Author Topic: Space Stations - a naive modular approach to build an industry (perhaps...)  (Read 2690 times)

Offline tesh90

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 1
Straight off the bat I have to add a couple of assumptions.  The assumptions are, one, that there is a need to build a large space station or space vehicles for research and holiday and two, that a “simple” modular cube shaped habitat can be built.

The size of each cube could be 5m x 5m or 10m x 10m.  Each cube would have minimal external surface features and have airlocks that encompass almost the whole surface area of each face.  You could generate three types of cubes, cubes with 2, 3 and 6 airlocks.  Once transported into space these cubes could be connected into larger structures. 

These cubes could, at first, be mass produced by government entities.  Later these could be generated by private competitors or privatised government initiated companies.

The final configuration of the structures would be mission dependent.  Possibly “T” or “pencil” structures for missions that require long journeys or cubes for habitation and research.  After the final configuration is decided, “personalisation” of the external features can be carried out.  Purpose built "cubes" could be added, i.e. cudes for the "cockpit" or power generation and so on.

Power generation, long range communication and storage of “goods” (for the research and habitation) could be separated physically into a complex that is maintained in close proximity.  Power could be transmitted, physically (cables) or otherwise (beamed).

Environmental, electrical and general resource parameters would have to be built up in situ for the.

If one decided to do this the following could happen:
   1.    Launch providers would have a steady flow of business.
   1a.   Launch costs would possibly go down due to increased launch rates.
   2.    Astronauts corps (pilots, engineers and reasearchers) would be generated.
   2a.   More people would get to go to space.
   3.    Space would become available for “leasing” – for research and tourists.
   4.   We get more experience in space habitation, engineering and tech development.
      5.   Fringe industries would be generated:
         - waste management
         - recycling
         - environmental control
         - IKEA for space habitation
         - energy management in space
         - space suit manufacturing
         - local transport development, i.e. small vehicles to travel around the outside of the space station.
         - the are possible more (or less) than the ones I have mentioned

I think that if we build modules, and the modules are simple (at least initially), then the range for expansion and their use is greater.

Offline gomorrha

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 176
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Straight off the bat I have to add a couple of assumptions.  The assumptions are, one, that there is a need to build a large space station or space vehicles for research and holiday and two, that a “simple” modular cube shaped habitat can be built.

The size of each cube could be 5m x 5m or 10m x 10m.  Each cube would have minimal external surface features and have airlocks that encompass almost the whole surface area of each face.  You could generate three types of cubes, cubes with 2, 3 and 6 airlocks.  Once transported into space these cubes could be connected into larger structures. 

These cubes could, at first, be mass produced by government entities.  Later these could be generated by private competitors or privatised government initiated companies.

The final configuration of the structures would be mission dependent.  Possibly “T” or “pencil” structures for missions that require long journeys or cubes for habitation and research.  After the final configuration is decided, “personalisation” of the external features can be carried out.  Purpose built "cubes" could be added, i.e. cudes for the "cockpit" or power generation and so on.

Power generation, long range communication and storage of “goods” (for the research and habitation) could be separated physically into a complex that is maintained in close proximity.  Power could be transmitted, physically (cables) or otherwise (beamed).

Environmental, electrical and general resource parameters would have to be built up in situ for the.

If one decided to do this the following could happen:
   1.    Launch providers would have a steady flow of business.
   1a.   Launch costs would possibly go down due to increased launch rates.
   2.    Astronauts corps (pilots, engineers and reasearchers) would be generated.
   2a.   More people would get to go to space.
   3.    Space would become available for “leasing” – for research and tourists.
   4.   We get more experience in space habitation, engineering and tech development.
      5.   Fringe industries would be generated:
         - waste management
         - recycling
         - environmental control
         - IKEA for space habitation
         - energy management in space
         - space suit manufacturing
         - local transport development, i.e. small vehicles to travel around the outside of the space station.
         - the are possible more (or less) than the ones I have mentioned

I think that if we build modules, and the modules are simple (at least initially), then the range for expansion and their use is greater.


You should have a look at Bigelow modules. But of course they are no cubes...

Offline tesh90

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 1
"You should have a look at Bigelow modules. But of course they are no cubes...  "
 
 
You are right of course.  Some how though, rightly or wrongly, I get the impression that the Bigelow modules are a bit flimsy and will be difficult to expand and reuse.  By expand, I mean join many 10s or hundreds together in which ever configuration you desire.  By reuse, I mean,at the end of missions the modules could be joined to other structures or reconfigured for other missions.

I'm thinking lego.  Round, "fluffy" modules are more difficult to join take apart and rejoin into different configurations as compared to cubes.  Also, the reusaility of the individuals Bigelow modules may be more problematic due to inflation/deflation issues...

I have no fixation with cubes (or with Star Trek) just in their apperance of simplicity that cubes offer.

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 71
"You should have a look at Bigelow modules. But of course they are no cubes...  "
 
 
You are right of course.  Some how though, rightly or wrongly, I get the impression that the Bigelow modules are a bit flimsy and will be difficult to expand and reuse.  By expand, I mean join many 10s or hundreds together in which ever configuration you desire.  By reuse, I mean,at the end of missions the modules could be joined to other structures or reconfigured for other missions.

I'm thinking lego.  Round, "fluffy" modules are more difficult to join take apart and rejoin into different configurations as compared to cubes.  Also, the reusaility of the individuals Bigelow modules may be more problematic due to inflation/deflation issues...

I have no fixation with cubes (or with Star Trek) just in their apperance of simplicity that cubes offer.

Cubes (and other shapes with long straight edges) are a nightmare to build pressure vessels out of. 

Ever ask yourself why the windows in all modern airliners have rounded edges?  Why tanks are round?  Why hoses and tubes are round?

There is an engineering basis for the reason that things end up in the shape that they end up in.


Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
"You should have a look at Bigelow modules. But of course they are no cubes...  "
 
 
You are right of course.  Some how though, rightly or wrongly, I get the impression that the Bigelow modules are a bit flimsy and will be difficult to expand and reuse.  By expand, I mean join many 10s or hundreds together in which ever configuration you desire.  By reuse, I mean,at the end of missions the modules could be joined to other structures or reconfigured for other missions.

I'm thinking lego.  Round, "fluffy" modules are more difficult to join take apart and rejoin into different configurations as compared to cubes.  Also, the reusaility of the individuals Bigelow modules may be more problematic due to inflation/deflation issues...

I have no fixation with cubes (or with Star Trek) just in their apperance of simplicity that cubes offer.

Cubes (and other shapes with long straight edges) are a nightmare to build pressure vessels out of. 

Ever ask yourself why the windows in all modern airliners have rounded edges?  Why tanks are round?  Why hoses and tubes are round?

There is an engineering basis for the reason that things end up in the shape that they end up in.


Yep. To elaborate: Why is the hull of an Airliner round, why was the apollo capsule cone shaped why are the ISS modules round..............

The reason is that its not just areodynamics, its a more sound pressure vessel than a square thing. Those sharp edges don't seal all that well compared to a rounded structure. I'll take bigelow thank you. But good ideas here anyway :D
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
I would go with a ring station and have the modules be ring segments....
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 172
You need to check more closely into the Bigalow modules.  High speed impact strength around 100% on ISS; able to flex rather than break, etc. 
Many reasons why Bigalow has chosen to go with these structures rather than the traditional approach.
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Forget the cubical aspect. You could always put each cylindrical pressurized module in a cubical frame if it turned out that gave better structural strength when combining several.

I like the idea of being able to expand a station arbitrarily in 3 dimensions just by adding more modules. I don't really understand the technical problems that made putting the ISS together so complicated, with shuttle flights and space walks and all.

Why can't we design modules that are only a little more complicated connect than docking a space craft to another space craft, such as the command module to the lunar lander?

I realize that you do not want pipes running through your hatch, preventing the hatch being closed, but that seems to be an easy problem to design around.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
I would go with a ring station and have the modules be ring segments....

I would go with big Bigelow-style inflatable modules with two airlocks and with smaller, round, non-inflatable, "connector" modules with (up to) six airlocks.

Such building blocks can be be used to assemble an arbitrarily large station which looks like cubic lattice. If you can see this post with fixed width font:

 | |
-+-+-...
 | |
-+-+-...
 | |
......

Tags:
 

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