Nautilus-X....

[Retired_for_now]

On the other hand, PK, the 2001 Discovery looks like something assembled in a factory (OK, space factory). Lot's of fitting on that sphere - got to wonder why you need it? OK artiste, I know it's all about the visuals in film.

A first effort is most likely to be individual modules each only as large as a single launcher payload clamped, docked, stuck together as simply as possible. We're many years from sending up a load of hull plating and interior fittings for on-orbit assembly. The result will be something like ISS ... lots of modules all cobbled together.

Yogi (I don't have your artistic talent - but I can feel your pain)

[Paper Kosmonaut]

In that, Yogi, you are right. But Discovery-like ships could too be made in the same way. The parts being sent up by smaller rockets, joined together in space like Progresses or ATV's fly and join the ISS. The only object a bit more hard to get up into space might be the sphere itself.
But with a bit of artistic license one could easily reshape that part a bit less aesthetically into a cluster of smaller units like the Destiny module or for that matter Columbus or Kibo.
A space wharf might be something a bit further into the future but the in-space assembly of a Discovery-like craft could easily be done tomorrow. Ariane and Proton launchers as well as Direct's Jupiter launchers or Delta heavies might be able to do the job, perhaps even together. The sooner, the better. In that sense Nautilus is a very feasible concept.
I'd love the idea!

[Dyna-Soar]

Plus, discovery originally looked like this in the book:
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9392/48267585.jpg

[dhanners]

If I recall correctly, Discovery was indeed meant to be a "bitzer." I want to remember reading somewhere that the Command Module was supposed to be a re-purposed sphere from an Aries 1B. Or something like that.

[Zathros]

I think that Bigelow-Boeing technologies are going to make a big impact on the shape of space craft. The diameter limit is based on the available rockets. His assemblies can be scaled yp easily. If he sent up assemblies in halves, and then assembled, and inflated the shapes big be dramatically increased. The elastic properties of these ships also solve a lot of pother problems with vibration, micro meteors that bounce off these things could lead to something really big, and sustainable. A huge station at LaGrange point, with an gravitational ring for longevity, mining asteroids ans comets for water. The future has to start somewhere.

[jparenti]

Originally Posted by dhanners

If I recall correctly, Discovery was indeed meant to be a "bitzer." I want to remember reading somewhere that the Command Module was supposed to be a re-purposed sphere from an Aries 1B. Or something like that.

Yep, you're right. In fact, I believe if you look at Uhu's models of both, the sphere SHOULD be about the same size. According to the mythology of the film, the same people built both -- and Discovery was indeed based on the Aries 1B.
(There was supposedly also a cargo-only Aries 1... and now I'm getting waay off topic...)

[dhanners]

While I want to see these vessels built as much as anyone, it won't happen without a strong NASA -- and a significant change in how this country views the role of government. It's as simple as that. The private sector (and Wall Street) just won't invest the money or research into cutting-edge programs like these unless there is a guarantee of fairly immediate short-term profits, and big profits at that. If you look at what the space corporations are doing today, it is basically stuff NASA was doing back in the early '60s -- granted, they are using better vehicles, better materials and state-of-the-art technology, but we're still trying to put humans into Low Earth Orbit or even just sub-orbital flights. And how many people have these corporations managed to launch so far?

The problem, at least in the U.S., is two-fold. One is that we've just seemed to have lost the national will to try these types of things. Blame it on the end of the Cold War. Even though the Chinese and Indians have active manned space programs and even plan to go to the moon, we just don't get as excited about that, or at least not as excited as we did when we thought the USSR was going to the moon. And let's face it: With no USSR in the space race, the U.S. space program would have looked very different. (See X-20 Dyna-Soar....)

The other problem is money to fund those programs. We have people in this country who believe government is intrinsically evil and are are actively trying to starve it. We've had nearly three decades of politicians in this country telling voters that taxes are too high, no matter what the tax rate is. Calling a spade a spade, we're talking about the GOP here. And we've seen that result of that in terms of crumbling infrastructure (I live in the Twin Cities, and on the day the I-35 bridge fell, my wife left work early that day; otherwise, she might've actually been on the bridge when it fell) and we've also seen the result in the outright assault on science. We have a sizable portion of the country that actually believes in creationism instead of evolution. We have a sizable portion of the population that believes the universe is 6,000 years old. The Republican-led Congress voted early Saturday TO DEFUND NOAA'S SATELLITE PROGRAM. The GOP has determined that things like accurate weather forecasting or tracking hurricanes is a "luxury." But we all know the real reason is that NOAA scientists have been at the forefront of tracking and documenting global climate change, and if the Republicans don't believe the Earth is warming, then there's no need to document it. (And they feel that way because their major funders, including oil companies, have a vested interest in dismissing climate science.)

So in an environment like that, we're lucky to have any space program at all. The GOP majority in the U.S. House of Representatives doesn't even believe we should be tracking hurricanes. That's the world we live in. Landing men on the moon was a fluke, the product of a different era, the product of a time when people embraced science and the quest for knowledge.

As he stood on the moon, Apollo 15 commander David Scott famously said, "I sort of realize there's a fundamental truth to our nature: Man must explore, and this is exploration at its greatest." We have political leaders today who don't believe in exploration, and in doing so, they forfeit any claim to greatness.

[Retired_for_now]

Well ... everything goes in cycles.

We went to the Moon as a Cold War stunt (quick dash, no sustainability, throw away the entire rocket except for the last little bit, etc.). A real military fighter pilot approach. Going from the Wright brothers to real commercial aviation (whether DC-3 or jet age) took decades, and aviation is a simpler engineering problem than operating in space. Never mind all the infrastructure spending for aviation: airports, comm, nav, radars, etc. (recommended book: Packing for Mars).

I agree, without the Cold War the US space program would look very different. But we might be in about the same place as today because of a slower but sustainable pace. 12 years from Sputnik to a Moon landing was a real sprint.

I expect something like Nautilus will happen in the next decade because it's a cheaper way to go than other proposed exo-Earth manned missions. Then, as soon as the Chinese build their space station and start putting the pieces of a Moon base in place we'll all get paranoid/indignant/etc. and join the race again.

BTW - if we can get Paul Allen to spend that kind of money on SETI imagine what another rich bugger with a space travel fetish could do. Elon Musk may get there if he can focus on the SpaceX basic business plan before moving on. Warren Buffet could definitely build one of these if he wanted to.

Of course, your point about investing in cutting edge projects is a truism. But, there are a lot of internet billionaires who've yet to turn a profit, so ... Then again, I don't think we need cutting edge for this. It's time to capitalize (like Soyuz) on the tried and true. Launch the bits we know how to make on existing launchers (Delta heavy, Ariane V, and Atlas V pack quite a bit of throw weight), figure out how to make the VASIMR work, and take a ride.

Yogi

[Ironcladman]

Hi,

Ok, back on topic! How to design a cool interplanetary veeeehicle!

The hexagonal is for folding and launching. It's more Oragamic Man!

Rocketman (alias Ironcladman)

Originally Posted by Retired_for_now

OK, veering a bit off the topic of building Nautilus-X (and trying Zathros' torus).

Not sure why the concept uses so many hexagonal cross sections, cylinder is more material efficient for a given volume. Might be simpler (cheaper) construction driving the choice.

Yogi

[Ironcladman]

Hi,

Actually your right ON dude!

Rocketman (alias Ironcladman)

Originally Posted by Paper Kosmonaut

I still consider Kubrick's (and of designers Fred Ordway and Harry Lange) rendition of the Discovery in "2001" a very decent interplanetary design. Sometimes the nowadays designs look too modular, too secondhand-ish, made of reused parts to me.
But hey, that's just me.