...so I suspect they'll be [i.e. ITS] over-engineered for the much gentler stress of AG.
Quote from: Paul451 on 08/23/2017 09:51 am...so I suspect they'll be [i.e. ITS] over-engineered for the much gentler stress of AG.Well then, all you need to do is to convince Elon Musk to spare two of them for this experiment...
if you could attach two ITS "tail-to-tail" (main engines facing each other), [...] you would have a much larger radius to work with for a tumbling pigeon style arrangement.
Minor aside:Quote from: mikelepage on 08/24/2017 01:04 amif you could attach two ITS "tail-to-tail" (main engines facing each other), [...] you would have a much larger radius to work with for a tumbling pigeon style arrangement.I may be using the terms wrong, but I generally say "Tumbling Pigeon" for a single-ship rotating end-over-end, borrowing from Heinlein's juvie stories. Likewise a habitat still attached to its upper-stage. Hab at one end, propulsion at the other.But if you attach things together in a line, still spinning end-over-end, I usually say "baton" (or baton-style). Dual ITS would therefore always be a baton.I can't recall a useful term for something spinning around its long axis, I've been saying "cylindrically". ("Roll" doesn't seem sufficient.)Wheels (especially "spoked wheel") and rings should be obvious. Not sure if "hub'n'spokes" is too confusing for a configuration where there's no wheel, or if there's another term?
Zero-g adaptation disables the vestibular system anyway. Once you've adapted, you just don't get dizzy any more.
Quote from: Paul451 on 08/23/2017 09:51 amZero-g adaptation disables the vestibular system anyway. Once you've adapted, you just don't get dizzy any more.Offtopic, but I wonder if this would make zero-g adapted people immune to other sources of dizzyness, such as simulator sickness? It is a big problem in virtual reality, and the reason why many VR apps/games heavily restrict player movement or use teleportation instead of natural, continuous movement.
I made a quick mock up picture of two 9m diameter ITS spaceships (ship length 37m) connected by an almost 200m long cable. This should enable near 1G gravity at a comfortable 2 RPM rotation rate.
I don't particularly like them because they tend to use single large volume pressure vessels, which must be built in their entirety before they can even start being useful. Making them small enough to be feasible requires the occupants to tolerate higher spin rates for a given launch mass/acceleration level.
I would add that there is another spinning geometry I developed for the 2016 NASA space apps challenge - the "spiral space station" twin spiral framework geometry - which I like as a model for space habitats around asteroids, because it can feasibly keep growing/renewing itself as long as resources are available.
Quote from: mikelepage on 08/25/2017 10:03 amI don't particularly like them because they tend to use single large volume pressure vessels, which must be built in their entirety before they can even start being useful. Making them small enough to be feasible requires the occupants to tolerate higher spin rates for a given launch mass/acceleration level.I would disagree. Certainly the 1st generation of rotating space stations will likely be segmented, mainly because no one would feel confident in the design of such a large structure as a single volume as a first step. Assuming we're building mini-worlds in our first attempt leads to false assumptions.
QuoteI would add that there is another spinning geometry I developed for the 2016 NASA space apps challenge - the "spiral space station" twin spiral framework geometry - which I like as a model for space habitats around asteroids, because it can feasibly keep growing/renewing itself as long as resources are available.Interesting framework system, but did you simulate what the stresses would be when fully built out? Sure seems like this type of design relies on the principle of the "weakest link", where if one link fails the whole thing could unzip. Also I'm not sure how this improves on the issue you listed above of having a single volume, since this spiral design is essentially one long tube with no cross connections.Nevertheless it is a clever design that could end up providing some hints to how low-weight stations could be built.