A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

Void · 2019-03-06 17:44:05

I am simply trying to tie current plausible space concepts together into a progression I think might come somewhat close to what could really happen.

Start:
Reusable hardware to repurposed hardware, to intentional space construction. Already fairly well along.

…
Space Labs, Hotels, Ect.

Wet Lab method (Including prefab, such as skylab), and Inflatables.
Orbital junk recycling due to low cost fuels.
Probably a good thing to blend all of the above.
Could laser powered space drives go fetch outdated sattelites and other waste? The following link speaks of one such concept:
https://www.universetoday.com/140518/go … ropulsion/
Provided by Spacenut:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanoc … 803b6fa0dc
Wet Lab Method
https://www.starposts.space/
…

Lunar gravity research, and wetlab synthetic gravity devices.
Per GWJohnsons thinking and from others.

I am presuming that at this stage, there will be experiments on the Moon, with life forms, on the medical implications of 1/6 g.
I am also presuming that simple centrifuges in orbit, perhaps made by "Wet Lab" methods will also give synthetic gravity medical data.

…

Gateway Spaceport:
https://gatewayspaceport.com/
https://gatewayspaceport.com/von-braun-station/
They have interesting ideas, not sure the level of ambition is appropriate. That is something that would be fine tuned as factual data comes in.

...

Isaac Arthur Video, O'Neill Cylinders Jan 16, 2019:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXrLljQeKxI

*One line of thinking that is valuable, is that in the time of O'Neill, artificial lighting was not at all what it's potential is now. So, in those days they opted for windows and mirrors in their O'Neill Cylinder plans. At this time instead it seems that staying away from windows and mirrors and instead using LED's is the way to go. We might hope to have fusion power in the future but we do have solar panels now.

By doing this we avoid problems such as leaky or shattered windows, and mirrors that are subjected to large g forces. And we avoid U.V. In fact instead of shedding or blocking U.V. it can be converted into electric power with solar panels.

I don't know what the first transition will look like to a very humble artificial hab, but I would favor a shells within shells.

I would favor a slowly rotating large cylinder with low gravity, for agriculture, a "Green" chamber, and a "House" centrifuge where people would spend much of their time. The "House" would be housed inside of a vacuum chamber just a bit larger than the "House" to let it spin at a fast speed. Their would be two entrances between the large cylinder (Outer), and the spinning "House". At the hub, the joins would have vacuum proof air seals. They would not have to be perfect. Roughing pumps would keep the vacuum chamber purged. If the seals failed, the volume of the vacuum chamber would not be sufficient to put humans at risk in either of the pressurized habitat chamber.

The intention to be able to hang out in the "House" use a gym, probably your sleeping, kitchen, and entertainment area. But probably at will you could simply take an elevator or stairs up to the hub, walk through and be inside the big "Green" chamber.

I think it might be just fine is the green chamber had the gravity of Ceres (Big asteroid), Luna, or Mars.

I am thinking that this first one would be built in LEO, to reduce radiation problems. But, if radiation shielding can be sufficiently supplied, then elsewhere like L4 or L5. (Or Mars). Sufficient radiation protection could include a magnetic shield, soil in the green chamber, other.

This is a favorable feature of having the "House" chamber inside of the "Green" chamber. Naturally you might retreat to a heavily shielded hub of the "House" chamber if necessary. But the "House" chamber should be a favorable place anyway.

*Note: The "House" chamber could have green things in it as well, but the emphasis there would be aesthetics, not agricultural productivity. The "Green" chamber would also provide amusement and a different kind of aesthetics, but would be tilted towards agricultural productivity.

The problem of heat buildup in the "House" should be kept to a minimum, as relatively fewer LED's would be used. The "Green" chamber would be much easier to keep cool, so maximum agricultural productivity would likely mean lots of LED's.

As for Mars, I guess it shows up in this progression wherever it can best fit, when it can best fit. A device such as I have described above might be fitted to one of the moons of Mars, eventually after that.

Additional Materials:

Asteroids and Shells (Antius provides some good information)
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7287
Not advocating the LOP-G, just working with the fact that it is on the drawing board at this time. Progress forward will require dealing with whatever is really going to happen. Not liking it will not change things, unless you can change minds, maybe show a better plan?
Deep Space Gateway
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7895

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-06 17:54:32)

SpaceNut · 2019-03-06 18:08:06

Its sad that all seem to be waiting for the gravy contracts to provide for the stuff which could be used, If it was not for the cots contracts for resupply and now soon crewed vehicles we would still be going no where fast.

Even the Bigelow concepts are in a waiting state for funds from those wanting one to be built. Space x is the cheapest of launch vehicles but a launch canister for the inflateable in place of the capsule is much needed not only for them but for the others as well as I believe the payload shrouds are not large enough.

So the dream is waiting on whom will pay for the pieces as well as who will command its use.

louis · 2019-03-06 18:34:23

I think we need some focus here before we go exploring all the opportunities the focussing will bring. So far only Musk and Space X are offering real focus.

Surely the genius idea of Space X with its Starship is (a) to create a highly resuable launch and delivery system and (b) to ensure that delivery system is multi -purpose so it can be used for ISS deliveries, orbital and lunar tourism, satellite launches, Starlink, E2E travel, and Mars settlement.

That is a huge range of jobs but in principle it looks doable. The economies of reusability and scale will do the rest.

I think we should all focus on that path. Of course life is not rational but I think that's the way forward. Everything else will flow from that - once you have communities on the Moon and Mars the rest of the solar system opens up to exploration.

Blue Origin look good as well but they don't seem to have the same sort of game plan as Space X have set out but in principle they too could follow Space X's lead. The rest seem all over the place.

SpaceNut wrote:

Its sad that all seem to be waiting for the gravy contracts to provide for the stuff which could be used, If it was not for the cots contracts for resupply and now soon crewed vehicles we would still be going no where fast.
Even the Bigelow concepts are in a waiting state for funds from those wanting one to be built. Space x is the cheapest of launch vehicles but a launch canister for the inflateable in place of the capsule is much needed not only for them but for the others as well as I believe the payload shrouds are not large enough.
So the dream is waiting on whom will pay for the pieces as well as who will command its use.

Void · 2019-03-06 18:51:49

Actually last night SpaceNut provided a link to information that answers how the Bigelow inflatables could go to orbit.
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8002&p=12
Post#274
The Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanoc … d3391ca0dc

Quote(s):

It is developing a habitat known as the B330, which will have 330 cubic meters of interior space – a third that of the ISS. In 2021, it hopes to launch two of these habitats into space on Atlas V rockets from the United Launch Alliance (ULA).

“Once Dragon is in regular operation, I think we will seek commercial customers,” SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said in a press conference after the Crew Dragon launch.

In the article the "Dragon" is also mentioned to access the proposed space object. This is when I realized, that yes, SpaceX said they were going to stop making more Falcon 9's, but that they would have plenty of them to last until customers get used to BFR(SuperHeavy/Starship), but I realized, "Why would they abandon the Dragon"?

I think that after they get Starship going they will build a new reusable booster for Dragon, using Raptor engines, Methane, and Oxygen. Doing that it may be possible that they can also include and adaptation to allow a "Child of Dragon" to do more ambitious activities. Maybe the Moon even. Maybe even a Martian lander. I don't see why they would not.

From:
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8002&p=12
Post#276
Here again is a entity that wants to use Dragon:
https://www.starposts.space/
They are apparently being encouraged to work with "Wet Lab" methods, by NASA, if I read right.
Quote:

WET LAB
In November 2017, NanoRacks, along with SSL, a Maxar Technologies Company, Altius Space, and Space Adventures, proved to NASA that it is technically feasible to repurpose a spent second stage of a rocket while in space. This concept is known as a "Wet Lab," and was originally a concept from NASA's Marshall Spaceflight Center in the 1960s.
America's first outpost, Skylab, was made from a spent Saturn V fuel tank. It was manufactured on the ground, but an important stepping stone for re-using spent upper stages.

So, I conclude that a concert of abilities will enable a good process.

From SpaceX Starship and Dragon.

From ULA Atlas V?, and probably magnetic radiation shielding if I recall correctly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V

Several companies will be able to supply spent upper stages to the "Wet Lab" people. Question is, can they be collected and repurposed, and recycled for a good cost.
In this link is a possibility I think: https://www.universetoday.com/140518/go … ropulsion/

A possibility:
I am not sure how real it can be, but a laser powered solar device in orbit with Lithium Ion engines. In this case I am thinking of ground based lasers at least at first. A curious use of that would be to load level ground level electric grids which have a high proportion of "Green Energy". In other words, power them up when the weather and grid conditions allow it. Use these things as tugs to go get spent upper stages and bring them to a reuse, repurpose, recycle center of a "Wet Lab" process.

There are some other really interesting things in that article as well.

So, reuse, repurpose, recycle.

In "Wet Lab", all three of them could apply. Starship might help in the notion of returning some parts, maybe engines?? to the surface.

As for Blue Origin, what I can see is that the big powers want to nurture them as well. They are not as well defined as SpaceX, but they could really fit into the "Wet Lab" notion I think. We will see.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-06 19:27:00)

Void · 2019-03-08 11:53:41

Per my post #1, and the cooling of the higher simulation gravity device inside of the lower gravity device, separated by a vacuum chamber somewhat bigger than the high simulation gravity chamber, I have been concerned how the higher gravity device could be effectively cooled.

I think I have a reasonable proposal.

If you boil waste water from the higher gravity device into the vacuum chamber, and yet keep the pressure low enough that the spin rate will not conflict, then you can cool your inner higher gravity device. But then for the vacuum chamber you have two problems to solve. You must reduce the added amount of water vapor molecules, and also it is likely that at best eventually you will have crud buildup in the vacuum chamber.

So, it could be appropriate to have the roughing pumps be on the outer "Green" lower gravity device, to pull the vacuum chamber back down to pressures preferred for the tolerance of a "House" spinning device to be able to spin safely. As for crud, I suppose you would take every reasonable effort to keep crud from your waste water streams from building up there. But eventually you would have to spin the "House" device down, and use some robot and human elbow grease to clean it up.

And that then suggests that you should have more then one "House" device inside this contraption. Then those whose "House" is in spin down could visit another. Although they could probably also hang out in tents in the "Green" chamber.

I really have no desire to disrupt this communication process. But I like having an outlet for what goes through my mind. Hopefully my presence will not serve bad ends. I would rather prosper the human race. And of course those most local to me even the more.

Done

Void · 2019-03-08 20:53:49

For tonight at least I will leave everyone else to their own works without interference. I of course like to see what results might emerge elsewhere, when I am not a factor in a discussion. So good. I seem to be alone here so I will just consider it my private stomping grounds until something changes in my mood or I get a visit.

Isaac Arthur goes way out there sometimes, and is unapologetic about it and that is just fine. Artificial worlds, which have fake mountains and such contours may be in the future of humanity, but before 1st class can be afforded, I think we have to humble ourselves, and see if we can at least get a lower class ticket to the future. Improvements can wait.

For my part, having been associated with the maintenance and construction of various types of equipment, (Several other things as well), I want a system that serves my needs, not a system that more requires me to be a servant. I want it to work, and not stab me in the back. I want to be able to trust it, and I want the 'Mostest' from it for the 'Leastest' from me. So, that's the direction I am steering for, not to say that there is not going to be room for revisions and improvements.

The video from Isaac Arthur has been rather helpful. Some of what I say will have anchor in that.

In the movie "Passengers" one of the actors (I was going to say pretty girl, but that might be politically incorrect) , goes swimming, and the artificial gravity gives out, and she almost drowns while the water envelopes her. So, I gather from that we don't want zero gee swimming pools or anything like that.

However water is a fair radiation shield for at least some radiation. So, I am wondering how low we can have the gravity and not have the water in a spinning cylinder body of water become lethal. If the answer to that question can be discovered, then we could have a low gee outer cylinder entirely filled to a measure with a cylindrical body of water. I see several advantages to that. Aquaculture obviously. Radiation protection also. And as I see, it if you have a metal or else-material cylinder holding a cylindrical pool of water, if a pinhole leak occurs, or to a degree even a bigger leak, it will show itself perhaps as water vapor emissions outside the cylinder, and perhaps as a whirlpool inside of the cylinder. You would not have to move soil to patch it. Also water has a greater viscosity than air, so the drainage/leakage will grant you more time.

Surely though, I would want a second outer shell integrated with the water holding shell, to protect from impactors. And so as I see it this then is a foundational pressure shell with minimal gravitation, but sufficient for certain needs of activity, such as agriculture, and human visits. And to also serve as an outer buffer to help protect an inner environment somewhat more like Earth. That then proposed to be within ~Disk shaped higher g spinning habitats in their own vacuum chambers.

So, then we have a method I would more trust than dirt on a metal shell. We have the potential for aquaculture, and as I said an outer perimeter to offer a suite of protective effects.

Well what about what else in the low gravity area? Well, that may depend on how low you can go, and still offer an environment that can be coped with. If you were Zero g, then you could be 3D. However we want some gravity.

But could we consider elevated walking paths, and platforms above the water for humans to move about? Perhaps humans could also fly, with an electric device, hopefully not a shocking one, that is obviously you would need to build them well, so that they don't zap people in wet conditions.

You might have platforms that you could put low g gardens in, but what about vertical gardens? If you are low g, but not zero g, perhaps there could be an ideal value to allow a sort of 3D use of the volume of the low g cylinder.

I think that is enough of seeds of thought on this, I think you should see, that the scheme would be rather productive, if you intend to use LED's to light your gardens.

I can imagine where humans and/or robots might climb immobile vertical gardens to tend them, maintain the apparatus, or vertical conveyor belt type methods. In any case it would be low g, and if someone fell down, and splashed into the water below, perhaps the dangers in falling would be minimized.

Food for thought:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming

Dissipation of excess heat is something to consider, but you have a fluid medium to sink heat into. If you can radiate it's excess heat to space, while minimizing water losses, then you may have done well.

Twizzle Twazzle Twozzle
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_does_Twiz … ozzle_mean

Old! What!

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-08 21:26:53)

tahanson43206 · 2019-03-08 21:30:48

For Void #6 ...

Your post mentioned the nonsense scene in "Passengers" (there may be more than one) where the "artificial gravity" was lost.

The movie postulated simulated gravity via rotation of the living quarters, and for the most part it was consistent although Coriolis forces could have been shown if the producers really had wanted to approach reality. However, someone in the fantasy department needed a special effects "danger", so they concocted the loss of the "artificial" gravity.

You mentioned the Isaac Arthur video about O'Neill habitats. I held off a comment until now, but would like to thank you for providing the link to that Isaac Arthur production. You may have been the member how posted about Isaac Arthur in the past, and (if so) I thank you for those as well.

I was particularly happy with the O'Neill habitat video, because I liked the update to use LED lighting inside the habitats instead of Dr. O'Neill's original idea of mirrors leaning out from the rotating habitats. Arthur retained the useful design element of two habitats connected at the tips and rotating in opposite directions to solve a variety of pointing problems. On that point, I would like to propose the use of three such cylinders, to provide for three axis pointing as is done with rotating wheels in a variety of spacecraft. As you probably know, the original O'Neill two cylinder design was intended to insure proper pointing of the solar mirrors as the habitat moved in its orbit around the Sun. The pointing was to be done by bringing the tips of the habitats closer to each other or further away, depending upon the torque needed.

Another topic Isaac Arthur touched on was governance of these habitats. I thought his reflections on that topic were interesting and sensible sounding.

In short, thanks again!

(th)

kbd512 · 2019-03-08 21:45:50

Void,

NASA has determined that pound-for-pound, the best defense against SPE's and GCR's would be a woven BNNT fabric or composite. They're trying to determine how to use it as a structural material to save weight, because it's also very strong and light, but a woven blanket or mat of the material is also suitable for shielding purposes. I've already posted docs for this in another thread dedicated to radiation shielding.

The AFRL has determined that aerographite would also be good shielding material against electromagnetic radiation, though probably not against SPE's and GCR's. It's one of the lightest structural foam materials known to man, lighter than structural aerogel foam, much stronger than aerogel, and far more compressible without cracking or permanent deformation.

Physical Properties of 3D Interconnected Graphite Networks - Aerographite

Water would be great, but it's too heavy for space applications. We'd still need lots of it for other purposes, but probably can't deliver enough to use it as passive radiation shielding. I think NASA determined that they'd need 2m or more to keep radiation dose rates within currently allowable limits.

Void · 2019-03-08 22:21:38

Don't I get a kiss first?

Actually thanks for stopping by. There is a syndrome on this site. I don't know what it's name is but it seems to be put the pillow over the babies head at all costs!

Really, your information is quite valuable. However, the materials I presented are a general philosophy, which could be applied here and now or elsewhen, elsewhere. Just general principals. If the measurement comes in that an impediment to success is apparent, then you have to think what to else do as well, or to else do not do it this way.

I hate the general reptile methods of interaction that often happen on this site. We have other layers above that. That is were creativity occurs. Being a reptile is to not be adaptive. But of course a reptile or a shark is very good at what it does if it can be where it needs to be.

We are human, we have vastly higher powers to cheat reality and win. If an idea is presented which is not perfect, it is highly inappropriate for people to come in to stomp on it.

Of course you are wrong. Water can be appropriated from several sources over time in places. Maybe not just now. And if handled correctly handed in theory water is eternal. Yes in reality there will be losses and we would need makeup water.

Please stop this, "We are on an important mission now" no room for thinking behavior. We are not on a mission, and I am thinking out of the box.

If you had viewed the Isaac Arthur video you would have understood that it was likely that such a device would be encased in rubble pile object, perhaps Phobos.

I included the notion of water as having some radiation shielding as a spec. Do you get that?

It does not define all of the possible instances of method.

How could you do what you just did?

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-08 22:32:29)

kbd512 · 2019-03-09 02:09:09

Void,

All this time I thought you'd be happy that we actually have incredibly light materials that can get the job done. Apologies for interrupting the thought stream. Rock on.

Void · 2019-03-09 13:34:06

In that case I must apologize to you. I misunderstood your intentions. Sorry.

Thank You for the material. I stand in shame.

Void · 2019-03-09 13:35:23

Radiation shielding is of course important, and Kbd512 gave something of great value to me, I did not receive it well.

But I feel that this is too important for me to not continue on. If anyone chooses to chime in, I will see if I can keep myself strait with them.

At this time, I am looking at vast potentials. Indeed, until sufficient amounts of water are available at a reasonable price, indeed other methods need to be considered, and probably used. But were I want to get to is vast quantities of water, Nitrogen, Carbon, and whatever else is needed. I think it truly is at our doorstep.

Starting rather small, we have the resources of the Earth, Moon, Phobos & Demos, and perhaps even Mars.

The way I see it the biggest resource the Earth will have to offer is the minds of the people of Earth to manipulate stony and metallic materials, most likely on or from the Moon. I am tempted to say why not build cylinder segments on the Moon surface, and while doing that procuring those objects, and also Oxygen?

It is not inconceivable to me that Hydrogen could come from Earth, and water from the Moon. However this would not be the preference, it would most likely be for experimentation, to prove the devices will work as we might think they can. Kbd512 has shown how it could be done while using relatively less water/Hydrogen, which will be expensive from Earth, and precious for the Moon. More than an experiment of two, I think are not desired.

It seems to me that there could be two options to manufacture the spin gravity shells. On the Moon itself, or from materials extracted from the Moon or Asteroids, and perhaps brought close enough to the Earth to make it easier to work from the surface of the Earth using telepresence, to manufacture them.

After that my plan is to fly them outward, perhaps with solar photon sailing, or with solar wind. This process could take a long time, but I anticipate that a steady stream of them will be created. The would go out to fetch water. An obvious candidate for this could be Ceres, the largest Asteroid, which may actually be an outer solar system object moved, and which is also a dwarf planet. A space elevator seems like a good first attempt on that dwarf planet.

However, it is not out of the question to go to Mars and get water either from Mars, or one of it's moons. Don't think that is the best option but it would be a thing to consider.

Ceres also has some clays that might have some Ammonia/Nitrogen. That might prove useful.

So, as I see it, these cylinders would perhaps be assembled and launched from the Moon surface, perhaps using solid rocket methods as primary method. Then given a smidgen of water, and having only small areas of safety from radiation they would sail to get water. They would load up with more water than they need. Then they would sail back if possible. Again slowly with photons or the solar wind. Also, it is possible that they would even split water and just use combustion engines. That is not my preference, but it is a possibility.

During the travel, perhaps it would be mostly or entirely robotic. But I suppose a small population could be on board. Using a combination of the shielding methods available including the materials Kbd512 introduced. Maybe magnetic shielding, and perhaps just one part of the cylinder would have solid mass shielding. Perhaps just one spinning disk.

The next stop could be Mars, where the atmosphere could contribute Nitrogen and other materials. However I favor instead Venus, where vast amounts of atmospheric materials could be "Mined", to provide Nitrogen and Carbon to the device, maybe some other things.

I should think that the internal atmosphere of these devices will not need 79% Nitrogen. I should hope a much lesser part. It will probably be a good practice to keep the pressure inside lower anyway, because these things will leak. They can be made relatively leak proof, but over vast stretches of time they will leak, and we would not want to overuse the Nitrogen resource before it becomes possible to get Nitrogen from outer solar system objects. A lower pressure will reduce the leakage rate. Could Humans and plants do OK with just 5% Nitrogen for instance? I guess it has to be more. We don't want an unduly flammable situation, and we cannot afford to boil peoples blood either.

So, Venus has a lot of Nitrogen to give, but sooner or later we want some from say Triton, and Pluto maybe. Hopefully fusion powered propulsion exists by then.

After the devices have been tanked up with water further out than the Earth, and Nitrogen at Venus, then it is time for them to take on their maximum population, and to go into a solar orbit, leaving room for new ones to arrive at Venus.

Such a solar orbit has merit. Technically it is a fusion economy of energy. Of course the sun is a fusion reactor. A solar orbit near Venus, is more prosperous for photons than is Earth. The temperatures will be hot, but I think not beyond methods to cope. So, everything. And if the water is not enough shielding, then other methods can be added.

We might even have rings of these things both in association with Venus, and Mars as well. A lot of you don't like cycling spaceships, but these would make rather good ones I think. I think that the orbital period for a set of rings for both Venus and Mars could have a 2 to 1 ratio. The Venus rings would in general orbit the sun twice for each orbit of the Martian rings. And so, it might be possible to have also some elliptical devices which cycle between the two sets of rings.

Orbital period for Venus = 224.70 days.

Orbital period for Mars = 686.97 days

Oops, make that 3 to 1

3 orbits of Venus for ~~~1 orbit of Mars.

So, 224.70 * 3 = 674.1. So, chances are there. Of course we don't want the sets of rings to be to close to either planet. The solar wind or solar flux of photons gives opportunity to counteract gravitation induced orbital deviations for these cylinders, but it is better to minimize such a need.

While it is tempting to say lets surround Earth, Venus, and Mars with these things, we could have a run away effect where they would collide and fill the orbitspheres of these planets with space junk, and of course kill a massive amount of people.

When Venus runs out of Nitrogen or Mars, Phobos, Demos, Ceres run out of water, then of course it is time to get access to another source of Nitrogen, and/or Water. Those are out there in the outer solar system, but it would be nice to at least have rocket propulsion fusion power by then. In that case it should be a thing that can be done. But even better if we have fusion electric power. In that case humans continue this game indefinitely, and if volatile materials run low in the inner solar system, then they just keep heading out. Maybe even all the way to other star systems, after consuming the Kepler belt(s) and Oort Cloud, and any Rogue Planets they can find. It is after all a massive universe.

Aliens? Not my problem I think. Pretty sure I would be a long time gone

I did say "Ring(s)" for Venus and Mars. Solar orbit ring(s). As I see it you could have two or more parallel rings, not too far apart, in each case. The inner one will cut more degrees of a circular orbit that the slightly more outer one. These then would pass by each other in a sequence. So then you could have cultural mixing, at least with communications. But of course if they are not too far away as far as orbital position, then actual travel is likely to be done, perhaps again using solar methods of propulsion.

I think that is enough. And again I give a truly felt regret for my reception of your gift Kdb512.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-09 14:27:40)

Void · 2019-03-09 14:48:20

Under the circumstances, I guess I will just go ahead and try to claim that I have a way to terraform Mercury.

I actually like Mercury the way it is, and would not really press to do this plan, but I think it might work.

Add additional magnetic field to ward off the solar wind. Provide atmosphere somehow.

Too hot by far.

Add a swarm of shading devices, probably synthetic gravity worlds flying around Mercury. It may be that if you could cut the average solar flux to 1/10th of what it is now, you could have a terraformed Mercury.

But lots of work to do that. Instead, why not make synthetic gravity machines from the materials of Mercury, go to the outer solar system with them and fetch needed materials?

Still, I think there exists (or good chances already existed) a method to terraform Mercury.

Done.

Void · 2019-03-09 14:50:59

As far as the materials presented by Isaac Arthur, where artificial spin worlds might be sculpted to resemble hills, lakes, mountains, ect. Yes, that could be something that might be done.

However, I would tilt in the direction of safety and productivity for the places where people actually lived. If you wanted to go on a vacation, perhaps you would go to another cylinder where the emphasis is on simulation of Earth topography.

Done.

tahanson43206 · 2019-03-09 18:15:33

For Void ...

Your suggestion in the post quoted below intrigues me, but I wonder (from your wording) if you have missed/overlooked/??? the need to pair cylinders to prevent unwanted gyroscopic precession. Or perhaps (more likely) I've simply missed your reference.

The fact that cylinders need to be paired adds a factor to your idea of designing living habitat separate from non-living habitat. In addition to designing for recreation, with hills and lakes and streams, forests and fields, the non-living habitat could be given a focus for agriculture. In O'Neill's original designs (I'm forgetting by now which ones) there were plans for agricultural pods separate from the main living area. That would still seem to me to be a good idea for an O'Neill habitat, updated as Isaac Arthur suggests, in order to isolate crops from each other and from other potential sources of contamination. However, the large non-living cylinder could be populated with a variety of agricultural elements, such as trees which would benefit from ample space to grow in three dimensions.

Void wrote:

As far as the materials presented by Isaac Arthur, where artificial spin worlds might be sculpted to resemble hills, lakes, mountains, ect. Yes, that could be something that might be done.
However, I would tilt in the direction of safety and productivity for the places where people actually lived. If you wanted to go on a vacation, perhaps you would go to another cylinder where the emphasis is on simulation of Earth topography.
Done.

(th)

Void · 2019-03-10 10:55:04

tahanson43206,

Thanks for your willingness to communicate.

I obviously did not do a good enough job of explaining.

First of all, I want to get to an economic plausible state. I feel that Earth simulations will be relatively expensive at first. Not that their cannot be considered those, but as I have indicated, I want to incorporate safety and productivity as the main emphasis. But you are right, Trees could be important for spiritual value and for the wood. Members here have suggested Bamboo for Mars, I would really look at that to begin with.

But now to try to further reply to your last message:
Quote:

Your suggestion in the post quoted below intrigues me, but I wonder (from your wording) if you have missed/overlooked/??? the need to pair cylinders to prevent unwanted gyroscopic precession. Or perhaps (more likely) I've simply missed your reference.
The fact that cylinders need to be paired adds a factor to your idea of designing living habitat separate from non-living habitat. In addition to designing for recreation, with hills and lakes and streams, forests and fields, the non-living habitat could be given a focus for agriculture. In O'Neill's original designs (I'm forgetting by now which ones) there were plans for agricultural pods separate from the main living area. That would still seem to me to be a good idea for an O'Neill habitat, updated as Isaac Arthur suggests, in order to isolate crops from each other and from other potential sources of contamination. However, the large non-living cylinder could be populated with a variety of agricultural elements, such as trees which would benefit from ample space to grow in three dimensions.

I think that gyroscopic procession can be handled, if we had different parts of the apparatus spinning in different directions. So, my thinking is that this will from the outside appear as a spinning cylinder. However inside, it will likely have more that one disk shaped apparatus that divides the interior of the cylinder into segments.

The actual cylinder part will have radiation protection, which in part or possible in its most major way will help with radiation problems

Each disk will have its hub aligned with the spin axis of the "Wet" cylinder. In order for the disk habitat to spin a disk shaped vacuum chamber a bit larger than the habitat disk will be used to allow for a fast spin capable of generating 1 g at it's perimeter, maybe even a little more. The outer perimeter of the spinning pressurized disk, may have a walking ring, where perhaps the g forces would be > 1 g. Maybe lot a lot, but a value which simulates the body, and yet does not significantly increase injuries from slips and falls.

So, I have defined what I want for spin gravity for the disc's, but of course they don't have to be the same, and also each disk will have perhaps 1.1 g, 1.0 g, .38 g (Mars simulation), 1/6 g (Moon simulation), Ceres simulation?

At the hub, where the disks will be spinning in one direction while the cylinder spins the opposite, I hope to have passage ways directly from the disks into the cylinder segments. At the points of connection, I would intend to have some rather large seals which keep reduced, but not completely eliminate leakage from the pressurized areas into the vacuum chambers. The vacuum chamber volume should not be so big that if the seals fail, humans will die from low pressure, sudden pressure drop, or lack of Oxygen. Of course it will also make sense to be able to have emergency doors, to seal off damaged areas until they can be repaired.

I was going to quit here, as I feel that sometimes, I have behavior problems. But new ideas keep forming in my head on this topic, and I just think I need to continue.

At this time since we don't have fusion, and fission has many reasons not to be on these devices, then I of course think it would need to be solar energy.

But then we need a plan to cool the things, because I fully intend that the cylinder segments will have vertical webs that go all the way up from the water layer on the interior perimeter up to the axis. And here plants may grow. And that then means that there will be LED's everywhere, all the way up, and all the way down. Even though LED's are very efficient, there will be lots of heat to get rid of.

In intend the water cylinder to spin at a very slow speed, but to have far more mass than the disks. The spin speed I would want for it would be tied to whatever is safest and most productive.

As for getting rid of the heat, there can be at least 3 methods, 3 that I am thinking of just now.
1) Fluid filled radiators. Not very comfortable with that, seems like lots of opportunity for trouble and fluid losses.
2) Turbines. If we are going to conduct fluids outside the device, into radiators, then we might consider generating some power. However, if these things are say approximately near the orbit of Venus, then solar energy will be plentiful. And again this would be an opportunity for trouble and fluid losses.
3) This next one is why I returned. I see an opportunity with the cylinder walls (Not the end parts), to have a dry fin radiator on the outside, where the flanges would actually also serve other purposes. For one if the flanges encircled the cylinder with fins ~perpendicular to the cylinder wall, then they would serve to re-enforce the cylinder wall, and would also be dry radiators. While circular flanges/fins, could be good, we could also contemplate a "Waffle" structure of radiator fins.

A further benefit of such structures would be for collision hazards. Often, but not always, if an object should come at a dangerous speed to hit the cylinder, these fins may block it. I this concept, a object coming perpendicular would most likely not be intercepted, but if at a tangent, then possibly a protection. A thin plate method of double walls could also be incorporated to protect from perpendicular object impacts. This is the deal where if you have two wall separated by a vacuum, the outer wall will vaporize, from the impact, or at least might shatter, and this will serve to protect the inner wall.

But I haven't yet really explained everything about this potential cooling process.
-On the outside, dry radiator fins.
-The cylinder walls thick enough to serve their purpose which is to hold a pressurized containment. In the interior, a layer of water, most likely fresh water. In this scheme we would need to be careful, to hold the control the temperatures.

One way this might work is like a fresh water pond in the fall. I am going to use imperial units first and then I will see if I can give Centigrade translations of the numbers. For a fresh water pond, ice is the lightest. But I don't think we really want ice. Maybe it can be tolerated to some extent, but I think for now avoidance is the best policy. 32 degF is water lighter than 39 degF. (O degC, 3.88888889 degC). So, probably, the cylinder walls cooling water below 32 degF (0 degC), will make that water lighter, so it will turn over, and move upwards, in the water column. Warmer 39 degF (3.89 degC) water would replace it, therefore moving heat to the cylinder walls.

And then above that process you would have another water column, which would be warm water. Say from a ~tropical value down to ??39 degF (3.89 degC). Exactly how these flows would interact, is not certain to me, but I believe that ice will float on any of the water, but we are going to be trying very hard to not generate ice. But there may be a span between 0 degC and 3.89 degC, that also may be able to float up into the ~Tropical waters. I don't have a whole lot of certainty about this. After all, we do not have this sort of situation on Earth that I am aware of where the bottom of a body of water is the source of cold > 3.89 degC and tropical water is above that.

Anyway, there would be nothing wrong with having pumps to mix the water if needed.

As for the air, I would think that cold water could be pumped up from the bottom of the pool, and the air cooled with that. As a matter of fact it might be possible to pump that cold water up to the axis and release it as a spray of drops and droplets. No heat exchanger needed.

However in that case the LED wiring is going to have to be special to cope with the wetness that would emerge.

But I like it I feel that if the g forces could be kept low enough, and a person had a battery driven propulsion device which sucked in air and expelled if for propulsion people could fly around in the slow spinning drum segments. A 3D garden filling the drum segments throughout. As for fall from a height, I anticipate that if the spin gravity was low enough, and you fell into water. It might not be a serious thing, as long as you were fit, and trained to deal with that situation.

I know I have not defined many thing sharply, but I don't want to restrict the process of developing such ideas. A bit of fuzzy thinking at this stage can be a benefit, to foster possibility. If such devices were to be made, then of course that will require sharp Engineer thinking.

If I still need to try harder to explain, I am willing to try again later.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-10 11:50:01)

SpaceNut · 2019-03-10 15:19:25

Wet lab tank simular idea as to skylab is very do able if one of the business will build it into there archetecture. In fact thats a good point for the SLS and the BFR second/ third stages to be designed to do. So getting a cots design would be the if with the closest items currently built are much smaller in the Cygnus and other modules of the iss that we can replicate to build with. The gateway is just the building block design with what we have pretty much.

Inflateables are a mass savings for launch but if they do not have guts to make them viable then its just extra room to move things into for the duration of the mars journey. Of course internals are not where we are at current and what would have been Transhab is not on the Nasa plate.

The journeys comforts and mass saving via greenhouse, AG and other features are for safety, health and for the pyshe of the people making it to mars and back. Its the design of these features that spur growth and complexity of the vehicle to mars but its possible and much needed for a next mission to happen rather than stopping a 1 due to issues.

While fresh water will allow for corrosion of electrical parts its the salt water that allows for conduction so as long as the wiring is a distance apart and insulated to wet conditions the LEDs will still work with a layer of conformal coating. So design that into the greenhouse build.

tahanson43206 · 2019-03-10 15:30:11

For Void .... following up on SpaceNut #17 above...

Void, your ideas are bursting at the seams of text .... I'd like to remind you of Isaac Arthur, who shows us his ideas using animation.

I have no idea if Isaac Arthur uses Blender to create the remarkable scenes he provides in his videos, but I would be unsurprised if he does.

May I offer you a homework assignment? Please contact Isaac Arthur and find out how he creates the animation for his videos.

If you have the energy and the time, and if your computer hardware is capable, you may be able to give additional life to your many visions.

(th)

Void · 2019-03-10 17:00:46

Well thank you.

I actually don't take myself very serious as that, but I will think on it. Perhaps I can work in that direction.

*A further note on previous posts about synthetic gravity machines. For the large drum with a water pool on the inner surface of the cylinder. I fear a potential problem, where the water could all pool on one side of the cylinder, and that would not be good. Things are typically harder than first hoped. However I think that baffle walls in the pool, subdividing it might sufficiently fix the potential problem.
I would think that these would run end to end, and that there might be at least 3 of them to subdivide the pooled water. It is an extra expense, but then again it is reinforcement for the cylinder wall of the structure, to help hold in the pressurized insides. I could also perhaps imagine that these 3 or more baffle walls would be tied together to each other across the volume of the cylinder by cables and this would both add tensile strength against the pressurization inside the cylinder, and also these cables could be places to fasten racks for plants to be grown in.

So, again thanks for your communications.

Done.

tahanson43206 · 2019-03-10 21:05:48

For Void re #19 ....

Void ... you may be at risk of falling down the slippery slope, from fantastic vision through tentative design to serious engineering.

If you allow yourself to take that slide, I can suggest some reading to enliven the journey ...

I asked Mr. Google what it could suggest for reading about O'Neill habitats, and it came back with an abundance of suggestions.

A key item in the list is "The High Frontier" by Gerard K. O'Neill ... if you live near a library, you may be able to arrange from transfer of a copy through inter-library loan. I recommend it as a starting point.

Wikipedia has an article on the book.

The National Space Society has a wiki attached to its web site, with the title: o-neill-cylinder-space-settlement.

Amazon is showing the book as available for eBook for free if you have a Kindle unlimited membership.

Another classic book is one about the 1975 NASA Summer Study on the Stanford Torus.

The National Space Society Google snapshot gives the publication data:
Begin Quotation:
published as Space Settlements: A Design Study, NASA Publication SP-413).
End Quotation.

Amazon is showing current listings for the study.

There are many other related publications, articles and (apparently) dedicated web sites.

(th)

Void · 2019-03-11 11:54:26

tahanson43206, per your post #20:

Thanks. I read "The High Frontier" by Gerard K. O'Neill ... ", when it was new. I will gladly look into the other references you suggest.

"The High Frontier" by Gerard K. O'Neill ... ", was a very good piece of work. I recall a book I found as a boy in a library. I think it was "Islands in Space". If I look it up on the internet, it is not the same one. The book I am talking about would have been around earlier than "The High Frontier". Someone had written "Planetoid Quackery" on the book, but I read it any way. Outdated concepts, as then intended to put water inside of asteroids, and use magnetic induction from coils to melt the asteroids and swell them up like balloons, to make shelters. I don't recall that they intended to have much for artificial gravity. So, I am a long time associated with artificial worlds.

Over time updates do make them seem more plausible to do eventually.

The latest updates I have are that at this time it makes more sense to use LED's than windows and mirrors for light in them. Although technology keeps changing, with new methods for windows and mirrors that could reverse again.

I regard the process of expanding into space as being something like kindling a fire. You need a spark/ignition, then you have to carefully kindle the fire to something of significance that could serve human purposes.

I feel that an O'Neill habitat is too ambitious.
I would say that next is to get non rotating private space objects in LEO, along with people and test animals on the Moon, and then I would "Wet Lab" a baton synthetic gravity machine bases in part on the Lunar biological results. There is no point in overbuilding these machines if you don't have to. If the results from the Moon are encouraging enough vs. microgravity, then to me it would make sense to build a baton for .38 g. (By the way I note GWJohnson for the baton idea). This at the very least could give long term medical measurements for Mars habitation. And any Martian inhabitants will be too busy to do research on the Medicines they will need in my opinion except for whatever becomes impossible to ignore and tolerate. So, such a .38 g device in LEO, to me makes a great deal of sense, as it is possible that people in LEO could be just fine with special methods to stay in orbit multiple years. If not, then we will know that to have Mars, humans must mostly live in Martian orbit with synthetic spin gravity >.38 g. Important information to have, before making huge investments which could cripple the kindling process by wrong methods. In this paragraph, I do not specify a method to deal with gyroscopic procession. That has to be handled. Maybe it could be tied to a large mass that spins in an opposite direction and is a fuel depot? Here I am not talking about one being inside the other. No special vacuum chamber, but the vacuum of space. Perhaps the two would be spun to a null periodically when ships wanted to dock and transfer propellants.

Having profiled the above within reasonably tight tolerances, then I feel it would make sense to build a garden synthetic gravity machine to pair with a baton. This new addition would not be an one device inside another, but rather again a bearing between them in the vacuum of space.

With the baton, it should be possible to have multiple floors. The highest g floor mostly for the humans and a few plants that are pleasing to them (They can be productive as well). But then lets suppose there was a movable floor above that on a hoist, where you could test many low g environments for the response of the plants, and how water, and other environmental factor behave, and how humans can work I those values. So, then you would get a sense of where you should be for a synthetic spin gravity machine for high productive agriculture. I visualize this device could be as I prior posted based around a canister per methods of posts #(12, 16 at least. ) with water and other shielding for radiation.

The next step would be to make a disc synthetic gravity machine, to attach to the greenhouse synthetic gravity machine. Again not with one inside the other (Yet).

Then I think finally as this gets going, you design new ones where the disk synthetic spin gravity machines are inside of the agricultural spin gravity machines, so then you need internal vacuum chambers for the discs, and also seals for the passageways at the hubs, and of course roughing pumps to keep the vacuum chambers pulled down enough in pressure to allow the amount of synthetic gravity required for health and productive processes.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-11 12:29:00)

Void · 2019-03-11 12:30:04

SpaceNut I just noticed your post #(17):
Quote:

Wet lab tank simular idea as to skylab is very do able if one of the business will build it into there archetecture. In fact thats a good point for the SLS and the BFR second/ third stages to be designed to do. So getting a cots design would be the if with the closest items currently built are much smaller in the Cygnus and other modules of the iss that we can replicate to build with. The gateway is just the building block design with what we have pretty much.
Inflateables are a mass savings for launch but if they do not have guts to make them viable then its just extra room to move things into for the duration of the mars journey. Of course internals are not where we are at current and what would have been Transhab is not on the Nasa plate.
The journeys comforts and mass saving via greenhouse, AG and other features are for safety, health and for the pyshe of the people making it to mars and back. Its the design of these features that spur growth and complexity of the vehicle to mars but its possible and much needed for a next mission to happen rather than stopping a 1 due to issues.
While fresh water will allow for corrosion of electrical parts its the salt water that allows for conduction so as long as the wiring is a distance apart and insulated to wet conditions the LEDs will still work with a layer of conformal coating. So design that into the greenhouse build.
Offline
Report Quote

Your comments seem reasonable to me, but I will make no secret of the fact that I am after the whole solar system and beyond, not just Mars. However Mars seems as if it is a very important piece of what is needed. I just don't have certainty of it's relative weight of importance.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-11 12:32:19)

Void · 2019-03-12 09:50:10

I found this last night. Although it is for surface habitats, it looks to me like it could be rather good in orbit to make modified environments.

MARSHA
https://www.teslarati.com/3d-printed-ma … -colonies/

It seems to me that Lunar materials could contribute to this in Earth/Moon locations. Earth most likely would contribute at least some of the materials for plastics, Carbon at least I would think.

Phobos and Demos and perhaps Mars could contribute materials in the Martian Orbitsphere.

……

So, there are several options to build structure in zero g orbits.

1) Built to purpose modules such as for the ISS.
An analog for this would be the satellite delivery version of Starship might be able to deliver smaller such.
2) Wet Lab methods.
Various companies may be able to deliver spent upper stages to this purpose.
3) Bigelow inflatables.
At this time Atlas V is said to be slated to deliver these.
4) And then such as these 3D printed structures, which can in part at least be build from extraterrestrial material sources.
Earths Moon, Phobos, Demos, Mars itself perhaps, and perhaps as well Asteroids can contribute some of most of these materials.

So, lots of chances to build orbital structure, some of it with synthetic spin gravity.

Done.

tahanson43206 · 2019-03-12 21:17:17

For Void ...

Here is a link to a story about a discovery that appears (to me at least) to have significant applicability to design of space habitats, and those for Mars or the Moon. The issue is how to pass air and cables through pipes in close quarters without creating acoustic traffic at the same time.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90316833/sc … co-workers

The work described apparently involves a 3D printed shape that is able to reflect incoming sound (up to 94%) energy back the way it came.

(th)

Void · 2019-03-13 14:51:16

tahanson43206,

That does seem like an important feature to have, especially, in plans where we hope to cram a maximum amount of activity into a volume to utilize nearly all of that volume.

Done.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2019-03-06 17:44:05

A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#2 2019-03-06 18:08:06

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#3 2019-03-06 18:34:23

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#4 2019-03-06 18:51:49

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#5 2019-03-08 11:53:41

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#6 2019-03-08 20:53:49

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#7 2019-03-08 21:30:48

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#8 2019-03-08 21:45:50

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#9 2019-03-08 22:21:38

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#10 2019-03-09 02:09:09

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#11 2019-03-09 13:34:06

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#12 2019-03-09 13:35:23

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#13 2019-03-09 14:48:20

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#14 2019-03-09 14:50:59

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#15 2019-03-09 18:15:33

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#16 2019-03-10 10:55:04

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#17 2019-03-10 15:19:25

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#18 2019-03-10 15:30:11

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#19 2019-03-10 17:00:46

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#20 2019-03-10 21:05:48

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#21 2019-03-11 11:54:26

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#22 2019-03-11 12:30:04

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#23 2019-03-12 09:50:10

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#24 2019-03-12 21:17:17

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

#25 2019-03-13 14:51:16

Re: A possible path forward as seen beginning at this date, 3/6/2019

Board footer