Hi Sup Forums, i want to build a space ship

hi Sup Forums, i want to build a space ship
yes I'm serious, i want to build a capsule that in theory could be strapped to a rocket and launched and support life comfortably for 1-2 people for ideally 4-5 years but 1 month would be a good start. ..possibly maintain an orbit but that might raise the cost too much what with the thrusters n co2 n computing required etc. also must have a window and coms (was thinking ham radio for coms as cheap and u can even send email over it) am happy to recycle materials and re use surplus space parts if can be found.
does anyone have any idea as to what this might cost?
any info, ideas, thoughts, pointers etc appreciated, thanks.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Cb_U_CbQ5sc
youtu.be/nMfPNUZzG_Q
youtube.com/user/szyzyg/search?query=ksp doesn't teach
copenhagensuborbitals.com/
darkgovernment.com/news/what-happened-to-the-artificial-gravity-idea/
youtube.com/watch?v=eSoqPMrfVLg
theverge.com/2017/2/28/14763632/spacex-private-moon-flight-price-cost-estimate-nasa-space-adventures
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

lets do it, first lets lay out some basic specs like size, propulsion, waste management, food supplies etc

size : at least 50 cubic meters internal capacity not including living space (toilet/sleeping quarters etc)

propulsion : would it be just for orbital use or interplanetary?

waste management : would we recycle our poop/pee and food leftovers or throw them out in space?, that has to do with how much we can carry in order to maximize our space time

food supplies : stored food or growing capabilities?

what ever size it needs to be i guess. don't want to worry too much about weight as technology is advancing rapidly and payloads get cheaper and rockets get stronger blah blah. as for propulsion i think thats a bit out of my league, ill start with a survival capsule, maybe co2 or whatever for mauvering into orbits at some point. waste, suck out the liquid and recycle, bag the solids (maybe soil?) or eject out side. food probably a mix os rations and perhaps a hydroponic system

im not sure, id quite like to see mars...
but if the launch rocket can get me on track for that in the fist place then no need for a major propulsion system.
recycling is a go.
food - both. with back up rations in case of garden failure

even if it never sees space it would be one hell of a feature room...

i really think that in order to make this work for 2 persons over an extended period of time a single capsule would not be sufficient, it would either have to be a multiple launch system that would be assembled on orbit (like the skylab/mir/iss stations) or a shuttle like vessel for a single launch (no payload onboard and with the cargo hold converted for other uses), if a survival capsule is all you want google haynes soyuz manual and go from there

agreed , would love to have an apollo capsule or a soyuz as my battlestation

bump for interest with nasa concept space porn (warp drive concept ship and yes it is called the enterprize)

thanks, how much do you think it would cost to build a Soyuz-like craft? considering most of the cost of space travel is research, and all the research has been done...

that is some extremely explicit hard core pornography for sure.

jet fuel cant melt steel beams

a couple of billion dollars for sure, you have to build everything twice + spareparts, failures will be a constant problem, materials needed are somewhat exotic and not easily available to the public, fuel is a different story and so on

have some more (real this time)

lets make this a little more realistic, could we design a launch system for a small payload (~50 kilos) using only out of the self materials?, lets say a probe to photograph the moon or mars

...i could maybe get a loan of a million..?

>support life comfortably for 1-2 people for ideally 4-5 years
Let me save you the trouble. Nope! Not possible.
To get enough food, water and oxygen to last that long you'd need to park the capsule in orbit and make dozens of trips to it, each at a cost of around a quarter of a billion dollars. So unless you are a billionaire or own a fairly large and successful country it's not even close to possible.

or we could suck elon musks dick to get a seat on his space vision

i dunno man, that elon chap seems like one shady pseudo science ball licking scamming mother fucker

ok well how much to build something that sits in my garden and look legit and beeps and whirs and has flashing lights and computers n shit.

buy a container or a scrap airplane cockpit and start modifications, the only real cost would be your work and the interior (design, computers, other equipment blah blah blah)

thanks ill look into that then. maybe if i live in it long enough ill go crazy and believe I'm actually in space, thus saving vast amounts of money.

use some flat panel screens for windows to display stars nebuale and stuff to make it more realistic

MFW you can literally do almost all of this in Space Engineers.
Too bad the game has so many tiny bugs with major negative impact. If circumcisions were different, I'd play SE all day.

surely a deep sea submarine has a similar level of technology/materials/engineering as a space capsule just without the life support, and they can be had for sub 10million. and thats all proffesinally build and garenteed to work etc. if i build it in my shed over 15-20 years, could be done for say 1-2 mill?

This is what mosts launches do these days.
Flybys with just what they need and no chance of returning. However, it does weigh more than 50kg, since scientists are loading as much crap as possible on anything going to space, since it's such a rare occation to fly by any sort of orbiting body other than the earth.

To make a comparison, we're just barely at the first or second layer of research in kerbal space program. There is so much more that can be done, and it's all up to politics, ambition, money and time.

i just found a blueprint

agreed , but what if we keep it simple, just optics and navigation, how small would that design can get?

Sup Forums is great, from cancerous ylyl, rate my cock, to spaceship designing

we are living the dream b/ro

i will start a new thread over my ham radio when I'm in orbit

A camera these days can be super tiny, if you want to capture something 20 meters or less in front of you....
However, a flyby would require a camera that can see 100 km with (preferably) a lot of detail. Just take a look at the moon flyby pictures from the 60s, they are awesome in all manners of speaking, but they are also blurry. A phonesized-camera would probably produce the same quality at the distances in question.

You will need some antennae to transmit the visuals back to earth, which will add size, if not too much weight... (any antennae experts here?)

You will need to power everything, either by battery (possibly heavy), solarpanels (large), or other means (will add size/weight)

You will need fuel to navigate, and thrusters, as well as necessary components to control all of this. (complexity, size, weight, dead weight when fuel drains)

Many problems would be solved if a reactionless propulsion system was discovered and developed (like the emdrive/cannae engine promised, but failed to do properly). With such a propulsion system, you would only need to provide a proper power system, perhaps like one of those huge, modern submarines used by the US. That would surely result in the first proper spaceship with StarTrek-like capabilities (except the warp speeds ofc..)

>A camera these days can be super tiny, if you want to capture something 20 meters or less in front of you....
>However, a flyby would require a camera that can see 100 km with (preferably) a lot of detail. Just take a look at the moon flyby pictures from the 60s, they are awesome in all manners of speaking, but they are also blurry. A phonesized-camera would probably produce the same quality at the distances in question.

fixed lens for a specific distance? (orbital altitude must be precise)

>You will need some antennae to transmit the visuals back to earth, which will add size, if not too much weight... (any antennae experts here?)

if the goal is the moon how big the antenna should be ?

>You will need to power everything, either by battery (possibly heavy), solarpanels (large), or other means (will add size/weight)

radioisotope battery?

>You will need fuel to navigate, and thrusters, as well as necessary components to control all of this. (complexity, size, weight, dead weight when fuel drains)

co2 or some other gas for navigational thrusters?

>Many problems would be solved if a reactionless propulsion system was discovered and developed (like the emdrive/cannae engine promised, but failed to do properly). With such a propulsion system, you would only need to provide a proper power system, perhaps like one of those huge, modern submarines used by the US. That would surely result in the first proper spaceship with StarTrek-like capabilities (except the warp speeds ofc..)

ion drives are a reality for quite some time, would this be aplicable?

laser pulsing morse or binary back to earth in place of antenna?

> co2 or some other gas for navigational thrusters
Any kind of gas or combustion will work, but the real question is efficiency.

> ion drives
These are SUPER efficient because the "fuel" is expelled at the maximum speed (light speed, right?) Higher particle speed at point of exit means more energy per particle.
CO2 would "work" but it would only be as efficient as the pressure at which it was stored. (more pressure = more speed when expelled).
Fuel gains a lot of energy when combusted, and various types of fuel will gain various types of energy per gram when combusted.

Scott Manley did several videos on all of this:
Ion/xenon: youtu.be/Cb_U_CbQ5sc
Theoretical superfuel: youtu.be/nMfPNUZzG_Q
Random interesting: youtube.com/user/szyzyg/search?query=ksp doesn't teach

>These are SUPER efficient because the "fuel" is expelled at the maximum speed (light speed, right?)

don't think this is the case, if i remember correctly ion drive uses an ionized gas that is being accelarated by 2 high voltage grills (negative, postive) in order to create thrust that is actually miniscule but adds up in time

more space porn to keep this thread alive

>what this might cost?
Rough estimate is about $10000 per lb to launch into orbit. That is the price for non-man rated launches. If you want to survive the acceleration, shock, and vibrations it will be much more.

Best bet is to win the lottery and pay the Russians for a stop at the ISS.

Rich fuckers like Musk and Bezos have had the same vision as you and it has taken them over a decade and billions of dollars to not even be at the point of getting space tourism going quite yet.

Efficiency is not the same as "Amount of thrust".
Their thrust is super low, which means you must keep them running for a long time to gain any kind of substantial dV. However, per gram of fuel, you get A LOT of dV.

You want cubesats.

Those go up on a surprising lot of launches, piggybacking on the primary payoads efforts.

yes but if we want a single launch with a single cube sat as a payload?, how big it would have to be? how much would it cost?

What if you had unlimited funds, and 50 years to get into space (basically, "before getting too old").
Would the lack of a deadline provide the workforce with sufficient workspace to do everything properly, and thus create the perfect "first edition perfection spacecraft"?

Cost a lot more than piggybacking as you'd need to front the full cost of the launch vehicle, ground control, launch control, etc. You'd still need to achieve escape velocity, witch still requires a large expensive launch vehicle so you might as well just have a large space vehicle to go with.

The beauty of cubesats is they can just go onto most any standard payload launch.

copenhagensuborbitals.com/

"The world’s only amateur space program"

Thats what it looks like when somebody just fucking does it.

You;d still want to do a series of data gathering launches to determine problems and ways to improve for future missions.

Honestly 50 years and unlimited money would get you to the nearest star.

One country got to the moon in less than a decade with 10000 people working and a small part of the national budget. If the entire planet pooled its money and work force to space programs, you could do just about anything.

I would guess a spaceport built in low earth orbit or even better at one of the Lagrange points would be first step. This would reduce the earth launches, which are the most expensive and dangerous part of space missions.

why don't governments want to put real money into space programmes?

because less will go in their pockets

Will there ever be a spaceship I can smoke darts in?

Many constituents believe space programs to be completely useless wastes of money that have only academic relevance. They'd rather the money be spent on welfare programs, fixing roads, tax cuts, etc.

Politicians may think similarly, and are much more interested in military spending and welfare spending. Though they love photo ops with NASA and ESA.

Sadly they don't realize how much of modern society was developed from the space programs (though I admit the same is true from war spending). The research aspect of space technology is very useful for everyday life, though it may take years or decades before the products are affordable for general public use.

Smaller governments have even more of a problem because they have no space research infrastructure and must spend money to start from scratch.

I am interested in where China goes. They are rather secretive but the government can spend whatever it wants since its communism. Would love to see them go to the moon and get the Americans and Europeans in a race again.

surely they're personally interested in space too? i mean, who isn't? and even if they're power hungry surely they'd want to conquer space?

dont think so, the majority of them are oldfags who wouldn't live to enjoy the benefits of space exploration thus they do not care

>surely they're personally interested in space too? i mean, who isn't?
Sadly most people don't care. If our leaders were made up of scientists, doctors, engineers, teachers, etc. and not just lawyers then maybe there would be more interest.

You have to remember, there are current U.S. senators that believe the universe is ~6000 years old. There are others that believe african americans need to get reparations for slavery. These people are not as smart as they should be.

imagine if the us gov gave half its military budget to nasa for just one year....... we might even make mars.
its difficult because nasa is gov. they can't just give plans to other countries and other countries have no incentive to fund nasa.

americans are the dumbest smart people ever

PFFFT, if someone actually looked at the budgets and actual moneyflow, they would be amazed at the amount of money poured into various factions of the world.

I.e healthcare in some countries.
One mole removal? $10000.
One breast cancer examination? $5000
One broken bone surgery? $35000

Private healthcare-companies make literal fortunes every day because nobody thinks twice. "Oh that's the price? Well we better pay it or people may complain.."

Not to mention corruption, mob-controlled roadworks (build million dollar road that lasts for 2 years, get new million dollar contract to rebuild), movie networks (pay million dollar wages to people that simply do their job...),
Municipal wages (Million dollars a year, even after ending the career), sports pro wages (million dollars per week to stay fit and kick a ball).

There is plenty capacity to create the perfect world and end all problems. The biggest obstacle is the person behind the actual funds and means to do so. Space exploration could be 200 years more advanced, if less deadlines and more funds were provided.

‘I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of 2 million parts — all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract.’
- John Glenn

so basically we need outside intervention to keep us from squabbling amongst ourselves so we can actually achieve things.
anyone seen the the arrival...

"BREAKING NEWS: user dies in unimpressive explosion 10 feet off the ground after soliciting Sup Forums to design his spaceship"

I worked on government rocket contracts a couple of years ago and their slogan was horrendous.

"Lowest cost, technically feasible"

Euphemism for "cheapest offer that will probably explode on the pad"

They had their first launch failures after that became their strategy. What a fucking surprise.

kek
sounds like i can probably do better than these guys tho

No, it wasn't the contractor slogan, it was the GOVERNMENT slogan. Government wanted to cut costs so congress figured that would be a good place to do it, fucking tards.

Its no brain surgery, its rocket science. If you need brain surgery you go to the best neurosurgeon you can find, not a part time welder in a van by the river. You get what you pay for.

"Work cheaper and harder, not smarter"
Pic related is proper solution. I wish more people realised this.

Making something survive in space isn't that hard.

Designing it so it survives the rocket flight and making it light enough to go on the rocket is a little more nuanced.

also,

tl;dr study mechanical engineering.

You're talking out of a unicorn's ass, einstein.

oh shit ok hhaha

my entire career has basically been the get annoyed at shitty Excel spreadsheet method some tard wrote 10 years ago and convert it to a script that automates it.

That must be hell, given someone else's excel document that has zero comments and be forced to run it.

There are a bunch of interesting concepts for artificial gravity that you could do, depending on your budget and time. Creating a cylinder would work for gravity you just have to spin it (Like interstellar of any other space movie). I would like to help in some way, peraps do some coding or some schematics research.

haters can hate and then watch me pass by in low earth orbit before i sling shot to mars in 20 years

good luck, i'm off to watch football and calm down from how stupidly bureaucratic the government is.

darkgovernment.com/news/what-happened-to-the-artificial-gravity-idea/

Something like this.

Smells like ass. Is that a giant space dildo for aliens you will invariably encounter in your Sup Forums induced oddyssey.

I'm no computer tech so id like to keep it as low tech as possible. think of it as a landrover defender for space.

its official. Sup Forums now has its own space program.

You'll need to do a lot of reading and have a lot of money. Humble et als Space propulsion analysis and design is a good start, it's a book found on a fair amount of Space X and NASA shelves.

4-5 year life support is extremely ambitious. Even with recycling, you'll need a lot of water. Food, too.

Someone has to post this reminder...
youtube.com/watch?v=eSoqPMrfVLg

The amount of autism in this thread is staggering

Well are you planning to do EVERYTHING (Turn on thrusters, lights) yourself then? Automating everything through code would make it much more (entirely) possible.

If you hook everything up to a central computer running off of a fission reactor, then you'd be good.

But that is also not counting food and water, if you look at it, it is literally NOT possible with one person and 500 years. Unless you have infinite money (which I assume you don't) then it won't happen easily.

You your self won't make it to space, but sending a probe would save time and energy.

nope but think of the apollo missions, very sparse and simple computer systems

But they were working 50 years ago, when computers hadn't evolved this far, they were still using floppy disks as a primary form of portable memory.

We have come far in computer science since then, and making a computer to automate everything wouldn't be that hard.

First moon landing occurance:
"The landing computer was signaling an overload; the 1202 alarm it displayed was an error code that meant, in effect, "I have too much to do, so I am going to stop, reboot and start over." Had this occurred, mission rules would have called for an immediate abort as their ability to navigate the landing would be compromised. The computer was receiving more data than it could handle."

oh no worries buddy, ill just switch out the ram for something better...:)
also i never said i wanted to land on the moon...
my original question was basically; how much is it going to cost me to build a craft in which i could survive in space.
why do you enjoy being bitter?
leaving thread now as its 2am and need to sleep.
enjoy telling no one in particular how its not possible for someone else to do something just because you think its not.

> implying RAM was mainstream back then
> Implying a better solution existed

I guess you would have to ask an actual space agency to get a specific estimate, but the cheapest estimates I could find by Google are NASAs $58 million
theverge.com/2017/2/28/14763632/spacex-private-moon-flight-price-cost-estimate-nasa-space-adventures