wheel space station

[Bill Thompson]

What ever happened to the dream of building a giant wheel space station? They had one in the movie 2001 along with a gigantic base on the moon.

I wonder if they will one day use the raw materials on the moon to build gigantic space station. I think they should launch from the moon when sending people into space because it would take less energy to launch colossal space ships.

Noone talks about the gigantic wheel anymore. I must have missed the reason why this was taken out of the plans. I do hear them talking about the effects of micro-gravity on the body and how it is still a problem. Well, that was a solution, I always thought, to have centrifugal force provide a simulated gravity. The astronauts can still go to the center of the space craft to sleep in micro-gravity (no pressure points) but still work on the outside.

[BertL]

billthompson said:

I think they should launch from the moon when sending people into space because it would take less energy to launch colossal space ships.

How do those colossal space ships get there?

[Jason]

There's really not much point in building a giant wheel space station just because it would be cool - it has to serve a useful purpose too.
What purpose would a giant wheel space station serve today?

[LunarOrbit]

If you want to study the effects of micro-gravity then a space station that produces artificial gravity isn't the right design choice. Plus, if we can barely assemble a bunch of tin cans in space (due to cost and technical limitations etc.) then we most likely can't handle construction of a giant spinning wheel just yet.

There was, however, some talk of using discarded shuttle external tanks to build a station, but that's all it ever was... talk.

[JayUtah]

And where's my flying car?

[PhantomWolf]

admin said:

If you want to study the effects of micro-gravity then a space station that produces artificial gravity isn't the right design choice.

Actually it would be. The workers could spend their down time in the section of Gravity and thus reduce muscle and bone loss, then head into the axis of the station to do experiments in the mircogravity areas.

Cost, well... that's likely the killer, now and in the forseeable future.

[Bill Thompson]

bertls said:

billthompson said:

I think they should launch from the moon when sending people into space because it would take less energy to launch colossal space ships.

How do those colossal space ships get there?

I thought I covered that. The moon's gravity is less than the earth. Build the parts from the raw materials on the moon. Less rocket fuel would be required to get them up into either an Earth orbit or even a Solar Orbit.

But while we are on the subject of getting stuff into space I am reminded of another thing I heard about 12 years ago. The Air Force has successfully test fired nuclear rockets to the envy of NASA. I think it was liquid nitrogen was pumped onto nuclear rods which turned them into energy and steam and the things took off with unbelievable speed and power. I wonder what ever became of those. Maybe the Air force took them back into hiding again.

But at the time when they announced this to the press, NPR said that the Air force explicitly said that it was for launching large cargo into space.

[Bill Thompson]

jason said:

There's really not much point in building a giant wheel space station just because it would be cool - it has to serve a useful purpose too.
What purpose would a giant wheel space station serve today?

That goes without saying. People are suffering long hours in space because of the lack of gravity. Centrifugal force would simulate gravity and people could stay up longer and do more.

[Bill Thompson]

admin said:

If you want to study the effects of micro-gravity then a space station that produces artificial gravity isn't the right design choice. Plus, if we can barely assemble a bunch of tin cans in space (due to cost and technical limitations etc.) then we most likely can't handle construction of a giant spinning wheel just yet.

There was, however, some talk of using discarded shuttle external tanks to build a station, but that's all it ever was... talk.

You could still go to the center of the wheel to do the micro gravity experiments and then go to the outside rim of the wheel to work out.

I hear that the exercise they do in the ISS with springs resistance is still not cutting it. People exercise a long time in the ISS and they still suffer from bone and muscle loss in micro gravity.

When I go to other countries like Brazil and the Mid East, part of the reason why I cannot wait to get home is because the way people go to the bathroom in some part so the world is disgusting and so is the way they shower. Imagine on the ISS. I think on a wheel spacecraft the luxury of having a real shower and a real flushing toilet would add to the psychological endurment of being in space.

[ajv]

I think on a wheel spacecraft the luxury of having a real shower and a real flushing toilet would add to the psychological endurment of being in space.

Yeah, but they play Strauss waltzes all they time on the muzak!

[Jason]

billthompson said:

That goes without saying. People are suffering long hours in space because of the lack of gravity. Centrifugal force would simulate gravity and people could stay up longer and do more.

RIght, those are the advantages to the design. But what is the point to having people in space longer? Especially if they're not actually going anywhere? That is the question who's answer has to justify the cost of creating a giant space wheel.
We've already had astronauts and cosmonauts staying in stations for years at a time. What would they be able to do differently with even more time?

[JayUtah]

A rotating space station might have limited advantage, but a rotating space ship (a la the Leonov from 2010) might work in order to keep up muscle tone over long voyages. That's if we presume the primary detriment of microgravity is the physiological effect upon the crew, and that the crew's physiological limits are what paces our exploration.

[Grand Lunar]

Isn't there a song that goes like this:
Wheel in the sky keeps turnin'!

We'll have to improve our space faring and construction abilities before making a wheel space station, IMO. Plus, it'd have to have resources and cash flow to make it happen.

[VALIS]

I read a Larry Niven article, in his book "Scatterbrain", about this. His take is that the wheel space station is already an obsolete design.

Using tether technology could allow a space station to use the gravitational differential to have at least some gravity in isolated modules. Take two modules, link them with the (long) tether. The center on mass is in orbit, one module "hangs" toward nadir and the other to wards zenith.

Advantages are that you don't have to rotate it and you need less construction materials. A disadvantage I see is that encounters with space debris get really critical: once the tether is severed, the station is pretty much lost

[zoidberg1865]

Here are some preliminary plans of the electrical system of a space station made in 1966. Its mostly about power systems pretty fascinating stuff but there are centripetal station drawings on the cover page and page 18.

ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670018325_1967018325.pdf