# Space module...

When I see stuff on Netflix (yes not real), and yet I look stuff up on the Net (real)
and they try and create a spaceship capable of travellng anywhere else in the solar system,
they always come up with standard missile design and go "new and improved.."

When they then show failure to actually land such a vessel ( https://www.netflix.com/watch/80216899 )
around 37:00,
I always ask myself, why ?
If you wanna go into outer space you need 2 things for long term space travel, at least..
Simulated gravity and landing capability of parts of the vessel after it reaches it's destination,
in the case of this series from Netflix, Mars.

I made a simple diagram, that has no problem with achieving this..
Each 'module' is circular in design, with it's engine mounted near the top rather than it's bottom..
Once in space each module can be connected to the next and the next..
Leftover fuel goes into the 'lander' module (which could be the front one.)

then when moving to Mars the design would have enough width to spin, and create
a simulated gravity, and,
when landing it would use it's main engine to reduce the speed while the center of gravity
would be located near it's bottom, with the point of force being above that,
automatically levelling out against gravity and thus being able to land..
(and even to take off again if or when needed..)

So, my question is this:
What's with the persistence on the age old rocket model ? is there a certain advantage to it,
or does every new rocketscientist always take the same design and tinker with it till it's 'new' ?

#### Attachments

• 16.4 KB Views: 596

Related General Engineering News on Phys.org
jrmichler
Mentor
Do some calculations. Establish the size required to spin fast enough to cause usable simulated gravity without causing motion sickness, then estimate the total mass of such a space ship, then what it would take to put all of that into LEO, time and effort to assemble, rocket engine size required to lift off Mars, fuel required for the round trip, etc. Don't forget the mass of air required (in tons). Even if your numbers are not very accurate, you will answer your own question.

Do some calculations. Establish the size required to spin fast enough to cause usable simulated gravity without causing motion sickness, then estimate the total mass of such a space ship, then what it would take to put all of that into LEO, time and effort to assemble, rocket engine size required to lift off Mars, fuel required for the round trip, etc. Don't forget the mass of air required (in tons). Even if your numbers are not very accurate, you will answer your own question.
The mass would be the same as a regular design missile shaped rocket..
The 'assembly' of each section would be a simple docking procedure, less than 1 hour..
The trip to Mars wasn't part of the question (it was stated IF..)
The amount of air would be same..

The size would be expandable, depending on each section's function..
Some things like sleeping and living quarters would be expanded outward (rectractable too) for the purposes of generating that simulated gravity..
Other sections would be non expanded, mostly used for storage of fuel and supplies..
But all this doesn't enter into it..

With same mass and air volume, there wouldn't be any additional fuel requirements, except for a slight increase in wind resistance
at lower altitudes..
It's a hollow structure, with only the sides of it being used as 'vessel'..
(although the construction itself would be usable as part of the habitat on Mars..)
(Following that series "Mars" on Netflix..)

But still, why the missile shaped ones ?
They are hard to stabilize on a powered landing, and need all kinds of side thrusters,
just to keep it steady, while the graph I added, clearly is superior,
since the center of gravity is below it's engine..
Any streeting thrust would only be needed in case of an actual wanted deviation,
rather then to keep it on track..

(It's about the shape of the ship, not on viability of going to Mars..)

Last edited:
I always ask myself, why ?
Because the CGI cost would skyrocket from any really complex and/or creative design: especially if a scientist is involved.
It's the same if some weightlessness is included in the movie. So it's just cheaper to make a well recognized design and declare that artificial gravity is already solved (some technobabble might be added at this point, but it is not a requirement)(also a 'valid' solution for movies to forget the whole gravity stuff).

There is no other reason. Movies are usually not about reality.