Future space station should be round, ball-shaped. A sphere.

[aphh]

<p>and it should be assembled using modules that look like slices of an orange. </p><p>I would think the ball shape would provide optimal configuration for a rotating station plus the stresses would be distributed evenly. Boosting a sphere even to escape velocity should not be a problem, unlike the current ISS style configuration, that could not handle stresses very well.</p><p>True, it's one more idea grabbed from sci-fi (Death Star), but if it turns out to be a viable configuration, it should be studied. </p>

 

[aphh]

And this is why we would have needed the Energya booster; the slices would have simply piggy-backed to orbit on Energya.<br />

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font size="2">How big are you suggesting it should be? What would the interior configuration&nbsp;look like?</font> <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>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font size="2"><p><font size="2">Inflatable Technologies for Sculpture in Earth Orbit </font></p><p>&nbsp;</p></font> <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>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Inflatable Technologies for Sculpture in Earth Orbit &nbsp; <br /> Posted by boris1961</DIV></p><p>Thanks for the link.</p><p>I was thinking rather large station, depending on how many slices, or modules, the sphere would be divided into, and also if half-spheres could first be divided into slices.</p><p>I'm thinking hard materials, so that boosters could be attached to give the sphere escape velocity for a Mars trip.</p><p>I wonder if this could work as a under-water habitat aswell. The pressure would be evenly distributed thus making the shape ideal to handle inside - outside pressure differences.&nbsp;</p>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font size="2"><font size="2">Here</font>&nbsp;are some old NASA designs. I think&nbsp;a sphere would take too much lifting capacity, making it much more expensive. A wheel design would take less materiel. </font> <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>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and it should be assembled using modules that look like slices of an orange. I would think the ball shape would provide optimal configuration for a rotating station plus the stresses would be distributed evenly. Boosting a sphere even to escape velocity should not be a problem, unlike the current ISS style configuration, that could not handle stresses very well.True, it's one more idea grabbed from sci-fi (Death Star), but if it turns out to be a viable configuration, it should be studied. Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>How would the stresses be distributed evenly?&nbsp; A "sphere" made up of orange slices isn't a sphere.&nbsp; It's a bunch of orange slices bolted together.&nbsp; It may look like a sphere but, it doesn't handle stresses like a bubble, transmitting certain ones around its surface.&nbsp; A rotating sphere is going to experience stress along the plane of rotation anyway and that stress will be centered on where the sections join together.&nbsp; IMO, the only benefits a sphere has is that it is very efficient where volume is concerned.&nbsp; But, that's about it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How would the stresses be distributed evenly?&nbsp; A "sphere" made up of orange slices isn't a sphere.&nbsp; It's a bunch of orange slices bolted together.&nbsp; It may look like a sphere but, it doesn't handle stresses like a bubble, transmitting certain ones around its surface.&nbsp; A rotating sphere is going to experience stress along the plane of rotation anyway and that stress will be centered on where the sections join together.&nbsp; IMO, the only benefits a sphere has is that it is very efficient where volume is concerned.&nbsp; But, that's about it. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Well, you could do many kinds of things to a ball-shaped object, like kick a soccer ball for example, and it will hold together. Even soccer ball is stitched together from pieces, like this design would be bolted together from modules into a sphere.</p><p>Try to kick ISS shaped object like a soccer ball, and you will start to see what I mean.&nbsp;</p>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, you could do many kinds of things to a ball-shaped object, like kick a soccer for example, and it will hold together. Even soccer ball is stitched together from pieces, like this design would be bolted together from modules into a sphere.Try to kick ISS shaped object like a soccer ball, and you will start to see what I mean.&nbsp; Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>But, what is holding that soccer ball together?&nbsp; What is giving it its shape?&nbsp; Is it just the surface or something else? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But, what is holding that soccer ball together?&nbsp; What is giving it its shape?&nbsp; Is it just the surface or something else? <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Just the surface and the stitches. The balloon inside will help, ofcourse. <br /><br />But what I mean is that if you take a ISS shaped object with many different joints, one joint does not help another in keeping the structure together.</p><p>On a ISS shaped structure each joint between two modules has to bear the stress alone as if there were no other joints. On a ball shaped object one joint leads to another.&nbsp;</p>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here&nbsp;are some old NASA designs. I think&nbsp;a sphere would take too much lifting capacity, making it much more expensive. A wheel design would take less materiel. <br /> Posted by boris1961</DIV></p><p>Thanks again for the link. I need to make some rough calculations to determine how big one module might be.</p><p>I know the design works, because Empire didn't build Death Star into a sphere for no reason. Death Star had to be able to accelerate to Inter-stellar velocities, so they certainly knew what they were doing. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> </p>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just the surface and the stitches. The balloon inside will help, ofcourse. </DIV></p><p>That's the air pressure inside the ball, expanding against the lower air pressure outside the ball which keeps it rigid.&nbsp; The stitches keep the panels from bursting apart under pressure.&nbsp; In that kind of situation, if you made a spacestation out of it and then kicked it to escape velocity, the people inside would probably not be very happy.&nbsp; I wonder what the overpressure is on a soccerball when it is kicked? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But what I mean is that if you take a ISS shaped object with many different joints, one joint does not help another in keeping the structure together.On a ISS shaped structure each joint between two modules has to bear the stress alone as if there were no other joints. On a ball shaped object one joint leads to another.&nbsp; Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>That's load sharing behavior.&nbsp; But, is a sphere the best for this?</p><p>What are the advantages?&nbsp; As I see it, the advantage of a sphere (And I'm only talking about a durable, hard skin structure) is it maximizes volume of the structure with the least amount of materials. &nbsp; But, for a rigid structure, a simple sphere may not be good enough.&nbsp; You may need something like this:</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/7/97895acd-310e-4ec4-a701-fe64977c204b.Medium.png" alt="" /></p><p>Look familiar?</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/2/5c46cd0c-3f48-4f7c-8266-0b10ec1f7336.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>While the Epcot "Spaceship Earth" isn't a true "geodesic dome" as Buckminster Fuller visualized it, it's good enough to be recognizable. </p><p>This is different than a simple sphere or a soccer ball.&nbsp; In fact, this combines all the volume advantages of a sphere with the strengths and stability of the simple triangle form.&nbsp; Here, the stress is taken up by the "skin" itself, not having to rely on very many internal supports at all, much less air pressure.&nbsp; There's no need for "wedge shaped" pieces which use a LOT of surface area just to maintain integrity and provide stability for the overall structure.</p><p>But, does it do what you want it to do?</p><p>If you're worried about stress on the structure when accelerated, then this gives you the most bang for your buck if you're trying to optimize stress vs volume and materials.&nbsp; It's a pretty solid shape.</p><p>If you're worried about rotation, that may be something different.&nbsp; Sure, it's round but, that doesn't mean its going to hold up under rotation.&nbsp; Basically, you have to keep the parts from flying apart.&nbsp; The geodesic works really, really well on handling external forces exerting themselves against it, like gravity.&nbsp; But, you'd have to rely on the integrity of the shell without those forces to keep it together.&nbsp; Torque it down tight enough, and it might work, I suppose.</p><p>But, does it do what you want it to do efficiently?&nbsp; Volume, yes.&nbsp; Stress, yes.&nbsp; Artificial gravity?&nbsp; Maybe not.</p><p>Artificial gravity through rotation is dependent upon one's distance from the center of rotation.&nbsp; So, if we call one end of the sphere the "top" what would those in that area feel compared to when they moved down?&nbsp; They'd feel a greater effect as they reached the maximum distance from the rotation which would be along the outermost surface, farthest away from the center.</p><p>But, what would be the purpose of the artificial gravity? &nbsp; Presumably, it would be for health and convenience reasons, right?&nbsp; So, if you had a sphere and the "comfortably sorta normal" gravity feeling was only in the very middle section, that would mean that the rest of the sphere would not be efficient at providing that artificial gravity effect, wouldn't it?&nbsp; As the spherical geodesic is the most efficient structurally at containing volume, it's also the most wasteful structure possible if you are trying to maximize the efficiency of rotational artificial gravity.</p><p>This is where the break-even point has to be considered:&nbsp; What is it you wish to do?&nbsp; What are your concerns? What structure maximizes the total efficiency of the project?&nbsp; A geodesic handles a few of these very well but it's really, really terrible at efficiency when it comes to rotational gravity.&nbsp; If your structure is going to be spending a lot of time and effort maintaining artificial gravity throught rotation then that may be more important than maximizing volume/stress taking efficiency and even stresses associated with boosting as well.</p><p>That's why the "Toroidal" space station seems to be a good bet.&nbsp; With some structural supports, it helps to maximize the efficiency and probably would be able to handle a good deal of stress if constructed properly.</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/7/c5e07dac-d4f0-4d4a-87da-c86d24ae7c29.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>Sorry for the lengthy post.&nbsp; But, it is a very interesting subject.&nbsp; I just wanted to make sure I was covering as many bases as possible. </p><p>&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks again for the link. I need to make some rough calculations to determine how big one module might be.I know the design works, because Empire didn't build Death Star into a sphere for no reason. Death Star had to be able to accelerate to Inter-stellar velocities, so they certainly knew what they were doing. <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>You might like this: http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/SpinCalc.htm </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[literck1]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and it should be assembled using modules that look like slices of an orange. I would think the ball shape would provide optimal configuration for a rotating station plus the stresses would be distributed evenly. Boosting a sphere even to escape velocity should not be a problem, unlike the current ISS style configuration, that could not handle stresses very well.True, it's one more idea grabbed from sci-fi (Death Star), but if it turns out to be a viable configuration, it should be studied. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />It is my thought that a ring configuration would be more effective unless artificial gravity is used. The easiest way to produce a simulated gravitational force on a space station would be to rotate it. the outer portion would spin faster causing a higher gravity than the inner area. You could use concentric rings for various purposes depending on the desired gravitational force without haveing large quantities of the station being significantly different in gravitational levels. Most living areas should be about earth gravity for health reasons while work areas would see benefits for lower gravity but the multiple variences found in an orb shaped station would leave a lot of areas not very useful.

 

[aphh]

<p>Thanks for the interest in this thought, now I became interested in the potential volume and diameter of the orb and also the centripetal force, or as we say, artificial gravity, that could be generated.</p><p>I'd like to know what kind of artificial gravity the orb might generate on the equator on a given rotational velocity and what kind of diameter the orb might have. The smaller the diameter the faster the rotational velocity thus making larger variations in the artificial gravity between the inner parts and the "pole regions" compared to the rotational velocity at the equator of the orb.</p><p>This requires some calculations.&nbsp;</p>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is it you wish to do?<br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>I wish to create a space-station and a scientific outpost on a Mars orbit, that could last for a few decades and serve the purpose of a base for a manned Mars missions.&nbsp;</p><p>We would send the orb first to Mars and after that the manned crew on a smaller vehicle, which we will call the Mars Transit vehicle (MaTV).</p><p>As soon as the crew arrives to Mars, they would dock with the Orb station (OrS) and gradually started to adjust to gravity by slowly accelerating the rotational speed of their station. Once they are recovered from the transit and adjusted to Mars gravity, they could be sent to the surface for Mars ground operations. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p><p>I know it sounds like a product of a vivid imagination, because that's what it is.&nbsp;</p>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... I know it sounds like a product of a vivid imagination, because that's what it is. Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>Well, if it <u>HAS</u> to be a sphere, then..&nbsp; Here it is, a sci-fi concept Orbship:</p><p>GeoSphere external skeleton.&nbsp; Internal Torus connected to sphere with struts.&nbsp; Kevlar reinforced Mylar external shell, flexible.&nbsp; Acts as storage and holds reaction mass for engines.. dunno what, but, it's mass and lots of it.</p><p>External view</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/4/8beaa4f4-fdb1-4fa9-a40c-eed28f73a74e.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>Internal breakaway showing main torus. </p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/3/ffc47dfd-21a5-469c-a358-706d8db0d227.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>Ship arrives on station and begins to deconstruct the geodesic supports.</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/11/e694ed52-f75d-4634-9b1f-409d6e3d7be7.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/9/0ba0a21e-6bed-4a20-99c9-64f9f26054aa.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>The material from the supports is used to construct a central axis and struts.&nbsp; Engines are repositioned for rotation.</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/0/21cb08f7-aa7a-41f3-a073-ec589fec9837.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>There ya go. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>(Would it be feasible?&nbsp; Doubtful.&nbsp; Is it "neat."&nbsp; Yup.&nbsp; Similar designs have been used in Sci-Fi for "Generation Ships" although I don't know if anyone ever put a torus in one before.&nbsp; It's kind of like a water balloon on steroids with a surprise in it.)</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>That's a great design, thanks for the renderings. </p><p>One "problem" remains, though. The habitable space will still be a tunnel, like ISS (albeit a curved tunnel, but still). I think there's no escaping that, if the equator of the orb is going to have roughly 1G centrifugal acceleration.<br /><br /> I will try to make a sketch of my "slices of orange" design as soon as mundane issues permit.</p><p>I am going to use the geodesic polygon shape on the outer layer, because clearly that will add strength with practically no extra mass, even if the peel of the slice, or the module, is made of one piece of composite material.&nbsp;</p>

 

[Huntster]

<p>Rather than approach from the direction of finding a mission for a station design, you have to work from the other way around...find a design which fits the mission. However, since we have the sphere as a desired look...</p><p>Right now, one of the primary values of orbital research is precisely the environment in which it takes place: microgravity. Living areas would be in the equatorial region, to take maximum advantage of the artificial gravity. As you move up or down, however, gravity becomes less and less (which it also does as you move towards the core) due to the smaller and smaller radii, allowing for various degrees of low-gravity research.</p><p>One thing to remember is that the spherical "surface" could not possibly be the surface a crew would actually use, except in the equatorial region (if even then). If the sphere were spinning, and you tried to stand at the 45 degree point, you'd fall over sideways, since that isn't the direction gravity (or rather, inertia) is pulling you in. In other words, the sphere itself probably couldn't be used as part of the functional environment...merely an outer shell covering layers of habitable rings. The spaces between those rings and the shell could easily be filled with equipment and systems, but in terms of habitable/living space, it is wasted. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Rather than approach from the direction of finding a mission for a station design, you have to work from the other way around...find a design which fits the mission. <br /> Posted by Huntster</DIV></p><p>I think this is the solution for the manned Mars mission;</p><p>after months in transit in 0 gravity, the astronauts won't be fit to do work at the surface even in lesser than earth gravity. They need to be acclimated and rehabilited first for gravity conditions.</p><p>This is why the station at the Mars end will be for; the rotational velocity is increased gradually while the astronauts are being rehabilited.</p><p>This could be the way we will eventually do a manned Mars mission. The astronauts will need to know there will be infrastructure at Mars end ready to support them after the lengthy transit. &nbsp;</p>

 

[Huntster]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They need to be acclimated and rehabilited first for gravity conditions.</DIV></p><p>In that case, why not transport them to Mars in such a structure, so no rehabilitation is necessary? Send a single habitable craft toward Mars, rather than two (if I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly). Also, for such an application, a simple rotating torus would be more effective...a spherical station would be more useful for Earth orbit due to its microgravity research potential. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In that case, why not transport them to Mars in such a structure, so no rehabilitation is necessary? Send a single habitable craft toward Mars, rather than two (if I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly). Also, for such an application, a simple rotating torus would be more effective...a spherical station would be more useful for Earth orbit due to its microgravity research potential. <br /> Posted by Huntster</DIV></p><p>MOrS (Mars Orbital Station) will contain all of the redundancy needed for a long two-way mission. Hence it will be massive.&nbsp;</p><p>Boosting it to Mars may take awhile. For the astronauts the quickest transit possible will be used.</p><p>The only problem is how to make MOrS stay in 100% working condition without any maintenance during the period it takes for MOrS to travel to Mars and wait for the crew to arrive. <br /><br />This is a engineering problem, that need to be solved.&nbsp;</p>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..The only problem is how to make MOrS stay in 100% working condition without any maintenance during the period it takes for MOrS to travel to Mars and wait for the crew to arrive. This is a engineering problem, that need to be solved.&nbsp; Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>Well, we have all sorts of things make it to Mars and hang around for lengthy periods of time.&nbsp; I think it's only the matter of scale that would be a problem.&nbsp; That's lots and lots of systems that will be need to be checked periodically to make sure they're functioning.&nbsp; After all, we wouldn't want the crew to arrive and find out someone didn't pay the electric bill.&nbsp;</p><p> But, we've been using automated systems for decades.&nbsp; I don't see it as being a terribly insurmountable issue even if it was a very large station.&nbsp; However, it would probably be a good idea for the transit vessel carrying the crew to have enough resources availabe (either on ship or station) for an emergency abort return if necessary due to station systems failures. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, it would probably be a good idea for the transit vessel carrying the crew to have enough resources availabe (either on ship or station) for an emergency abort return if necessary due to station systems failures. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Exactly. Back-up plans need to include</p><p>- MaTV returning independently in case something went wrong at MOrS during the transit</p><p>- MOrS containing needed supplies and technology for a return ticket in case MaTV suffered a partial failure during transit.&nbsp;</p><p>(Plus, there may be sexier acronyms for the transit vehicle and the station, these were the ones that immediately came to mind <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />) </p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and it should be assembled using modules that look like slices of an orange. I would think the ball shape would provide optimal configuration for a rotating station plus the stresses would be distributed evenly. Boosting a sphere even to escape velocity should not be a problem, unlike the current ISS style configuration, that could not handle stresses very well.True, it's one more idea grabbed from sci-fi (Death Star), but if it turns out to be a viable configuration, it should be studied. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Stresses in a rotating sphere are not distributed uniformly.&nbsp; Stresses are higher farther away from the axis of rotation.</p><p>The only particular advantage that I see to a sphere is that it has maximum volume for a fixed surface area.&nbsp; There are advantages to other shapes if you wish to simulate gravite by imparting a rotaion.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>