Author Topic: 2001 type rotating space stations  (Read 9806 times)

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
2001 type rotating space stations
« on: 10/26/2005 08:16 pm »
Don’t know if anyone can help on this…

There was a paper in the December 1991 issue of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society by Michael A Minovitch of Phaser Telepropulsion Inc proposing the building of rotating 2001 type stations 100metres diameter for at least 150 crew by using automatic wrapping machines rotating round inflated Kevlar torus’ to wind thin layers of aluminium until the required thickness had been made.

The rotating toroidal living section would have a major and minor radii of 100m and 2m while the two central column cylinders with labs etc and constructed in the same way would each be 100m long x 10m diameter. The two column cylinders would connect into a pre-fabricated central hub into which three spokes 100m long x 4m diameter also constructed in the same way would be fitted to join the hub to the toroidal living section.

The station design also served as the basis for a 'cycling' ship and would take about 10 HLLV (assuming 100 tons/launch) or 14 Shuttle-C launches and 1 STS flight with minimal EVA.

Costs were about $400 billion for an Earth orbit station, a Mars orbit station and a cycling ship.

Would this type of construction be possible?

Offline Bruce H

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #1 on: 10/26/2005 08:42 pm »
Theorectically, I believe it would be possible. The cost is obviously obscene, but within reality if the ability was there. To gain that launch capability is not impossible, and some foresight in planning mission elements. Its purpose seems rather lost on me.

Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 16
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #2 on: 10/27/2005 04:36 am »
You might be able to use the raw material of discarded ETs, properly recycled and extruded for the wrapping material.  You'd need a tug and a solar smelter.  Robotic equipment.  Expensive, yes, but maybe not too bad on second glance.

Question is, how to get rid of all that foam on orbit without creating a spacejunk hazard?  Sure would be nice if there weren't any foam...

:::CRAZY-HAT ON:::
Can an inline ET use less (or no) foam?  How about aerogel?  Would periodic application of de-icing solution work for SDHLV ETs that have no foam?  Heaters?  How about insulation INSIDE the ET around the cryotanks, like Apollo?  Use insulation that could also be recycled and used for construction.
:::CRAZY-HAT OFF:::

Man that feels good sometimes.


Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #3 on: 10/27/2005 07:55 am »
Quote
Bruce H - 26/10/2005  3:42 PM

The cost is obviously obscene,

Its purpose seems rather lost on me.

IIRC the cost was about what NASA was talking about at the time for a Mars mission (I'll have to check the article again for the quote) and for it you get three stataion with vastly more capapbility than what we might get now plus a fully functioning Earth - Mars cycling transport system.

Offline Tap-Sa

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #4 on: 10/30/2005 03:10 pm »
Quote
:::CRAZY-HAT ON:::

Mind if I borrow that a bit...

Inline LV could very well shed most of it's insulation at T-0. Instead of trying to make the foam rigid make it loose, with precut cracks to make sure it peels off in small pieces in an orderly fashion. IIRC original Atlas didn't use any insulation for LOX even while pad. A lot of ice formed to the sides but it fell of quick during first seconds of the launch.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #5 on: 10/31/2005 12:12 am »
Quote
Tap-Sa - 30/10/2005  11:10 AM

Quote
:::CRAZY-HAT ON:::

Mind if I borrow that a bit...

Inline LV could very well shed most of it's insulation at T-0. Instead of trying to make the foam rigid make it loose, with precut cracks to make sure it peels off in small pieces in an orderly fashion. IIRC original Atlas didn't use any insulation for LOX even while pad. A lot of ice formed to the sides but it fell of quick during first seconds of the launch.

Not so nuts.. I was thinking the same thing for the shuttles, basically get rid of all the foam on launch, basically just dump the lot on the pad... would be a big stick mess..  

Back on topic.. I just don't get the need for a rotating station..

Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #6 on: 03/06/2006 09:37 am »
Although I was a huge fan of 2001 (the movie) and loved the whole system of space stations, shuttles and bases that Kubric depicted in the film, now that I am a grown-up (allgedly at least), on reflection, I don't think alot of it was particularly practical.  The realities of construction in space pose much greater difficulties than was ever anticipated and we are a long way from having a reliable, affordable robot that can do the type of complex and varied tasks needed for a major space construction project.  It seems to to me that if someone was serious about this, a group of Bigelow type modules linked together in a revolving structure or mated to a rotating structure would be the best solution -- it might look like a rotating string of pearls.  I am not sure if it would need a pressurized hub and spokes as is shown in more traditional concepts -- my guess is that it would not, and that if spokes were required (non-pressurized and for structural purposes only), they could be produced in one of those automated truss expansion packages that NASA demonstrated a few years ago.  Plus, remember, nothing says the inflatible modules need to be as small as the type Bigelow is currently developing.  In the AWST article, if I recall correctly, their engineers said that a spherical structure could be much easier to develop.  Also, as I recall, the multi-layered skin that they were going to use was far more resilient than the rigid aluminum structures we are now using for the space station.  With the greater lift capacity of the HLV now being contemplated -- 125 metric tons into LEO -- you can put up a great deal of material relatively fast -- particularly if limited assembly is all that is required.  A series of inflatible spheres that could be fitted out for a wide range of uses.  They could turn out to be the "leggo blocks" of orbital construction.  Also, this could be one of the solutions to the problem of the limp demand for commercial boosters.  Once the commercial space industry gets into the mindset of actually being able to regularly put cargo into LEO (first probably on a NASA contract, then expanding out to other customers later), it might be cheaper and easier to launch such modules a few at a time on EELVs or their alt.space equivalents.  Depending on the size of the station contemplated, in six months to a year, you could have every thing you need to assemble the initial pressure structure in orbit and ready to go.  My guess is that there will be a number of space stations built along this or a similar concept -- most without gravity -- in the next 10 to 15 years.  

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #7 on: 03/06/2006 11:26 am »
Quote
Avron - 30/10/2005  7:12 PM
Quote
Tap-Sa - 30/10/2005  11:10 AM
Quote
:::CRAZY-HAT ON:::
Mind if I borrow that a bit...Inline LV could very well shed most of it's insulation at T-0. Instead of trying to make the foam rigid make it loose, with precut cracks to make sure it peels off in small pieces in an orderly fashion. IIRC original Atlas didn't use any insulation for LOX even while pad. A lot of ice formed to the sides but it fell of quick during first seconds of the launch.
Not so nuts.. I was thinking the same thing for the shuttles, basically get rid of all the foam on launch, basically just dump the lot on the pad... would be a big stick mess..  Back on topic.. I just don't get the need for a rotating station..

All H2 vehicles need insulation (shuttle, Delta IV, Delta III 2nd stage, Centaur).  LOX tanks don't.  Shuttle needed foam on the LO2 tank to prevent ice from forming because of tiles.  Other vehicles don't have this issue.

Apollo stages had the insulation on the inside, but this was hand installed, tile by tile.   Modern day vehicles use SOFIA to reduce labor costs.

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #8 on: 03/06/2006 09:41 pm »
Within the past week I read some old archived articles somewhere concerning rotating space stations (I'll try to re-find the link).

If I recall... there are some serious limitations on the rotation rates... not for mechanical reasons (thought I'm sure that's true too)... but for physiological reasons.  Yes, you might be able to produce some amount of "artificial gravity" by rotation.  However, unlike a straight-line acceleration (which would be indistinguishable from true gravity), most people can't cope with the rotation generated kind.  That is because if you were walking on the "floor" of a rotating station (i.e., the inside of the outer rim wall), the downward force would be fine... but if you turned your head, coriolis affects on your inner ear would cause disturbing consequences (i.e., disorientation, sickness, etc).  One would think that you could get acclimated to this, but from studies done, that didn't appear that you would.   I read this was first noted in centerfuge training... where if you kept your head forward, things were OK (well, except for the g-forces you'd feel there).  But if you turned your head during the training, you'd take many hours to recover after the test.

Has anyone heard or read about this?  It would mean a "rotating wheel" type station would have to have a very large radius  (i.e., 2001 style) to get the high enough centrifugal force (artificial gravity), with the slowest rotation possible.



Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #9 on: 03/06/2006 09:53 pm »
Quote
RedSky - 6/3/2006  4:41 PMWithin the past week I read some old archived articles somewhere concerning rotating space stations (I'll try to re-find the link).If I recall... there are some serious limitations on the rotation rates... not for mechanical reasons (thought I'm sure that's true too)... but for physiological reasons.  Yes, you might be able to produce some amount of "artificial gravity" by rotation.  However, unlike a straight-line acceleration (which would be indistinguishable from true gravity), most people can't cope with the rotation generated kind.  That is because if you were walking on the "floor" of a rotating station (i.e., the inside of the outer rim wall), the downward force would be fine... but if you turned your head, coriolis affects on your inner ear would cause disturbing consequences (i.e., disorientation, sickness, etc).  One would think that you could get acclimated to this, but from studies done, that didn't appear that you would.   I read this was first noted in centerfuge training... where if you kept your head forward, things were OK (well, except for the g-forces you'd feel there).  But if you turned your head during the training, you'd take many hours to recover after the test.Has anyone heard or read about this?  It would mean a "rotating wheel" type station would have to have a very large radius  (i.e., 2001 style) to get the high enough centrifugal force (artificial gravity), with the slowest rotation possible.

Very true.  That's wheel stations are huge.  2001's Discovery would not have worked.   Zubrin's tether for Mars Direct was a couple hundred feet.

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #10 on: 03/06/2006 10:39 pm »
Very true.  That's wheel stations are huge.  2001's Discovery would not have worked.   Zubrin's tether for Mars Direct was a couple hundred feet.


According to the book, Space Station 1 had a diameter of 300 yards.

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #11 on: 03/06/2006 11:20 pm »
I found the link I mentioned earlier to an old forum archive dealing with artificial gravity in a spinning "wheel type" space station.  If I got that quoted equation correctly (which I must have seen at some point in the distant past in a college physics class) , the centrifugal force (artificial gravity) is equal to (4 * pi^2 * r ) / t^2  , where the force is in m/sec^2,  r is the rotation radius in meters, and t is the rotation period in seconds.  If you want 1g (1 earth gravity - 9.8 m/sec^2), rotating at the ""safe for everyone"  rotation rate of 1 Rev per minute (RPM), you'd need a station radius of 894 m.  So for a 1g station rotating at 1 RPM, it would need a station to be almost 2km in diameter!!    Of course, that's the "ideal" situation.... 1 g and 1RPM.

The posts say that  some people can acclaimate to 3 RPM.  Also, perhaps only 0.75g is enough to be usable in a station (i.e., slow/no bone loss due to zero gravity).  With those parameters,  3RPM would have t^2 = 400 sec^2 (not 3600 for 1 RPM);  the "3/4 gravity" would be 7.35 m/s^2.  So if you work out the equation, the radius would be 75 meters.   Not too bad.... a couple of hundred feet... similar to what Jim mentions in the earlier post for Zubrin's Mars transport ship.  And as PMN1's post says, A.C.Clarke's  2001 "wheel" station was 300 yards.  If you assume from the movie (the way they were walking there) that it generated 1 g, then the rotation would have been about 3 RPM.... which is adaptable by some non-susceptible persons.   Still, that's A LOT of hardware to launch to get a station that size!

Anyway... here's the link I was referring to:

http://yarchive.net/space/spacecraft/artificial_gravity.html


RedSky

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #12 on: 03/07/2006 01:00 pm »
Quote
RedSky - 6/3/2006  6:20 PM

 So for a 1g station rotating at 1 RPM, it would need a station to be almost 2km in diameter!!    Of course, that's the "ideal" situation.... 1 g and 1RPM.


RedSky

Hey big station - I think the only limitation to the size of the station and the diameter of the torus that could be constructed this way is how big your HLV is to carry the components (especially the wrapping machine) is

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #13 on: 03/08/2006 07:12 pm »
One of the reasons I support HLLV. IIRC a Saturn V could have deployed a folding segmented ring.

ET stations seen at:

http://www.spaceislandgroup.com

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #14 on: 03/08/2006 08:29 pm »
Quote
publiusr - 8/3/2006  2:12 PMOne of the reasons I support HLLV. IIRC a Saturn V could have deployed a folding segmented ring.ET stations seen at:http://www.spaceislandgroup.com

Still would have been too small

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #15 on: 03/09/2006 07:54 pm »
It would have been a good pilot. If nothing else--one segment of a ring station could be had.

Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #16 on: 03/10/2006 09:51 am »
Interesting concept.  Speaking of that, has anyone heard about where Bigelow is on their inflatable modules?  It is such an intriguing concept, I just hope they can pull it off.  They are supposed to be approaching some type of test, but I have heard and read essentially nothing (execpt for a contract announcement by some software vendor in Space Daily today.)

Offline braddock

  • NSF Private Space Flight Editor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #17 on: 03/14/2006 03:10 pm »
Well, Bigelow is scheduled for a Q1 2008 Falcon 9 flight from SpaceX.  I believe they intend to launch their 1/3rd scale prototype habitat on that flight.  Genesis Pathfinder -- one-third scale hardware meant to shakeout the bugs in a much larger space habitat tagged the Nautilus.

From an old SDC article http://www.space.com/news/businessmonday_040524.html :
"At launch, Genesis will weigh roughly 3,000 pounds (1,360 kilograms) and sport dimensions about 15 feet (4.6 meters) in length and 6.2 feet (1.9 meters) in diameter. With a huff and a puff, the structure is to essentially double in diameter size once in orbit.

The Genesis Pathfinder spacecraft are not identical but will weigh roughly the same, Gold said.

Sub-scale testing of Genesis would evolve to the Nautilus. This larger inflatable design is expected to tip the scales at between 45,000 to 50,000 pounds (20,000 to 23,000 kilograms) fully loaded. Once fully-inflated this module would be roughly 45 feet (13.7 meters) long and 22 feet (6.7 meters) in diameter. "

Plans might have changed since then, I can't find anything solid in a quick look around.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/05097_bigelow_prep.html

Offline davetry

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Weymouth, UK
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #18 on: 03/25/2006 07:24 pm »
I was expecting Bigelows first launch to be during 2006 via a Kosmotras Dnepr booster based on this info:
http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/2361

Offline Maverick

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • Newcastle, England - UK
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 33
RE: 2001 type rotating space stations
« Reply #19 on: 03/26/2006 05:09 pm »
So the question is, when is Bigelow going to be launching payload uphill, and what's the delay to the 2006 date previous thought of.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0