Author Topic: SLS derived artificial gravity habitats  (Read 2695 times)

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
SLS derived artificial gravity habitats
« on: 04/12/2016 10:35 PM »
   
SLS Derived Artificial Gravity Habitats for Space Stations and Interplanetary Vehicles

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2016/04/sls-derived-artificial-gravity-habitats.html
« Last Edit: 04/14/2016 02:53 AM by hydra9 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31516
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9880
  • Likes Given: 307
Re: SLS derived artificial gravity habitats
« Reply #1 on: 04/12/2016 11:49 PM »
A whole bunch of nonsense.  There is no driver for such a station

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1646
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: SLS derived artificial gravity habitats
« Reply #2 on: 04/13/2016 02:06 PM »
0 to Jim in 74 minutes.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Burninate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: SLS derived artificial gravity habitats
« Reply #3 on: 04/13/2016 02:31 PM »
A whole bunch of nonsense.  There is no driver for such a station
0 to Jim in 74 minutes.

Paraphrasing:

There are no fundamental technological problems in the way of developing such a system, but there is also no plan for it.  There's no desire by the US government, who run the SLS program, for a larger LEO presence in any form.  So discussing it is a waste of time.  It's also not novel enough to be interesting technologically;  We could have done this with two Skylabs if we'd wanted to with a small amount of effort.

...

Myself, I find this view somewhat limited, but it is true that these things never seem to go anywhere, and at the BOTE level, a large LEO presence seems pointless to base off the hull of the most expensive launch vehicle ever when we have alternate options in Bigelow inflatables.
« Last Edit: 04/13/2016 03:44 PM by Burninate »

Offline jtrame

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • W4FJT
  • Knoxville, TN
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: SLS derived artificial gravity habitats
« Reply #4 on: 04/13/2016 05:04 PM »
If we quit discussing notional concepts we would eliminate a lot of threads.  Most of the "flexible exploration" path forward is notional. There is no mandate for anything much on that path except build SLS, build Orion,  and "study" habitats.

IMO it is good to post notional ideas on the group because of all the expert vetting that is available.  Utilizing the capabilities of SLS, as well as any other assets we may have, is a sound basis for notional concepts. 

On the topic at hand, seems like a reasonable concept for a Mars cycler.









Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
Re: SLS derived artificial gravity habitats
« Reply #5 on: 04/13/2016 09:07 PM »
Reminds me of the 'wet lab' designs of the Apollo days. If memory serves, there was a toroidal version that was planned to rotate.

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SLS derived artificial gravity habitats
« Reply #6 on: 04/14/2016 02:47 AM »
A whole bunch of nonsense.  There is no driver for such a station




If We're Serious About Going to Mars, We Need Artificial Gravity

http://www.space.com/24904-gravity-for-mars-missions.html


Gravity is a Massive Problem

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2015/12/gravity-is-massive-problem.html


What if you were born in space?

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-if-you-were-born-in-space.html


Marcel

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SLS derived artificial gravity habitats
« Reply #7 on: 04/14/2016 02:49 AM »
If we quit discussing notional concepts we would eliminate a lot of threads.  Most of the "flexible exploration" path forward is notional. There is no mandate for anything much on that path except build SLS, build Orion,  and "study" habitats.

IMO it is good to post notional ideas on the group because of all the expert vetting that is available.  Utilizing the capabilities of SLS, as well as any other assets we may have, is a sound basis for notional concepts. 

On the topic at hand, seems like a reasonable concept for a Mars cycler.









A whole bunch of nonsense.  There is no driver for such a station
0 to Jim in 74 minutes.

Paraphrasing:

There are no fundamental technological problems in the way of developing such a system, but there is also no plan for it.  There's no desire by the US government, who run the SLS program, for a larger LEO presence in any form.  So discussing it is a waste of time.  It's also not novel enough to be interesting technologically;  We could have done this with two Skylabs if we'd wanted to with a small amount of effort.

...

Myself, I find this view somewhat limited, but it is true that these things never seem to go anywhere, and at the BOTE level, a large LEO presence seems pointless to base off the hull of the most expensive launch vehicle ever when we have alternate options in Bigelow inflatables.

The BA-330 is actually heavier than SLS derived habitat modules per volume provided.

Marcel

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27152
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7113
  • Likes Given: 4937
Re: SLS derived artificial gravity habitats
« Reply #8 on: 04/14/2016 04:00 AM »
I originally read this as "SLS derived artificial reef habitats"... which is one benefit of SLS being fully expendable. :D

A much more realistic plan, don't you think?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Impaler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1283
  • South Hill, Virgina
  • Liked: 363
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS derived artificial gravity habitats
« Reply #9 on: 04/14/2016 07:37 AM »

Paraphrasing:

There are no fundamental technological problems in the way of developing such a system, but there is also no plan for it.  There's no desire by the US government, who run the SLS program, for a larger LEO presence in any form.  So discussing it is a waste of time.  It's also not novel enough to be interesting technologically;  We could have done this with two Skylabs if we'd wanted to with a small amount of effort.

...

Myself, I find this view somewhat limited, but it is true that these things never seem to go anywhere, and at the BOTE level, a large LEO presence seems pointless to base off the hull of the most expensive launch vehicle ever when we have alternate options in Bigelow inflatables.

The BA-330 is actually heavier than SLS derived habitat modules per volume provided.

Marcel

Apples to Oranges comparison, an empty propellant tank is not a habitat, it has none of the mechanical systems necessary to sustain life let alone make it comfortable, Bigelow module mass numbers DO include these necessities as they are intended to be immediate ready to live in habitats.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31516
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9880
  • Likes Given: 307
Re: SLS derived artificial gravity habitats
« Reply #10 on: 04/14/2016 11:42 AM »

Gravity is a Massive Problem

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2015/12/gravity-is-massive-problem.html


What if you were born in space?

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-if-you-were-born-in-space.html


Marcel

None of those are valid sources of information.
The website author is a well know troll.
« Last Edit: 04/14/2016 11:44 AM by Jim »

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SLS derived artificial gravity habitats
« Reply #11 on: 04/15/2016 02:42 AM »

Paraphrasing:

There are no fundamental technological problems in the way of developing such a system, but there is also no plan for it.  There's no desire by the US government, who run the SLS program, for a larger LEO presence in any form.  So discussing it is a waste of time.  It's also not novel enough to be interesting technologically;  We could have done this with two Skylabs if we'd wanted to with a small amount of effort.

...

Myself, I find this view somewhat limited, but it is true that these things never seem to go anywhere, and at the BOTE level, a large LEO presence seems pointless to base off the hull of the most expensive launch vehicle ever when we have alternate options in Bigelow inflatables.

The BA-330 is actually heavier than SLS derived habitat modules per volume provided.

Marcel

Apples to Oranges comparison, an empty propellant tank is not a habitat, it has none of the mechanical systems necessary to sustain life let alone make it comfortable, Bigelow module mass numbers DO include these necessities as they are intended to be immediate ready to live in habitats.

Its not apples and oranges. NASA is familiar with propellant tank derived habitats since the days of Skylab. And SLS propellant tank derived habitats are currently under study.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150016185.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140012883.pdf

Marcel

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SLS derived artificial gravity habitats
« Reply #12 on: 04/15/2016 02:52 AM »

Gravity is a Massive Problem

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2015/12/gravity-is-massive-problem.html


What if you were born in space?

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-if-you-were-born-in-space.html


Marcel

None of those are valid sources of information.
The website author is a well know troll.

If you have serous objections to their videos then you need to elaborate on what you specifically find wrong about what they are arguing.  I found nothing wrong about their arguments and found nothing wrong about Andy Weir's argument.

But you apparently do. So let's hear it!

Marcel