I.S.S. space vehicle?

Question

I don't think a International space station vehicle that stay's parked in orbit with the I.S.S. is to far out in space in terms of fiction. The space shuttle could deliver such a craft much like the navy transports it's crafts down in the ship.( Electric tURBINE space craft ) Such a craft that could carry two people back and forth from I.S.S. to the moon and emergency use only back to Earth. This re- usable craft could be used on board by Russians, America and China and so forth, International systems command unit. A added International space station docking port would have to be built and added to the I.S.S. first. Solar sensors would be put on the moon to detect the Sun's solar ejection pre-warning systems back to the I.S.S. and transfer to Earth space command for future tracking systems. Buildind these new solar sensors not that hard to do on mounting pods on the Moon.

In building this Hydro-Turbine Engine would use no fuel. This engineering design is remarkable in terms of engine electric propulsion unit. We are giong to take electicity and compress it's hot Electric power enen more to produce the worlds first Non- Gravity Electric Turbine Engine.And this design will produce the Electric needed to also run all the on-board systems needed as well. ( It's all in the electric turbine fan clutching design, and Heat compression. ( Making more heat)

Even- sorryType-Error...

Foreward additional info: It takes a much greater energy to launch and leave our atmosphere then if you was already miles above it. And as far as the moon is concerned a Electric turbine engine would produce enough energy.The moon has a Magnetic pull but it does not have a oxygen atmosphere that creates a much harder to escape ( Inner pressure- against the vacuum Relativity of Space ) General Vacuum Relativity... Ironic isn't it, In that our solar system was designed much like a castle with a moat of rocks floating around to better protect it, making like a video game that is much harder to figure out how to engineer getting by it. Progressing to the next level. How smart was that?

Answer 1

The ISS always has a Russian Soyuz spacecraft docked to it for evacuation purposes. It can handle three astronauts normally. I recall reading somewhere that if they were desperate, a fourth could fit in an emergency. If something really bad happened, the crew on the ISS can jump in the Soyuz and return to Earth in pretty short order.

The CRV (Crew Rescue Vehicle) a.k.a the X-38 was cancelled and will not be available. It was designed to be docked at the ISS for very long periods of time and to carry as many as seven people back to Earth. The ---holes in the U.S Congress cancelled the project just before the CRV was ready for drop testing.

Hydro-turbines require moving steam or other fluid to work. (They can also be buried in a river and run of the moving water. This type is very, very large.) Generally, you need a heat source to heat the water and make steam to drive the turbine. The turbine drives a generator to make electricity.

In nuclear-powered ships and submarines, the heat source is a nuclear reactor. NASA and others are working on Nuclear Electric Propulsion which will use the generated electricity to power a very, very powerful ion drive.

You could indeed use one of these to go to Mars and the Moon and back. However, there's not such thing as a free lunch, and even ion drives require propellant. (Currently, ion drives use xenon gas as the propellant.)

Lastly, it is very, very, very unlikely that we will be able to build and NEP craft capable of surviving atmospheric reenty any time soon.

Answer 2

Where to start...

1. We've already got a lifeboat for the ISS: the Soyuz TMA craft. And if that's not enough, we've got another one in the works: the Orion capsule. The Orion is being designed as a "moonship" and the Soyuz could be modified into one with relative ease.

2. It takes a LOT of energy to get people to the moon. The S-IVB stage from the Saturn V was fueled with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, the most powerful fuel combination in use. It weighed 90 metric tons before it went off to the moon. That's well out of the range of any launch vehicle currently in use.

3. NASA did preliminary design studies for a spacecraft that could both land on the moon and return to Earth. There was one insurmountable problem with this, though: How do you make an Atlas-sized spacecraft that can safely land on the moon? In addition to that issue, you'd also have to provide it with heat shielding for the reentry phase. The kind of shielding that can stand up to a direct reentry from lunar orbit is incredibly heavy, and made up a large portion of the weight of the Apollo command module.

4. The ISS already has five docking ports, no more than four of which are in use at any given time. You don't need a new docking port.

5. We already have a number of solar sensor platforms in a much better position to observe solar flares, and at the speed the flares travel at, they wouldn't be of much help. There's no real point to your added sensor platforms.

6. Your engine uses no fuel, therefore it won't work due to one of two factors. Either it is a solar sail, electromagnetic tether, or similar drive, which is far too slow for our purposes, or it is a reactionless drive, which violates a cornerstone of physics, the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

7. "...[C]ompress its hot electrical power..."? That doesn't even make sense.

In short: Not possible, not feasible, not necessary.

Answer 3

How previous are you? while i substitute right into a youthful toddler, too youthful to study the information, Pres. Kennedy pronounced we could land a guy on the moon with the aid of the tip of the last decade. The U.S. did so, in July 1969. while the financial help and attitude is there, NASA components. i will by no ability forget watching that first step on the moon. The Russians are stepping up after years of the U.S. being the dominant tension interior the ISS. It substitute right into a political, financial decision to concentration on different targets, and has not something to do with NASA's lack of ability to supply high quality records on GW or something.

Answer 4

Sounds good to me. :)