Gravitiy space stations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
Why is it that all space stations that have been created use 0 g? With the countless proposals and ideas for centrifugal effects on a space station to produce a bit of gravity, maybe we should give this a try. Is it possible to add a "gravity" module to the ISS that can simulate .5 Gs? I have a feeling that if there was such a module then we would be able to learn a lot from it.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
Wikipedia":3gob3kuh said:
U.S. President Barack Obama's 2011 budget contains money for extending the ISS and this could allow procuring a new centrifuge for the International Space Station.

Hm, too bad they decided to cancel it. To get up to 1 G though that thing probably has to do a lot of RPMs, not the best way to simulate gravity in space. Better than nothing though. Let's hope that they decide to add it on after all.
 
G

Gravity_Ray

Guest
People have been thinking about pseudo gravity in space by using a spinning space ship and using inertia and the centripetal force to cause objects and people to press against the outer rim of the station since 1903 (as far as I know this was proposed by the Russian scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky). Had to look that up in Wiki

This has been brought up again and again by people like Herman Noordung and Wernher Von Braun. The best example and the most complete idea is from Von Braun for his spacecraft for Mars. It was to be a rotating wheel with a diameter of 250 feet and 3 decks. It was to rotate at 3 RPM and would give one-third pseudo gravity for a crew of about 80.

The ISS was actually designed to be a micro gravity space station because there was still (and is still) so much to understand about the micro gravity environment and the effects of space on a manmade structure. So the ISS is built for the purpose its serving.

So here are the main problems with creating pseudo gravity by spinning a space ship.


1. It could get nauseating in that ship due to coriolis force. Nobody is really sure how humans will react. This can be countered a bit by making the ship big (which is what Von Braun did).

2. Its going to be very expensive to build this thing. In case you haven’t read in the various posts here we don’t have a heavy lift rocket right now (actually nobody has a heavy lift rocket right now). So imagine how many rockets you have to launch to put that much mass up there, and how many more rockets you have to launch to put people there to build that rocket.

3. Assembling and then pressurizing this monster is no easy task, I would actually call it a formidable task.


It is within the technical ability of the human race to do this thing right now, but it most certainly is not within the budget of any space program (not even all of them combined) to do this project. Basically the most complicated structure ever built in the history of mankind is the ISS (there have been more complicated things, but they were not in space), and it pails compared to this rotating space ship.
 
S

scottb50

Guest
Gravity_Ray":3vwjgs9s said:
Basically the most complicated structure ever built in the history of mankind is the ISS (there have been more complicated things, but they were not in space), and it pails compared to this rotating space ship.

It doesn't have to be that difficult. Say two or three 20x30 foot modules on each end, attached by a tunnel. a rotating hub would attach to the bulk of the ship. One end could be the Command deck the other crew quarters. A midpoint transfer would allow access to the rest of the ship.
 
J

James_Bull

Guest
scottb50":2rx4t3mw said:
Gravity_Ray":2rx4t3mw said:
Basically the most complicated structure ever built in the history of mankind is the ISS (there have been more complicated things, but they were not in space), and it pails compared to this rotating space ship.

It doesn't have to be that difficult. Say two or three 20x30 foot modules on each end, attached by a tunnel. a rotating hub would attach to the bulk of the ship. One end could be the Command deck the other crew quarters. A midpoint transfer would allow access to the rest of the ship.

Exactly, it can be as simple as that. The center zeroG module could house the propulsion. We dont have to build battlestar galactica. Still, a heavy lift rocket would be a must...
 
M

MarkStanaway

Guest
'It doesn't have to be that difficult. Say two or three 20x30 foot modules on each end, attached by a tunnel. a rotating hub would attach to the bulk of the ship. One end could be the Command deck the other crew quarters. A midpoint transfer would allow access to the rest of the ship.'

Over the long term there may be some problems with the durability of the bearings between the spinning hub and the despun section of the ship. There is also the issue of access between the two sections of the ship without stopping the rotation every time a crew member wants move between them. It would be like jumping out of a lift while it is still moving between floors.
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
Gravity_Ray":1dnturkf said:
People have been thinking about pseudo gravity in space by using a spinning space ship and using inertia and the centripetal force to cause objects and people to press against the outer rim of the station since 1903 (as far as I know this was proposed by the Russian scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky). Had to look that up in Wiki

This has been brought up again and again by people like Herman Noordung and Wernher Von Braun. The best example and the most complete idea is from Von Braun for his spacecraft for Mars. It was to be a rotating wheel with a diameter of 250 feet and 3 decks. It was to rotate at 3 RPM and would give one-third pseudo gravity for a crew of about 80.

The ISS was actually designed to be a micro gravity space station because there was still (and is still) so much to understand about the micro gravity environment and the effects of space on a manmade structure. So the ISS is built for the purpose its serving.

So here are the main problems with creating pseudo gravity by spinning a space ship.


1. It could get nauseating in that ship due to coriolis force. Nobody is really sure how humans will react. This can be countered a bit by making the ship big (which is what Von Braun did).

2. Its going to be very expensive to build this thing. In case you haven’t read in the various posts here we don’t have a heavy lift rocket right now (actually nobody has a heavy lift rocket right now). So imagine how many rockets you have to launch to put that much mass up there, and how many more rockets you have to launch to put people there to build that rocket.

3. Assembling and then pressurizing this monster is no easy task, I would actually call it a formidable task.


It is within the technical ability of the human race to do this thing right now, but it most certainly is not within the budget of any space program (not even all of them combined) to do this project. Basically the most complicated structure ever built in the history of mankind is the ISS (there have been more complicated things, but they were not in space), and it pails compared to this rotating space ship.

Well that is all assuming that you build a space station with both zero-g and spinning component. In such a space station you would need to devise a sophisticated way of connecting the two. All of the shared resources including power, air supply, heating and cooling have to use some interface that will allow them to spin.

However on the other hand if you were to simply have the entire space station spin it would make things a hell of a lot easier, simpler, and cheaper. All spacecraft have maneuvering thrusters that will spin the spacecraft so that it can change orientation. One could easily design a space station that uses its maneuvering thrusters to start spinning in orbit.

Of course the station would have to stop spinning when it needs to dock with another spacecraft.
 
J

James_Bull

Guest
MarkStanaway":20au131s said:
'It doesn't have to be that difficult. Say two or three 20x30 foot modules on each end, attached by a tunnel. a rotating hub would attach to the bulk of the ship. One end could be the Command deck the other crew quarters. A midpoint transfer would allow access to the rest of the ship.'

Over the long term there may be some problems with the durability of the bearings between the spinning hub and the despun section of the ship. There is also the issue of access between the two sections of the ship without stopping the rotation every time a crew member wants move between them. It would be like jumping out of a lift while it is still moving between floors.

I was under the impression the whole thing would be spinning. It would obviously become impractical to move between the 3 modules if the center one was stationary.
 
R

rockett

Guest
If this article and the sources it cites are correct, we will need to come up with something if we are ever going to send an expedition beyond the moon...

Trip to Mars Would Turn Astronauts Into Weaklings
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/astronauts-muscle-loss-long-space-missions-100818.html

Prolonged exposure to weightlessness could cause astronauts to lose more than 40 percent of their muscle strength even with regular exercise, researchers said. On a long voyage, a healthy 30- to 50-year-old astronaut could end up with the strength of an 80-year-old
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
rockett":241ylvoe said:
If this article and the sources it cites are correct, we will need to come up with something if we are ever going to send an expedition beyond the moon...

Trip to Mars Would Turn Astronauts Into Weaklings
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/astronauts-muscle-loss-long-space-missions-100818.html

Prolonged exposure to weightlessness could cause astronauts to lose more than 40 percent of their muscle strength even with regular exercise, researchers said. On a long voyage, a healthy 30- to 50-year-old astronaut could end up with the strength of an 80-year-old

That article was assuming it would take 10 months to a year to get to Mars. I've heard estimates that it would only take 5-6 months, about the same as a stay on the ISS. It's possible to go the whole way there with zero-g but it would be better to simulate gravity with centrifugal effects to minimize the effects of prolonged weightlessness.
 
R

rockett

Guest
Yuri_Armstrong":1xs76l91 said:
rockett":1xs76l91 said:
If this article and the sources it cites are correct, we will need to come up with something if we are ever going to send an expedition beyond the moon...

Trip to Mars Would Turn Astronauts Into Weaklings
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/astronauts-muscle-loss-long-space-missions-100818.html

Prolonged exposure to weightlessness could cause astronauts to lose more than 40 percent of their muscle strength even with regular exercise, researchers said. On a long voyage, a healthy 30- to 50-year-old astronaut could end up with the strength of an 80-year-old

That article was assuming it would take 10 months to a year to get to Mars. I've heard estimates that it would only take 5-6 months, about the same as a stay on the ISS. It's possible to go the whole way there with zero-g but it would be better to simulate gravity with centrifugal effects to minimize the effects of prolonged weightlessness.
Even so, by the time they made it home, they would still be in bad shape, remember, Mars only has 1/4 G. Thinking in terms of a round trip, it would be pretty bad.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
rockett":28sa7awg said:
Even so, by the time they made it home, they would still be in bad shape, remember, Mars only has 1/4 G. Thinking in terms of a round trip, it would be pretty bad.

Once they get to Mars their bones and muscles would already start improving due to the gravity. More study and math will need to be done to see how long they should stay on Mars so they could have a body worth coming back to on Earth. If they combined that with a shorter trip time of maybe 3 to 4 months and agressive exercise and diet then there may not be a need for artifical gravity.
 
R

rockett

Guest
Yuri_Armstrong":1vjz1zt2 said:
rockett":1vjz1zt2 said:
Even so, by the time they made it home, they would still be in bad shape, remember, Mars only has 1/4 G. Thinking in terms of a round trip, it would be pretty bad.

Once they get to Mars their bones and muscles would already start improving due to the gravity. More study and math will need to be done to see how long they should stay on Mars so they could have a body worth coming back to on Earth. If they combined that with a shorter trip time of maybe 3 to 4 months and agressive exercise and diet then there may not be a need for artifical gravity.
Maybe so, but if you think about it in a practical sense, doing that would be somewhat counter-productive. All those hours spent exercising could be better spent on other tasks. More than likely we will see something like this:
33573main_rotate_med.gif

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/keeping_astronauts_healthy.html
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
rockett":1ly5cri8 said:
Maybe so, but if you think about it in a practical sense, doing that would be somewhat counter-productive. All those hours spent exercising could be better spent on other tasks. More than likely we will see something like this:
33573main_rotate_med.gif

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/keeping_astronauts_healthy.html

That's definitely true and I hope we see centrifugal effect used while the astronauts are going there. But there's a possibility someone (probably in administration/management) will decide to go weightless because it may be cheaper or something.
 
R

rockett

Guest
Yuri_Armstrong":2ufktqsr said:
That's definitely true and I hope we see centrifugal effect used while the astronauts are going there. But there's a possibility someone (probably in administration/management) will decide to go weightless because it may be cheaper or something.
I hope not. Sending out "intrepid explorers" only to have them return as "spineless jellyfish" would not be good PR for space missions.
 
P

planetling

Guest
MarkStanaway":3ul1exap said:
Over the long term there may be some problems with the durability of the bearings between the spinning hub and the despun section of the ship.


MagLev
 
R

rockett

Guest
Not sure why you would want a stationary hub in the first place with a sufficiently large diameter. Just roll the spcecraft to match rotation and dock, just like in 2001 a Space Odyssey.
SH13G13.jpg
 
P

planetling

Guest
rockett":3nulm4pj said:
Not sure why you would want a stationary hub in the first place with a sufficiently large diameter. Just roll the spcecraft to match rotation and dock, just like in 2001 a Space Odyssey.

That would be great and definately worth the persuit. For smaller stations MagLev would seem to be ideal. Both designs would have purpose depending on the mission; maybe a living "city" habitat and research center for the larger, a basic long range transport for the smaller. If I was a multi-billionaire I would keep 2 or 3 mil for myself and donate the rest for such projects!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts