round, or triangular or free form like the ISS.
It goes without saying, that a cube, will only be built be the Borg.
John Ringo’s “Vorpal Blade” is a (campy) science fiction novel about making a submarine into a spacecraft.
He goes into quite a bit of detail and discussion of ‘theory of Captaincy’ between the carrier guys and submariners.
The points about “Why on earth did you choose a -sub-?!?” all make perfect sense to me. They’re -already- designed for six-plus month trips. And the -complex- parts are all well-understood. “How many backups do we need for Thingamajob 27? Ans: 1.32 per month ±0.03” Carriers have many of the same traits logistically.
The missing piece is propulsion. And an Ohio-class would be plenty capable of powering the ion drive.
But 16000 >> 53 tonnes. So… no time soon for a full-sized Ohio-class.
16000 > 53 Which is why the serious choose Orion.
Perhaps we need a good solar space war to clarify things?
Definitely nautical since the Star Blazers already proved it by converting an ancient battleship called the Yamato into an interstellar SPACE BATTLESHIP! Now if only we could get our hands on a Wave Motion engine. And a chorus of baritones to bellow out an inspiring theme song — of OUR STAR BLAZERS!
Josh,
as I read the comment from Al above I remembered my kids watching a show about the Yamato. But I couldn’t remember the name.
I think the submarine is a better idea than a BB. A sub is already made to be closed up all the time. And most of them are nukes so they’ll be easier to keep fueled.
Ion drive?
When I say BB I’m thinking more mass than configuration. The question about nuclear power in space is dealing with heat. Don’t want our crew to be part of the boiled lobster corps. Ion drive is good enroute, but with crew you want to leave orbit with a bigger push and Zubrin has an argument against VASIMR. There’s a long history of shooting yourself when using silver bullets (which should never be put into a critical path.)
Chemical rockets avoid the heat problem by throwing it out with the reaction mass. We really should find out what the highest energy nuclear power source we can use in space is because we are going to need more power eventually.
Ken,
if you wrap cooling coils around the outside, it would be a decent way to cool a reactor. There are obvious problems. Punctures from micro meteors could be taken care of by having a dual hull, with the cooling system sandwiched in between inner and outer hulls. Adjustable louvers could let cooling ‘space’ in, but shield from star shine too.
And any time your too near a star, you’d have to shift cooling to the shade side of the ship maybe. Shifting cooling to a particular quadrant or either fore or aft, port or starboard is just a matter of designing it so you can have circuits in just one section.
I was kind of joking with Ion Drive. Too slow a start. Maybe we need to contact that Mexican Physicist who says he can build a Warp Drive.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, if we have a nuke up there, that’s damned near unlimited power. A laser-driven sail or microwave-driven sail might work. I think the only stopping point for acceleration would be over heating the reactor and / or the generators.
I think Zubrin was off on a rant. He makes much of the 10 kW output of the largest space reactor, but the Aircraft Reactor Experiment from the 1950’s put out 2.5 MW just in early tests and it was light enough to fly on an aircraft.
Cooling a reactor in space is of course ultimately radiative. I would go with a molten salt core, circultaing the salt through a heat exchanger with helium for a Brayton cycle (gas turbine) or a range of coolants with varying boiling points for a Kalina cycle (multi-staged Rankin cycle). With just helium and a Brayton cycle the power efficiency should be around 50% if radiating down to near room temperature, and with the Kalina cycle radiating into cold space the efficiency could be driven much, much higher, with the cut made at the point of diminishing returns on additional turbine and condenser stages.
[wrong button alert]
One other way to cool a reactor would be to put it outside the actual personnel and commerce parts of the vessel, like a ‘trailer’. I’m thinking it would look like the ship in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Maybe not so clean or symmetrical, but along that type of set up.
Then you just have to run I & C and power cabling in between.
My understanding is that space is a really good insulator. The solution might be dust (I’m having trouble finding any links that aren’t pay to see.)