Near-future Expansion of Human Presence in Cislunar Space

[vholub]

Hi Everybody!

I always found that people who are thinking about the future of space colonization think in two different ways - either going full sci-fi with O'Neill colonies and large rotating space stations, or going with the ISS way of connecting small expensive cylindrical modules together. People think about the far future, or the near past.

But what about the near future? What can we do in the next 10 years? Can we develop a scalable, mass produced method that would enable growing the population in Low Earth Orbit to hundreds or thousands of people?

In the past year and a half, I developed a concept for such a space station. It could be placed into LEO in a single launch of New Glenn or Starship and it would offer 2-4x the pressurized volume of the entire ISS. Its important parts are interchangeable and could be mass produced.

I published a paper at AIAA SciTech 2020 on this concept and I would be really excited if you could read it and give me a feedback. It is available here: https://www.orb2.com/downloads/Orb2_AIAA_SciTech_2020.pdf

I also just finished a video render that shows how it would be assembled together:

Lot of you are more experienced engineers than me, what do you think? What would you improve on? Are there some other similar ideas? How would you scale up colonization with today's technology?

[Coastal Ron]

Hi Everybody!

I always found that people who are thinking about the future of space colonization think in two different ways - either going full sci-fi with O'Neill colonies and large rotating space stations, or going with the ISS way of connecting small expensive cylindrical modules together.

I don't think that way, and I know other others that don't either, so I think you misreading the market.

But what about the near future? What can we do in the next 10 years? Can we develop a scalable, mass produced method that would enable growing the population in Low Earth Orbit to hundreds or thousands of people?

There is no lack of ideas, but there is a lack of ideas that address what is known as a "market need". For instance, who needs a growing population in LEO? What is their need? You need to know that before designing a station, or really for designing anything.

In the past year and a half, I developed a concept for such a space station. It could be placed into LEO in a single launch of New Glenn or Starship and it would offer 2-4x the pressurized volume of the entire ISS. Its important parts are interchangeable and could be mass produced.

First of all the graphics are GREAT! I wish I had your skill.

However what you show is not a station, but just an empty enclosure. And I'm not clear why your ball-style enclosure is any better than what Bigelow has proposed? For instance, how is your ball-style more MMOD resistant, or radiation resistant?

You only show two solar panels, so it doesn't look like it is meant for a laboratory or a manufacturing facility, or as a space hotel since you only have room for two spacecraft docked at a time, so you are limited to the number of people on the station as can fit in those two spacecraft.

Lot of you are more experienced engineers than me, what do you think? What would you improve on? Are there some other similar ideas? How would you scale up colonization with today's technology?

I'm not an engineer, so take my critique as feedback from one space geek to another. But I am active on the rotating space station threads, and I've been working on designs for rotating space stations. So I'm familiar with the issues that you face.

And even for my designs I have to answer the question "who would want it?" Until you can answer that question you won't know if what you have designed meets the needs of any potential customers. And since you specifically state that your design is for colonization, I'd say that it is not suited for that application, for a number of reasons.

My $0.02

[Lar]

Agree with Coastal Ron, you may want to do some reading in other threads to get a lot more background on just about everything you bring up.

[ppnl]

You can't have a large growing population in space without solving the radiation problem and the gravity problem.

[vholub]

Coastal Ron, thanks for the feedback!

I did not have any skill either, nor did I ever created a 3D model of anything before I started developing this idea.

Could you please point out some forums/threads where these ideas of have been shared? Thank you!

[vholub]

You can't have a large growing population in space without solving the radiation problem and the gravity problem.

I think I disagree with both statements there. I am not necessarily talking about everyone living and working in space. I am talking about people in good physical shape, productive age who live & work there for a year(s) but in hundreds, commercially. The goal would be to build enough expertise and industry in LEO that would allow you to eventually build those large rotating habitats.

Radiation in LEO is not a big deal for a year or two. Neither is gravity, if you follow the workout procedures.

[Coastal Ron]

I am talking about people in good physical shape, productive age who live & work there for a year(s) but in hundreds, commercially. The goal would be to build enough expertise and industry in LEO that would allow you to eventually build those large rotating habitats.

In that case then that is not "colonization", since it is a place of work, not a place where people will live out their lives. And you state in your thread title that you specifically wanted to talk about colonization. See the definition for the word "colony".

So you should either change your thread title, or change your idea to one that supports colonization.

[vholub]

I meant it as a first necessary step towards colonization. Title changed.

[MATTBLAK]

For the forseeable future: 'Colonies' in Cislunar space is a mischaracterization of what is actually going to happen there. It's just like I cringe every bloody time I see the mainstream media use the word 'colony' or its synonyms when they talk about humans exploring space. "NASA wants to build a colony on the Moon/Mars" blurts the mainstream news and popular science websites, magazines and newspapers. I even saw one clueless place describe ISS as the Earth orbital 'colony' when the new crew were launched there a couple days back! There will be no 'colonies' on the Moon or Cislunar space within the lifetimes of anyone reading this post.

[Coastal Ron]

I meant it as a first necessary step towards colonization. Title changed.

Thanks for making the title change.

Back to your proposal, essentially all you have proposed is an empty round enclosure that is assembled in space.

As for your assembly method, I'm not sure it would actually work. Sure you can click parts together, but welding parts together in space is something new. Sure, we do it all the time on the ground, but we understand how that works (and doesn't work) in various environments.

An easy question to ask is why does the customer care that you build your structure in space? We have increasingly larger rockets able to deliver larger payloads, so why not just build cylindrical modules on Earth and launch them into LEO to be assembled into larger structures? Your design does not look like it lends itself to being made bigger, but based on what we have learned from the ISS we know we can connect many modules together to make a larger structure.

At some point we will build things in space, and maybe even used electron-beam welding, but we don't have to do that yet. Not when Blue Origin is offering payload volumes on New Glenn that would accommodate a cylindrical module 6m in diameter by 10m in length. That is a MASSIVE amount of room, and you can join as many of them together as you need. All made and outfitted on Earth, where it costs the least.

Why not do it that way?

[vholub]

At some point we will build things in space, and maybe even used electron-beam welding, but we don't have to do that yet. Not when Blue Origin is offering payload volumes on New Glenn that would accommodate a cylindrical module 6m in diameter by 10m in length. That is a MASSIVE amount of room, and you can join as many of them together as you need. All made and outfitted on Earth, where it costs the least.

Why not do it that way?

To me, it just boils down to math.

Assuming that the assembly/welding method would be figured out and reliable, then:
Being generous, if you are using New Glenn, you can put a cylindrical module of 13.5m inner length and 6.1m inner diameter, which would give you roughly 260 m3 (but, as an advantage, fully equipped inside).

The concept has internal volume of over 2000 m3 and a single launch.

To get the same volume, you would need 8x more launches and space rendezvous, meaning each module would have to have hardware to be able to meet with the space station. It all ads so much more cost.

I will admit that I don't know how many launches would you need to equip the habitation module (the spherical part).

[cdebuhr]

At some point we will build things in space, and maybe even used electron-beam welding, but we don't have to do that yet. Not when Blue Origin is offering payload volumes on New Glenn that would accommodate a cylindrical module 6m in diameter by 10m in length. That is a MASSIVE amount of room, and you can join as many of them together as you need. All made and outfitted on Earth, where it costs the least.

Why not do it that way?

To me, it just boils down to math.

Assuming that the assembly/welding method would be figured out and reliable, then:
Being generous, if you are using New Glenn, you can put a cylindrical module of 13.5m inner length and 6.1m inner diameter, which would give you roughly 260 m3 (but, as an advantage, fully equipped inside).

The concept has internal volume of over 2000 m3 and a single launch.

To get the same volume, you would need 8x more launches and space rendezvous, meaning each module would have to have hardware to be able to meet with the space station. It all ads so much more cost.

I will admit that I don't know how many launches would you need to equip the habitation module (the spherical part).

Its a nice animation ... but I'm struggling with the use case.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the zero-g welding, as I'm not really qualified to comment beyond the observation that were already pretty good at welding on the ground.  We'll leave that as a challenge to be overcome.  If you can get structural integrity from the (very strong) latches, you might get away with welding, or even a polymer adhesive, for the pressure seal.

So you make a big hollow ball.  Now you've got to fit out the interior, moving everything in through relatively small docking ports.  It might be easier if you could start moving stuff in before the sphere is finished, but that may interfere with your proposed build process.  It would certainly complicate things.  And require more launches.  I've bolded a couple bits in your previous post where you point out the issue yourself.  The "standard" cylindrical modules can be fully kitted out and ready to go.  Just dock them together and you're done, more or less.  You may find that when you account for fitting out the interior of your sphere, your launch count advantage mostly evaporates.  Also note that separate cylinders have the additional advantage of possible pressure hatches between modules.  This could be a Very Good Thing if you suffer a small hull breach and need to seal part of the station.

So were back to the use case.  It took me a while to get past a zero G MMA arena.  I think you could probably get a depressingly large amount of revenue from that.  Tanks for a large orbital propellant depot?  Maybe ... probably too small, but just increase the number of tiles.  Now were talking about a much larger orbital construction project, so the single launch "advantage" is out the door, but that's OK as were now in the realm of a large orbital civil engineering project.  Just launch more tiles.  Lots more.  What else ... some sort of space manufacturing where you actually need that much clear open space perhaps (just don't ask my why!)?  You'll notice everything I can come up with are applications where you might want your big open sphere to be just that.  If you just want habitation and "normal" lab/work space, ready-to-go cylinders will likely get you farther, faster, cheaper.

One last point ... I'm still mulling this over as a method to build (much) larger structures from larger numbers of tiles (more launches, but the single-launch advantage of this concept is largely illusory anyway).  The one reason for building a one-launch, sphere-with-service-module structure of the sort you propose is as a proof of concept.  Sort of like the BEAM module on the ISS.  If it works, then you can think about scaling ...

Or maybe sell one to Axiom Space ... they could attach it to the station they're planning to build.  Zero G MMA anyone?

[Cererean]

Hmm. Instead of panelling, what about a geodesic framework that would be covered in multiple layers of polymer to form the pressure shell?

Think of it as a step up from the orbital shack GW Johnson proposes for repairing and assembling spacecraft. In this case, the space frame would be used to support the shell during construction.

[ppnl]

You can't have a large growing population in space without solving the radiation problem and the gravity problem.

I think I disagree with both statements there. I am not necessarily talking about everyone living and working in space. I am talking about people in good physical shape, productive age who live & work there for a year(s) but in hundreds, commercially. The goal would be to build enough expertise and industry in LEO that would allow you to eventually build those large rotating habitats.

Radiation in LEO is not a big deal for a year or two. Neither is gravity, if you follow the workout procedures.

Well you said cislunar. Most of that is not protected from radiation. If you mean LEO then you should say so.

Even in LEO there is a limit to the population you could maintain. You would need hundreds of launches a year just to replace personnel. I just don't know what they could be doing up there to make the expense worth it.

No, if you want a large growing population they need to  be able to live up there indefinitely and be reasonably self-sufficient.

[TrevorMonty]

At some point we will build things in space, and maybe even used electron-beam welding, but we don't have to do that yet. Not when Blue Origin is offering payload volumes on New Glenn that would accommodate a cylindrical module 6m in diameter by 10m in length. That is a MASSIVE amount of room, and you can join as many of them together as you need. All made and outfitted on Earth, where it costs the least.

Why not do it that way?

To me, it just boils down to math.

Assuming that the assembly/welding method would be figured out and reliable, then:
Being generous, if you are using New Glenn, you can put a cylindrical module of 13.5m inner length and 6.1m inner diameter, which would give you roughly 260 m3 (but, as an advantage, fully equipped inside).

The concept has internal volume of over 2000 m3 and a single launch.

To get the same volume, you would need 8x more launches and space rendezvous, meaning each module would have to have hardware to be able to meet with the space station. It all ads so much more cost.

I will admit that I don't know how many launches would you need to equip the habitation module (the spherical part).

The other option is to 3d print structure in space, see Relativity stargate printer. Feed stock is reels of wire.

I don't see case for LEO colony but there should be case for space hotel and research facility. Production facilities will be zeroG and unmanned, in cases unpressurized as vacuum is also part of reason for manufacturing in space. Unmanned make it cheaper to support but also removes lot of vibrations, odd visit for maintenance is only human input.

To support large colonies, need tobe living off land which means access to lot of low DV materials, eg moon surface or NEAs which is why Lagrange points are a good choice. Moon colony has materials under foot with gravity and radiation protection thrown in for free, only issue is high DV to earth, but cheap ISRU fuel can help over come this.

[Coastal Ron]

At some point we will build things in space, and maybe even used electron-beam welding, but we don't have to do that yet. Not when Blue Origin is offering payload volumes on New Glenn that would accommodate a cylindrical module 6m in diameter by 10m in length. That is a MASSIVE amount of room, and you can join as many of them together as you need. All made and outfitted on Earth, where it costs the least.

Why not do it that way?

To me, it just boils down to math.

Assuming that the assembly/welding method would be figured out and reliable, then:
Being generous, if you are using New Glenn, you can put a cylindrical module of 13.5m inner length and 6.1m inner diameter, which would give you roughly 260 m3 (but, as an advantage, fully equipped inside).

For my use cases that rely on New Glenn I standardize on 6m diameter and 10m lengths. But that's just me.

And as you point out with a single launch the module will likely contain all of the plumbing, all the electrical, and likely all of the equipment and furniture that would be required for that module. With one launch.

The concept has internal volume of over 2000 m3 and a single launch.

To get the same volume, you would need 8x more launches and space rendezvous, meaning each module would have to have hardware to be able to meet with the space station. It all ads so much more cost.

If all your customer wanted was a big aluminum ball in space, then yes, your idea may have some advantages. But whoever your customer is, if they want to live inside the big aluminum ball then you're going to have to send a crew up to the fully assembled & welded "concept" and spend thousands of hours outfitting the inside with plumbing, electrical, air handling, waste handling, power systems, and all the rest. Oh, then you need someone to inspect and certify it all works before occupation - unless you don't plan on certifying your habs for occupation, and just let your customers discover if there are any problems.

I will admit that I don't know how many launches would you need to equip the habitation module (the spherical part).

Not only don't you know how many launches it will take to ferry up everything that goes inside of your sphere, but you haven't taken into account the number of workers it will take, and for how long, to outfit the inside of your sphere.

Oh, and if you are using a standard Commercial Crew vehicle, you do realize that the NASA Docking System has a transfer passageway of only 800mm? Less than a meter in diameter, with your plan you have to design (or redesign) everything to fit through that small opening.

And for every delivery you have to trade off crew/assemblers and the material you need for outfitting. And then you need to take into account how long (months/years) it will take to outfit the inside of your sphere. There could be a lot of launches.

In contrast, cylindrical modules can be fully assembled and tested on the ground. So yes, one launch per module does add up from a volume standpoint, but since every module is fully outfitted they assemble into a larger vehicle much quicker.

So you really need to decide what you want to spend your time doing in space.

Oh, and don't worry, everyone starts out with an idea that needs to mature and evolve. So take this feedback and something that you will use to improve your idea. 

[Zed_Noir]

Don't think the Orb2 concept is good match for MEO, HEO or cislunar facilities as depicted in the video.

However if the concept is modified into building 2 spheres. Smaller one within ta larger one. Then in theory you can use the space in between for water tanks as radiation shielding. Of course you will have to ferry up the tonnes of water.

As I see it. One of the problem of habitable spherical orbital facilities is how to subdivided the internal compartments so that you can build and maintain them without costing too much in budget and man hours.

The really good use for the Orb2 concept is to build propellant storage tanks for orbit propellant depots. You don't need to outfitted the tank interior except for a bit plumbing. For propellant storage you want the least tank surface area to tank volume.

[Eric Hedman]

There will be no 'colonies' on the Moon or Cislunar space within the lifetimes of anyone reading this post.

While I have no idea if this will be true or not, if a fifteen year-old is reading this and ends up living to 95 that is an 80 year gap to be certain about.  Just imagine how different the world is now from eighty years ago.  Nobody knows what kind of industries will grow up in cislunar space in that time or if that will spawn colonies for workers and their families.  Eighty years from now I wouldn't rule out a toroidal ring at L5 big enough for a colony to develop.  The end of this century is just to far into the future to make an absolute statement like that with certainty.

[MATTBLAK]

Perhaps I shouldn't have thrown out there such a broad statement. Because its a subject I'm more than happy to be wrong about someday. I may have been speaking more for myself and my generation - I'm in my mid-fifties. It is true that a 'Colony' may be far more feasible on Mars than on the Moon or in Cislunar space (O'Neill habitat etc). The best place for Habitat infrastructure must surely be on the surface of a world such as Mars or the Moon.

But in some ways - things are moving both fast - and slow - at the same time. Even with SpaceX; access to space still costs a lot of money. And 'government space' - NASA, ESA etc - the traditional technological space pathfinders are still slow and reluctant to invest in and push forwards full reusability, In-Situ Resource Utilization, artificial gravity Habs for deep space travel, propellant depots and in-space propellant transfer. Only Elon Musk and SpaceX are willing to go for some of this literally game-changing, mission-enabling methods and technologies. Also; I think nuclear power and propulsion has got to come onboard with operational Astronautics at some point. Chemical and Solar - while still not currently being used to their full potential - will eventually hit a technical and logistical 'brick wall'.

The Future is running late and things will never happen quick enough for 'Space Geeks' like me. Blue Origin is still too glacially slow, as well - which frustrates me. But whatever will be, will be. Just don't count on 'Colonies' of hundreds, nay thousands living on the Moon and Mars for at least another Generation, maybe two. Like I said - I'm happy to be wrong about that. I reserve the right to be skeptical and to chafe at the mainstream media's premature use of the term 'Space Colony'

[Cererean]

A colony may be easier to build on Mars from a physical standpoint, but Luna is probably easier from an economic one. I think there's a good (>5%) chance that we could see  small Lunar city in the next couple of decades, with an economy driven by tourism and mining (the two things, other than transport, which justify operations out in the ocean today - cruise ships, oil platforms, fishing fleets). If it's built, some people may choose to move to Shackleton City permanently... and maybe some will have children there, making it officially a colony. Maybe not a self-sustaining colony, maybe not even a successful one (remember Greenland), but a colony nonetheless.

On the other hand, it could turn out to be easy to partially terraform Mars (~80mb CO2, liquid water) with mirrors, in which case we could see a rush to homestead the planet, which would be far easier to do.