Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

smurf975 · 2004-06-01 11:39:48

Why don't I see much discussion about space stations? Is the topic less romantic? Here are some reasons why I think spacestation that have artificial gravity could be important.

1. If placed near the asteroid belt, you can start mineing them.
2. A transportation hub for resources and people to and from Mars / Earth.
3. Also they could be a very nice holiday destination for Martians/Earthlings.
4. Some very hightech gizmos are better produced at near zero gravity.
5.Science outpost, for experiments that could be harmfull on a planet or for studying the universe.
6. For people who don't want to terraform Mars or change more on Earth. However the basics would come from Mars or Earth but the rest can come from the Asteroid belt.

Dook · 2004-06-04 11:22:52

I am all for space stations, robots to mercury, venus, mars, and comets, space telescopes, even lunar missions are okay with me as long as they do not interfere with putting humans on mars. That is my priority and something I would like to see before I am sedated in a bed with oxygen hoses up my nose. All this other stuff unfortunately detracts from a manned mission to mars. We can't have all of it. So, my opinion is to buy out our ISS requirements and put $8 billion a year of NASA's budget directly toward Mars Direct. With the rest NASA can still fix the shuttle and fly one more mission to fix the hubble.

1) A space station near/in the asteroid belt would be a very risky maneuver for what benefit? I don't think we really need to risk billions of dollars and lives to mine asteroids. What would you do with the mined material anyway?
2) Space stations are like the moon. To go there would slow down a mission to mars. Leaving the earth ships can accelerate to 3km a minute but if they have to go to the moon they can only go 1.5 km a minute then slow down (use fuel), land (use more fuel), get whatever, launch (use a lot of fuel) and accelerate (still more fuel). It takes longer and wastes fuel for little benefit.
3) Holiday idea may work. Would take money from the rich and give to the poor NASA scientists projects.
4) Zero gravity experiments are good, ongoing aboard ISS now and okay with me as long as they don't keep us from mars.

smurf975 · 2004-06-04 12:54:58

I do understand that the NASA has a limited budget. So it has to be very specific were to spend its money.

However it’s my idea that the colonies would become self-sufficient. So the only "things" that they need from Earth are humans and knowledge. So it will cost NASA nothing to operate the Mars base except perhaps sending the initial base.

The self sufficient Mars colony could then work towards expanding. It can by putting all its time and resources into building these space stations and more buildings on Mars. As it has no national defense, police force or other expenses that the US has it should not be a problem. Another reason why it’s possible because there is no money or private property in the initial Mars colony fase. So all work done by the sciencetists, astronauts, engineers and mechanics is for free. Ok they may receive a salary on Earth but that’s not a big issue. I don't even think you need to pay them a salary (if they don't have family on Earth) as long as they get to do what they want they are happy. If they got family on Earth pay them $100.000 a year.

Launch those space stations from Mars and there you have a practically free space station.

1) A space station near/in the asteroid belt would be a very risky maneuver for what benefit? I don't think we really need to risk billions of dollars and lives to mine asteroids. What would you do with the mined material anyway?

You could use it to mine resources that are lacking on Mars. Such as Nitrogen.

2) Space stations are like the moon. To go there would slow down a mission to mars. Leaving the earth ships can accelerate to 3km a minute but if they have to go to the moon they can only go 1.5 km a minute then slow down (use fuel), land (use more fuel), get whatever, launch (use a lot of fuel) and accelerate (still more fuel). It takes longer and wastes fuel for little benefit.

Well if you think about the x-prize, then you could use one of competitor’s ships to launch people to orbit and from there have them put on a Earth – Mars ship. It should be cheaper.

3) Holiday idea may work. Would take money from the rich and give to the poor NASA scientists projects.

No comment

4) Zero gravity experiments are good, ongoing aboard ISS now and okay with me as long as they don't keep us from mars.

No as I think they should receive corporate funding from companies in for instance the semiconductor industry and pharmacy.

Please don't think that I want to establish some kind of communist state on Mars. It's just that those first people on Mars would be working for NASA which is like an engineer working in the Army. He gets his salary and perhaps a promotion if the bridge he build is good but nothing more.

Palomar · 2004-06-04 13:10:07

*Hi.

The topic of O'Neill and other space colonies has been brought up at New Mars. Digging deeper into the Science & Technology folder for those, or using the "Search" feature should bring them back up for you.

I've started at least 2 of those threads, IIRC.

--Cindy

MarsDog · 2004-06-05 03:34:58

Robots and a few humans can provide the initial data for future Mars settlement projects. But to occupy the solar system, space stations will be the way. For example, a space station shuttling between Earth and Mars, providing comfortable transportation.

Dook · 2004-06-11 20:50:52

Why would anyone want to live on a space station? Scientists conducting experiments maybe but civilians? For what purpose? To work? And go forever without the smell of the ocean, hearing the sound of a winter storm, seeing squirrels and birds in the park. Not me and not anyone I know.

Gennaro · 2004-06-11 21:16:49

As hubs between surface-to-orbit and interplanetary cruise, I used to think space stations might have a purpose once volumes get big enough, but nowadays I don't see the point.

If you want to transfer cargo, fuel or people from a cycler to an SSTO, why not just dock the ships? Why would you want a station in between? A cycler can sit waiting in orbit, it won't go anywhere.

Can't see the point of microgravity experiments at all. If you build a GCNR interplanetary ship, design it with a built in retractable tether to create artificial gravity. When you need to accelerate or deaccelerate wind in the tether.
If too big and heavy for a tether system, make it a compact 'tumbler'. If really huge, you might like to design living areas as a cylinder ring around the centre frame as an alternative.

Just some ideas.

smurf975 · 2004-06-11 21:34:05

As you can see from http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/program … .html]this website (Space Island Group) there are several reasons for space stations. Also read the post "The case not for Mars" where the first post contains a link to an article where the author states the needs of spacestations.

Any way here is the list of uses for earth orbiting spacestations from the space island group:

Space Tourism
Research
Manufacturing
Orbit Services
Training
Entertainment
Education
Product Development
Mars
Lunar
Media Services

See space island site for their details.

I know living in a spacestation is not like living on Earth however its easier to go from a spacestation to Earth for a holiday then from Mars. And a lot of urban people have never seen any other animal then a cat or a dog anyway. Thats the reason why they send city kids to a petting zoo. So technically a lot of people will not loose a lot but gain much if the space stations looks anything like http://www.l5news.org/stanfordtorus.htm]The Stanford Torus or http://www.l5news.org/bernalsphere.htm]The Bernal Sphere and ONeill]http://www.l5news.org/oneillcylinder.htm]O'Neill Cylinder

Gennaro · 2004-06-11 22:28:21

Glanced through some things on the site. Interesting, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to make an informed comment on various applications. I'll speak out of gut feeling.
Special manufacturing, alloys, semi-conducters and the like sounds perhaps like the most plausible uses, but demand will have to be continually high to off-set the cost of deploying and accessing such platforms.
I like it, though. Free cash for the space program.

As for research/product development (now I'm are really getting into deep water here) wasn't that what the ISS was intended to be utilized for? Don't know, but I've got some recollection not that many have turned up. Of course, it isn't ready yet and it's above all probably also a matter of launch costs. Sorry, I just don't know enough about it.

Tourism. Hollow bunk, in my opinion. Too expensive for too doubtfull an experience. So you went around the earth a couple of times. So what?

Orbital services. Guess this means satellite maintenance? I like to recall reading several posts about this not being very economical. Better just launch a new, better and smaller satellite.

Mars. No use for a space station as far as I can tell.

Luna. The same.

Living/working on a space station wouldn't be too hard in my opinion. No worse than being on an oil rig, or something. Gigantic Bernal Spheres and O'Neill Cylinders sure aren't necessary for people to cope. Such monsters would however cost money, money and money, provided we even had some grasp of how to carry out large scale construction in space where there isn't anything to work with to begin with, not to mention what productive labour people living on them could offer Earth?
We are currently struggling to get together a LEO shack of tuna cans, for heaven's sake.

All things said and done, I think it might be worthwhile, but on a relatively small 'just enough' scale and generally as a corollary to greater things as Mars settlement.
Now, to reitirate, that's just my uninformed opinion.

smurf975 · 2004-06-11 23:46:18

I guess that you don't see any manfucturing at the ISS and before it the MIR because they were not designed to do so. You could consider them prototypes of possible bigger and better space stations. You need to test you theories on space station building before you start building one of those massive (Babylon 5) ones. And that is common sence.

Also the ISS was not build with making money out of it. It has a pure sciencetifcally and engineering value.

Personally when I see pictures of the Earth taken from space I would love to see it myself and feel it. And also the experience of weightlessness. I think if you don't admire the beaty of the Earth you will not admire anything from the universe. Like all those hubble pictures they are just gorgeous and I want to see them in real life.

Its possible that launching a smaller and updated sattelite is cheaper then fixing the old one. However if a certain company doesn't want to fix his sattelite and its just drifting in space. Then you could also just recycle it and spare the new sattelites of some possible collisions with space junk and at the same time get some valueable materials. (Actual plan from the space island group)

I agree building those O'Neill, Bernal or Stanfort spacestations are massivly expensive especially if build on Earth. However if using non earth materials you can save a lot of money.

You still asking me why. Then look at http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Mars.html]this article.

Gennaro · 2004-06-12 07:20:42

Personally when I see pictures of the Earth taken from space I would love to see it myself and feel it. And also the experience of weightlessness. I think if you don't admire the beaty of the Earth you will not admire anything from the universe.

Oh please, don't take it like that! I have the greatest awe for our blue dot and would love seeing it from outisde as well. It's just that as a tourist attraction, it will remain awfully expensive and the novelty of it might fade faster than we like to think. Even when railroads made their breakthrough most people didn't use them for pleasure rides but because they were going someplace. Suddenly the working class and petit bourgoisie could travel to the other end of the country just to meet friends and relatives. You need a destination. Possibly passing fads is no way to build a lasting presence in space. It's a side show at best.

I agree building those O'Neill, Bernal or Stanfort spacestations are massivly expensive especially if build on Earth. However if using non earth materials you can save a lot of money.

Which means you'll have to create a lot of lunar or asteroidal infrastructure/communication to start with. A moon base with extensive industrial installations, the logistics of supporting it, processing etc, just for the reason of building a Bernal Sphere probably won't save you a lot of cash.
As for realistic platforms, I believe launching them from Earth in a single or few chunks will out-do such huge investments for a long time to come.

smurf975 · 2004-06-12 07:44:54

Which means you'll have to create a lot of lunar or asteroidal infrastructure/communication to start with. A moon base with extensive industrial installations, the logistics of supporting it, processing etc, just for the reason of building a Bernal Sphere probably won't save you a lot of cash.

It will also cost quite a few bucks. But its will only be so for the initial investment. As the factories will be fully automated with only some technicians. As soon as the factory robots start working and the moon or asteroid resources start poring in you can build the Bernel Spheres by the dozens at no cost. As you will be using solar energy, build spare parts with the resources that you gather. You wouldn't launch the whole facotry into space but the only whats really needed and when the basic factory is running the first things that you build are its expansions and more robots. The only costs would the salary for the technicians.

You could also do this on Earth however you have deal with launching such big parts into space from Earth. And on Earth you have problems with pollution, taxes, energy, resources which will all cost you dearly. The moon and asteroids are from nobody so you don't have any of these "burdens".

Also it takes less effort to move and assemble big parts in space.

If you don't believe me, then just look at modern car factories. You pore steel and plastic at one end and at the other end a car comes out.

Euler · 2004-06-16 00:01:58

Does anyone know how much stronger alloys blended in microgravity would be compared with terrestrial alloys? I have heard that they could be 2-3 orders of magnitude stronger, but I am not sure if I believe that (sounds to good to be true).

One interesting idea would be to use alloys manufactured in space to build an RLV. Each pound of weight that an RLV saves could potentially be worth around $100,000, so this is one application that could afford the high cost of space-based manufacturing. It also has the appeal of bootstrapping your way into space... you build some space manufacturing, which helps you build the RLV, which helps you build more space manufacturing, etc.

Gennaro · 2004-06-16 14:26:39

Does anyone know how much stronger alloys blended in microgravity would be compared with terrestrial alloys? I have heard that they could be 2-3 orders of magnitude stronger, but I am not sure if I believe that (sounds to good to be true).

My thoughts exactly. Maybe this could really be 'it' to finally make SSTO a reality?

smurf975 · 2004-06-17 02:31:07

Does anyone know how much stronger alloys blended in microgravity would be compared with terrestrial alloys? I have heard that they could be 2-3 orders of magnitude stronger, but I am not sure if I believe that (sounds to good to be true).

I don't know much either about it and a google for metalurgy+zero+gravity doesn't show much useful links.

I did find a link to a study from nasa on the vomit comet with water here is a quote from the conclusion:

As for the results of their experiments related to bursting water filled balloons, the analysis above is certainly proof of the fact that the behavior of liquids when these become freed of enclosures under microgravity conditions is significanlty different than if the same event takes place under the influence of gravity. Not only does surface tension hold the mass together but it was observed that even after the bulk liquid moves about freely within the enclosing chamber it behaves as a very sticky, crystalline mass that does not seem to produce much "splash" when encoutenring objects in its way but that it simply wraps itself around or onto the interfering object. When the liquid mass came in contact with the chamber walls it seemd to form a bond and attached itself to it much like a very viscous substance. It was not until gravity was reestablished in the plane that the liquid would de-attach from the chamber walls and cause a familiar "splash" associated with liquid impact on a surface under gravity.

I read some where that is the way crystallization works in zero-g that makes the metals stronger in space. BTW read the article http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/ipt-zerog.html]here.

This what I found in google groups:

Besides, the entire point of the space station is that it is
at zero-G. You can do things in zero-G that you can't do at one.
A simple and trivial example is that you can mix oil and water;
they're not pulled apart by their separate weights and densities.
While that's probably not useful in and of itself, there lies the
possibility that certain alloys can be made because the metal can
be cured in an evenly distributed state. Some theoretical chemical
compounds, such as drugs, can't be made on Earth because interim
forms are so delicate they disintegrate under their own weight; in
a weightless environment their manufacture may be possible.

I couldn't find any hard numbers.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-07-28 21:30:02

Crew Ready for Next Walk

ISS Expedition 9 commander Gennady Padalka and NASA ISS science officer Michael Fincke will again don their Russian Orlan spacesuits, this time to prepare the space station to receive a European cargo pod and update science equipment attached to vehicle's exterior.
Hatch opening for the spacewalk is currently scheduled for 3:10 a.m. EDT (0710 GMT) on Tuesday, Aug. 3, when the astronauts will step outside the station's Pirs docking compartment.
Padalka and Fincke arrived at the ISS on April 21 and have already tucked two unplanned spacewalks under their collective belts.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ex … 40728.html

The primary goal of Tuesday's spacewalk is the installation of laser reflectors and an antenna to on the aft end of the Russian Zvezda service module. The crew will also disconnect a cable from a failed television camera on Zvezda's docking port as well.
The upgrades are a vital part of the docking system for the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) developed by the European Space Agency (ESA). The robotic supply ship can carry three times as much cargo as a Russian Progress vehicle and is due to make its first resupply run to the ISS in 2005.
"It will significantly enhance our ability to deliver dry cargo and water and supplies to the station," said Mark Geyer, NASA's ISS manager for integration and operations at JSC, of the ATV.
Padalka and Fincke will also retrieve and replace a variety of space experiments attached

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-06-01 11:39:48

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#2 2004-06-04 11:22:52

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#3 2004-06-04 12:54:58

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#4 2004-06-04 13:10:07

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#5 2004-06-05 03:34:58

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#6 2004-06-11 20:50:52

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#7 2004-06-11 21:16:49

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#8 2004-06-11 21:34:05

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#9 2004-06-11 22:28:21

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#10 2004-06-11 23:46:18

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#11 2004-06-12 07:20:42

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#12 2004-06-12 07:44:54

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#13 2004-06-16 00:01:58

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#14 2004-06-16 14:26:39

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#15 2004-06-17 02:31:07

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

#16 2004-07-28 21:30:02

Re: Space Stations - I don't see much about space stations

Board footer