Author Topic: Cellulose Spacecraft  (Read 11495 times)

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Cellulose Spacecraft
« on: 06/25/2014 04:58 pm »
Just musing here, but apart from use of cork as an insulator material, has anyone ever consider using wood or cellulose derived plastics as a material for spacecraft? It seems to me that some of the limitations governing the growth of large bamboo might be overcome in orbital habitats or lower-gravity environs like a lunar dome, leading to the quick growth of bamboo products.

"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #1 on: 06/25/2014 09:47 pm »
After perfecting their regen engines at Masten, wikkit was talking about making a rocket engine out of wood.. for educational purposes.  :P
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2725
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 992
  • Likes Given: 668
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #2 on: 06/26/2014 05:28 am »
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/fsw.htm

Quote
The capsule for the FSW, like that of the US Discoverrer/KH-1 spy satellite, was mounted heat shield-forward on top of the launch vehicle. The ablative impregnated-oak nose cap covered electrical equipment.
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
  • Liked: 1084
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #3 on: 06/26/2014 08:26 am »
Isn't there that special wood recovered from sunken Great Lakes wood freighters, that due to the combination of low oxygen, water pressure, and being from original old growth forests, makes it so hard it breaks metal cutting tools?

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Liked: 728
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #4 on: 06/26/2014 09:09 am »
The US has already been there and done that.

The rough-lander capsules used during the (failed) Ranger flights had a crushable balsa-wood internal structure. I believe there was at one point a proposal for crushable balsa parts in the LM legs, though I'm not sure if that reached a hardware stage.

The benefits of plywood and balsa as structural components seem pretty obvious, especially with laser-cutting and CNC  tooling available - there's hardly, for example, a more electrically and magnetically inert material than wood. I'm actually surprised that wooden CubeSats have not yet been on the drawing board.

One issue with wood, of course, would be brittleness as water is leached out in space - again, perhaps soluble via silicon injection in a vacuum chamber (much like anti-rot treatments).

Offline cordwainer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #5 on: 06/29/2014 03:09 am »
Brittleness to water and anti-rot could be solved by sandwiching the wood with epoxy and fiberglass like how they construct plywood boats.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5975
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #6 on: 06/29/2014 03:14 am »
Why can't you just put on some thick lacquer coating to prevent outgassing, etc?

At least wood is a mature and well-known material with a long history of use and plenty of available tooling and skillbase to work with it.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #7 on: 06/29/2014 08:04 am »
The US has already been there and done that.

The rough-lander capsules used during the (failed) Ranger flights had a crushable balsa-wood internal structure. I believe there was at one point a proposal for crushable balsa parts in the LM legs, though I'm not sure if that reached a hardware stage.
IIRC the capsule were made of wood to protect the payload. They also had a fluid inside which the payload was floating in. On impact the idea was the payload would right itself (it was bottom heavy) then puncture the wooden casing and dump the fluid. The core instrument was a seismometer, which would now be in good contact with (or even buried in) the lunar surface.

Why can't you just put on some thick lacquer coating to prevent outgassing, etc?
Under UHV the oils in a fingerprint will cause contamination. I suspect at these pressures the lacquers themselves outgas.
Quote
At least wood is a mature and well-known material with a long history of use and plenty of available tooling and skillbase to work with it.
Interesting point. It's strength per unit mass is pretty good and it's quite easily worked. My instinct would be that by the time satellite and LV construction started the aircraft companies had lost those skills (outside of home builders or sail planes), along  with perhaps a perception that wood was too "low tech" to get the job done. There is  the issue that it will burn but for short term projects (probably designed to play to its strengths and minimise its weaknesses) it could  be quite a good material.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #8 on: 06/29/2014 11:44 am »

Interesting point. It's strength per unit mass is pretty good and it's quite easily worked. My instinct would be that by the time satellite and LV construction started the aircraft companies had lost those skills (outside of home builders or sail planes), along  with perhaps a perception that wood was too "low tech" to get the job done.

No, it because wood has local variabilites and discontinuities within it that makes it hard to perform structural analysis.  Hence, items have to be overbuilt to provide structural margins.  Additionally, the use composites started very early in the space program.

Composites and newer metals beat wood in every category. 
« Last Edit: 06/30/2014 01:38 pm by Jim »

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #9 on: 06/30/2014 01:07 pm »
The US has already been there and done that.

The rough-lander capsules used during the (failed) Ranger flights had a crushable balsa-wood internal structure. I believe there was at one point a proposal for crushable balsa parts in the LM legs, though I'm not sure if that reached a hardware stage.

The benefits of plywood and balsa as structural components seem pretty obvious, especially with laser-cutting and CNC  tooling available - there's hardly, for example, a more electrically and magnetically inert material than wood. I'm actually surprised that wooden CubeSats have not yet been on the drawing board.

One issue with wood, of course, would be brittleness as water is leached out in space - again, perhaps soluble via silicon injection in a vacuum chamber (much like anti-rot treatments).

Hmmm...  Essentially Freeze dry the wood and replace the liquid with silicon?  Wouldn't you need to use a high pressure environment to force the silcon into the wood structure?
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline cordwainer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #10 on: 06/30/2014 02:14 pm »
Wood composites like DiamondWood beat silicon composites for cost and weight to strength ratio, don't they?

Offline cordwainer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #11 on: 06/30/2014 02:19 pm »
I wonder how effective wood plastic composites would work for a 3D printer in microgravity?

Offline cordwainer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #12 on: 06/30/2014 02:27 pm »
Glue laminated timber would deal with some of the problems with "local variabilities and discontinuities" and provide consistent structural load bearing and durability over time.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #13 on: 06/30/2014 02:41 pm »
If you have a cheap and ready supply of a building material, overbuilding is not a problem. We are not building many houses out of carbon fiber right now. Obviously  a high performance spacecraft would probably not use wood as a primary component, but ply-bamboo/epoxy shell with elastometric sealant could make a robust and cheap shell material.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #14 on: 06/30/2014 03:29 pm »
If you have a cheap and ready supply of a building material, overbuilding is not a problem. We are not building many houses out of carbon fiber right now.

houses don't have weight constraints.  (why did aircraft move away from wood?)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #15 on: 06/30/2014 03:31 pm »
Glue laminated timber would deal with some of the problems with "local variabilities and discontinuities" and provide consistent structural load bearing and durability over time.

at what cost in terms of weight and volume?

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #16 on: 06/30/2014 03:52 pm »
houses don't have weight constraints.  (why did aircraft move away from wood?)

I don't have the source in front of me, but at the time the general switch occurred, at least for small aircraft (Piper Cub / Cessna Skyhawk class), it was as much marketing and public perception as it was performance.  People thought metal planes were better, regardless of whether they actually were.  Many of these wooden planes are still flying, some 80 years after construction.

Of course, when you scale to higher performance craft, with ever shrinking margins for weight and performance, it's a different story.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #17 on: 06/30/2014 05:53 pm »
houses don't have weight constraints.  (why did aircraft move away from wood?)

I don't have the source in front of me, but at the time the general switch occurred, at least for small aircraft (Piper Cub / Cessna Skyhawk class), it was as much marketing and public perception as it was performance.  People thought metal planes were better, regardless of whether they actually were.  Many of these wooden planes are still flying, some 80 years after construction.

Of course, when you scale to higher performance craft, with ever shrinking margins for weight and performance, it's a different story.

Are you thinking of J. E. Gordon's The New Science of Strong Materials: Or Why You Don't Fall Through the Floor? He says that few materials are actually better than wood (this was in the 1960s) for small plane construction. He did admit that maintenance was a problem.

Offline cordwainer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #18 on: 07/01/2014 03:32 am »
With injection molding, 3D printing and current robotic processes using wood is really no more expensive in terms of weight to volume over metal or plastics. The auto industry is already looking to incorporate cellulose based composites in their manufacturing.
 
The issue is strength and durability Jim. Metals last longer and plastics have better heat resistance and can be replaced or repaired more easily than wood or wood composites when they break. Weight-wise to volume wood composites are on par with thermoplastics in terms of weight to volume and are cheaper to produce than thermoplastics.

Structurally wood laminates are lighter than metals and while weaker they get the job done in handling the stresses one often sees in automobile and light aircraft uses without having to be overbuilt to be on par with the structural strength of metals. In other words for many applications metal is overkill.

Offline cordwainer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Cellulose Spacecraft
« Reply #19 on: 07/01/2014 03:52 am »
The biggest issue for generally using wood and cellulosic materials in vehicles for terrestrial use is protecting them from elements. They are subject to water-damage, molding and brittleness due to heat while composites have the added issue of deterioration from UV damage if the wrong resins or plastics are used as bonding compounds.

 For use in spacecraft you have further issues with outgassing although using bonded composites or subjecting wood veneers within wood laminates to vacuum before or during lamination can solve this issue. In other words remove the gas beforehand, while this can cause brittling if you heat treat the wood beforehand then exposure to vacuum can actually compress the wood into an even harder substance.

Tags: lignostella JAXA wood 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1