Author Topic: Rotating Stations for Tourism (Read 11201 times)

JohnFornaro · « **Reply #20 on:** 12/19/2022 11:18 am »

Quote from: Paul451 on 12/18/2022 09:49 pm

A chamber where you are surrounded on all sides by transparent walls, so you can really see space.

We're gonna hafta wait for Scotty to develop transparent aluminum...

I've already stolen the idea of EVA's. Just so ya know.

Twark_Main · « **Reply #21 on:** 04/04/2023 06:03 pm »

Quote from: JohnFornaro on 12/16/2022 11:18 am

Quote from: Twark_Main on 12/16/2022 12:59 am
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 12/14/2022 01:15 pm
Thier station should be located at EML-1 in a Sun Synchronous Precessional Orbit. [SSPO]

...just because you fancy the idea?

Why not? Glad you asked!

[a bunch of reasons]

The reason for an EML-1 location has been discussed elsewhere.

Since it seems this was never seriously followed up on...

1. Can anyone link to this mythical "elsewhere?"

2. Does it address all of the points I raised?

Twark_Main · « **Reply #22 on:** 04/18/2023 01:56 am »

With no response in ~2 weeks, it seems clear John is not going to offer any support for his EML-1 preference.

The last time this came up he defended its merits by saying it's "[not] paltry" (whatever that means), that it can use lunar material (which has never been shown to be economical), and that it maximizes the degree of "off-world economy"-ness. In other words, he likes EML-1 because—unlike LEO—it's not "too close to Earth."

O'Neil complained about "planetary chauvinism." This is simply anti-proximity chauvinism. Not better!

At long last, we can safely dismiss the notion that EML-1 is better/faster/cheaper. In reality it's the opposite of all those. This "argument" for EML-1 is nothing but zealotry masquerading as engineering.

Eric Hedman · « **Reply #23 on:** 04/18/2023 02:41 am »

Quote from: JohnFornaro on 12/19/2022 11:18 am

Quote from: Paul451 on 12/18/2022 09:49 pm
A chamber where you are surrounded on all sides by transparent walls, so you can really see space.

We're gonna hafta wait for Scotty to develop transparent aluminum...

I've already stolen the idea of EVA's. Just so ya know.

Transparent aluminum has existed for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxynitride

It is called Aluminum oxynitride.

Twark_Main · « **Reply #24 on:** 04/19/2023 06:24 am »

Do we have any reason to believe that transparent aluminum is superior to polycarbonate and/or fused silica, which are the standard material for space windows?

Paul451 · « **Reply #25 on:** 04/19/2023 08:02 am »

Quote from: Twark_Main on 04/19/2023 06:24 am

Do we have any reason to believe that transparent aluminum is superior to polycarbonate and/or fused silica, which are the standard material for space windows?

Supposed greater impact resistance than silica, both in weight-for-weight and thickness-for-thickness, while retaining silica-like resistance to degradation over time than polycarb.

(IR transparency is greater than silica... if that's somehow useful to you.)

Twark_Main · « **Reply #26 on:** 04/20/2023 02:35 am »

Thanks. IR transparency would be good for solar heating, but if desired you could easily block it out with a thin-film reflective layer. This lets you tailor the thermal properties of each window to be ideal for the station design.