Next generation space station architecture

[IRobot]

This is not a thread on an ISS replacement. This is about a possible next generation space station architecture and morphology.

Let's imagine that some new space station is designed and it needs to be several times larger than the ISS. This can be within 10 years or 100 years, doesn't matter when.

Does the current morphology work on a larger structure? Can you have, let's say, 1000mT on each side of the station with something like puny a Unity module in the middle, holding both ends? I don't think so. Does a truss segment for support allow very large structures?

Do we need to evolve from the current tree-like structure?

Do we need to reduce overall surface area to reduce meteor damage?

Do we need hangars?

Do we need something like an unpressurized outer layer?

How do we keep it modular but at the same time more compact and less tree-like? Side by side, top on top modules?

Or do we go for a monolithic, space assembled, large structure?

Your opinions...

EDIT: this is an exercise to find out if the current generation architecture works on a larger scale. I don't want to mix politics, money or even if it will be built.

[neilh]

It seems the answers to those questions largely depend on the purpose of and use cases for the station.

[scienceguy]

We need another shuttle to build another space station.

[IRobot]

Fair enough, but to keep it simple (or to partially answer it), can we just assume it is something over 10x bigger than the current ISS, doing similar things. I want to focus on the morphology of it, just to see if the ISS morphology of the ISS works well scaled up.

[Jim]

And whether it is going to a gov't or commercial facility.
Doubtful that there will an ISS2 or Freedom 2 .  Don't see the need for the US gov't to sponsor such a station.

[Jim]

We need another shuttle to build another space station.

Don't need any shuttle to build a station.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11968.0

[Jim]

Fair enough, but to keep it simple (or to partially answer it), can we just assume it is something over 10x bigger than the current ISS, doing similar things. I want to focus on the morphology of it, just to see if the ISS morphology of the ISS works well scaled up.

Can't even do that.

Still need the purpose.  purpose drives requirements.  Requirement drive architecture.

[IRobot]

Jim, this is not to evaluate costs or launcher sizes. Imagine you can send any module up to 10m fairing and 30 meters long, I don't care. I just want to look on how to join the modules.

Imagine yourself as an engineer who looks at 20 very large modules, like opaque boxes, and your job is to find a very efficient way to join them.

[Jim]

Fair enough, but to keep it simple (or to partially answer it), can we just assume it is something over 10x bigger than the current ISS, doing similar things. I want to focus on the morphology of it, just to see if the ISS morphology of the ISS works well scaled up.

Current architecture was driven by budget and shuttle


Need to determine the launch and logistics vehicles.

[Jim]

Jim, this is not to evaluate costs or launcher sizes. Imagine you can send any module up to 10m fairing and 30 meters long, I don't care. I just want to look on how to join the modules.

why do you need to join them?  Isn't single 10m diameter and 30 meters long module big enough to not need more modules?

See?  You can't divorce them. 

[IRobot]

So you are saying we will be stuck with 10mx30m modules in the next 100 years? Don't question what they are for. If it makes you happy, work with this:


1 living quarters module for crew
3 for a Hilton hotel
1 sudio module for a space soap opera
1 studio module for porn movies
1 zero G basket module
3 for logistics
2 for power, etc

Each one is huuuge and you need to "assemble" them.

[Jim]

Imagine yourself as an engineer who looks at 20 very large modules, like opaque boxes, and your job is to find a very efficient way to join them.

Can't do that way.  The starting conditions are nonsensical. 

If you are going to start with nonsense, then your answer is nonsense.  In a reality with no rules, you can do anything you want without regard to constraints.

You can butt them end to end, you can make race tracks like the Freedom, you can make a lattice, you can slightly bend them and make a large circle, you can put them on a hub like spokes on a wheel.

[Jim]

So you are saying we will be stuck with 10mx30m modules in the next 100 years? Don't question what they are for. If it makes you happy, work with this:


1 living quarters module for crew
3 for a Hilton hotel
1 sudio module for a space soap opera
1 studio module for porn movies
1 zero G basket module
3 for logistics
2 for power, etc

Each one is huuuge and you need to "assemble" them.

Still not enough info.

Again, why modules?

Why not build a wheel like 2001?

[Jim]

your job is to find a very efficient way to join them.

What determines was efficient is?

As for joining them, many ways.

Bolt, weld, dock, berth, tie

[Watchdog]

Instead of a huge multipurpose international station there might be a variety of commercial and national, specialized stations - and therefore no need to think about large structures within the next three decades.

However, future solar power stations and possibly interlunar/interplanetary spacecraft assembly stations require the construction of large stations. I think that simply replacing 10 to 20 mt modules by 30 to 120 mt modules serves the structural requirements. If artificial gravity is a desire a wheel structure seems to be reasonable. Although electro-welding has already been demonstrated in space there might be other technologies available until the construction starts.