Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Spinnin' Space stations

Spinnin' Space stations

Posted by: SuperShuki - Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:08 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 45 posts ] 
Spinnin' Space stations 
Author Message
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 9:47 pm
Posts: 821
Location: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) - capital of Israel!
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:59 pm
>>>
because of it's high tensile strength, approx 3.6GPa. The cross-section area of the tether would have to be 100,000N/3,600,000,000Nm^2 = 0.00002778m^2 = 27.78mm^2 or about 6mm in diameter. That doesn't seem so bad.
<<<
What's Gpa? What's the relationship between tensile strength to tether length and diameter?

_________________
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”
-Anonymous


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:55 am
Posts: 139
Location: Amsterdam
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:14 pm
GPa = gigapascal

o=F/A

where o is the mechanical property of the material before it will break
F = force
A =area

Now we know it not that hard to keep a rotating station from breaking apart (in its most fundamental way)

cheers,

c


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:25 pm
Posts: 160
Location: Ireland
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:33 pm
SuperShuki wrote:
>>>
because of it's high tensile strength, approx 3.6GPa. The cross-section area of the tether would have to be 100,000N/3,600,000,000Nm^2 = 0.00002778m^2 = 27.78mm^2 or about 6mm in diameter. That doesn't seem so bad.
<<<
What's Gpa? What's the relationship between tensile strength to tether length and diameter?


Did you even read my post all the way through? I eliminated tether length from the equation, it just doesn't matter until it is long enough to contribute a significant percentage of the entire mass of the system.
As for GPa, you claimed to know how to use google in an earlier post...

johno


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:47 am
Posts: 521
Location: Science Park, Cambridge, UK
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:39 am
SuperShuki wrote:
>>>
because of it's high tensile strength, approx 3.6GPa. The cross-section area of the tether would have to be 100,000N/3,600,000,000Nm^2 = 0.00002778m^2 = 27.78mm^2 or about 6mm in diameter. That doesn't seem so bad.
<<<
What's Gpa? What's the relationship between tensile strength to tether length and diameter?


The length of the tether or diameter doesn't affect tensile strength. As previous post states, the length only becomes relevant when it is large enough that the mass of the tether starts to have an appreciable effect.

Look it up on Wikipedia for more information.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 9:47 pm
Posts: 821
Location: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) - capital of Israel!
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:47 pm
johno wrote:
SuperShuki wrote:
>>>
because of it's high tensile strength, approx 3.6GPa. The cross-section area of the tether would have to be 100,000N/3,600,000,000Nm^2 = 0.00002778m^2 = 27.78mm^2 or about 6mm in diameter. That doesn't seem so bad.
<<<
What's Gpa? What's the relationship between tensile strength to tether length and diameter?


Did you even read my post all the way through? I eliminated tether length from the equation, it just doesn't matter until it is long enough to contribute a significant percentage of the entire mass of the system.
As for GPa, you claimed to know how to use google in an earlier post...

johno

I didn't scroll down far enough on the window in the bablyon translation software, so I thought it wasn't a real term, maybe a typing error.

_________________
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”
-Anonymous


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:54 pm
.

I've proposed to make SOON a (relatively) LOW COST space station with ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY reusing the future ATV launched to the ISS

full description and ISS-2 animation here: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/054atvstation.html

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:23 am
Posts: 195
Location: Lincoln, England
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:10 am
I'm now doubting the docking ring of the ATV is going to be man enough use as a structural support for a small spinning arrangement, however, if we could have a quick chat with Mr Bigelow, I think I may have another use for those pods.

One inflateable core cylinder, which has four or eight docking collars, to which, ATV's could be docked. I imagine that the inflateable nature of the central cylinder might make a less than robust docking position, however, once in place, rigid braces could be employed to stabalise the whole assembly.

This section as a whole, may not be the safest place on the station, but for space and storage, I can think of far worse.

_________________
Sean Girling

Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:43 pm
Posts: 4
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:12 pm
Anybody like this idea?

http://www.osmdevel.org/projects/4

(image linked from own site)
Image


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:25 pm
Posts: 160
Location: Ireland
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:04 am
What is it made of? Apart from pixels.
How big is it? Ignoring screen DPI.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:43 pm
Posts: 4
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:23 am
Image

The material chosen for use may depend upon its tensile strength and deflection characteristics, but for the sake of the version 1.0 design, it would be an aluminum alloy framework with a bi-layer of two thin sheets with a honeycomb pattern in between - creating a wall thickness of just over 1.5 inches.


The other project in question is the site that picture is hosted on - which is shaping up to be a collaborative development environment / funding aggregation point for project development. Take a look at it if you're interested.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
User avatar
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:15 am
Posts: 27
Location: Québec
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:27 am
Is the space station 5 from 2001 really possible? Wouldnt it need to roll really fast to create the necessary gravity?

_________________
Gygantar

"What matters is not the destination, but the Odyssey!"


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:47 am
Posts: 521
Location: Science Park, Cambridge, UK
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:46 am
Depends on the diameter. The larger the diameter the slower the rotation required. You have to get to a certain size to stop tidal effects across parts of the body though (where the head has a appreciably different gravity to the feet).

Google is your friend for working it all out. Wolfram/Alpha could help also.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
User avatar
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:15 am
Posts: 27
Location: Québec
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:12 pm
JamesHughes wrote:
Depends on the diameter. The larger the diameter the slower the rotation required. You have to get to a certain size to stop tidal effects across parts of the body though (where the head has a appreciably different gravity to the feet).

Google is your friend for working it all out. Wolfram/Alpha could help also.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/



We definitly need a gravity generator to keep us on our feet in a ship. It would help us fight inertia effect, and the weightlesness effect on the body of astronauts.

_________________
Gygantar

"What matters is not the destination, but the Odyssey!"


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:47 am
Posts: 521
Location: Science Park, Cambridge, UK
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:18 am
Gygantar wrote:
JamesHughes wrote:
Depends on the diameter. The larger the diameter the slower the rotation required. You have to get to a certain size to stop tidal effects across parts of the body though (where the head has a appreciably different gravity to the feet).

Google is your friend for working it all out. Wolfram/Alpha could help also.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/



We definitly need a gravity generator to keep us on our feet in a ship. It would help us fight inertia effect, and the weightlesness effect on the body of astronauts.


We could also do with an FTL drive and an inertia reducer.

Problem being that no-one knows how to make any of those things. If indeed they are even theoretically possible.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 930
Location: Columbus, GA USA
Post Re: Spinnin' Space stations   Posted on: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:21 am
Shalrath wrote:
Anybody like this idea?


While rectangular structures fit together nicely and are volumetriclly more practical (if not absolutely as efficient), you wind up paying whatever you gain by that in having to beef up the structure to make up for the inherent weakness of a "box". A compromise might be a rounded hexagonal structure where you can bond the flats together. Might be worth looking into...

But in the near term, your design is completely unpractical in the context of Earth launched systems. Perhaps someday in the future when we have space elevators, lunar derived, or super-materials to play with, it might be re-visitable. In this application (rotating stations) bulky mass is actually an advantage in vibration damping and maintaining stabilization/rotational momentum.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use