Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-05 22:53:13

For SpaceNut ...

This new topic is offered because none of the existing topics seemed a good fit for this narrow focus.

Here are the other topics that contain "exploration" in the title:

Venus Exploration/Mining Equipment and Procedures by tahanson43206
Projects 17 2024-12-28 15:51:30 by kbd512
2
Balloon for Exploration of Venus at Higher Elevations by tahanson43206 [ 1 2 ]
Science, Technology, and Astronomy 27 2024-06-05 18:57:46 by Mars_B4_Moon
3
Asking A.I to paint Space Colonisation or Mars Explorations? by Mars_B4_Moon [ 1 2 ]
Pictures of Mars 43 2024-05-16 08:38:28 by Mars_B4_Moon
4
Venus Exploration, What are the future missions? by SpaceNut [ 1 2 ]
Unmanned probes 26 2024-03-29 09:09:42 by Mars_B4_Moon
5
The SLS: too expensive for exploration? by Josh Cryer [ 1 2 3 … 10 ]
Space Policy 238 2023-12-26 07:07:51 by Mars_B4_Moon
6
Glider for Exploration of Venus at Higher Elevations by tahanson43206
Science, Technology, and Astronomy 12 2023-03-01 11:12:53 by tahanson43206
7
Space Funding and Costs for Space Exploration and Colonization by Mars_B4_Moon
Not So Free Chat 2 2023-02-20 16:52:51 by Mars_B4_Moon
8
Hawaii Space Exploration Analog and Simulation station by SpaceNut [ 1 2 ]
Mars Analogue Research Stations 25 2022-09-24 18:07:21 by Mars_B4_Moon
9
Using the SLS for outer Solar System exploration? by Oldfart1939 [ 1 2 ]
Unmanned probes 26 2022-09-21 17:04:08 by Mars_B4_Moon
10
Robert Zubrin's article on "Wokeist" opposition to Space exploration by Oldfart1939
Human missions 22 2022-08-14 12:27:55 by SpaceNut
11
MarsVR - A Virtual Reality Environment To Support Mars Exploration by jburk
Mars Society International 4 2022-08-10 08:23:59 by Mars_B4_Moon
12
Science, Space Exploration, and Political Will. by Oldfart1939
Human missions 15 2022-06-17 07:58:02 by Mars_B4_Moon
13
Space Futurist, Science and Futurologist Space Exploration Websites by Mars_B4_Moon
Other space advocacy organizations 4 2022-03-11 11:27:28 by Mars_B4_Moon
14
Economic return of a manned exploration of Mars by Quaoar [ 1 2 ]
Space Policy 39 2021-11-20 07:46:16 by Mars_B4_Moon
15
China/Russia Agree to Cooperate on Deep Space Exploration & Spacecraft by EdwardHeisler
Space Policy 4 2021-07-14 07:38:48 by Mars_B4_Moon
16
My first post - My personal interest in Mars exploration by CaptJTorriani
Not So Free Chat 5 2021-01-19 14:51:00 by Calliban
17
Decadal Space Exploration Review by tahanson43206
Unmanned probes 0 2020-08-13 16:44:53 by tahanson43206
18
Mars 2020 Exploration Mission Guide – Free Educational Resource by ChaseC
Unmanned probes 2 2020-07-24 10:04:16 by ChaseC
19
NASA Funds Artemis Student Challenges to Inspire Space Exploration by SpaceNut
Mars Rovers / University Rover Challenge 0 2020-05-11 21:37:52 by SpaceNut
20
Exploration Programme for Mars by louis
Human missions 0 2019-12-20 21:30:52 by louis
21
Michael Meyer, NASA Lead Scientist for Mars Exploration, to Address MS by EdwardHeisler
Mars Society International 0 2018-06-22 19:50:58 by EdwardHeisler
22
China's Plans For Moon Exploration Are More Advanced Than NASA's by EdwardHeisler
Human missions 3 2018-01-03 23:50:52 by SpaceNut
23
2015 Space Exploration Alliance Legislative Blitz by RobertDyck
Space Policy 1 2015-01-01 15:07:36 by SpaceNut
24
Congressional hearings on Mars exploration by cIclops
Space Policy 0 2013-05-23 14:01:16 by cIclops

The deep space exploration vessel I have in mind for this topic is the one in design by GW Johnson. It is defined as a vessel with two counter rotating habitats set to 4 RPM, with an arbitrary crew count of 38. Given the physics involved, I am hoping this topic will grow to include drawings of the vessel, as well as text describing design elements.

One aspect of the design is already baked in since GW is the author. This vessel will be given impulse from LEO by a space tug, and will be given assistance with returning to LEO by another (similar) space tug. Thus, the propulsion systems need not be as massive as would otherwise be required.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-05 22:53:52

This post is reserved for an index to posts that may be contributed by NewMars members over time.

GW Johnson: overview of the subject, with multiple options and arguments pro and con:
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 28#p229028

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-10 12:48:52

This topic has been waiting for content. GW Johnson is deep in development of a family of space vehicles and technologies that will (if all goes well) become part of a three phase plan for Mars.

This topic is about another of GW's ideas which he has set to the side for the time being.

I am interested in the potential market for large ships (inspired by RobertDyck) that would serve a wealthy population of Earth citizens, independent of government funding. GW's designs will most likely appeal to governments, because the space budgets for such entities will always be tight.

In this post, I have opened a conversation with ChatGPT4o about the potential market for cruise ship-like vessels for deep space exploration now, and for visits later, when exploration is finished.

Designing a Marketable Spacecraft for Solar System Exploration
Introduction
This discussion explores the potential for designing and marketing a large spacecraft capable of supporting long-term human exploration of the Solar System. The proposed design includes innovative features like counter-rotating habitat rings to provide artificial gravity, alongside traditional propulsion and support systems. The goal is to identify funding opportunities, estimate costs, and establish a viable market for such a vessel.
1. Vessel Design Concept
Structure: Two counter-rotating habitat rings provide artificial gravity (~1g), connected by a central non-rotating module for propulsion, docking, and storage.
Capacity: Designed to accommodate 100–500 passengers, each with ~75–100 m² of habitable space, ensuring comfort over multi-year missions.
Materials: Lightweight composites for strength and redundancy, with radiation shielding and modular systems for repairs.
Energy and Propulsion: Solar panels for electricity, nuclear-electric propulsion for interplanetary travel.
Safety: Advanced life-support systems and radiation shielding to mitigate risks during extended missions.
2. Estimated Costs
Research and Development: $10–20 billion.
Manufacturing: $5–10 billion, leveraging 3D printing to reduce costs.
Launch to LEO: $0.5–1 billion per launch, requiring 10–20 launches using heavy-lift rockets like SpaceX Starship.
Assembly in Orbit: $1–2 billion for crew and robotic assembly.
Stocking and Operation: $1–3 billion for consumables, life-support, and pre-mission testing.
Total Estimate: $20–40 billion.
3. Market Opportunities
Passenger Revenue Model
Ticket Price: With a $30 billion total cost and 100 passengers, initial ticket prices could be ~$300 million per person.
Potential Clients: Ultra-wealthy individuals, corporations (for branding and research), and research institutions.
Corporate Sponsorship and Partnerships
Space mining corporations.
Advertising agencies.
Pharmaceutical and research companies.
Government and Agency Collaboration
Partnerships with space agencies for research and Mars settlement missions.
Reserve sections of the vessel for governmental use.
4. Funding Strategies
Private Investment: Engage entities like SpaceX or Blue Origin already interested in Mars colonization.
Public-Private Partnerships: Combine governmental and private funding for mutual benefit.
Philanthropy and Crowdfunding: Attract wealthy individuals and public interest for equity-based opportunities.
Conclusion
This concept bridges traditional engineering principles with expansive visions of human space exploration. By leveraging private investment, public partnerships, and innovative design, the proposed spacecraft can open new frontiers for human exploration and settlement of the Solar System.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2025-01-11 14:26:05

There are a lot of different things that impact what an appropriate exploration vessel might be. Some of these will drive the design very hard. Overall driving factors considered here are reusability, spin gravity, radiation protection, meteoroid protection, and “exploration” as opposed to “settlement”.

That last implies smaller crews, and I am entirely unsure that 38 is a “small crew for exploration”! I think it might be significantly less. A little excess capacity is needed for future growth, so that the design has a long service life, but way too much excess capacity is simply not affordable. No one will buy such a thing until numbers of people that large are actually really needing to travel across space. That simply does NOT happen in exploration!

Exploration designs for crew transports can be used during the experimental base phase as well. But settlement designs could initially transport dozens-to-hundreds, and some years later hundreds-to-thousands, after the settlement grows a lot bigger.

I think 38 falls in the “dozens-to-hundreds” class, and is therefore an early settlement-type design, NOT an exploration/experimental base design. Those are more likely a “single-handful-to-at-most-a-couple-of-dozen”.

Whether you pick 3 or 4 rpm as the max tolerable spin rate for spin gravity, it does not matter very much. Both produce huge spin radii, when you force them to provide near 1 full gee of spin gravity. Less gee is immoral and unethical, precisely because we have experience and results only at 1 and 0 gee, NOTHING in between, and we already know 0-gee is a very serious risk past just a bit over only a year’s exposure. At 4 rpm and 1 gee, it is 56 m radius. At 3 rpm and 1 gee, it is about 100 m.

Crew size drives the habitable volume, yes. But that has to be tempered with the need to be able to reconfigure some of that volume to meet changing needs as time goes by. The volume-per-person figure for months-to-years in space does NOT look like the volume inside an airliner, which is 12-14 hours at most. Sleeping quarters volume can be that small, but each person needs a lot more space during waking hours to go do things. You need space in which to congregate, and space in which to be alone.

The real volume-per-person allowance looks more like Skylab and ISS, at something like 300-500 cubic meters per person, as a minimum figure. For voyages of multiple years, something closing upon 1000 cubic meters per person may actually be more realistic.

So, what is the right crew size for an exploration mission? Well, it varies! I was looking at 3 crews of 3, plus a commander, for a total of 10 (I’m unsure entirely where the 38 figure came from). Under some circumstances, you have 3 crews for each of 3 8-hour shifts around the clock, when that sort of thing is necessary. Otherwise, for surface exploration purposes, I was looking at (at least) 3 landers, each intended for a crew of 3, but with seats up to 6.

You only send 1 lander down at a time, and only for a short stay camping-out in the lander: days-to-a-couple of weeks. That way you have at least 2 landers on-orbit with you at all times. Even if 1 on-orbit lander fails, you still have 1 left with which to mount a surface rescue attempt, should the lander on the surface also fail. No other exploration choice offers that capability, only on-orbit basing! I consider it immoral and unethical not to provide such capability, if it can be done.

So, crew of 10, and at least 500 cubic meters per person for years in space, is a habitable volume of at least 5000 cubic meters. If that were a sphere, it would still only be about 10.6 m inside diameter. At 1000 cubic meters per person, this is still only be about 6.2 m inside diameter! Neither is anywhere remotely close to a disk or wheel of 56-100 m spin radius dimension! That makes baton spin your ONLY feasible option for a small exploration crew, right there!

Just for the sake of argument, let us assume we can dock together a set of cylindrical modules, each around 5 m diameter and 20 m long, with about 400 cubic meters available inside as habitable volume. If I use a stick of 6 of these end-to-end, that is about 120 m long, for a 60 m radius, so we can use just under 4 rpm and get 1 gee near the ends in baton spin. The summed volume is around 2400 cubic meters, which at 500 per person, says a crew of 4.8 could live for some years in there. That’s not enough! I needed 10 crew, 5000 cubic meters.

Second attempt: go to fatter, longer modules, and use more of them. Try 8 m dia by 30 m long, and call it 900 cubic meters inside. We would need at least 6 of them. The stick of 6 is 180 m long, for a spin radius of 90 m in baton spin. At 1 gee near the ends, we only need to spin at about 3.1 or 3.2 rpm! There, that would work, and provide plenty of reconfigurable volume for a crew of 10.

Work stations would be in the two end modules at highest spin gravity gee. Recreation and food prep would be in the two intermediate modules at around half a gee. Sleeping would be in the two center modules, fairly near zero gee. Prone sleeping in gravity is a close cousin to weightlessness anyway, medically speaking. Excluding the sleep cycle, the two waking shifts average about 0.75 gee, with one full shift at a full 1 gee. That should be adequately therapeutic against microgravity diseases, as best we know anything about it.

Put the engines on one end, and the electricity-making equipment on the other, so it still balances out pretty near the center as center of gravity. The propellant tanks mount clustered around the periphery alongside the habitation modules, to serve as radiation shadow shields, augmenting the construction of the habitation modules themselves as radiation shielding. Those modules would have about half-to-a-full-meter thickness of layers of fabric, woven from artificial fibers (low molecular weight).

That fabric wrapping serves as both thermal insulation and as the solar particle radiation shield, and it will even reduce cosmic rays a little. And if you intersperse some metal foil layers at intervals in your layers of fabric, the same structure can serve yet a third purpose: meteoroid shield. This would be true whether the modules were inflatables or hard-shell. The thickness helps contain the secondary showers from cosmic ray particles striking the metal foils.

Even at a crew of 38, you are looking at a habitable volume in the neighborhood of 19,000 cubic meters. If spherical, the radius would be only about 16.3 m. This is still a long way from the fixed spin radius requirement in the 56-99 m range. But, if you consider 2 counter-rotating disks each 2 m thick, their radii would be near 77 m, which is definitely in the ballpark for looking at that approach. If the disks were each 3 m thick, their radii would be 63 m. If 4 m thick, the radii become 55 m. And that last choice would be just about right, for a ship design with two counter-rotating centrifuge disks inside it.

In contrast, look at two centrifuge disks for the 5000 cubic meters and a crew of 10 that is closer to a real exploration design. If each disk is 2 m thick, disk radius is near only 40 m. That is just too small. If we go to only 1 centrifuge disk 2m thick, that radius grows to a feasible 56 m, but we incur all sorts of dynamic coupling of gyroscopic effects into our vehicle, while the individual spaces are still only 2 m wide (just over a man-height). That would be fairly claustrophobic! The centrifuge disk design is just not a feasible or practical design approach at that smaller crew size!

See how crew size interplays so very strongly with the more-or-less fixed min spin radius for a 1-gee centrifuge? This interplay very strongly limits what you can do with your space transport design! You are simply NOT free to just arbitrarily choose a design approach!

GW

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-11 20:30:42

For GW Johnson re #4

The argument about G force advanced in #4 is interesting.

The Universe has placed at our disposal a body that offers 4/10 of the gravity of Earth.

According to your logic, it is immoral and unethical to deliver humans to such an environment.

On the other hand, RobertDyck made the decision years ago to accept the conditions imposed by the Universe, so he set his vessel habitat diameter to allow Mars equivalent G force, and he set his atmosphere in the vessel equivalent to the habitat atmosphere that will prevail on Mars, for the reasons that you and RobertDyck and others have explained repeatedly.

It seems to me the idea of providing 1 g is an admirable ambition, and your proposed rotating habitat vessel would indeed be impressive at 108 meters diameter plus whatever additional diameter is required for shielding.

Let's set the G force of Mars at 4 m/s(squared) just for convenience...

I consulted omnicalculator.com/physics/centripetal-force and asked for the combination of factors that would deliver Mars gravity at 3 RPM.

I have forgotten the figure that RobertDyck published years ago, but omnicalculator says the values for RobertDyck's Large ship habitat would be:

Radius: 40 meters so diameter 80 meters
Angular velocity: 3.02 rpm
Centripetal force: .004 kNewtons
Centripetal acceleration: 4 m/s^2

The diameter of the ship would be greater than 80 meters due to the need for radiation and other protections.

100 meters seems to me like a reasonable guess for the diameter, so on the order of the length of an American football field.

GW Johnson has referred to this ship size as a Battlestar Galactica.

I asked Google for dimensions of Battlestar Galactica and learned there were multiple ships.

A representative size is 1400 meters long and 500 meters wide.

A rotating habitat vessel with the dimensions that I've calculated would yield a Mars gravity and 3 RPM is only a fifth of the width listed above.

If the ship is traveling flat on it would present quite a nice target for oncoming orbital debris.

My preference for this concept is the dual inline rotating habitats, as I have shown on multiple occasions already.

In that case, the ship would be long and wide and thin, and it would travel edge on so the exposed leading surface would be limited to the width of the habitat rings, and if the Sierra Space habitat is chosen as the cabin size, then that width would be on the order of 25 meters.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-11 20:41:51

As a follow up to #5, it appears that 22 of the Sierra Space LIFE habitats would fit comfortably in a ring to meet RobertDyck's specifications.

If we plan for one person per habitat, then the crew could reach up to 44 people. Clearly more than one person could be accommodated by a habitat that large, but if we plan for RobertDyck's specifications, then 44 cabins could be installed, and each crew person would have a measure of privacy and maneuvering room for a long voyage.

Update: I asked Google for the dimensions of the Hindenberg:

LZ-129 Hindenburg statistics: Length: 245 m / 803.8 feet. Diameter: 41.2 m / 135.1 feet. Gas capacity: 200,000 cubic meters / 7,062,000 cubic feet.
Hindenburg Statistics | Airships.net
www.airships.net › LZ-129 Hindenburg

The ship I'm thinking about would be 80 meters twice plus propulsion at both ends, so 245 meters total looks about right.

The width would necessarily exceed 80 meters, but the depth would be on the order of the diameter of the Hindenburg at 41 meters.

Looking at the vessel edge on, it would cast a silhouette similar to the Hindenburg.

Summary:
Length: 245 meters
Width: 100 meters
Depth: 41 meters

(th)

Terraformer · 2025-01-12 04:53:03

For exercise, perhaps we could get away with a far higher rpm in a gym, and so smaller centrifuge? There are some exercises that can be done in a non standing position, which would reduce the effects of high spin and gravity gradients... Though idk how useful they'd be for reducing health issues.

We actually do have experience with partial (Lunar) gravity -- in mice, thanks to Japan. Its enough to stop skeletal muscle from atrophying. There are changes to fiber type, but they seem to mirror changes seen in people who stop athletics training, so I suspect its due to the mice just having to work a lot less.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-04769-3

Its too early to be designing spacecraft based on a lack of knowledge. Before we reach that point, I'm pretty confident we'll have had experiments in orbit with partial g. Musk will want to know what effects Martian gravity has at least as much as anyone here does.

Last edited by Terraformer (2025-01-12 08:14:20)

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-12 08:14:46

This post is intended to show the start of a 3D Printer model project with ChatGPT4o.

Here is the BBCode-formatted summary of our conversation so far:
---
Project Summary: 3D Printable Model of a Large Spacecraft
Introduction
You are developing a 3D printable model of a spacecraft designed to provide artificial gravity using two counter-rotating habitat rings. The vessel dimensions are comparable to the zeppelin Hindenburg:
Length: 245 meters
Width: 100 meters
Depth: 45 meters
Habitat Ring Diameter: 80 meters
Goal: Simulate Martian gravity (0.38g) via rotation.
---
Work Plan Overview
Define the Structure: Key sections include the central spine, habitat rings, propulsion system, docking ports, and observation areas.
3D Printing Considerations: The model will be modular for easy assembly and printing at an appropriate scale (e.g., 1:500 or 1:1000). PLA or PETG is recommended.
Design Features: Include rotating habitats with visible interiors, reinforced central spine, docking ports, propulsion systems, and solar arrays.
Rotation Speed Calculation: Use formulas to determine the RPM needed for Martian gravity simulation.
Tools and Workflow: Software like Blender, Fusion 360, or TinkerCAD will be used for modeling. Cura will handle slicing and print preparation.
Modular Enhancements: Options for LED lighting, customizable parts, and display stands will be explored.
---
Next Steps
Refine specific sections, such as habitat ring design or rotation speed calculations.
Begin creating the 3D model using software tools.
Prepare for slicing and print testing.
Please let me know how you'd like to proceed or if you need more details on any part of the plan!
---
Feel free to copy and paste this into your forum for display!

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-12 08:24:29

I offered some small adjustments, and ChatGPT4o revised the work plan slightly:

Thank you for the update and the adjustment to the project's design! Your clarity of vision and optimism for achieving this complex goal are inspiring. It’s great to hear that the report was well-received in your forum. Based on your updated specifications, we’ll adapt the plan to reflect this as a **deep-space vessel**, ensuring the design includes features like radiation and debris shielding while removing any Mars-specific elements like dust shields.
---
### **Refined Project Goals for a Deep-Space Vessel**
- Purpose: A self-sufficient deep-space vessel with long-term operational capacity anywhere in the Solar System.
- Primary Focus: Simulating artificial gravity (via counter-rotating habitats) and ensuring protection from space hazards.
---
### **Updated Design Considerations**
#### **1. Habitat Rings**
- Rotation will simulate Martian gravity (0.38g), providing a stable and livable environment for crew.
- Interior design should account for:
- Living quarters
- Workspaces
- Recreation areas
Blender can help visualize these interiors if cross-sectional views or animations are planned.
#### **2. Radiation Shielding**
- Use **toroidal shielding** surrounding each habitat ring. Potential materials include:
- Hydrogen-rich compounds (effective against cosmic radiation).
- Water tanks integrated as both shielding and a life-support resource.
- Shielding thickness will balance effectiveness with mass.
#### **3. Micrometeorite and Debris Protection**
- Add **Whipple Shielding**, which uses multi-layered thin materials to absorb impact energy.
- Key areas to shield:
- Habitat rings
- Central spine
- Propulsion system
- Solar arrays and radiators.
#### **4. Central Spine**
- Houses the core structural elements and mechanical systems for habitat rotation.
- Includes:
- Communication arrays
- Navigation systems
- Docking bays and storage for exploration modules or cargo.
- Design should showcase structural stability in Blender, perhaps with animation showing connections to the rotating rings.
#### **5. Propulsion and Energy Systems**
- Propulsion: Nuclear or advanced ion drives, with exhaust ports designed to minimize heat or debris backflow.
- Energy Generation: Large solar arrays or compact nuclear power systems with extendable radiators for thermal control.
#### **6. Modularity for Printing and Display**
- Divide the model into distinct sections:
- **Habitat Rings**
- **Central Spine**
- **Propulsion System**
- **Shielding Components**
- **Solar Arrays and Radiators**
- Use Blender's capabilities to create snap-fit or connector systems.
#### **7. Animations**
- Blender can animate:
- Counter-rotating habitats for demonstration.
- Deployable solar arrays or radiators.
- Docking or undocking of smaller craft (if included).
---
### **Next Steps**
1. Radiation and Debris Shielding Design: Start with a simple design for toroidal shielding and Whipple layers around the habitats.
2. Blender Model Setup:
- Block out the basic shapes (habitat rings, spine, propulsion, and shielding).
- Keep geometry simple for early stages to allow quick iterations.
3. Rotation Mechanism Visualization: Model the connection between the central spine and the habitat rings, emphasizing the counter-rotation mechanism.
4. Print Test Strategy: Prepare early test models of individual sections (e.g., a single habitat ring or spine section) for 3D printing to confirm feasibility.
---
Let me know if you'd like to focus on any specific part of the design or workflow in Blender, or if you'd like assistance with initial calculations for shielding or rotation. This vessel is shaping up to be an amazing project!

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-12 08:44:14

In this session, we considered the 3D Printer build platform and the challenges of designing the ship for assembly in LEO.
Along the way, the idea of making this model in a form that could be assembled by humans on Earth began to take shape.

Thank you for sharing these details! Incorporating the constraints of your 3D printer and the potential assembly process, both for the model and the real-world spacecraft, gives us a clear framework for planning. Here’s a refined approach:
---
### **1. Model Scale and 3D Printer Constraints**
- **Scale:** 1 mm = 1 meter (1000:1 scale)
- **Print Bed:** 200 mm × 200 mm × 200 mm
- At this scale, the largest printable segment represents 200 meters × 200 meters × 200 meters in the real world.
This scale accommodates the spacecraft’s total length (245 meters) and other dimensions, provided we split the model into components.
---
### **2. Modular Design Plan**
To emulate real-world orbital assembly and match your printer's capabilities:
#### **A. Habitat Rings (80 meters in diameter at scale)**
- Split each ring into **quadrants** or **thirds**, depending on structural integrity and assembly ease.
- Each segment could include part of the outer shell, interior space, and connection points for assembly.
- **Diameter at scale:** 80 mm → fits well on the print bed as long as segments are ≤200 mm.
#### **B. Central Spine (245 meters long at scale)**
- Divide the spine into **10–18-meter-long sections** at scale (10–18 mm per section), matching Starship’s payload bay constraints.
- Sections should include connector points for habitat rings and propulsion components.
#### **C. Nose Section**
- The nose, being one of the smaller parts, can be printed as a single piece or split into 2–3 sections for detail and easier printing.
#### **D. Tail/Propulsion Section**
- Similar to the nose, print in 2–3 sections to allow for detailed features like engine bells, radiator arrays, and exhaust ports.
#### **E. Additional Components**
- **Solar Arrays and Radiators:**
- Design as foldable or detachable panels.
- Use hinges or snap-fit connectors for added realism and assembly.
- **Docking Bays:**
- Include as separate modular units for attachment to the spine.
---
### **3. Real-World Payload Bay Emulation**
- **Starship Payload Bay Limits:**
- **Length:** Max 18 meters (18 mm at scale).
- **Diameter:** Max 9 meters (9 mm at scale).
- Modular components for the 3D model can mimic these constraints, preparing for future animations or demonstrations showing how components could be launched and assembled on orbit.
---
### **4. Assembly and Printing Plan**
#### **A. Component Grouping**
- Habitat Ring Quadrants (e.g., 4–6 parts per ring).
- Central Spine Sections (15–25 mm segments).
- Nose, Tail, and Other Features.
#### **B. Printing Tips**
- **Orientation:** Print larger, flat sections (like habitat walls) with the largest face down to reduce overhangs.
- **Supports:** Use supports strategically for overhangs, especially for detailed propulsion or docking components.
- **Tolerances:** Design connection points with assembly tolerances in mind (0.2–0.4 mm gaps recommended).
#### **C. Post-Processing**
- Sanding or filing to smooth connection points.
- Use adhesive or mechanical fasteners (e.g., small screws or magnets) to join parts.
---
### **5. Blender Workflow**
#### **Step 1:** Create Base Shapes
- Begin with simple primitives for habitats, spine, and propulsion.
- Ensure dimensions match the scaled model.
#### **Step 2:** Split Components
- Use Blender's **Knife Tool** or Boolean operations to divide habitats and spine into printable sections.
#### **Step 3:** Add Details
- Include surface features like docking ports, shielding, and interior details.
#### **Step 4:** Test Fit
- Export STL files for slicing in Cura.
- Test smaller components first to ensure compatibility with assembly tolerances.
#### **Step 5:** Animation (Optional)
- Animate the orbital assembly process in Blender:
- Habitat ring segments joining to form a complete ring.
- Spine sections connecting.
- Deployment of solar arrays and radiators.
---
### **Next Steps**
1. Begin modeling the **habitat rings** in Blender, dividing them into printable sections.
2. Define connection points and tolerances for assembly.
3. Test-print a small section of the habitat or spine to validate dimensions and fit.
Let me know if you’d like help with the Blender modeling process, slicing settings, or specific calculations for print tolerances!

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-12 08:54:24

In this round we began to refine the vision a bit. We added the Space Tug service as a design element, and that automatically reduces the need for onboard propulsion and fuel storage. We added the mass target of 5000 tons to be pushed by the Space Tug. ChatGPT4o picked up on the need for an interface to work with the Space Tug. We'll have to consult Dr. Johnson for specifics of that component.

Thank you for providing these insightful adjustments and clarifying the mission context! The new details about the vessel’s purpose and propulsion requirements refine the design priorities, particularly for internal volume optimization and aesthetic considerations. Here's an updated plan based on this information:
---
### **Refined Design Priorities**
1. **Deep Space Vessel Characteristics:**
- Non-aerodynamic Design: Focus on pleasing curves and balanced aesthetics rather than streamlining.
- Maximized Internal Volume: Utilize the available dimensions (245m × 100m × 45m) for efficient storage and structural integrity.
- Mass Target: 5000 tons, as constrained by the Space Tug.
2. **Space Tug Integration:**
- The vessel will be pushed to near escape velocity by Dr. GW Johnson’s Space Tug.
- Include a structural interface for docking and towing by the Tug.
- Design the vessel’s propulsion for orbital corrections and post-Tug escape maneuvers.
---
### **Key Design Adjustments**
#### **1. Aesthetic Considerations**
- Curved Features:
- Incorporate sweeping curves for hull shapes and habitat modules.
- Avoid flat or boxy designs for components visible externally.
- Blend structural elements into an organic, unified appearance.
- Visual Balance:
- Place rotating habitats prominently to emphasize symmetry.
- Use smooth transitions between sections (e.g., spine to nose/tail).
#### **2. Structural and Functional Elements**
- Internal Volume Utilization:
- Allocate sections for fuel tanks, supply storage, life-support systems, and radiation shielding.
- Place heavy items (fuel, propulsion systems) near the center of mass for stability.
- Docking and Tug Interface:
- Add reinforced structural hardpoints for Tug attachment.
- Consider including visual details for alignment mechanisms and tug clamps.
- Propulsion Design:
- Include engines sufficient for orbital corrections and final escape velocity adjustments.
- Use nuclear thermal or ion propulsion to maintain long-term efficiency.
#### **3. Habitat Ring Integration**
- Living Space and Storage:
- Ensure the rotating habitats maximize usable space while maintaining structural integrity.
- Design modular interiors for adaptability (living quarters, recreational areas, hydroponics).
- Shielding for Radiation and Micrometeoroids:
- Encapsulate habitat rings with layered shielding (toroidal tanks, Whipple shields).
---
### **Design Adaptation for 3D Printing**
#### **Modular Components for Assembly**
- Divide the vessel into logical segments for printing and assembly:
- Nose Section: Docking ports and Tug interface.
- Central Spine: Structural core for habitats, storage, and propulsion.
- Habitat Rings: Split into segments for ease of printing.
- Tail Section: Engines, radiators, and final structure.
#### **Scaling for 3D Printing**
- Scale: 1:1000 (1 mm = 1 m).
- Print Bed: 200 mm × 200 mm × 200 mm.
- Segment size: Keep individual components ≤18 mm (18 meters) in length for realism and printability.
#### **Structural Features**
- Design interlocking components to mimic real-world orbital assembly.
- Include visible connection points for Tug and solar arrays to enhance realism.
---
### **Next Steps**
1. Begin Blender Modeling:**
- Block out the overall structure (nose, spine, habitats, tail).
- Start with the spine and one habitat ring for modular design testing.
2. Incorporate Tug Interface:**
- Add structural hardpoints and visual features for Tug compatibility.
3. Optimize Internal Volume:**
- Define space for fuel tanks, storage, and propulsion in the spine and tail sections.
4. Aesthetic Refinements:**
- Introduce curves and organic shapes for a visually pleasing design.
---
Would you like to focus on any specific aspect of the design (e.g., Tug interface, habitat details, or propulsion system) for the next stage? Let me know, and we can dive in!

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-12 09:07:27

For our next session I've asked ChatGPT4o to make the nose and stern mirror images of each other, because the Space Tug needs to push at the stern when the vessel is departing Earth, and at the nose when the vessel is returning to Earth. This vessel is too large to be doing rotations.

In addition, propulsion at nose and stern will be helpful to the Captain when dealing with the challenges of deep space navigation, or of in-port maneuvers with or without the assistance of Space Tugs.

I think this project is off to a good start. At 1000:1 scale, the 3D Printer rending should be achievable, and the resulting model will be 245 mm or almost 10 inches long. The parts to make the model can be rendered in greater or lesser detail depending upon the age of the builder. A fully realized model would provide the parts exactly as they would be shipped to LEO and assembled there.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2025-01-12 10:23:56

I still see too much either/or thinking going on, especially with respect to gee levels and what is proper and what is not. It depends very greatly upon what transportation you are actually using.

Since no rotating space stations have ever been built to do the research, we are going to find out the hard way whether Mars or lunar gravity is enough, by simply going there.

What we do know from decades at 0-gee in the space stations that we did build, is that exercise is NOT enough to ward off the bad effects of over-a-year's exposure to 0 gee. It helps with muscle atrophy and bone density loss, but not enough to be a long-term cure. These Mars-and-elsewhere missions will be 2+ years in length, except perhaps less than a year at the moon.

Where transportation gets into it is when you come back from such missions to Earth: specifically atmospheric entry gees. What has proven OK is entry from LEO at only 3-4 gees, persons exposed to 0-gee for a bit over a year can tolerate that homecoming, despite the long-term heart weakening for which exercise has proven more ineffective than effective. If the weakening from 2+ years is no worse (big "if"), then a ride back from LEO will be survivable, and recovery can take place as far as it can, down on the surface of the Earth.

What that presumes is your transportation is orbit-to-orbit, that you will stop in LEO instead of doing direct atmospheric entry off your interplanetary trajectory home. Consider history once again: Apollo entering from LEO was about a 3-4 gee ride, as were all the other capsules and the Shuttle, coming home from LEO. But Apollo coming back from the moon at just barely under escape speed was an 11-gee ride. Those astronauts were fully Earth fit, having been in space only 2 weeks.

A free direct entry coming back from Mars would be worse still, since the velocity at entry is well above Earth escape. It will be at least about 12.5 km/s. From a really fast trajectory, entry speed might be as high as 17 km/s. That kind of fast entry peaks well above 12 gees! 2+ years of low- or no-gee weakening of the heart, even with exercise trying to offset that, is quite likely to prove fatal. Even lying down, multiple gees strain the heart. We already know that.

Once again, you are not free to just arbitrarily select stuff, because the circumstances and characteristics all interact in ways you did not take into account!

Given a transportation system that stops in LEO, so that entry gees are low enough, a Mars-weakened person will likely do fine, able to land and recover Earthly strength once down on Earth. The rocket accelerations are usually less than entry gees, either way.

Otherwise, with free returns, the high likelihood of fatality at high entry gees makes the return of a Mars-weakened person that way unethical. Same would be true for a weakened person returning from a very long stay on the moon. And the temptation would be rather strong to presume or prefer a free return from the moon. That would expose him to an 11 gee ride that he likely would not survive, and doing that deliberately is the evil choice that I wished to expose.

We already know exercise and drugs help with very low-gravity weakening, but they don't do it all. Effectiveness is limited, not perfect. THAT is why 400+ days in space at 0-gee is something we already know to avoid.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-01-12 10:31:05)

Terraformer · 2025-01-12 10:57:09

Since no rotating space stations have ever been built to do the research, we are going to find out the hard way whether Mars or lunar gravity is enough, by simply going there.

Since we haven't ever gone to Mars, we are going to find out by building stations to do the research. Until then, there isn't the data to use in designs. Our one data point for partial gravity suggests a lot of the issues resolve with Lunar levels. That's in mice, which can't be put on am exercise regimen, so we don't know how well partial gravity + exercise will do. Doing the research is far far cheaper than commiting to a design that is excessive.

Void · 2025-01-12 14:12:24

If my presence becomes annoying and drags things the wrong way, just tell me, and I will step back.

But the memberships work, have caused me to think I see a convenient convergence of possibilities at this point.
1) I would say that before a Starship is sent to Mars, there is going exist a desire to prove life support in space.
2) You might want to test some animals under synthetic gravity.
3) You might want to test Optimus Robots in such a ship, and perhaps to use teleoperation with them.
4) You might want to be able to use Dragon for limited visits to such a Starship.

So, if you would spin one end over end, it may be able to simulate both 1/6 and .38 g forces.

It would make sense to keep this activity in LEO, so that radiation does not become a huge issue and to make access easier.

The Elevator may make it possible for access to the cabin area airlock, or it might make sense to put ballast on the ships tail end to cause the center of rotation to be at the location of an airlock/docking port.

Maybe this would be done so that a Dragon could facilitate visits to this test device, from another space station like the ISS, if it is still functional.

Humans might stay for a few days, to get a feal for things like body fluids migrations, and perhaps some other factors.

The Optimus when teleoperated either from another space Station or the surface of the Earth, might be able to manage the test animals.

So, you would be testing the ships' reliability, and the Optimus, and the Animals in fractional gravitation. For instance, you may want to test it over long time durations, such as 6 months or 9 months, or a simulated trip to Mars and back.
After all if it is going to go to Mars and back, it has to be very reliable.

And it looks to me that these things are likely to be possible in the next couple of years.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-01-12 14:23:51)

GW Johnson · 2025-01-12 14:29:25

Before Nixon killed Apollo in the midst of the landings (we had already built hardware to support through Apollo-22), NASA's formal plans called for a manned Mars mission during the 1983 opposition. This was to be flown weightless, and without solar particle radiation shielding. Knowing what we know today, that crew would likely have died on the way.

After Nixon's order killed Apollo AND ALL MANNED FLIGHT OUTSIDE LEO, NASA cancelled its Mars mission plans, which had by then slipped to the 1989 opposition. They also killed the NERVA nuclear engine program, on the rationale that "if we aren't going to go, who needs the engine?" (They had already killed the nuclear pulse propulsion project they got from USAF, in favor of NERVA.)

There were no space stations up to this point, other than Almaz. Our MOL never flew a manned mission, before it was totally shut down. It was not until Skylab in 1973 (and the Salyut stations), that we began to experiment with exercise and drugs to counter the previously-expected muscle atrophy and bone density loss.

That knowledge has expanded across the decades of ISS. We now know there are many unanticipated effects of 0-gee, that some are irreversible after about a year, and we have no countermeasures for most of them. The single-minded determination to find countermeasures to the ill effects of long-term weightlessness has proven to be a dead end.

The awkward single-mindedness shows in that we NEVER built any spinning stations to explore the effects of low but non-zero gee. There should already have been several years worth of experience with that, which is what it takes to uncover the real truth, based on our experiences with 0-gee.

There is now no longer the time to get that research done "right", because in the next very few years, some outfit is going to send a crew there anyway. Probably in weightless flight, and with inadequate radiation shielding, and based upon error-ridden remote sensing as to where to land, and with in-situ resource utilization gear that probably will not work right. The decision will be made not on facts and evidence, but on geopolitical crap.

It does seem to me like rather high odds that those outfits (whoever they turn out to be) will get crews (plural) killed, learning what not to do, which is the hard way to do that. And that is why I said what I said about "finding out the hard way".

GW

Terraformer · 2025-01-12 14:35:30

The successor space station will almost certainly incorporate a centrifuge of some kind. Starship is 9m wide, so a 4m radius doesn't seem unreasonable; I'd expect *something* that's big enough for astronauts to spend time in, even if it's not for most exercise -- there are other effects of microgravity to consider that may be ameliorated by having an hour each say under gravity...

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-12 17:58:38

The concern about G force vs RPM expressed in a post here or there in the NewMars archive inspired me to use the online centripetal force calculator to see what is possible given a radius of 40 meters. 40 meters gives Mars gravity at 3 RPM (rounding numbers). That same wheel can provide 1 G at 5 RPM.

I bring this up because 5 RPM was reported to have been the rate of revolution chosen by the folks who put "2001" together. Apparently they thought humans could tolerate that rotation rate for long periods.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/ … etal-force

The web site claims that this link will share results of the request:

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/ … 4AAA%3D%3D

I'd be surprised if that long link works.

Update: The link appears to work. I am surprised! If it works for you it shows the Earth equivalent gravity at 4.7 RPM.

Here is the original specification by RobertDyck back in the very first post of the Large Ship topic:

Updated math with more precision. Mars acceleration for the ship, so 38.0% that of Earth gravity. Radius 37.76 metres from centre of rotation to surface of the floor, 3 RPM. One deck. Circumference 237.25 metres. Ring width 19 metres. This allows 2 isles for cabins, corridors 1.5 metres wide, outside cabins have a window, inside cabins do not. Standard cabin size 4x2.4 metres.

I rounded up to 40 meters so the rounded diameter is 80 meters.

The rotation can vary from 3 RPM to 5 RPM and gravity from Mars to Earth.

People going to Mars can start at 5 RPM and over the trip drop down to 3.

Folks returning from Mars to Earth can do the reverse.

Everyone should be hale and hearty upon return to LEO, if they obey their physicians' orders.

Let's stop the gloom and doom ... I'm not here to waste my time with gloom and doom.

The first 3D Print is in process now. It is a 1:1000 scale model of the block that will hold one rotating habitat. My plan is to print four blocks to try to get a sense of how this size would work as a build-it-yourself toy, or as a system to study.

The four blocks will consist of:

20 meters bow section; 100 meters habitat one; 100 meters habitat two; 20 meters stern section.

The 1:1000 scale is pretty small, but it may be worth pursuing.

The entire model will be just under 10 inches long at the 1:1000 scale.

(th)

Terraformer · 2025-01-13 04:32:30

I'm unconvinced by claims about low maximum tolerable RPM. If you spin on the spot, you don't get much dizziness from 10RPM, and that only when you stop. What matters is how close your ears are to the axis of rotation/the coriolis forces they're exposed to. Figure skaters can go far higher than that.

We could investigate this fairly cheaply on Earth. Using training periods, people can acclimatise to 26 RPM.. A centrifuge hab could be built to examine longer term effects, angled to account for earth gravity of course. Though getting up to the highest levels would not be simple, given how much centrifugal acceleration would be involved.

We'd want to spin the crew quarters anyway for convenience, but it doesn't have to be anywhere close to 1g to make plumbing work and dust settle and provide a definite down directiom. Maybe 0.1g. We can achieve that spinning about the long axis... gravity just isn't that big a deal for missions tbh, the only reason the station lacks a centrifuge is that someone with influence is actively opposed to going beyond LEO...

Last edited by Terraformer (2025-01-13 05:01:54)

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-14 11:04:03

The text below is from a sign to be placed with a 3D Printed model of the Deep Space Exploration Vessel with dual counter rotating habitats.

DSEV
Deep Space Exploration Vessel
Size:
1:1000 scale
Same as Hindenburg
Zeppelin
Sections:
Gold: Prow
Green: Forward Habitat
Blue: Aft Habitat
Red: Stern
Rotation rate: 3 RPM Mars Gravity
4 RPM Earth Gravity

This vessel is (tentatively) configured with 22 cabins per habitat ring, or 44 in all.

Update: A generous designer of 3D Print items provides a 1:1000 scale model of the Hindenburg Zeppelin . I've downloaded the plans and am thinking of printing the model. It comes in parts so it can be printed on my printer. It would be helpful to place beside the model of the Deep Space Exploration Vessel. The two are almost exactly the same size, although the space vessel will be larger in girth when radiation shield is added.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-21 14:11:25

GW Johnson provided a spreadsheet for calculation of g force vs spin rate / arm radius

http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 41#p229241

I looked for the readings for the design of this topic:

Radius is 40 meters.

At 40 meters the RPM is less that 5 and greater than 4

The spreadsheet includes a special calculator for head-toe difference.

The results provided for the 40 meter radius device, run at 5 RPM show:

Toe G: 1
Head G: 0.95875
Difference: 0.04125
gee/meter: 0.025

While it remains to be seen with live tests in orbit, I am hoping the conditions at 40 meters radius will be acceptable to most humans.

It should be possible to experience the effects of rotation at this rate using a banked platform on Earth.

The G force on the subject will exceed 1 (of course) but that in itself should not be a problem.

What the test would be measuring is the effect of rotation.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-22 12:31:23

The latest version of GW Johnson Spin Calculation spreadsheet shows that the desired G of 1 at the head is achievable for a 40 meter radius ring at 5 RPM.

peruse the big table, then do the general calculation 1 ---
pick a rim gee, and a couple of N, rpm, that bracket the Rspin, m desired: HOW: gradient = rim gee/Rspin
then iterate N until you get exactly the spin radius you want --- toe gee = rim gee
N, rpm rim gee R, m gee/m diff hd-toe head gee toe gee diff = gradient*man ht (1.65m)
5 1.1 39.424 0.0279017857142857 0.0460379464285714 1.05396205357143 1.1 head gee = toe gee - diff

I am happy with this result. A rotation rate of 5 yields 1 G at the head and slightly more at the feet, so the whole body is inside the 1 G envelope.

Rotation radius is 40 meters or 131.234 feet.

Diameter is 80 meters or 262.468 feet

That's a decent sized ship, but comparable to the Hindenburg, and like the Hindenberg, the interior is mostly open space.

Spreadsheet:
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 89#p229289

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2025-01-05 22:53:13

Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#2 2025-01-05 22:53:52

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#3 2025-01-10 12:48:52

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

Designing a Marketable Spacecraft for Solar System Exploration

#4 2025-01-11 14:26:05

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#5 2025-01-11 20:30:42

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#6 2025-01-11 20:41:51

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#7 2025-01-12 04:53:03

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#8 2025-01-12 08:14:46

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

Project Summary: 3D Printable Model of a Large Spacecraft

#9 2025-01-12 08:24:29

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#10 2025-01-12 08:44:14

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#11 2025-01-12 08:54:24

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#12 2025-01-12 09:07:27

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#13 2025-01-12 10:23:56

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#14 2025-01-12 10:57:09

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#15 2025-01-12 14:12:24

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#16 2025-01-12 14:29:25

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#17 2025-01-12 14:35:30

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#18 2025-01-12 17:58:38

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#19 2025-01-13 04:32:30

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#20 2025-01-14 11:04:03

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#21 2025-01-21 14:11:25

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

#22 2025-01-22 12:31:23

Re: Deep Space Solar System Exploration Vessel Rotating Crew Quarters

Board footer