4 ms·

Gateway Foundation Gives a Detailed Update on Its Voyager Station Concept

31 points by mpweiher 6y ago

throwawaybutwhy 6y ago
No, it doesn't. It promises an announcement: 'he and his colleagues will be performing a demonstration and making a big announcement in the coming weeks!'
xwdv 6y ago
These rotating stations don’t necessarily recreate gravity perfectly right? You’ll note strange behavior if you drop objects or jump.
- neartheplain 6y ago
  Yep. Sci-fi show “The Expanse” depicts this effect onscreen with neat CGI visuals. The books on which the series is based describe it in even more detail: https://expanse.fandom.com/wiki/Coriolis_Effect https://expanse.fandom.com/wiki/Coriolis_Effect
- iso1631 6y ago
  Depends how large the station is. If you build it with a radius of several kilometers and a rotational speed of well under 1 rpm, with 5m high decks it's unlikely you'll notice anything more than maybe if you were on a slightly sloped floor
marktangotango 6y ago
People who say “yes that’s nice, but isn’t it still super expensive to lift all that material into orbit?” should consider that space based resources alter that equation drastically. First in space based, low cost sources of raw materials are near earth asteroids and asteroids that cross our orbital plane. Second is the moon and it shallow gravity well, much lower energy required to reach orbit from the surface of the moon than from the surface of the earth. Similarly, Mars has a much lower gravity than earth. Then we have the asteroid belt and outer planets and their moons. I believe it is evident that once a basic level of resource extraction AND production are available ON orbit, it will be game over and vast fortunes will be made. The question for anyone with an entrepreneurial bent well be; how to contribute?
- bluGill 6y ago
  > The question for anyone with an entrepreneurial bent well be; how to contribute? Before that question you need to ask when to contribute. The long term fortunes to be made are obvious. What isn't clear is when. Long term might mean 200 years of development before any money is to be made, and thus you shouldn't invest as you will be dead before there is a payoff. But Long term might be 3 years, in which case it is too late for first mover advantage, the first movers have already (secretly?) put a large sum into their investments - but there might be a profit to me made as a second mover. Of course often the second mover is the one who makes the real money (Bill Gates wasn't a first mover in PC operating systems, Digital Research at least was before him), so it isn't clear at all when you should get into the market. Good luck. If I had real insight I wouldn't be posting it here I'd be putting everything I had into my investments.
d_silin 6y ago
Going forward, artificial gravity space stations are the future of space colonization. I wrote a (half-)thesis on artificial gravity during my time at university.
- baxtr 6y ago
  Great. I always wondered about Coriolis Forces on those stations? Are those a big deal? Will people feel them?
  - d_silin 6y ago
    The short answer is "it depends", but at 1-2 rpm they will be not a big deal. The long answer would be a proper reference, such as this one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305768041_Artificial_Gravity_in_Theory_and_Practice https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305768041_Artificia... (pdf available)
- iampivot 6y ago
  Since you know a lot about this; Does the human body really need 1G of gravity to avoid the bad effects of long term weightlessness? Would it be sufficient with say 0.5G or 0.25G? I assume it would reduce the radius and speed requirement of a rotating space station quite considerably.
  - d_silin 6y ago
    The most accurate answer is "we don't know", unfortunately. My personal concern is that 0.38g of Mars environment would be not enough for long-term survival and procreation of humans there.
- CodeGlitch 6y ago
  I consider space stations to be far more realistic than Mars colonisation, which to me seems like a destination that no-one would actually want to go to when they realise that Mars has far lower gravity and far less sunlight than Earth - not to mention the hazards Martian dust. Even if we manage to terraform Mars, it'll still be a tough place to live. Space stations however - you can make them however you want. I've seen concepts of rotating habits that are so massive that there's no "roof" on the inner-side, only walls to stop the atmosphere leaking out. No idea if that would actually work or not, but it looked cool.
rini17 6y ago
Has anyone considered rotating setup from independent modules joined by tethers? For example, for voyage to Mars, launch two Starships, connect them with, say, kilometer tether and make them rotate for artifical gravity. On perpendicular axis to the tether. Cons: you need EVA to move between modules Pros: it's simpler, modules can be more easily added/removed and coriolis forces aren't an issue.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > Cons: you need EVA to move between modules I’m imagining this tether in your idea as a long, taut cable (or set of cables). It could be the first practical use for a space elevator.
- CodeGlitch 6y ago
  One of the modules could be resources that you need once you are at Mars, not needed during the journey so you wouldn't need to move between them. I like your idea!
- clarents 6y ago
  That concept is used in the Neal Stephenson book Seveneves.
slfnflctd 6y ago
This all seems very plausible (even necessary) and I find myself inspired similarly to how I have been with SpaceX. It's super cool. Just one nitpick. > There are also abundant opportunities to see how plants and livestock fare in low gravity, which will also be needed to ensure food security in space. Do we really need to involve 'livestock'? I can't think of anything essential they would provide that couldn't be sourced with far less cost and nastiness in a different way.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  That does sound weird, but mostly from the perspective of mass-to-value ratio (unless they want to ship animals straight after birth). In terms of ethics, those particular animals who would live off-world should consider themselves lucky: they'll be living in much better conditions than their terrestrial brethren do.
mchusma 6y ago
If anyone finds this interesting and hasn't listened to/watched "Science and Futurism with Issac Arthur", go watch some episodes now. His "upward bound" and "outward bound" series are probably most relevant for this. Inspiring great material, and it may convince you that large rotating space habitats (O Neil Cylinders) are the future. "Gravity wells are for suckers."

31 points by mpweiher 6y ago

No, it doesn't. It promises an announcement: 'he and his colleagues will be performing a demonstration and making a big announcement in the coming weeks!'

xwdv 6y ago

These rotating stations don’t necessarily recreate gravity perfectly right? You’ll note strange behavior if you drop objects or jump.

neartheplain 6y ago
Yep. Sci-fi show “The Expanse” depicts this effect onscreen with neat CGI visuals. The books on which the series is based describe it in even more detail: https://expanse.fandom.com/wiki/Coriolis_Effect https://expanse.fandom.com/wiki/Coriolis_Effect
iso1631 6y ago
Depends how large the station is. If you build it with a radius of several kilometers and a rotational speed of well under 1 rpm, with 5m high decks it's unlikely you'll notice anything more than maybe if you were on a slightly sloped floor

marktangotango 6y ago

People who say “yes that’s nice, but isn’t it still super expensive to lift all that material into orbit?” should consider that space based resources alter that equation drastically. First in space based, low cost sources of raw materials are near earth asteroids and asteroids that cross our orbital plane. Second is the moon and it shallow gravity well, much lower energy required to reach orbit from the surface of the moon than from the surface of the earth. Similarly, Mars has a much lower gravity than earth. Then we have the asteroid belt and outer planets and their moons. I believe it is evident that once a basic level of resource extraction AND production are available ON orbit, it will be game over and vast fortunes will be made. The question for anyone with an entrepreneurial bent well be; how to contribute?

bluGill 6y ago
> The question for anyone with an entrepreneurial bent well be; how to contribute? Before that question you need to ask when to contribute. The long term fortunes to be made are obvious. What isn't clear is when. Long term might mean 200 years of development before any money is to be made, and thus you shouldn't invest as you will be dead before there is a payoff. But Long term might be 3 years, in which case it is too late for first mover advantage, the first movers have already (secretly?) put a large sum into their investments - but there might be a profit to me made as a second mover. Of course often the second mover is the one who makes the real money (Bill Gates wasn't a first mover in PC operating systems, Digital Research at least was before him), so it isn't clear at all when you should get into the market. Good luck. If I had real insight I wouldn't be posting it here I'd be putting everything I had into my investments.

d_silin 6y ago

Going forward, artificial gravity space stations are the future of space colonization. I wrote a (half-)thesis on artificial gravity during my time at university.

baxtr 6y ago
Great. I always wondered about Coriolis Forces on those stations? Are those a big deal? Will people feel them?
- d_silin 6y ago
  The short answer is "it depends", but at 1-2 rpm they will be not a big deal. The long answer would be a proper reference, such as this one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305768041_Artificial_Gravity_in_Theory_and_Practice https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305768041_Artificia... (pdf available)
iampivot 6y ago
Since you know a lot about this; Does the human body really need 1G of gravity to avoid the bad effects of long term weightlessness? Would it be sufficient with say 0.5G or 0.25G? I assume it would reduce the radius and speed requirement of a rotating space station quite considerably.
- d_silin 6y ago
  The most accurate answer is "we don't know", unfortunately. My personal concern is that 0.38g of Mars environment would be not enough for long-term survival and procreation of humans there.
CodeGlitch 6y ago
I consider space stations to be far more realistic than Mars colonisation, which to me seems like a destination that no-one would actually want to go to when they realise that Mars has far lower gravity and far less sunlight than Earth - not to mention the hazards Martian dust. Even if we manage to terraform Mars, it'll still be a tough place to live. Space stations however - you can make them however you want. I've seen concepts of rotating habits that are so massive that there's no "roof" on the inner-side, only walls to stop the atmosphere leaking out. No idea if that would actually work or not, but it looked cool.

rini17 6y ago

Has anyone considered rotating setup from independent modules joined by tethers? For example, for voyage to Mars, launch two Starships, connect them with, say, kilometer tether and make them rotate for artifical gravity. On perpendicular axis to the tether. Cons: you need EVA to move between modules Pros: it's simpler, modules can be more easily added/removed and coriolis forces aren't an issue.

bhupy 6y ago
> Cons: you need EVA to move between modules I’m imagining this tether in your idea as a long, taut cable (or set of cables). It could be the first practical use for a space elevator.
CodeGlitch 6y ago
One of the modules could be resources that you need once you are at Mars, not needed during the journey so you wouldn't need to move between them. I like your idea!
clarents 6y ago
That concept is used in the Neal Stephenson book Seveneves.

slfnflctd 6y ago

This all seems very plausible (even necessary) and I find myself inspired similarly to how I have been with SpaceX. It's super cool. Just one nitpick. > There are also abundant opportunities to see how plants and livestock fare in low gravity, which will also be needed to ensure food security in space. Do we really need to involve 'livestock'? I can't think of anything essential they would provide that couldn't be sourced with far less cost and nastiness in a different way.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
That does sound weird, but mostly from the perspective of mass-to-value ratio (unless they want to ship animals straight after birth). In terms of ethics, those particular animals who would live off-world should consider themselves lucky: they'll be living in much better conditions than their terrestrial brethren do.

mchusma 6y ago

If anyone finds this interesting and hasn't listened to/watched "Science and Futurism with Issac Arthur", go watch some episodes now. His "upward bound" and "outward bound" series are probably most relevant for this. Inspiring great material, and it may convince you that large rotating space habitats (O Neil Cylinders) are the future. "Gravity wells are for suckers."