Computers, computer networks and dystopian AI did it for near future SF in the 80’s through to the 00’s. Now it’s rocketry’s turn (again).
Watching that F9 landing in Florida in Dec. 2015 was a tipping point. Perhaps as significant as the introduction of the Apple Macintosh in 1984.
Will we see a return to Heinlein’s Green Hills of Earth anthologies? Only better grounded?
Only better grounded?
Pun unintended…
Dec ’15 was after the first of Greg Bear’s War Dogs trilogy, so couldn’t have inspired him to put “Muskies” on Mars, but he surely was inspired by SpaceX by then.
“Soon, though, we’ll have multiple space stations in orbit, some of which use the von Braun “wheel” style of classic SF. As we get more people into space, we will need to provide gravity to stay healthy. ”
I am anti-wheel.
I fail to see the advantage of artificial gravity wheel.
Also not sure artificial gravity will work- I think we need to test them, first.
And one could quickly and cheaply make a stick rather than try to make a wheel.
At upcoming flight rates, there’s no reason multiple options can’t be tested beforehand. That’s part of the mindset that will change…it used to be that you had to make your case via Powerpoint with as much data as you could gather. Then, a winner would be chosen based on who made the better presentation and/or who aligned better with what the requestor wanted. Now we can actually demonstrate concepts for a relatively low cost.
Personally I’m in favor of the ‘stick’ method for spacecraft in transit that don’t need to dock, but think that the ‘wheel’ method will be more useful for a station that docks with other spacecraft.
With wheel, you dock at hub, and with stick you dock at hub.
To be “fancy” have a sphere hub with two stick end extending from sphere. And I would have microgravity swimming pool in the large hub sphere.
But simple stick [or with a large hub] there less mass to slow down. So you can stop spinning and dock at ends [or hub] and then spin it.
But generally at the further ends, one can less mass and store the larger mass [and cargo] at or nearer to the hub.
40 to 50 years ago, Pournelle did the Sally Hansen series, and that is tracking current reality very well.
Stick, artificial gravity test station.
Falcon Heavy launch.
And stick is second stage rocket which keeps the fairing. Within fairing is metal walls and floors. Bottom floors have lots of mass in terms of compressed air and liquid water. Lower floor has radiation shelter. upper floor aren’t launched with much shielding. Once crew arrive, they take cubes of water from lower floors, so as to provide radiation shielding to top floor. And at top floor, one test artificial gravity which equal to the Moon or less, and “work towards” artificial gravity equal to Mars. And lower floor have less artificial gravity and/or microgravity.
Final purpose is to have a crew live in it for 6 months at a Mars level artificial gravity. With options attaching rope to the top of it to dragon Crew capsule, to test large radius spins {again at Mars level gravity- or rope must be strong enough to lift 1/2 mass of dragon crew vehicle in Earth’s gravity}.
But main purpose is learning how to operate it. And some point, you might refuel the second stage rocket, take it out of LEO. So after 6 month test at Mars gravity, you might move to it to Lunar orbit, test longer duration at Mars gravity.
So need Falcon heavy launch which recover, it’s 2 first stages. And dragon crew launch. And probably a few later launches to get to point of 6 month test.
I disagree . Science fiction is not its framework. That said, I refer folks to three of my stories: “Fellow Traveler” (an if this goes on format near future, with an afterword about the NEOs), “Harvest Moon” (near future of the immediate past), and “The Rocket into Planetary Space” (near future, as of 10 years ago, with an afterword about SpaceX et al). There were others besides. It’s profitable to regard what we call “science fiction” as what Tenneyson called “fairy-tales of science.”
Computers, computer networks and dystopian AI did it for near future SF in the 80’s through to the 00’s. Now it’s rocketry’s turn (again).
Watching that F9 landing in Florida in Dec. 2015 was a tipping point. Perhaps as significant as the introduction of the Apple Macintosh in 1984.
Will we see a return to Heinlein’s Green Hills of Earth anthologies? Only better grounded?
Only better grounded?
Pun unintended…
Dec ’15 was after the first of Greg Bear’s War Dogs trilogy, so couldn’t have inspired him to put “Muskies” on Mars, but he surely was inspired by SpaceX by then.
“Soon, though, we’ll have multiple space stations in orbit, some of which use the von Braun “wheel” style of classic SF. As we get more people into space, we will need to provide gravity to stay healthy. ”
I am anti-wheel.
I fail to see the advantage of artificial gravity wheel.
Also not sure artificial gravity will work- I think we need to test them, first.
And one could quickly and cheaply make a stick rather than try to make a wheel.
At upcoming flight rates, there’s no reason multiple options can’t be tested beforehand. That’s part of the mindset that will change…it used to be that you had to make your case via Powerpoint with as much data as you could gather. Then, a winner would be chosen based on who made the better presentation and/or who aligned better with what the requestor wanted. Now we can actually demonstrate concepts for a relatively low cost.
Personally I’m in favor of the ‘stick’ method for spacecraft in transit that don’t need to dock, but think that the ‘wheel’ method will be more useful for a station that docks with other spacecraft.
With wheel, you dock at hub, and with stick you dock at hub.
To be “fancy” have a sphere hub with two stick end extending from sphere. And I would have microgravity swimming pool in the large hub sphere.
But simple stick [or with a large hub] there less mass to slow down. So you can stop spinning and dock at ends [or hub] and then spin it.
But generally at the further ends, one can less mass and store the larger mass [and cargo] at or nearer to the hub.
40 to 50 years ago, Pournelle did the Sally Hansen series, and that is tracking current reality very well.
Stick, artificial gravity test station.
Falcon Heavy launch.
And stick is second stage rocket which keeps the fairing. Within fairing is metal walls and floors. Bottom floors have lots of mass in terms of compressed air and liquid water. Lower floor has radiation shelter. upper floor aren’t launched with much shielding. Once crew arrive, they take cubes of water from lower floors, so as to provide radiation shielding to top floor. And at top floor, one test artificial gravity which equal to the Moon or less, and “work towards” artificial gravity equal to Mars. And lower floor have less artificial gravity and/or microgravity.
Final purpose is to have a crew live in it for 6 months at a Mars level artificial gravity. With options attaching rope to the top of it to dragon Crew capsule, to test large radius spins {again at Mars level gravity- or rope must be strong enough to lift 1/2 mass of dragon crew vehicle in Earth’s gravity}.
But main purpose is learning how to operate it. And some point, you might refuel the second stage rocket, take it out of LEO. So after 6 month test at Mars gravity, you might move to it to Lunar orbit, test longer duration at Mars gravity.
So need Falcon heavy launch which recover, it’s 2 first stages. And dragon crew launch. And probably a few later launches to get to point of 6 month test.
I disagree . Science fiction is not its framework. That said, I refer folks to three of my stories: “Fellow Traveler” (an if this goes on format near future, with an afterword about the NEOs), “Harvest Moon” (near future of the immediate past), and “The Rocket into Planetary Space” (near future, as of 10 years ago, with an afterword about SpaceX et al). There were others besides. It’s profitable to regard what we call “science fiction” as what Tenneyson called “fairy-tales of science.”