space station with artificial gravity, can it be done cheap?

spacefire · May 12, 2005

can this be done? take two shuttles, and send them in space one last time. before you do that, chop off their vertical tails (pretty sure they don't need them during launch). If possible, chop off their wings too, remove landing gears and even the TPS. Mount a Spacehab module in the cargo bay of each shuttle. Adapt the shuttles for long duration flight, with the possiblity to replenish consumables. Also send a Node module like those used on the ISS. Dock the shuttles to the node as shown in the attached drawing (please be patient until it is approved). There will be plenty of ports on the node to allow for progress andf soyuz to dock with the contraption. Now the good bits: The configuration is symmetrical around the center of the node, it can be spun around this center of mass to create artificial gravity using the Shuttle's RCS thrusters. Just think of the possiblities! also see the second pic that shows the space -shuttle with the spacehab module docked with Mir. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

north_star_rising · May 12, 2005

Very Interesting Idea!? Hmm! Decommission the Shuttle Fleet, and use them as modules on a Station Facility!? Very Interesting Idea Indeed!? Hmm!

henryhallam · May 12, 2005

I think spin-gravity is overrated, it means heavier structures to handle the loads, complications on docking (axially isn't too bad), serious complications on orbital manoevering etc. The benefits aren't that great either - particularly for an Earth-orbiting station. A large majority of the science done or intended to be done at the ISS was there to take advantage of the microgravity conditions, and Earth and space observations are made pretty tricky when you're spinning round at a couple of RPM. On an Earth orbit station crews would probably be rotated every six months anyway, for psychological reasons and to let other people have a turn, so bone loss isn't much of a problem. There is more of a case for spinning habitats when going to Mars, but even there I don't think the trip time is long enough to make it necessary (particularly if the gravity on the Martian surface is strong enough to prevent most bone loss - this remains to be seen). For the outer planets it is probably a good idea. Bone loss etc can be prevented to some extent with exercise and carefully selected diet. Perhaps the biochemistry boys will come up with a wonder drug that fixes it altogether, that would be worth having. Also, the orbiters are not designed with long-duration flights in mind. Making them capable of that, plus the impact of removing the wings, tail and TPS, would certainly not be cheap. Better to make a proper shuttle-derived vehicle and launch your station on that.

spacefire · May 12, 2005

north_star: the shuttle fleet will be soon decomissioned anyway. why not use the hardware? henry: we're not talking Earth gravity here, just fractions of that. I believe there is scientific benefit from studying various levels of gravity, especially when you can vary the "g's" at will. also, people will be able to spend longer periods of time in space, with fewer of the bone-loss symptoms, if even a small stimulus of gravity is provided. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

north_star_rising · May 12, 2005

spacefire: "north_star, the shuttle fleet will be soon decommissioned anyway. why not use the hardware?" spacefire, I was agreeing with you!? ;-) "LOL..." If your going to use the shuttles just use them as is, and don't worry about cutting off tail and wings. They might be also used as emergency backups station egress protocols? They could also be outfitted for orbital refueling capability and used in orbit as orbital buses or transfer vehicles, to move materials and manpower around in Earths Orbit?? They have the navigations and propulsion systems to do this, and since they would no longer have to deal with launch or reentry forces, their life use time could be extended?? Using them in some kind of spun or gravity station would not be as feasible or may not even be practical?? However your idea of using them on orbit at the end of their operational launch & reentry life is a very interesting proposal!! I will give it some serious thought and investigation!

spacefire · May 12, 2005

north_star please check out the drawing, the tails will have to go. They can't fit with the configuration I proposed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

CalliArcale · May 12, 2005

Define "cheap". <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> That will basically determine the answer to your question. If you consider $50 billion cheap....then the answer is probably "yes". If you consider that expensive, then the answer is probably "no". The Orbiters cannot be used for this purpose without extensive modifications. At present, they cannot function in orbit for more than a month. So that's going to cost you a nice big chunk of change. Next you have to harness them together to get your space station. That's going to cost a lot more money. You'll also need to build a new electrical source for the shuttles; fuel cells are fantastic, but not useful for space stations. You need something that doesn't need refuelling for that, like solar panels. You'll also need to change the life support systems to systems more like those on the ISS, and come up with a way of docking for regular resupply. It can definintely be done. But I wouldn't consider it cheap, personally, regardless of whether or not you used Orbiters. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

najab · May 12, 2005

>The configuration is symmetrical around the center of the node, it can be spun around this center of mass to create artificial gravity using the Shuttle's RCS thrusters.It is symmetrical around the node, but the centre of mass in your configuration is nowhere near the 'node'. If you spun that configuration it would pretty quickly fly apart.

ve7rkt · May 12, 2005

Space station, can it be done cheap? No. Space station with artificial gravity, can it be done cheap? Hell no. Stand in the middle of your living room. Your arms are the shuttles, your shoulders are the node. Now spin really fast. Notice your your arms want to swing out? Not just that they want to move out, but swing, opening the angle away from your body? Your shoulders -- the node -- take that twisting force. Your arms -- the shuttles -- also have to be stiff enough not to bend. You might be able to offset some of this with a Cat's Cradle of tethers between the shuttle bodies. Unless you use a much longer node, the shuttles are awful close, you'd have to spin pretty fast to get any effect. Barf bags on standby. Lastly, can you imagine how difficult it would be to dock with a spinning hatch, between the two shuttle noses? No way. You need a tunnel with a counterrotating hatch, which means some funky seals, and... bah. Pass.

north_star_rising · May 12, 2005

najaB, As shown, yes you would be right! However, if the orbiters were separated by about 150 feet, with a node at the center of rotation and a crawl tube on either side of the node connecting to the shuttle "pods"; and a solid truss assembly from the Cargo Bays connecting both Shuttle "pods" together. This configuration could work. spacefire, However, I agree with CalliArcale about cost issues, but remember the shuttles are all ready paid for, so this will have some value I would assume? spacefire, Also, your comment about using shuttle thrusters for rotational control? They would not be properly positioned for this, but I guess if such a structure were built using decommissioned shuttles as construction elements, some form of thruster pods could be attached to the structure in some way, I guess?? The best part of your idea, which I see value too, and you may want to divert your original idea to capture! Is the idea of in some way, using the Shuttles on Orbit in "Some Way" other than totally writing them off! I have given a few of my ideas, which I see having value in this new idea. Your idea, if you really want to stick to your guns, and original idea of using these decommissioned shuttles as elements in some type of station infrastructure. My best advice, is that you focus on an ISS like structure, or addition to some future ISS expansion or additions. This I might think, garner some real interest in your very good idea, and may even be seriously considered, in one-way or another? It is great when people are not afraid to think outside the box, as this in many cases yields great ideas and solutions! Like in your case, and idea! Maybe your original idea, as in the Gravity Station Approach may not be workable, but your core idea of somehow using decommissioned shuttles on orbit in some manner, I think is a great idea, and should be looked into in a serious way!

crix · May 12, 2005

<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Haha! That's pretty goofy looking, but as naja and SG pointed out, unless there was some additional supports tieing the ships together at their torn out verticle tail location the configuration would quickly torque apart at the node interfaces. Plus you need a 35m radius from the "floor" to the axis of rotation to reach .3Gs and keep the angular velocity under 3rpm, the nausea threshold.

spacefire · May 12, 2005

everybody seems to assume that I intend to create pretty sizable gravity. That's not the case. I know the thing would fly apart at the docking ports if they are overstressed. I don't know the exact critical RPM. In any case, the structure can be strengthened very easily: tether the shuttles and let that take care of the brunt of the centrifugal force. There are scientific studies that can be done at various gravitational acelerations, even those much below Earth's. Plus, even at very low gravity, the crew will be more comfortable than at zero G how can you dock? who says it has to be spinning when a craft is docking? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

north_star_rising · May 12, 2005

?? What does that mean! ??

ve7rkt · May 12, 2005

how can you dock? who says it has to be spinning when a craft is docking? Another post on the board today pegs the current mass of the ISS around 480,000lbs, approx. 220,000kg; each STS orbiter is close to 100,000kg, plus the mass of your docking node, tethers, and whatever gear you have to add to an orbiter to keep it alive for longer than a month. So, call them roughly the same mass. Well, you're going to have to make an awful lot of fuel runs if you're going to spin up and spin down a space station with as much mass as the whole ISS every time you want to deliver the mail. Even if you're not spinning that fast, it's a lot of mass to move. A space station with artificial gravity is an excellent idea, but I don't think we need a space station with four wings, two heat shields, six SSME's... etc. This isn't what the shuttles were designed to be, and in my mind, adapting shuttles to this role is kind of like trying to make a Honda Civic (read 'Focus' if you prefer domestics) into a sportscar, when it would have been cheaper and more effective to buy a Prelude (read 'Mustang') in the first place. The really useful parts of your station are the Spacehab modules, right? 200 ton station packing ~40 tons of hab. So how about six Spacehabs, in two clusters of three, each one laid out inside like a micro-Skylab, like a skyscraper instead of an airliner. String them together with the lightest truss you can make that will take the weight. You'd get many times the habitable volume, and your astronauts would stay fit because they'd have to climb to get *anywhere*. It doesn't solve the docking problem, though. Another reason for a counterrotating section is that the parking lot of flimsy solar panels required to keep a space station happy may not take kindly to spinning, so having a point where they can attach without spinning would be a good idea. You might be able to power a station l

scottb50 · May 12, 2005

I think a more reasonable means is to use Common Modules, that would start life as Second Stages and be outfitted in orbit then connected to one another to form vehicles. If Modules could connect end to end and side by side it would be easy to assemble any configuration you want. In it's simplest form a central Module would have four Modules attached with a single Module at each end, Add four more Modules to the Central Module or another Central Module to expand the vehicle. Add Modules to the radial Modules and gravity can be increased while keeping rotational speed constant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacefire · May 13, 2005

Calie and najaB have it right. It is a poor idea. Even if you solve the problems they noted the center of mass being so far from the node is a real show stopper The loads as najaB nated and the "gravitational" Force in the node and Orbiter crew modules would not alingn with the "Floor". The center of rotation is way too small due to the short moment arm, the crew would get motion sickness. BIG PROBLEM: the Waste Management Compartment ( lue or potty or tolet whatever you want to called it)bath would be upside down. the gravitational force would be aligned with the floor of the orbiter. Please don't tell me spacehab is upside down in relation to the floor of the orbiter. I have to apologize for my first picture, it was just a quick sketch to show the overall arrangement. If you look at the photo of the Spacehab equipped shuttle docked with Mir, you will see the adapter is quite long. The radius of the system would be larger than just half a node and the height of the orbiter. Again i have to say I don't know what loads all these ports and adapters are rated for. Additional structure might be needed. The system might be too expensive or too heavy. Unless a real study is done, we can't know. But I do like the idea of recycling old hardware and making something useful that hasn't been done before with it. .........................<---------------- center of mass would ...... ____|..|...............____ be around here .... /****|_ |_______|***| *********************| *****SHUTTLE*******/ .............|........................... ............V centrifugal force towards the outside only problem I see is the shuttles pulling apart from the node with a moment arm generated from the node not being at the location of the center of mass on the longitudinal axis. A tether can solve that problem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

spacefire · May 13, 2005

neevrmind, I am not sure about how the Shuttle WITH Spacehab would look connected to the Node. this one looks like it's almost stuck in the Node, but is it a mission that includes the Spacehab? http://ams.cern.ch/AMS/DrawBack/cern/Pictures/shuttle@iss.gif <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

spacefire · May 13, 2005

yes I understand, but I've seen photos/renderings that show the Shuttle docked various ways, and I was wondering if the presence of the SpaceHab module would dictate that a longer adapter be used on the docking port that extends 'up'. Regarding your previous point, I had another idea on how to reinforce the structure at the rear, without huge weight increase. That is besides 'tying' the shuttles together. The vertical tails need not be chopped off completely. The stubs can be fitted with simple attaching points and the two shuttles can be linked that way also, to provide extra strength. Asssuming that not even gravity of the order of 1/10 of Earh is impossible, the idea still has merits because it would provide a space station with high habitable volume. Or, one of the shuttles can fit a spacehab and the other a fuel tank in the Cargo bay, that would service the OMS in both shuttles and the contraption would make a decent orbital tug: In each of the OMS pods, gaseous helium pressure is supplied to helium isolation valves and dual pressure regulators, which supply regulated helium pressure to the fuel and oxidizer tanks. The fuel is monomethyl hydrazine and the oxidizer is nitrogen tetroxide. The propellants are Earth-storable liquids at normal temperatures. They are pressure-fed to the propellant distribution system through tank isolation valves to the OMS engines. The OMS engine propellant ball valves are positioned by the gaseous nitrogen system and control the flow of propellants into the engine. The fuel is directed first through the engine combustion chamber walls and provides regenerative cooling of the chamber walls; it then flows into the engine injector. The oxidizer goes directly to the engine injector. The propellants are sprayed into the combustion chamber, where they atomize and ignite upon contact with each other (hypergolic), producing a hot gas and, thus, thrust. Each OMS <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

CalliArcale · May 13, 2005

Since in theory, everything is possible, you could modify the Orbiters to stay on-orbit indefinintely. Theoretically. However, I strongly doubt there would be any point in doing so. It would be extremely costly, and you'd be left with most of your spacecraft mass being essentially wasted -- you will never use the wings, the landing gear, the control surfaces, the tail, the SSMEs, or the many tiles and RCC panels used to endure reentry. There's a heck of a lot of mass in that vehicle that has nothing to do with on-orbit operations; it's just there to get the vehicle up into orbit and back down to the ground safely. Also, although you don't really notice this watching NASA TV, the habitable volume of a space shuttle is not very big. For all the size of an Orbiter, very little of it is dedicated for the crew. So I don't think you'll really get enough out of the refitted Orbiters to justify the expense of refitting them. I strongly suspect it would be much more cost-effective to simply start from scratch and build a complete new station with modules designed specifically for it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

mental_avenger · May 14, 2005

Spacefire, Please resize your drawing to 650 pixels wide by 395 pixels high and resubmit it. That will keep the screen width within the limits of most browsers and eliminate this scrolling back and force to read text. Thank you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

holmec · May 15, 2005

Hey. I have thought about this a lot. If you want the whole space station to have spin gravity, you can make a wheel or a star out of the station or parallell hulls. Lots of configurations. To dock. I came up with a way to do this that was natural to a wheel station. On the outer edge, build a runway. Yes a runway. If you have artificial gravity you might as well use its properties rather than working around it. A shuttle of sorts with wheels can land on the spinning runway, obviously perpendicular to he centrifical force produced by the station. (This station has to be huge, as large as a city and the ship relatively small). Now, if you only want part of the station to create artificial gravity. You have to determine when and what functions. That is you can have only certain modules have artificial gravity, like where you sleep. Or where you grow plants. Depending on what we learn from the human body. If you do it like this, the cost could very well be feasable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

jurgens · May 15, 2005

holmec, I assume you have taken many courses in physics? Nor have you ever watched 2001: A Space Odyssey. The way the ship docked to the station in 2001 is the best way to dock to a rotating station. Sorry to sound insulting, but it takes just a few seconds to realize that you're idea would either a)not work or b) require too much thrust

nacnud · May 15, 2005

(c) leave an orbiter shaped hole in the rim. 1,000s of kg of orbiter on a few mm of aluminium wouldn't be pretty.

jurgens · May 15, 2005

how would you do that nacnud? If that station is circling to provide centripetal acceleration, your going to have to be constantly changing your position in order to be directly infront of the orbiter shaped hole in the rim.

nacnud · May 15, 2005

I think you missunderstood, if you tryed to land the orbiter on the inside rim of a spinning space station once up to speed it would be too heavy for the rim to suport and would punch a hole straight through it.

space station with artificial gravity, can it be done cheap?

spacefire

Guest

north_star_rising

Guest

henryhallam

Guest

spacefire

Guest

north_star_rising

Guest

spacefire

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

najab

Guest

ve7rkt

Guest

north_star_rising

Guest

crix

Guest

spacefire

Guest

north_star_rising

Guest

ve7rkt

Guest

scottb50

Guest

spacefire

Guest

spacefire

Guest

spacefire

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

holmec

Guest

jurgens

Guest

nacnud

Guest

jurgens

Guest

nacnud

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page