Self deploying space station

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pmn1

Guest
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/selation.htm<br /><br />This link give details of a folding rotating space station that could be deployed by a Saturn V - does anyone have any cost figures? <br /><br />Also does anyone have any information on the von Braun station with inflatable elements mentioned in the last part of the text. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
Twenty-one people on board working in shifts -- how cool is that?<br /><br />If Ares V ever gets off the ground, maybe people will start dreaming big again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
That is a great design. I doubt we'll ever see a NASA station of this design though, too expensive. Maybe it could be picked up by a mining interest & used as a facility to house the miners & process the materials harvested from asteroids or comets. <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>
 
D

docm

Guest
Bigelow <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> Bigelow </i><br /><br />Aww, you beat me to it! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />That Saturn-era deployable station would have been great! Just like all the other abandoned Apollo Applications. Moving forward with the VSE and ESAS, we as citizens must somehow help to make sure that they are implemented in a sustainable way. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
At 10 meters diameter & around 85 tons, I wonder if the SpaceX BFR could handle it? (if Elon gets to build it!!!) <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>
 
D

docm

Guest
Well, the 'big' fairing on the Falcon 9 is 4.6 meters with 27,500 kg to LEO for the Heavy, so BFR would require more than doubling its fairing diameter and tripling its throw weight...actual mass listed is 77,200 kg and that includes an Apollo...presuming they don't figure a way to shave weight off the station using updated materials & fab techniques. <br /><br />Also interesting;<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Alternative station configurations included purely circular rims, using inflatable elements, as in von Braun's original design of the 1950's</b><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Bigelow indeed....<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
P

pmn1

Guest
I've mentioned this before but there is an article in the December 1991 issue of Journal of the British Interplanetary Society by Michael A Mintovitch of Phaser Telepropulsion Inc that uses an inflatable kevlar toroid automatically wrapped in alumium after inflation by machines similar to those uses on oil pipes to make a 200 metre diameter station similar to that in 2001 but with the central hub 232 metres long and 10 metres diameter and the toroidal living section having a diameter of 4 metres. The central hub has hangers for up to 6 OTV.<br /><br />Crew 150 - 200<br /><br />Total weight in the region of 1,030,000kg to be carried up in 14 Shuttle C and 1 standard Shuttle launch.<br /><br />A similar craft would be used as ainterplanetary transfer ship.<br /><br />The author has suggested a cost of 400 billion dollars for an earth orbit station, a Mars orbit station and a cycling ship. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Heh, heh...is that 400 billion in 1991 dollars?<br /><br />If so it's at least a trillion now <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
The thing I don't get about a massive payload on any HLV, is why would it even need a payload fairing? Build the payload so that it is in the natural shape needed, whether the "fairing" becomes radiators, MMOD shields or the aerobrake/shell for a Mars flight. I know this involves aerodynamics and limiting mass on payload, but these can be turned to an advantage. It also allows a payload designer to have some flexibility in maximum diameter if they are flying on HLV and "packing" the craft like this. Thoughts?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
The Ares V could handle it with almost 60 tons to spare. You could conceivably put the station in LEO along with a propulsion Buss & a substantial amount of propellant. <br />The only info I could find on the BFR said it would be in the range of 100 tons to LEO. Even if it was under be 15 tons it could still deliver the station. <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>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
Actually that is the very thinking we need more of. No more disposable parts in LEO, everything needs to be used as something else. The infrastructure to do this will require a substantial first investment, but it will save big bucks in the end. <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>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"The thing I don't get about a massive payload on any HLV, is why would it even need a payload fairing?"<br /><br />Because spacecraft are very fragile. MMOD, Radiators, solar arrays, etc are not designed to take aero loads in the range of 600 to 1400 lb sq ft. MMOD shields are just thin sheet metal. the mass of the fairing is less than the addition mass and othe impacts to the spacecraft <br /><br />It also complicates the design of the launch vehicle and the integration. Another organization is now responsible for the aeroloads.
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> Because spacecraft are very fragile</i><br /><br />That might be an argument for more robust craft, except for your very salient observation below. Spacecraft that were less capable in some way but significantly tougher might be more suited to exploration tasks. Vehicles like the proposed lunar lander, Soyuz-to-the-Moon or Bigelow Nautilus/Sundancer are all going to need a certain level of ruggedness on the surface. Is this a different ruggedness to MaxQ? Sure, but can parts (like third stages, LAS and aeroshells) be used to enable/enhance Mars-bound craft?<br /><br /><i>> It also complicates the design of the launch vehicle and the integration. Another organization is now responsible for the aeroloads.</i><br /><br />Interesting explanation, thanks. That would be a deal-breaker from an engineering standpoint. <br /><br />On the flip side, what about using a payload fairing for Mars aerobrake? It's already a huge piece of material - just cover it in tiles. The only problem would seem to be that the fairing is usually attached to a third stage so it has to be a single package through TMI.<br /><br />I think the Bigelow modules are the "real deal" on self-deploying stations. No, they don't have spin-G (yet), but they are becoming the go-to guys for this sort of inflatable craft. Inflation isn't a big deal, the L'Garde inflatables usually expand in seconds to minutes, as does Bigelow gear. The real issue is always going to be the systems inside. What we need to enable some of the "space cadet" things is purchasable modules, and they look to be delivering. If there is a demand for a BFR and Spin station, they'll eventually have that, too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
<Build the payload so that it is in the natural shape needed, whether the "fairing" becomes ...or the aerobrake/shell for a Mars flight. I know this involves aerodynamics and limiting mass on payload, but these can be turned to an advantage. It also allows a payload designer to have some flexibility in maximum diameter if they are flying on HLV and "packing" the craft like this. Thoughts?><br /><br />Combining the payload fairing with an aeroshell can save mass, but don't forget the aerodynamic aspects of a payload fairing. Look at the payload to orbit differences created by payload fairings of different diameters for the Atlas V. The larger 5m diameter 'hammerhead' payload fairing has significantly less payload to orbit than the smaller fairing because of the greater drag of the larger diameter fairing.<br /><br />
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"proposed lunar lander, Soyuz-to-the-Moon or Bigelow Nautilus/Sundancer are all going to need a certain level of ruggedness on the surface."<br /><br /><br />The Apollo LM was strictly a "spacecraft", no ruggedness<br />Soyuz uses a fairing<br />and an inflatable would need a fairing
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> The Apollo LM was strictly a "spacecraft", no ruggedness<br />Soyuz uses a fairing<br />and an inflatable would need a fairing</i><br /><br />How long would an Apollo LM have lasted as an exploration craft? A couple of weeks? That's just systems, to, never mind fragile components and human error. For a long-term module, it can't be so thin you can kick a wall panel out. We're talking about systems that need to work reliably for months or years on a dusty, abrasive surface. LEO is a much more benign environment in some ways than the Moon or Mars. <br /><br />I capitulate on the fairing-as-spacecraft, it doesn't make sense in the current context. Soyuz indeed does use a fairing, what I was getting at is something more like a really big "Kliper" or "OSP", but that isn't in the cards yet.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts