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.
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.
Quote from: Ludus on 06/04/2020 08:17 pmIf 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.
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.
Quote from: Lodrig on 06/05/2020 06:21 amThe 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
Quote from: LMT on 06/05/2020 07:52 pmQuote from: Lodrig on 06/05/2020 06:21 amThe 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 4While most tourists would go to space for 0g experience, they will appreciate partial g for meals and bathroom activities.
Tourists to Mars? Well, a minimum 2.5 years trip time is going to limit the number of tourists somewhat.
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.
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.
Quote from: high road on 06/06/2020 08:42 amTourists 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?....
Quote from: Lodrig on 06/05/2020 06:21 amResearch 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.)
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.