external ship frame material

Jan 29, 2020
136
10
1,585
There are different types of nanotechnologies. One is to array geometric shapes of nanoparticles. In a line, 10nm - 250nm shapes are stable enough after annealing the front and back jacks (Like D-Day coastal iron crosses), to form a Mechano set of connectable rods. Assembled, these lines of shapes can hold ship shielding. Ice, ceramic, titanium, rocks...
Right now, Cadmium Selenium supracrystals are not space worthy. Different elements will form different backbones. Threats include micro-meteors, various radiations, internal explosions, surface explosions, deceleration, shield loading ability, even crash landing in the Solar System. Each element of supracrystal assembled rods, will have different strengths and weaknesses by material. Holo diamond nanorods might not be machined by a Nanhattan now, can't be joined, but may make it to a few stars. Aluminum is cheap. Carbon existing materials might be all you have if a sooty asteroid is your only in situ building block. Advanced carbon with weaved grapes allotropes can dampen. A 1/2 dozen risks and dozen supracrystal frame materials should reveal a logic box of what destinations and missions are enabled by what frame (not connected to most pressurized volumes of the ship). This technology is not enabled by ball milling or BM improvements, but having ball milled factory equipment will make supracrystal multiple-tetris-pieces, easier to develop.
 
Jan 29, 2020
136
10
1,585
To avoid vibrations from impacts the ship connects the structural members of the pressurized inner shell to 1000 slabs of armour via metal wires under compression. The wires are made of nanoparticle shapes aligned and lightly (cheaply) processed. Al alloys and Cu alloys are possible, not space-worthy. Hollow diamond nanorods would need to be drilled to "bond". That leaves formed CNTs (like plastic processing), Al and Cu. They are protected by the slabs they hold at launch but it is assumed exposure to head on space for whatever unlikely events. I am assumed 50% the yield strengths and Young's Modulus's for each nanoparticle struss compared to the bulk aligned metal or bundle.
Radiation risks: CNTs are damaged easily. Aluminum is weaker than Cu. DNRs are stronger with a higher bond breaking threshold.
Micro-meteorite/comet hazard: CNTs are hard to recycle for in situ repairs. They also lose to dislocation defects from any speck. Hollow DNRs are vulnerable to ringing from a massive asteroid that would otherwise Starship Trooper's style shear a ship bulkhead clean off. DNRs could form ship length structural members, but such would make landing too hard. A third strike against DNR is ship to ship collisions. Cu's density would come in handy against dust soot and vapour more than Al.
Internal Explosion: Al and Cu form jagged shrapnel. CNT is best at damping shockwaves. DNR is good but might reflect the explosion back.
External Explosion: DNR protects the ship. AL and CU form shrapnel still. CNT is likely to be damaged.
Emergency landing: CNT only a 10km asteroid or smaller. Cu melts higher than Al. DNR will not collapse as is the standard for payload crash survival. Cost is aluminium cheapest, DNR impossible, and copper cheaper than CNT formed.
It appears DNR is too advanced to work with, like the Sphere ship. And economics dictates copper or aluminum based nanostrusses.
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Review on nanoparticles and nanostructured materials - NCBI
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC5905289


by J Jeevanandam · 2018 · Cited by 1777 — The first idea for NM classification was given by Gleiter et al. [16]. Here, NMs were classified depending on their crystalline forms and chemical composition.

NANOPARTICLES AND THEIR APPLICATIONS IN CELL AND ...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC3865110



by EC Wang · 2014 · Cited by 351 — Nanoparticles can be engineered with distinctive compositions, sizes, shapes, and surface chemistries to enable novel techniques in a wide


Cat :)
 
Jan 29, 2020
136
10
1,585
They are an inhalation hazard at first. Then I'll figure out how to anneal the whole meter long chain cheaply, instead of just the ends. 8 other elements work too. Platinum, Indium, Gold, Platinum, Palladium, only silver isn't too expensive. The particles should ideally have concave angles for their arms. We've done that with DNA but not metals. Giant radar and microwave communications should be enabled with plate shapes. The copper version isn't as strong as is aluminum pipe. But just as stamped lead can enable ice moon exosuits and station module hinges, aluminum is soft enough to curve and flex a bit.
 
Jan 29, 2020
136
10
1,585
A procedure would be in vacuum or inert atmosphere, to line up zig zag or helical Al nanowires to a square wire, flatten them, and the roll them into a circle cross section wire. 11cm of overhang to make long strips. Then they oxidize in air if used on Earth. It should be able to sheath most manned spacecraft, but is lacking hydrogen. IDK how thick to have protected Webb.
 
Jan 29, 2020
136
10
1,585
These are existing particles that would have to be laser annealed for research purposes. I assume $400/kg for sol gel iron oxide nanoparticles Maybe two combined in a T form can be done in a decade and sorted from the rest for $1000/kg total cost. That's just for practising rolling and folding.
Making these particles, Al and Cu (rusts) are better, requires rolling improvements, as well as modelling the Berg Effect of concave particles (with load bearing hooks). Right now we can make a cube with an inwards bend concave face. We need to turn that into a barrel of monkeys shape. Many ligands on earth won't tolerate vacuum. It is $50M to R+D the rolling processes. Maybe $5M to model the structural hook and plates shapes if they can be profitable at first: each set of models (I assume the dice Paper cost $100k to write). Maybe $2/gram for chain mail, antenna, radar and microwave substrates but due to nanoparticle risk a rural setting. I might do a radar dish in a kettle lake in SK with this next decade. Lasts 25 yrs in space.
 
Nov 16, 2019
41
4
1,535
The old idea is that RLVs will allow orbital space industrialization.

I have the opposite view. Get some big External Tank station concepts up there…based on SLS wet workshops—-and maybe grow an RLV THERE in LEO.

Then it might be so lightweight as to actually be an SSTO, with in-space microgravity manufacturing giving it unique characteristics no ground-built craft can have.

SSFO

SINGLE STAGE FROM ORBIT.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts