2001 type rotating space stations

[pmn1]

Don’t know if anyone can help on this…<br /><br />There was a paper in the December 1991 issue of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society by Michael A Minovitch of Phaser Telepropulsion Inc proposing the building of rotating 2001 type stations 100metres diameter for at least 150 crew by using automatic wrapping machines rotating round inflated Kevlar torus’ to wind thin layers of aluminium until the required thickness had been made.<br /><br />The rotating toroidal living section would have a major and minor radii of 100m and 2m while the two central column cylinders with labs etc and constructed in the same way would each be 100m long x 10m diameter. The two column cylinders would connect into a pre-fabricated central hub into which three spokes 100m long x 4m diameter also constructed in the same way would be fitted to join the hub to the toroidal living section.<br /><br />The station also served as the basis for a 'cycling' ship and would take about 10 HLLV (assuming 100 tons/launch) or 14 Shuttle-C launches and 1 STS flight with minimal EVA.<br /><br />Costs were about $400 billion for an Earth orbit station, a Mars orbit station and a cycling ship.<br /><br />Would this type of construction be possible?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vogon13]

British Interplanetary Society is held in rather high regard by myself and others.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

If funds weren't an issue. Absolutely yes.<br /><br />I would like to see a space station like that, but not at that price. We need to get the price down to something that a large country would want to afford.

 

[rocketman5000]

I think it would be possible but how about another idea. wrapping the structure in carbon or kevlar while injecting an expoxy resin. I assume we have resin suitable for curing in outerspace. The unit could craw around the Torrus in the same fashion that suspension bridge cables are wraped. rovings could be glued and laid. and perhaps cured with a uv light source or other accelerator. LEDs might work for this to provide the light. <br /><br />since you couldn't lift all of the spools of kevlar in one launch it could be possible make refill cartiges with hydrogen and oxygen for a fuel cell and spools of rovings. <br /><br />This wraping machine could even have a head on it like the rapid prototyping machines that build plastic layers. this could create seats for windows and other seals and make a honey comb structue cabable of holding water for radiation sheilding. A final outer layer could add a reflective mylar sunshield and

 

[nexium]

If 400 billion dollars was a good estimate for1991 then 900 billion is realistic for 2012 due to inflation. Even 2012 is optimistic for getting the job done without numerous costly errors. Russian or Chinese might be contracted to provide the heavy lifting at considerable cost reduction.<br />A two meter tube with visability less than 12 meters will be claustaphobic for most humans taller than 1.5 meters. I suggest 2.5 meters.<br />With a radius of 100 meters, 0.1 g of artificial gravity may be practical. That may be worse than useless. Virtigo due correllis effect and strenghth of materials safety factor may make faster rotation impractical unless the 100 tones spec is increased or CNT = carbon nano tubes are available. In LEO = low Earth orbit more than 100 tons of water are needed to reduce radiation exposure to average Earth sea level. More shielding is needed for Mars orbit and a cycling ship. Why not 3 meters instead of 4 meters for the three spokes? Has an automatic wraping machine been built to aproximately this scale? The crew of 150 is realistic if less than 1/2 of the interior volume is storage and equipment, but more equipment etc. is needed. if most of the crew is building things, testing things and/or engaged in miscellanious recreation. Neil

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">With a radius of 100 meters, 0.1 g of artificial gravity may be practical</font><br /><br />Well I should hope so since<br /><br />With a radius of 100 meters, a full 1.0 g is achieved by a rotation rate of 3 rpm<br /><br />and<br /><br />At 3 rpm there is every reason to believe that coreolis and gravity gradient problems would be minimal.<br /><br />geez, nexium, I've posted the formulas and conclusions here over and over and over and over and over and over again and it just has no effect. The linked one was just 10 days ago and you were on the thread. It's depressing. Do y'all not believe me? Do you think I just make this stuff up? Does every single poster here skip to the next post everytime they see an equals sign? What's the deal? I feel like I'm Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. Only it's not so much fun.<br /><br />sigh<br /><br />This place used to be so cool . . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nexium]

Hi spacester: I appologize. I did not read that post of yours until just now, nor realize a study had been made showing 3 rpm at a 100 meter radius was tolerable to most people long term.<br />I never took a course in strength of materials, so I was shooting from the hip and would not understand the math. Is the 100 tons conservative for a structure that large, and complex with the 628 meter (circumfrence) ring at one g? Neil

 

[spacester]

Hi nexium: I apologize as well. I've been in a nasty mood lately.<br /><br />The study hasn't been made actually, I'm just stating my personal conclusion based on my research. The math is exact, but we *know* almost nothing about the effects because we cannot simulate true spin-g on Earth.<br /><br />I really don't know about the 100 ton estimate, I'm hoping that over time we can answer that question together. We've made progress in past threads. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Spin is not required for artificial gravity

 

[rocketman5000]

The lightest weight composite structure that could be made to with stand rotation forces (ie in the radial direction of the major diamter of torus) would not be the best orientation for resisting the internal pressure of the ring of the ring. therefore a large variable of the total weight of the structure would be the internal atmospheric pressure of the enviroment. I believe as low of a pressure as possible would be ideal so that it can be made as light as possible and make EVA's easier. Using lower pressure suits that don't need pressure adjustment times etc. <br /><br />This evening after work I'll have to do a Freebody diagram to see where all of the forces are acting with the rotation and pressure to know what force the walls will need to withstand. <br /><br />With current technology I believe that kevlar would be the best material as it has a higher UTS at the expense of stiffness. An issue I don't believe would be an issue. In fact the ability to deform and spread energy over the entire structure would likely be a good thing. <br /><br />As for weither anyone has built a machine what could wrap a torus like this I do not know. However it would be a deriative of current technology rather than a completely new idea. As stated above the wrapping of the structure would need to be slightly different than that of a suspension bridge. A suspension bridge has its binding cables wraped radially around it at 90 degree angles. The best trade off for this design would likey be a +/- 45 degree orientation of rovings.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>One rotation per twenty seconds might cause prolonged nausea, sleeplessness and other problems, but there are problems associated with zero gravity too, so it may be worthwhile building such a rotating vessel. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I would bet that people could become acclimitized to it, though, since the nausea and such will mostly be a result of the brain misjudging things. It would be like getting your sea legs, only in space. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I wonder how long it would take to make the adjustment? A week? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[danwoodard]

While 3RPM is certainly tolerable, most people would be more comfortable at 2RPM or less. But why use a torus - this was apparently initially proposed by von Braun without to much analysis. Two modules, each cylindrical or spherical, with a narrow connecting structure would have a much better volume to mass ratio and allow a longer rotation radius of 200m.<br /><br />If a large mass such as a nuclear power source is to be used, it could become a counterweight at one end and the entire crew compartment could be a single module at the other end.

 

[barrykirk]

I mentioned this on another post, but connecting a living module with a conterweight via a truss or tether would allow a very large radius to spin around.<br /><br />It would provide a much lower mass for a useable station.<br /><br />I know the 2001 torus station does look pretty.... But it might not be optimal.

 

[CalliArcale]

I remember a National Geographic article years ago (around 1990, I think) showing supposed plans for a combined US/Soviet mission to Mars. All of the concepts involved two tethered modules rotating around the center of mass to produce artificial gravity. One showed a US module on one end and a USSR module on the other; another showed both on one side and their nuclear powersource on the other. I like the latter better, although the former might've been more diplomatic at the time. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> They had one photograph of a spacecraft mockup which, on hindsight, looks suspiciously like the Unity module of the ISS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[pmn1]

<font color="yellow">As for weither anyone has built a machine what could wrap a torus like this I do not know. However it would be a deriative of current technology rather than a completely new idea.</font><br /><br />IIRC the article suggested using wrapping machines currently used in wrapping oil pipelines.<br /><br />It also suggtested the entire system could be used to produce ground bases on Mars - i'll have another look at the article and see how it proposed doing so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mcbethcg]

I don't think there is a concievable need for massive space stations unless the goal is colonization.<br /><br />If the goal is colonization, massive radiation shielding would be needed, obviating the need to make lightweight structures. People can not live a lifetime in space without it.

 

[spacester]

That is sound logic except for one critical idea that changes the conclusion.<br /><br />Lightweight structures are still in play if you can supply massive amounts of water for your shielding. So we're looking at concentric toroids instead of just a torus. And we're looking at water extraction from NEAs on a massive scale. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nexium]

Crew quarters the shape of concentric spheres shield the largest volume per to ton of water or other fluid. A CNT ribbon connecting to a larger mass of unshielded counter weight up to a kilometer away, can provide up to 2g at about one RPM. We might want 2g if the crew is going to a cloud top outpost at Jupiter or Uranus. Ribbon is better, as small space junk and micrometeors make holes instead of severing the tether. A sudden tether or truss failure can be very hazardous. Neil

 

[qso1]

If the station at $400 billion were similar in function and purpose to ISS, $400 billion is a bit much. But being that it would have much more habitable volume, a portion of that volume could be devoted to space tourism and make some of that money back. Maybe all of it over the lifetime of the station. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"...but connecting a living module with a conterweight via a truss or tether would allow a very large radius to spin around. It would provide a much lower mass for a useable station."<br /><br />Exactly right.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"I would bet that people could become acclimitized to it, though, since the nausea and such will mostly be a result of the brain misjudging things. It would be like getting your sea legs, only in space. I wonder how long it would take to make the adjustment? A week? "<br /><br />I bet you are right. Adjustment would probably resemble adjustment to zero gee, though we won't know for sure until real life experiments are concluded. Equally important are experiments on long term lower gee environments on human biology, essential knowledge for successful manned missions to Mars and other distant locations.<br /><br />A sixth month long human stay on the surface of the moon is the most direct means of answering some of these questions.

 

[qso1]

Another solution would be to set the rotation to 1 RPM or lower which would involve setting the habitats further away from the center of gravity. The lower rate should be less noticeable to the human vestibular system as the person would be less likely to notice. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">...though we won't know for sure until real life experiments are concluded...<br /><br /><font color="white">I'm sure I've seen video of a Russian long duration expriments on the ground with people living in a centrifuge long enough to learn how to throw dart and allow for corriolis forces, the darts went though an angle of about 30 degrees on their flight!</font></font>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Would it be possible to configure BA330 Bigelow modules into a Torus configuration? If so, how many would you have to use? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Minimum of four? I don't think they'd like to be spun much though.