Author Topic: Future Space Stations based on SpaceX launchers  (Read 6290 times)

Offline Ekramer

  • Member
  • Posts: 65
  • Hertfordshire, England
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 76
Future Space Stations based on SpaceX launchers
« on: 06/04/2020 03:04 pm »
I have been thinking about what sort of space station could be built using the capacity of Starship Cargo.  Taking the SpaceX Starship user guide for the cargo hold dimensions, I played around with what sort of modules can be launched and how they might fit together for commercial space stations.  I am assuming SpaceX will build standard types of modules that can be used to build one or more stations at different locations.  The scenario below is for an “office block” station with units rented out to countries, companies, universities, etc. but with shared facilities for sanitation, eating, gym, etc.

Launch 1 Service Module - contains utility equipment such as for life support, power, maybe the EVA hatch, lifeboat dock, etc.  About 7.8m x 9m with a volume of about 430 m3.  The Starship could still carry satellites in the top 7m conical part of the cargo hold, so the launch could be “free” for SpaceX.

Launch 2 Strut A – Consists of four 3m x 8m hexagonal struts with deployable solar panels.  All four struts pack nicely into the bottom have of the cargo hold, leaving 8m in the top cone for other equipment such as tugs, robots, etc.

Launch 3 Lobby Module – Same dimensions as the service module but this serves as the central public lobby of the station and as the dock for visiting spacecraft.

Launch 4 Strut B – Same as Strut A.  Total length of station is 73m and total volume 830 m3.  First picture below.

Launch 5 Residence Module (the milk bottle) – This takes up the whole of the Starship cargo bay and is 8m x 16m.  The cylindrical section has three decks, two more decks in the conical section plus a “grand cupola” that takes the idea of the ISS cupola and crew Starship viewing window to its logical conclusion.  You can float in space without a spacesuit! The residence has living quarters, galley, dining, sanitation and gym for all crew and visitors.  Residence volume is 530 m3 for a total station volume of 1,390 m3.  At this point it is larger than the ISS. Second picture below.

Launch 6,7,8 Lab Modules – Each 8m x 8m module has three decks of 125 m3 for a total of 375 m3 per module.  A tenant unit is one-half deck up to a whole module.  Module interiors are built to tenant requirements on the ground and the module is returned to earth for re-fitting at the end of tenancy.  For example, you could have a short-term module and a long-term module for different needs and price points.  At this point the station volume is 2,515 m3, almost three times bigger than ISS.

Launch 9 Studio Module – Movie studios may want a giant green-screen studio to film space adventures.  Imagine 8m x 8m to choreograph zero-g fights, music videos, commercials, etc.  Let your imagination run wild!  This addition brings the station up to 2,890 m3. Third picture below.

There is much I have missed out or glossed over, this was a fun little project in SketchUp that gives some ideas of the type of commercial space station that SpaceX could be building by the end of the decade.  What do you think?
« Last Edit: 06/05/2020 02:02 am by gongora »

Offline MaNaeSWolf

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: SpaceX Space Station
« Reply #1 on: 06/04/2020 06:56 pm »
Hey I also designed a space station not too long ago.
Although its a bit bigger.

All the large modules fit inside the starship according to the Manual by SpaceX. The 4 tanks fit in one launch.
It features a massive 70m radius spinning disk, 2rpm provides 0.3G.

The weird looking docking point for starship is my method of loading or unloading fuel into starship.
You just spin starship up a bit to force fuel to the extremities. The tanks at the end of the spinning girder slide in and out to balance changing loads. And there are counter rotating tanks so that you dont need fuel to start or end the spin cycle.

The render with a giant "bag" over it is a Whipple shield. which has the additional function of being able to store fuel inside for some radiation protection.
Also allows EVA operations around the modules, within the shield, without risk of being shot off into space.

I uploaded a little video too
« Last Edit: 06/04/2020 07:08 pm by MaNaeSWolf »

Offline MaNaeSWolf

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: SpaceX Space Station
« Reply #2 on: 06/04/2020 06:58 pm »
I actually just built it to learn how blender works.

Everyone should give it a go if you have a little time every day.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8098
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 9386
  • Likes Given: 11127
Re: SpaceX Space Station
« Reply #3 on: 06/04/2020 07:12 pm »
FYI none of this space station speculation is related to SpaceX, so I suggest renaming the title of this thread to remove any confusion, and to move it into the more appropriate "Forums » General Discussion » Advanced Concepts" section.

And I am also someone that is working on space station designs (there are a bunch of us on NSF), so I can attest that while the SpaceX Starship will be able to provide very significant capabilities, it won't be the only way to build a space station.

So unless you know for a fact that SpaceX is building a space station, this thread title needs to be changed, and the topic moved out of the SpaceX section.

Contact a mod to request the changes.

My $0.02
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1720
  • Liked: 1229
  • Likes Given: 957
Re: SpaceX Space Station
« Reply #4 on: 06/04/2020 08:17 pm »
If as with these designs, they simply fit in the cargo hold of a Starship, then there is no direct relationship to SpaceX per se.

The other approach to a SpaceX Space Station (still completely speculative but the speculation is directly about SpaceX designs and capabilities), is to build the Space Station out of modules that ARE Starships.

With the Lunar Starship SpaceX has expanded Starship design to include versions that are meant to be launched once and then deployed rather than reused as Starships. They don’t for example have heat shields or control surfaces.

It’s easy to picture the Starship production line making a Space Station module Starship much like a Lunar Lander Starship. It’s just a cylinder without a tapered nose.It launches with  a recoverable reusable nosecone. It’s delete fins, TPS, legs. Add “wet workshop” amenities in the tanks. Stretch the crew pressure vessel a bit with the mass saved by the deletes (and no cargo).

In orbit these Hab starships are linked together into a SpaceStation. Over time the crews can expand habitable volume into the propellant tanks. Eventually the engines are unbolted and sent back in a returning ordinary cargo Starship. Nothing is wasted.

Optimally major SpaceStation components are most efficient if they can be mass produced on the same line as Starships and are simply deployed not carried as cargo.

Currently only Elon’s vision of Starship mass production could support this sort of Space Station.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5224
  • Florida
  • Liked: 4841
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: SpaceX Space Station
« Reply #5 on: 06/04/2020 11:18 pm »
If as with these designs, they simply fit in the cargo hold of a Starship, then there is no direct relationship to SpaceX per se.

The other approach to a SpaceX Space Station (still completely speculative but the speculation is directly about SpaceX designs and capabilities), is to build the Space Station out of modules that ARE Starships.

With the Lunar Starship SpaceX has expanded Starship design to include versions that are meant to be launched once and then deployed rather than reused as Starships. They don’t for example have heat shields or control surfaces.

It’s easy to picture the Starship production line making a Space Station module Starship much like a Lunar Lander Starship. It’s just a cylinder without a tapered nose.It launches with  a recoverable reusable nosecone. It’s delete fins, TPS, legs. Add “wet workshop” amenities in the tanks. Stretch the crew pressure vessel a bit with the mass saved by the deletes (and no cargo).

In orbit these Hab starships are linked together into a SpaceStation. Over time the crews can expand habitable volume into the propellant tanks. Eventually the engines are unbolted and sent back in a returning ordinary cargo Starship. Nothing is wasted.

Optimally major SpaceStation components are most efficient if they can be mass produced on the same line as Starships and are simply deployed not carried as cargo.

Currently only Elon’s vision of Starship mass production could support this sort of Space Station.
To link multiple SS requires a hub. Such that six SS dock around the perriphery and to more axial docking ports for visiting vehicles. Each space only SS with wet work mod couls provide ~ 3000m^3 and a full compliment 18,000m^3. Enough room with large spaces for >900 people.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8098
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 9386
  • Likes Given: 11127
Re: SpaceX Space Station
« Reply #6 on: 06/05/2020 01:19 am »
If as with these designs, they simply fit in the cargo hold of a Starship, then there is no direct relationship to SpaceX per se.

The other approach to a SpaceX Space Station (still completely speculative but the speculation is directly about SpaceX designs and capabilities), is to build the Space Station out of modules that ARE Starships.

Plenty of NSF members have already been discussing and debating whether SpaceX Starships can be used to build space stations, and all of those discussions can be found in the "Forums » General Discussion » Advanced Concepts" section.

But the thread title implies that SpaceX is building a space station, and that is misleading and (currently) wrong.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1720
  • Liked: 1229
  • Likes Given: 957
Re: SpaceX Space Station
« Reply #7 on: 06/05/2020 05:51 am »
If as with these designs, they simply fit in the cargo hold of a Starship, then there is no direct relationship to SpaceX per se.

The other approach to a SpaceX Space Station (still completely speculative but the speculation is directly about SpaceX designs and capabilities), is to build the Space Station out of modules that ARE Starships.

With the Lunar Starship SpaceX has expanded Starship design to include versions that are meant to be launched once and then deployed rather than reused as Starships. They don’t for example have heat shields or control surfaces.

It’s easy to picture the Starship production line making a Space Station module Starship much like a Lunar Lander Starship. It’s just a cylinder without a tapered nose.It launches with  a recoverable reusable nosecone. It’s delete fins, TPS, legs. Add “wet workshop” amenities in the tanks. Stretch the crew pressure vessel a bit with the mass saved by the deletes (and no cargo).

In orbit these Hab starships are linked together into a SpaceStation. Over time the crews can expand habitable volume into the propellant tanks. Eventually the engines are unbolted and sent back in a returning ordinary cargo Starship. Nothing is wasted.

Optimally major SpaceStation components are most efficient if they can be mass produced on the same line as Starships and are simply deployed not carried as cargo.

Currently only Elon’s vision of Starship mass production could support this sort of Space Station.
To link multiple SS requires a hub. Such that six SS dock around the perriphery and to more axial docking ports for visiting vehicles. Each space only SS with wet work mod couls provide ~ 3000m^3 and a full compliment 18,000m^3. Enough room with large spaces for >900 people.

Well, since we’re now in the crazy concepts section, how about a rotating station made almost entirely out of deployable Starships?

180 m radius for the station allows

Angular velocity 1.99 rotations per minute so people are comfortable inner ear wise.

Tangential Velocity 37.58 m/s

Provides a reasonable .8 g so everybody actually weighs what they claim they do on earth.

Assume 60m Starship x3 per spoke = 12 for 4 spokes and 20ish Starships around the wheel for a circumference about 1200m over a Km to jog around.

So that’s about 32 Hab starships. Mostly plugged together dare I say it, like legos. I assume a Hab Starship is 60m, a bit longer than a regular one, stretched using extra mass budget from no TPS, legs, Fins, no cargo. Maybe this is too much stretch but the numbers wouldn’t change too much overall.

Elon says $5M for a basic Starship so say $25M each for a basic Hab Starship. That’s $800M. Minus Raptors returned for reuse on empty Cargo Starships.

That’s 96,000 cubic meters. Maybe overkill but certainly spacious.

It would certainly need some bespoke fittings like where spokes plug into sides of 4 of the wheel ships or whatever is at the hub. It’s mostly just Starships though.

If lifeboats are desired it might use point to point Starships with the 800 or so seats. They probably cost less than Dream chasers with 7 seats.

Adding detail, a Hab ship might come with Solar panels on one side like a giant Dragon trunk and radiant cooling on the other.

This might be ridiculous if Elon hadn’t said he wants to produce 100 Starships a year, implying this gigantic structure with 100X the volume of the ISS would take about 4 months production.

Of course volume wouldn’t mean the same thing since there would just be a couple lengthwise decks + utility space below deck in the wheel but when fully built out those decks would be about 1.2 km long and at a pretty normal .8 g. In the spokes decks would be across. Probably have to be an elevator through the spoke from the hub to the wheel.

« Last Edit: 06/05/2020 06:13 am by Ludus »

Offline Lodrig

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Virginia
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Future Space Stations based on SpaceX launchers
« Reply #8 on: 06/05/2020 06:21 am »
The purpose of a station needs to guide it's design.  A tourist station will likely be zero-G and highly spacious as it tries to lower per capita costs via scale.  Research on the human body in partial G will likely be of interest only to NASA and would likely be considerably smaller and less comfortable.  Many designs neglect this fundamental dichotomy and try to make one station that dose it all.

In either case a large inflatable segment on the scale of the BA-2100 would be called for.  In a zero-G station these are simply outfitted as in the traditional manor envisioned for trans-hab and by Bigelow currently.  But for partial G each hab would contain 2 counter rotating drums to produce centripetal force, the radius of the rotation would not be ideal but it would eliminate the need to spin the outside of the station while also making the spin rate easily adjustable.

A tourist station might contain a dozen or more large modules, the logistics of traffic flow through the structure will actually be more of a limiting factor then structural issues.  The partial G station likely needs no more then 2 modules (meaning 2 pairs of drums for up to 2 spin rates) as that will be enough for a dozen astronauts, more then enough to get the needed data.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4592
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 898
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Future Space Stations based on SpaceX launchers
« Reply #9 on: 06/05/2020 07:46 pm »
Ok here's an idea:

Launch two Starships into orbit where they dock, nose-to-nose. Then two more that dock with those two tail-to-tail and keep going till you have about a dozen. Then using them as a 'base' you delivery supplies to build out the station into a giant cylinder station.

We'll call it "METEOR" or "Manned Earth-satellite Terminal evolving from Earth-to-Orbit ferry Rockets"

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/meteor-city-in-space.5876/#lg=thread-5876&slide=3

Hmmm, I think I may have seen this once already though:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/meteor-city-in-space.5876/

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1884
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Future Space Stations based on SpaceX launchers
« Reply #10 on: 06/05/2020 07:52 pm »
The purpose of a station needs to guide it's design.  A tourist station will likely be zero-G and highly spacious as it tries to lower per capita costs via scale.  Research on the human body in partial G will likely be of interest only to NASA and would likely be considerably smaller and less comfortable.  Many designs neglect this fundamental dichotomy and try to make one station that dose it all.

In either case a large inflatable segment on the scale of the BA-2100 would be called for.  In a zero-G station these are simply outfitted as in the traditional manor envisioned for trans-hab and by Bigelow currently.  But for partial G each hab would contain 2 counter rotating drums to produce centripetal force, the radius of the rotation would not be ideal but it would eliminate the need to spin the outside of the station while also making the spin rate easily adjustable.

A tourist station might contain a dozen or more large modules, the logistics of traffic flow through the structure will actually be more of a limiting factor then structural issues.  The partial G station likely needs no more then 2 modules (meaning 2 pairs of drums for up to 2 spin rates) as that will be enough for a dozen astronauts, more then enough to get the needed data.

Small-scale LEO tourism doesn't need inflatables, given Starship capacity.  Plus Starships are assets that can be reused and repurposed, whereas inflatables and hubs are sunk cost.

Also, low-g tourism must be much harder than partial-g tourism, due to harder training, and the illness and other discomforts of prolonged low g.  A partial-g LEO "Marsliner" package - using only paired Starships - would be a better deal, possibly the best deal achievable with current tech.

1 2 3 4
« Last Edit: 06/06/2020 04:49 pm by LMT »

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1720
  • Liked: 1229
  • Likes Given: 957
Re: Future Space Stations based on SpaceX launchers
« Reply #11 on: 06/05/2020 10:19 pm »
The purpose of a station needs to guide it's design.  A tourist station will likely be zero-G and highly spacious as it tries to lower per capita costs via scale.  Research on the human body in partial G will likely be of interest only to NASA and would likely be considerably smaller and less comfortable.  Many designs neglect this fundamental dichotomy and try to make one station that dose it all.

In either case a large inflatable segment on the scale of the BA-2100 would be called for.  In a zero-G station these are simply outfitted as in the traditional manor envisioned for trans-hab and by Bigelow currently.  But for partial G each hab would contain 2 counter rotating drums to produce centripetal force, the radius of the rotation would not be ideal but it would eliminate the need to spin the outside of the station while also making the spin rate easily adjustable.

A tourist station might contain a dozen or more large modules, the logistics of traffic flow through the structure will actually be more of a limiting factor then structural issues.  The partial G station likely needs no more then 2 modules (meaning 2 pairs of drums for up to 2 spin rates) as that will be enough for a dozen astronauts, more then enough to get the needed data.

Not in periods of fundamental changes in technological capacity. Nobody under the old paradigm even understands what’s possible with the new technology so they can’t reasonably decide on purposes. Bigelow inflatables per se are likely completely obsolete since they’re designed for launch costs 100X higher. A single Bigelow BA -2100 might be bid at about the cost of 32 Starship Habs with 100X the volume.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Future Space Stations based on SpaceX launchers
« Reply #12 on: 06/05/2020 10:58 pm »
The purpose of a station needs to guide it's design.  A tourist station will likely be zero-G and highly spacious as it tries to lower per capita costs via scale.  Research on the human body in partial G will likely be of interest only to NASA and would likely be considerably smaller and less comfortable.  Many designs neglect this fundamental dichotomy and try to make one station that dose it all.

In either case a large inflatable segment on the scale of the BA-2100 would be called for.  In a zero-G station these are simply outfitted as in the traditional manor envisioned for trans-hab and by Bigelow currently.  But for partial G each hab would contain 2 counter rotating drums to produce centripetal force, the radius of the rotation would not be ideal but it would eliminate the need to spin the outside of the station while also making the spin rate easily adjustable.

A tourist station might contain a dozen or more large modules, the logistics of traffic flow through the structure will actually be more of a limiting factor then structural issues.  The partial G station likely needs no more then 2 modules (meaning 2 pairs of drums for up to 2 spin rates) as that will be enough for a dozen astronauts, more then enough to get the needed data.

Small-scale LEO tourism doesn't need inflatables, given Starship capacity.  Plus Starships are assets that can be reused and repurposed, whereas inflatables and hubs are sunk cost.

Also, low-g tourism must be much harder than partial-g tourism, due to harder training, and the illness and other discomforts of prolonged low g.  A partial-g LEO "Marsliner" package - using only paired Starships - would be a better deal, possibly the best deal achievable with current tech.

1 2 3 4
While most tourists would go to space for 0g experience, they will appreciate partial g   for meals and bathroom activities.


Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1884
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Future Space Stations based on SpaceX launchers
« Reply #13 on: 06/06/2020 03:04 am »
The purpose of a station needs to guide it's design.  A tourist station will likely be zero-G and highly spacious as it tries to lower per capita costs via scale.  Research on the human body in partial G will likely be of interest only to NASA and would likely be considerably smaller and less comfortable.  Many designs neglect this fundamental dichotomy and try to make one station that dose it all.

In either case a large inflatable segment on the scale of the BA-2100 would be called for.  In a zero-G station these are simply outfitted as in the traditional manor envisioned for trans-hab and by Bigelow currently.  But for partial G each hab would contain 2 counter rotating drums to produce centripetal force, the radius of the rotation would not be ideal but it would eliminate the need to spin the outside of the station while also making the spin rate easily adjustable.

A tourist station might contain a dozen or more large modules, the logistics of traffic flow through the structure will actually be more of a limiting factor then structural issues.  The partial G station likely needs no more then 2 modules (meaning 2 pairs of drums for up to 2 spin rates) as that will be enough for a dozen astronauts, more then enough to get the needed data.

Small-scale LEO tourism doesn't need inflatables, given Starship capacity.  Plus Starships are assets that can be reused and repurposed, whereas inflatables and hubs are sunk cost.

Also, low-g tourism must be much harder than partial-g tourism, due to harder training, and the illness and other discomforts of prolonged low g.  A partial-g LEO "Marsliner" package - using only paired Starships - would be a better deal, possibly the best deal achievable with current tech.

1 2 3 4

While most tourists would go to space for 0g experience, they will appreciate partial g   for meals and bathroom activities.

The shuttling Starship would operate in low g, and the transfer to/from the Marsliner must be a non-rotating docking procedure, at the two airlocks.  Therefore, some hours of low-g experience would be included in the package, unavoidably.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2020 04:49 pm by LMT »

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Europe
  • Liked: 825
  • Likes Given: 150
Re: Future Space Stations based on SpaceX launchers
« Reply #14 on: 06/06/2020 08:42 am »
The purpose of a station needs to guide it's design.  A tourist station will likely be zero-G and highly spacious as it tries to lower per capita costs via scale.  Research on the human body in partial G will likely be of interest only to NASA and would likely be considerably smaller and less comfortable.  Many designs neglect this fundamental dichotomy and try to make one station that dose it all.

In either case a large inflatable segment on the scale of the BA-2100 would be called for.  In a zero-G station these are simply outfitted as in the traditional manor envisioned for trans-hab and by Bigelow currently.  But for partial G each hab would contain 2 counter rotating drums to produce centripetal force, the radius of the rotation would not be ideal but it would eliminate the need to spin the outside of the station while also making the spin rate easily adjustable.

A tourist station might contain a dozen or more large modules, the logistics of traffic flow through the structure will actually be more of a limiting factor then structural issues.  The partial G station likely needs no more then 2 modules (meaning 2 pairs of drums for up to 2 spin rates) as that will be enough for a dozen astronauts, more then enough to get the needed data.

A tourist space station would offer a combination of microgravity for fun and (partial) gravity to eat, sleep and go to the toilet in comfort and dignity.

Tourists to Mars? Well, a minimum 2.5 years trip time is going to limit the number of tourists somewhat.

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1884
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Future Space Stations based on SpaceX launchers
« Reply #15 on: 06/06/2020 02:34 pm »
Tourists to Mars? Well, a minimum 2.5 years trip time is going to limit the number of tourists somewhat.

The notional Marsliner is a Mars experience package: 

- Low g transfer
- Mars g stay
- Authentic Mars surface chamber, with real Mars rock, sand, and some surprises
- SpaceX Mars devices, Mars greenhouse produce samples, etc.

In LEO. 

Good tourism value, yes?

How might you give such a space station even greater value?

1 2 3 4
« Last Edit: 06/06/2020 03:51 pm by LMT »

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3224
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2274
  • Likes Given: 1934
Re: Future Space Stations based on SpaceX launchers
« Reply #16 on: 06/08/2020 08:57 am »
Research on the human body in partial G will likely be of interest only to NASA and would likely be considerably smaller and less comfortable.

While individual researchers connected to NASA are interested, the agency as a whole seems to be surprisingly hostile to partial-g research. JAXA, otoh, has shown consistent high interest and is the only group doing AG animal research at the moment. Within ESA, there doesn't seem to be deep official support, but also no particular opposition to those who are interested.

A JAXA-controlled AG animal lab, with optional ESA-support, would be the obvious science-client for a Starship-driven spin-station. (It increases their dependency on foreign launchers, obviously, but gives them a very visible permanent Japanese space presence. So I don't think it would cause political/nationalistic issues.)



A tourist space station would offer a combination of microgravity for fun and (partial) gravity to eat, sleep and go to the toilet in comfort and dignity.

Quibble over terminology. We get into the habit of saying "microgravity" to avoid saying "zero-g" (because saying zero-g is ambiguous and for some reason "freefall" never caught on.) But "micro-g" has a literal meaning that the g-load is measured in millionths of 1g. For live-animal biological research, I expect milli-g is sufficient. For tourists, you get most of the floaty-giggle-factor from centi-g. [edit: added a missing word]
« Last Edit: 06/18/2020 01:05 pm by Paul451 »

Offline indaco1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 281
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Future Space Stations based on SpaceX launchers
« Reply #17 on: 06/18/2020 12:32 pm »
Tourists to Mars? Well, a minimum 2.5 years trip time is going to limit the number of tourists somewhat.

...

How might you give such a space station even greater value?
....

Perhaps an important family of Space Stations will be Mars Cyclers or "Castles" using Aldrin terminology.

People will transfer from planetary surfaces to "castles" by using high delta V "taxis", ie small and light veichles, cramped, not radiation shielded but with thermal shields for aerobraking and high speed reentry. Taxis wil be zero g of course. Castles once deployed will require no or few propulsion. Landers could be another category so that a complete trip could require multiple veichle transfers. Baggages could use a separate mean, also. I know this is not exactly the Spaceship architecture as stated initially.
 
The concept of tourist could be a little blurred.  If the cycler space station-transfer veichle enable digital nomads to work on board despite communication lags, you could not be at holiday during the trip even when your work is unrelated to the trip.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler
Non-native English speaker and non-expert, be patient.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4592
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 898
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Future Space Stations based on SpaceX launchers
« Reply #18 on: 06/18/2020 09:41 pm »
Research on the human body in partial G will likely be of interest only to NASA and would likely be considerably smaller and less comfortable.

While individual researchers connected to NASA are interested, the agency as a whole seems to be surprisingly hostile to partial-g research. JAXA, otoh, has shown consistent high interest and is the only group doing AG animal research at the moment. Within ESA, there doesn't seem to be deep official support, but also no particular opposition to those who are interested.

A JAXA-controlled AG animal lab, with optional ESA-support, would be the obvious science-client for a Starship-driven spin-station. (It increases their dependency on foreign launchers, obviously, but gives them a very visible permanent Japanese space presence. So I don't think it would cause political/nationalistic issues.)

Just and FYI but I'd venture to say the 'hostility' is mostly due to the already existing issues with research on the ISS which adding a big enough centrifuge to do 'human' sized research would go a long way to making worse. You already have issues with mechanical and human vibrations ruining things let alone random thruster pushes. Add in the vibrations from a big centrifuge ...

Suggesting additional space stations be built is... shall we say non-viable in a political sense from NASA and/or partners. Now if something like Superheavy and an upper stage were commercially available that could (likely would I'd say) change but till then there are interests that would like to ensure that the ISS it the only game in town.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Toast

Re: Future Space Stations based on SpaceX launchers
« Reply #19 on: 06/19/2020 02:17 pm »
Suggesting additional space stations be built is... shall we say non-viable in a political sense from NASA and/or partners. Now if something like Superheavy and an upper stage were commercially available that could (likely would I'd say) change but till then there are interests that would like to ensure that the ISS it the only game in town.

Isn't this entire thread predicated on something like Superheavy being available?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0