Author Topic: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station  (Read 944727 times)

Offline lkm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #40 on: 02/17/2014 09:03 pm »
I was wondering whether a version of  a Bigallow Olympus module could be made with a contracting spine which allows the module to inflate into more of a disc shape to allow for  rotational gravity. My BOTE calculations suggest you could have something like a twenty metre diameter with a 5 metre width if you could just squash it down like that, that's over sixty metres on the circumference or 0.5 g at 6 rpm. Or something like that.
If it's possible to do, that would have to be a pretty near term way to do it, given you're starting from scratch on a module.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #41 on: 02/17/2014 09:25 pm »
These people willingly suffer cramped living space,

That is not true

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #42 on: 02/17/2014 09:26 pm »

I guess the first thing I would like to tackle is the "need" part. Right now the ISS provides everything needed for people to conduct experiments in space.

And microgravity is what is needed for the experiments. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #43 on: 02/17/2014 09:28 pm »
But, as more people are needed to carry out more experiments, run machinery, or just be tourists, are they willing to make the same sacrifices? Do they have to? My argument is that they don't have to, and that providing better accommodation doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.
Yes, they have to.  Zero g is the whole reason the ISS exists.  There is no need for a one g station at this time.  There would be nothing for it to do.
« Last Edit: 02/17/2014 09:29 pm by Jim »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #44 on: 02/17/2014 10:20 pm »
Good subject, and one that have thought about from time to time.

As to why we need artificial gravity in space, I would imagine it is to keep humans alive and healthy, either during a long transit (like to Mars) or once they get to a destination in space that they will be staying at for a long time (EM-L1 or Mars, or ??).

My first assumption was that the best material to use would be cables to hold the structure together, since cables handle tension much better than sheets of metal, and it also allows more mass to be moved far from the center of rotation.

As to your original drawing, it's obvious that you were thinking of a system that would be used to transport humans to/from a distant location.  In that case most of the vehicle mass doesn't need to be spun, and you were trying to keep the least amount of mass at the ends of the rotating sections.  I do like the elevator concept, as I have thought the same system is likely to be the best design.  However I'm not sure you'll be able to eliminate 'wobble' without some sort of cable length adjuster, or maybe some sort of counterweight system (neither are ideal since they add unneeded mass).  But overall I think your concept (picture on page 1 of this thread) might be the right direction.

For stationary structures, I've been thinking about a wheel and spoke type design, with the spokes being cables.  Not unlike a bicycle wheel, or if you think about it, a suspension bridge that has been bent up into a circle.  All mass would be put onto the structure, which eliminates the need to worry about small amounts of 'wobble', and allows for the easy balance of mass in any case.  I don't have this drawn up, and it may be a little hard to explain, but what I envision is a station built as a wheel, with at least two levels of defined diameter.  Think of a bicycle wheel where you attach cables to where the tire goes, and then build a larger diameter wheel.  There are numerous reasons for that, including safety in case the structure has multiple cable breaks from collision.

According the <a href="http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/" title="">SpinCalc[/url], a radius of 225 meters is the smallest radius that eliminates all side effects of spinning rotation for 1G.  That's pretty big, and even using cables it will be a lot of mass.  But it could be built in sections that are usable as they get completed, so even though it would take a long to to complete, you would still get use out of it along the way.
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 Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #45 on: 02/17/2014 10:24 pm »
But, as more people are needed to carry out more experiments, run machinery, or just be tourists, are they willing to make the same sacrifices? Do they have to? My argument is that they don't have to, and that providing better accommodation doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.
Yes, they have to.  Zero g is the whole reason the ISS exists.  There is no need for a one g station at this time.  There would be nothing for it to do.
Not quite.

There is a need for one g habitation separate with zero g work/experiment environment. Which is unrealistic at this time.

If you had this w/o compromise (e.g. loss of safety, economics, or micro g environment), you would accumulate longitudinal health data on the effects on human physiology to varied exposure to zero g. Thresholds especially.

After gaining baselines against ground based human studies, one might increase/decrease acceleration in increments, while performing physiological experiments to understand the effects on human factors necessary for long term space exploration needs.

Extremely expensive. Difficult medical ethics and privacy issues. Possible to induce serious medical conditions. Likely too risky for ISS to be considered. Too many compromises.

But nonetheless - there is a definite need on orbit for variable gravity physiological environment for month / year lengths.

There are only two obvious beneficial reasons for this to be shared with ISS - cost and health - both unclear. Many clear risks and cost growth that make it easy to shoot down. Mechanically / operationally a nightmare.

So for "old" space it is far beyond them - dead, dead, dead. For very good reasons. Funding for this direction is from NIH and NSF alone and is unrecognisable to all but scientists in the specific area(s). Which "new" space firms have access to. Private fund a DragonLab demonstrator? How significant would the scope of the experiment need to be ... to cross the threshold required.

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #46 on: 02/17/2014 11:12 pm »
These people willingly suffer cramped living space,

That is not true

Ok, so I take it you agree with the remaining parts about health, exercise, and washroom.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #47 on: 02/17/2014 11:15 pm »

I guess the first thing I would like to tackle is the "need" part. Right now the ISS provides everything needed for people to conduct experiments in space.

And microgravity is what is needed for the experiments.

In my design, I provide the non-rotating hub for this purpose. It is just the living quarters that rotate.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline Aussie_Space_Nut

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • South Australia
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #48 on: 02/17/2014 11:15 pm »
See Attachment,
My silly modular space station concept using inflatable modules.
Center modules do not rotate.
Outer modules rotate about the center to simulate gravity.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #49 on: 02/17/2014 11:18 pm »
But, as more people are needed to carry out more experiments, run machinery, or just be tourists, are they willing to make the same sacrifices? Do they have to? My argument is that they don't have to, and that providing better accommodation doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.
Yes, they have to.  Zero g is the whole reason the ISS exists.  There is no need for a one g station at this time.  There would be nothing for it to do.
Not quite.

There is a need for one g habitation separate with zero g work/experiment environment. Which is unrealistic at this time.


Wrong.  There is no need for that and it is unrealistic.  A zero g work/experiment environment with zero g habitation meets is more than adequate.  Any health issues can be alleviated by crew rotation rate.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #50 on: 02/17/2014 11:20 pm »

Ok, so I take it you agree with the remaining parts about health, exercise, and washroom.

No, crew rotation rate can fix the health and exercise issues.  Washroom?  Not even close to a need.  See military deployments and scientific expeditions.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #51 on: 02/17/2014 11:23 pm »

Outer modules rotate about the center to simulate gravity.

Not really viable, unless the modules have curved floor.

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #52 on: 02/17/2014 11:25 pm »
But, as more people are needed to carry out more experiments, run machinery, or just be tourists, are they willing to make the same sacrifices? Do they have to? My argument is that they don't have to, and that providing better accommodation doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.
Yes, they have to.  Zero g is the whole reason the ISS exists.  There is no need for a one g station at this time.  There would be nothing for it to do.

This goes back to my last point. There is a non-rotating hub that provides microgravity environment for research and potentially manufacturing. Yes, this is the prime reason the station exists, but I fail to see why the people who work there cannot spend half of their day in the greater comfort and healthier lifestyle of 1g. You say "Yes, they have to." The only way that makes sense to me, is if the purpose for people living in zero gravity environment is to see how they react to it. If the people are the subject of the experiment, then yes. But in many (and I would think in the future almost all) cases the experiment is not on humans, but on something else. "There would be nothing for it to do." Why, if people live in the rotating portion one half of each day, does the microgravity environment in the hub become useless?
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #53 on: 02/17/2014 11:33 pm »
The thread premise is wrong.  There is no need for such a station in the near term

I am very glad for your input. You are a true expert and as I understand actually work at NASA. Your opinions and posts are well respected here. I am just an interested party with no space or rocket training. I feel that if I could talk you into accepting this approach, then it would be something that NASA might actually entertain.

I guess the first thing I would like to tackle is the "need" part. Right now the ISS provides everything needed for people to conduct experiments in space. It is filled with highly trained astronauts dedicated to pursuing NASA's objectives. These people willingly suffer cramped living space, awkward hygienics, limited food styles, rigorous exercise routines, and deteriorating body functions. My hat's off for their hard work and dedication. But, as more people are needed to carry out more experiments, run machinery, or just be tourists, are they willing to make the same sacrifices? Do they have to? My argument is that they don't have to, and that providing better accommodation doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.

We don't need another NASA or international station in LEO. I believe what do need to do, is save ISS for future generations and also lower operational cost of ISS. Lower costs is necessary to save ISS for future
generations.
Well, rather lower costs another option is having yearly cost of ISS be less than what is is worth.
Or wave magic wands and say NASA will simply have budget increased so it continue to pay for ISS while
it does other things- explore the Moon and Mars, for example. Or privatize ISS so that NASA does have to paid as much for yearly operational cost of ISS.
But other than these two options, NASA needs to lower costs of ISS. And obvious and easiest and default
choice is to de-orbit ISS. So NASA did this sort of thing with Saturn V and Shuttle. Part of reason for ending Shuttle was because it was old, and main reason to end Saturn V was to save costs. And ISS will face both of these "reasons" for dropping it into the Pacific.
I politically I think it's very bad to de-orbit ISS- and politicians may or may realize this. And politicians may want to de-orbit ISS because it's not good politically- it helps argue that spending money on NASA is not
good idea. So if want continue monies given to NASA in future, it's a bad move politically, to de-orbit ISS,
if you want less monies given to NASA, it's a good political move.
One realize their has been a "campaign" since Apollo to not spend money on Space exploration. Or if you are space cadet, you have enemies. And you should avoid helping this enemy. This enemy has got most Americans imagining we spend enormous amount of money on NASA. This should not considered an "accident" or simply that American public is poorly informed. The American public are poorly informed, but
this is not the cause of this general idea that NASA spends a large amount of money.
Considering that NASA doesn't do a lot of harm to American public and is a significant net benefit, NASA doesn't come close to spending too much money. The only real argument against NASA is it's not doing enough and one could say NASA is being starved of funding it needs.
So currently NASA is at historical low point in terms of funding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
0.48% of federal budget. With President who during his campaign wanted to cut NASA to fund something else. Who largely failed due to political reasons. But isn't some oddball in this general idea that government better things to spend money on.

So I put preserving ISS for the future as high priority, but NASA should also be exploring the Moon and Mars- so lowering ISS operational cost should be path forward- but not included is the option of de-orbiting
this international station, and instead we should generally work to towards broadening international space activities and use ISS has part of this goal.

But this Advanced Topics, and thought bring in idea on this discussion. Rather artificial gravity or addition to it, we should consider having space stations which have more radiation shielding.
So one aspect would have enough shielding to operate higher in LEO. So space station which protects against GCR-  and Van Allen radiation.
And focus shielding would also enable less drag in LEO- because it's higher orbit with less atmosphere and because station has more mass.
Or one reason ISS isn't at Hubble orbital distance: 569 km
http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/hubble_essentials/quick_facts.php
Is because of increased levels of radiation.

So this could be merely adding additional radiation shielding or adding a lot.
Adding a lot would be say putting ISS into 500 by 1000 km orbit. And less could something like
500 by 500 km.
Currently ISS is at 258 miles:
http://www.isstracker.com/ 
So 500 km is 310 miles. So 500 km is minor change, but increased mass 50% with water
one moderately adding to shielding. Currently ISS is somewhere about 500 ton- so add 200 to 300
tons of water. And could be selective in terms having more shielding where crew spend most
of their time in.   

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #54 on: 02/17/2014 11:41 pm »

This goes back to my last point. There is a non-rotating hub that provides microgravity environment for research and potentially manufacturing. Y

Most of ISS racks are for experiments.  You have the volumes reversed.  Crew quarters would need the smaller of the volumes.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #55 on: 02/17/2014 11:43 pm »

So I put preserving ISS for the future as high priority,


That is waste of resources and is not viable to save it for future generations.  It does not have an infinite life.  Once it has served its purpose, it will be disposed of, much like old plane, ships and automobiles.  The ISS can not be preserved like museum or collector plane ships and automobiles.  They can be maintained in a static state, unlike the ISS which will require propulsion and attitude control systems that are operational, which in turn, necessitates power and a control system.  And the ISS can't be just left alone, it must be tracked so that other objects don't hit it, creating a debris problem.  Which, it will still create debris problem from impacts of items too small to track.
« Last Edit: 02/17/2014 11:55 pm by Jim »

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #56 on: 02/17/2014 11:51 pm »

This goes back to my last point. There is a non-rotating hub that provides microgravity environment for research and potentially manufacturing. Y

Most of ISS racks are for experiments.  You have the volumes reversed.  Crew quarters would need the smaller of the volumes.

Ok, so would you agree this design is a good idea if the non-rotating hub was 4 times larger, utilizing more modules or perhaps Bigelow 2200 Olympus? Or maybe reduce the rotating portion to just one BA330 at each end?
This sketch was to show the arrangement, but naturally the proportions would be adjusted as required.
« Last Edit: 02/18/2014 12:12 am by Roy_H »
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #57 on: 02/17/2014 11:56 pm »
I just don't think it is needed at all.

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #58 on: 02/18/2014 12:20 am »
I just don't think it is needed at all.
Well, I tried. Difference of opinion I guess. It all comes down to "need", and I have to concede that a 1g environment is not required to do 0g experiments. Do you need shelter? Yes. Do you need clothes? Yes in order to be comfortable in different temperatures. Do you need a car? Maybe if public transit is not suitable for your requirements. Do you need a Flat Screen TV? Probably not. How about your mobile phone? Many would say that is one of today's necessities, but didn't exist 10 years ago.

I hope you will at least come around to the point of saying it would be nice to have.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station
« Reply #59 on: 02/18/2014 12:34 am »
But, as more people are needed to carry out more experiments, run machinery, or just be tourists, are they willing to make the same sacrifices? Do they have to? My argument is that they don't have to, and that providing better accommodation doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.
Yes, they have to.  Zero g is the whole reason the ISS exists.  There is no need for a one g station at this time.  There would be nothing for it to do.

There is no stated, nor proposed governmental need for a 1g ring station, as you mention.  There is plenty of perceived need in the amateur space community.

The need is there because there are in fact, several important things which could be done on a ring station.  There could be a hotel for paying visitors; research on lunar and martian gravity at intervening rings; plant growth experiments; a prop depot.

Bottom line: There is plenty for it to do, but the government ain't interested.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0