|
Post by n0mad on Jun 8, 2007 1:05:56 GMT -4
I think why we don't have a torus space station is we collectively haven't had the will or the justification to do so.
Why we'd want to build one currently: Industries that can capitalize on a zero-g environment. Namely, pharmaceuticals and nanotechnology including novel crystal growth.
It would also be an ideal platform for staging larger scale exploration of Mars, the Asteroid Belt, and beyond.
In the past, the call was for building solar panels or solar generators and beaming the electricity down to Earth in the form of microwaves where it could be converted back to electricity. I personally believe this idea was flawed from the start due to uncertain effects both on the Van Allen belt and the ozone layer (as well as our atmosphere).
True, the designs from the `60's and `70's are outdated (largely in terms of the ideas of engineering), but I personally think that the torus form would be the best large scale design to try. Primarily because out of the several design types it is the smallest. In otherwords, the best place to experiment via trial and error.
I've been writing several interconnected novels over the past several years that uses orbital colonies as a point of technological and cultural exploration, so I've spent quite a bit of time thinking and researching these ideas. I've amassed quite a lot of research and would be glad to share internet links I've found should anyone express further interest.
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Jun 8, 2007 4:59:02 GMT -4
The problem with a rotary station is that it's emphatically *not* in zero-G. Further, introducing any solid connection between a rotary and non-rotary section will impose torque between sections no matter how good your bearings are, not to mention vibrations (this is a problem for the ISS). The only way to conduct zero-G experiments in a rotary station is to have them at the center of rotation, which is both a very limited space, and prone to having the setups collide with the turning walls.
I seem to remember a book by Clarke that had the rotary station separate, so that you needed to EVA to go between them. This doesn't seem like a very convenient setup. In my view, rotary "stations" are best used when and if we want to send off a long-duration mission, to alleviate some practical problems with living in zero-G and keep the astronauts from getting too atrophied. The other use would be for permanent settlements in orbit (O'Neill stations), but we're nowhere near that point now.
|
|
|
Post by n0mad on Jun 8, 2007 17:32:35 GMT -4
I'm not sure that even in the center of rotation you'd really be in "zero-g", and so the only way really would be some connected non-rotary section (or an entirely seperate facility somewhere nearby). The biggest problem that I see is in the Coriolis effect. Appearently, the closer you are to the axis of rotation the more pronounced this effect is.
This seems to also be one of the overlooked problems of the torus or O'Neil station designs as well. The physics of a spinning space station are very different than what we're used to here down the gravity well. For instance, the Coriolis effect is experienced differently depending on whether you're moving up towards the axis or down away from it. In other words, stairways would have to be directionally specific, and couldn't be used for both ascending and descending without causing some real problems.
A couple of documents worth looking at on this subject: NASA doc "3 Preliminary Technical Data for Earth Orbiting Space Station: Standards and Criteria" accession number 67 27653 (1966), specifically section 3 "artificial gravity". This document is dated and relies too heavily on experiments done with a small rotating facility.
A more recent and interesting document: "The Architecture of Artificial Gravity: Archetypes and Transformations of Terrestrial Design" - Theodore W. Hall.
Both of these are easily found with an internet search engine.
Here's a question - Zero-g is largely a misnomer and usually refers to freefall. What about the LaGrange Liberation Points 4 & 5? In my mental experiments/visualizations, they seem to be more like dimples in space where Earth and the Moon's gravities interact. If this is the case then wouldn't objects placed in these places move around in patterns like a spirograph? I just can't see things sitting still there.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 10, 2007 20:19:37 GMT -4
In the past, the call was for building solar panels or solar generators and beaming the electricity down to Earth in the form of microwaves where it could be converted back to electricity. I personally believe this idea was flawed from the start due to uncertain effects both on the Van Allen belt and the ozone layer (as well as our atmosphere).
As far as I know none of these would have any affect on a Microwave beam. Microwaves are just short radio waves and so there would be little interaction with the atmosphere and none with the VA Belts. Microwave beams are used quite extensively in the Telecomunications industry.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 20, 2007 6:12:54 GMT -4
In the past, the call was for building solar panels or solar generators and beaming the electricity down to Earth in the form of microwaves where it could be converted back to electricity. I personally believe this idea was flawed from the start due to uncertain effects both on the Van Allen belt and the ozone layer (as well as our atmosphere).As far as I know none of these would have any affect on a Microwave beam. Microwaves are just short radio waves and so there would be little interaction with the atmosphere and none with the VA Belts. Microwave beams are used quite extensively in the Telecomunications industry. I think one of the I. Robot stories deals with a satellite that does that as well (Reason with the QT1 robot) As long the EMR comes in reasonably perpendicular it shouldn't be affected by refraction/propagation effects, ideally the beam would need to be coherent to reduce losses due to divergence, and Freq:power would pretty much using the highest deliverable frequency, Maybe if Xray Laser Technology (Xasers maybe?) develops at a decent rate it might have possibilities of a feasible power generator, however... After a certain Power/Frequency, this wonderful delivery source will start to get absorbed and re-emitted by atmospheric Nuclei, Carbon Oxygen and Nitrogen (Damn organic chemicals) like nothing better than capturing EM over a certain Freq and Power and re-emitting it at a longer wavelength this will cause big probs with the Receiving mechanism and a whole lot of other Light related probs, Plus which Government or organisation has the reputation to be trusted with a multi GW orbital X ray Laser, Maybe SPECTRE You could use satellite power production together with a Lens array I suppose (Kim Stanley Robinson's Soletta for Martian Terraforming springs to mid), however After the success of the START test Reactor and the progress towards the Megaamepere reactor in France, I think that other than supplemental He 3 or Li Capture, Satellite power by time it is developed whilst fantastic would be redundant for Terran supplies, but at lower power rates could save valuable Satellite Power supply or source, allowing a Station to be free of Mass Power generation. As for the Stations just have a nice Habitation and use a non atmospheric craft to shuttle workers and techs around the various 0g micro-g production facilities without the need for excessive EVA . (Damn I really should trim my posts)
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 20, 2007 21:29:55 GMT -4
Nuclei, Carbon Oxygen and Nitrogen (Damn organic chemicals)
Umm, an organic chemical is a covalently bonded molecule containing Carbon (and I'd suggest Hydrgoen as I don't think CN, CO and CO2 are considered organic.)
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 21, 2007 11:57:47 GMT -4
Yup, Covalent SPONCH molecules pretty much defines Organic (as long as it contains C), just noting that on a power delivery system through atmosphere there does tend to be an awful lot of these due to the Organic Exhalation and Reactions, of course an awful lot of H+ H2 and N- N2 O- O2 O3 CO2 H2 S H2O in the Atmosphere due to both Organic and inorganic reactions, (it is just that they tend also to bound into organic chemistry that I referred to them as organic nuclei), and they also have a very nice Xray capture and re-emission system (early scaling errors in measurement Nuclear Fis & Fus weapons were caused (not solely) by the Re-emission of XRay bands being re-emitted in Visible Band from Nitrogen) although many Nuclei will Capture the EM and re emit Light Nuclei are better He Ne Ar (and SPONCH like to form gasses and vapours)
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jun 23, 2007 23:36:19 GMT -4
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? What was the point of building Boston? Weren't the cities in England adequate? If people were living in the New World, what would they be able to do?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 23, 2007 23:58:24 GMT -4
Hey, I'm all for giant rotating space wheels. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. It's never going to get done unless someone explains the advantages of the thing to the people who will be funding it.
|
|