A fleet that can perform multiple missions a day with that cargo capacity could build habs as well as interlocked units spinning for partial gravity to prevent bone loss and other problems on long-flight missions. Tethered to a central spine powered by heavy advanced propulsion units (like nuclear). These take massive amounts of trips and the cost-per-pound with this craft makes this a no-brainer if you want to get serious about permanent on-station space-fleets.
After 42 years of material advances, it should be quite do-able. Even the project heads didn't expect it to go out of experimental and into service until 2000 - so we're not too far off the schedule if we want to implement it.
What kind of habs? The same design NASA is using for LOPG, and that's being used on the ISS (for testing - it's one of the attached modules) right now.
Inflatable. Massive room per ton, with more weight available for equipment and experiments, and safer from micrometeorite and space debris impact (stronger material, and instantly self sealing).
(disclaimer - my father worked for both Morton Thiokol and Rockwell (among others) - I was just thinking about this today because he was recruited for Rockwell following his work on the Shuttle's SRBs at Thiokol (doing stress and load dynamics for transonic flight after a history on military missile projects including the Atlas, Titan and Nike interceptors). He worked for their civilian aerospace division, but I've wondered if he was placed into that division possibly to be on standby for this. He passed away this year, so it's now a bittersweet mystery unless I can locate one of his co-workers from 40 years ago.)
Footnote II : I'm a huge fan of Starship - but that's a point-to-point solution for the Mars and Moon. For the ultimate in heavy-lift and rapid turnaround this would be an ideal option for earth-orbital low-cost cargo services (per launch and per pound). Even a huge fanboy of SpaceX (me) can see why a multinational conglomerate like Rockwell was looking to take this on. A spaceplane has a hypermassive amount of tech development needed to work - far more than even a rocket. The amount of vendors on the systems manifest would have been staggering.
A fleet that can perform multiple missions a day with that cargo capacity could build habs as well as interlocked units spinning for partial gravity to prevent bone loss and other problems on long-flight missions. Tethered to a central spine powered by heavy advanced propulsion units (like nuclear). These take massive amounts of trips and the cost-per-pound with this craft makes this a no-brainer if you want to get serious about permanent on-station space-fleets.
After 42 years of material advances, it should be quite do-able. Even the project heads didn't expect it to go out of experimental and into service until 2000 - so we're not too far off the schedule if we want to implement it.
What kind of habs? The same design NASA is using for LOPG, and that's being used on the ISS (for testing - it's one of the attached modules) right now.
Inflatable. Massive room per ton, with more weight available for equipment and experiments, and safer from micrometeorite and space debris impact (stronger material, and instantly self sealing).
(disclaimer - my father worked for both Morton Thiokol and Rockwell (among others) - I was just thinking about this today because he was recruited for Rockwell following his work on the Shuttle's SRBs. He worked for their civilian aerospace division, but I've wondered if he was placed into that division to be on standby for this. He passed away this year, so it's now a bittersweet mystery unless I can locate one of his co-workers from 40 years ago.)
Footnote II : I'm a huge fan of Starship - but that's a point-to-point solution for the Mars and Moon. For the ultimate in heavy-lift and rapid turnaround this would be an ideal option for earth-orbital low-cost cargo services (per launch and per pound). Even a huge fanboy of SpaceX (me) can see why a multinational conglomerate like Rockwell was looking to take this on. A spaceplane has a hypermassive amount of tech development needed to work - far more than even a rocket. The amount of vendors on the systems manifest would have been staggering.
A fleet that can perform multiple missions a day with that cargo capacity could build habs as well as interlocked units spinning for partial gravity to prevent bone loss and other problems on long-flight missions. Tethered to a central spine powered by heavy advanced propulsion units (like nuclear). These take massive amounts of trips and the cost-per-pound with this craft makes this a no-brainer if you want to get serious about permanent on-station space-fleets.
After 42 years of material advances, it should be quite do-able. Even the project heads didn't expect it to go out of experimental and into service until 2000 - so we're not too far off the schedule if we want to implement it.
What kind of habs? The same design NASA is using for LOPG, and that's being used on the ISS (for testing - it's one of the attached modules) right now.
Inflatable. Massive room per ton, with more weight available for equipment and experiments, and safer from micrometeorite and space debris impact (stronger material, and instantly self sealing).
(disclaimer - my father worked for both Morton Thiokol and Rockwell (among others) - I was just thinking about this today)
Footnote II : I'm a huge fan of Starship - but that's a point-to-point solution for the Mars and Moon. For the ultimate in heavy-lift and rapid turnaround this would be an ideal option for earth-orbital low-cost cargo services (per launch and per pound). Even a huge fanboy of SpaceX (me) can see why a multinational conglomerate like Rockwell was looking to take this on. A spaceplane has a hypermassive amount of tech development needed to work - far more than even a rocket. The amount of vendors on the systems manifest would have been staggering.
A fleet that can perform multiple missions a day with that cargo capacity could build habs as well as interlocked units spinning for partial gravity to prevent bone loss and other problems on long-flight missions. Tethered to a central spine powered by heavy advanced propulsion units (like nuclear). These take massive amounts of trips and the cost-per-pound with this craft makes this a no-brainer if you want to get serious about permanent on-station space-fleets.
After 42 years of material advances, it should be quite do-able. Even the project heads didn't expect it to go out of experimental and into service until 2000 - so we're not too far off the schedule if we want to implement it.
What kind of habs? The same design NASA is using for LOPG, and that's being used on the ISS (for testing - it's one of the attached modules) right now.
Inflatable. Massive room per ton, with more weight available for equipment and experiments, and safer from micrometeorite and space debris impact (stronger material, and instantly self sealing).
(disclaimer - my father worked for both Morton Thiokol and Rockwell (among others) - I was just thinking about this today)
Footnote II : I'm a huge fan of Starship - but that's a point-to-point solution for the Mars and Moon. For the ultimate in heavy-lift and rapid turnaround this would be an ideal option for earth-orbital low-cost cargo services (per launch and per pound). I'm a huge fanboy of SpaceX but I can see why a multinational conglomerate like Rockwell was looking to take this on. A spaceplane has a hypermassive amount of tech development needed to work - far more than even a rocket. The amount of vendors on the systems manifest would have been staggering.
A fleet that can perform multiple missions a day with that cargo capacity could build habs as well as interlocked units spinning for partial gravity to prevent bone loss and other problems on long-flight missions. Tethered to a central spine powered by heavy advanced propulsion units (like nuclear). These take massive amounts of trips and the cost-per-pound with this craft makes this a no-brainer if you want to get serious about permanent on-station space-fleets.
After 42 years of material advances, it should be quite do-able. Even the project heads didn't expect it to go out of experimental and into service until 2000 - so we're not too far off the schedule if we want to implement it.
What kind of habs? The same design NASA is using for LOPG, and that's being used on the ISS (for testing - it's one of the attached modules) right now.
Inflatable. Massive room per ton, with more weight available for equipment and experiments, and safer from micrometeorite and space debris impact (stronger material, and instantly self sealing).
(disclaimer - my father worked for both Morton Thiokol and Rockwell (among others) - I was just thinking about this today)
Footnote II : I'm a huge fan of Starship - but that's a point-to-point solution for the Mars and Moon. For the ultimate in heavy-lift and rapid turnaround this would be an ideal option for earth-orbital low-cost cargo services (per launch and per pound). I'm a huge fanboy of SpaceX but I can see why a multinational conglomerate like Rockwell was looking to take this on. A spaceplane has a hypermassive amount of tech development needed to work - far more than even a rocket. The amount of vendors on the systems manifest would have been staggering.
A fleet that can perform multiple missions a day with that cargo capacity could build habs as well as interlocked units spinning for partial gravity to prevent bone loss and other problems on long-flight missions. Tethered to a central spine powered by heavy advanced propulsion units (like nuclear). These take massive amounts of trips and the cost-per-pound with this craft makes this a no-brainer if you want to get serious about permanent on-station space-fleets.
After 42 years of material advances, it should be quite do-able. Even the project heads didn't expect it to go out of experimental and into service until 2000 - so we're not too far off the schedule if we want to implement it.
What kind of habs? The same design NASA is using for LOPG, and that's being used on the ISS (for testing - it's one of the attached modules) right now.
Inflatable. Massive room per ton, with more weight available for equipment and experiments, and safer from micrometeorite and space debris impact (stronger material, and instantly self sealing).
(disclaimer - my father worked for both Morton Thiokol and Rockwell (among others) - I was just thinking about this today)
Footnote II : I'm a huge fan of Starship - but that's a point-to-point solution for the Mars and Moon. For the ultimate in heavy-lift and rapid turnaround this would be an ideal option for earth-orbital low-cost cargo services (per launch and per pound). I'm a huge fanboy of SpaceX but I can see why a multinational conglomerate like Rockwell was looking to take this on. A spaceplane has a hypermassive amount of tech development needed to work - far more than even a rocket. The amount of vendors on the manifest would have been staggering.
A fleet that can perform multiple missions a day with that cargo capacity could build habs as well as interlocked units spinning for partial gravity to prevent bone loss and other problems on long-flight missions. Tethered to a central spine powered by heavy advanced propulsion units (like nuclear). These take massive amounts of trips and the cost-per-pound with this craft makes this a no-brainer if you want to get serious about permanent on-station space-fleets.
After 42 years of material advances, it should be quite do-able. Even the project heads didn't expect it to go out of experimental and into service until 2000 - so we're not too far off the schedule if we want to implement it.
What kind of habs? The same design NASA is using for LOPG, and that's being used on the ISS (for testing - it's one of the attached modules) right now.
Inflatable. Massive room per ton, with more weight available for equipment and experiments, and safer from micrometeorite and space debris impact (stronger material, and instantly self sealing).
(disclaimer - my father worked for both Morton Thiokol and Rockwell (among others) - I was just thinking about this today)
Footnote II : I'm a huge fan of Starship - but that's a point-to-point solution for the Mars and Moon. For the ultimate in heavy-lift and rapid turnaround this would be an ideal option for earth-orbital massive cargo services. I'm a huge fanboy of SpaceX but I can see why a multinational conglomerate like Rockwell was looking to take this on. A spaceplane has a hypermassive amount of tech development needed to work - far more than even a rocket. The amount of vendors on the manifest would have been staggering.
A fleet that can perform multiple missions a day with that cargo capacity could build habs as well as interlocked units spinning for partial gravity to prevent bone loss and other problems on long-flight missions. Tethered to a central spine powered by heavy advanced propulsion units (like nuclear). These take massive amounts of trips and the cost-per-pound with this craft makes this a no-brainer if you want to get serious about permanent on-station space-fleets.
After 42 years of material advances, it should be quite do-able. Even the project heads didn't expect it to go out of experimental and into service until 2000 - so we're not too far off the schedule if we want to implement it.
What kind of habs? The same design NASA is using for LOPG, and that's being used on the ISS (for testing - it's one of the attached modules) right now.
Inflatable. Massive room per ton, with more weight available for equipment and experiments, and safer from micrometeorite and space debris impact (stronger material, and instantly self sealing).
(disclaimer - my father worked for both Morton Thiokol and Rockwell (among others) - I was just thinking about this today)
A fleet that can perform multiple missions a day with that cargo capacity could build habs as well as interlocked units spinning for partial gravity to prevent bone loss and other problems on long-flight missions. Tethered to a central spine powered by heavy advanced propulsion units (like nuclear). These take massive amounts of trips and the cost-per-pound with this craft makes this a no-brainer if you want to get serious about permanent on-station space-fleets.
After 42 years of material advances, it should be quite do-able. Even the project heads didn't expect it to go out of experimental and into service until 2000 - so we're not too far off the schedule if we want to implement it.
What kind of habs? The same design NASA is using for LOPG, and that's being used on the ISS (for testing - it's one of the attached modules) right now.
Inflatable. Massive room per ton, with more weight available for equipment and experiments, and safer from micrometeorite and space debris impact (stronger material, and instantly self sealing).
A fleet that can perform multiple missions a day with that cargo capacity could build habs as well as interlocked units spinning for partial gravity to prevent bone loss and other problems on long-flight missions. Tethered to a central spine powered by heavy advanced propulsion units (like nuclear). These take massive amounts of trips and the cost-per-pound with this craft makes this a no-brainer.
After 42 years of material advances, it should be quite do-able. Even the project heads didn't expect it to go out of experimental and into service until 2000 - so we're not too far off the schedule if we want to implement it.
What kind of habs? The same design NASA is using for LOPG, and that's being used on the ISS (for testing - it's one of the attached modules) right now.
Inflatable. Massive room per ton, with more weight available for equipment and experiments, and safer from micrometeorite and space debris impact (stronger material, and instantly self sealing).