Spinnin' Space stations

>>>
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?

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

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

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.

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.

.

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

.

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.

Anybody like this idea?

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

(image linked from own site)

What is it made of? Apart from pixels.
How big is it? Ignoring screen DPI.

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.

Is the space station 5 from 2001 really possible? Wouldnt it need to roll really fast to create the necessary gravity?

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.

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.