7 ms·

I hope mankind can move beyond building space stations as a handful of modular small cylinders, and start building space stations the way they appear in science

I hope mankind can move beyond building space stations as a handful of modular small cylinders, and start building space stations the way they appear in science fiction: dozens of rooms, cubical exteriors, hallways, human height doors that open and close, stairs, elevators, hangars, a nuclear reactor instead of solar panels, and modules that rotate around an axis to create artificial gravity. And a more diversified color scheme than all white, which is sterile. I would like to see this: https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/futuristic-architecture-scifi-corridor-interior-in-space-station-with-picture-id1223695638 https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/futuristic-architecture... https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/04/77/75/80/360_F_477758033_1n2FBtz1ZCE7M1FM70opKJMjKGWYLc19.jpg https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/04/77/75/80/360_F_477758033_1n2FBtz...

Diederich 4y ago
Some more recent launch providers are focusing on greatly lowering $/kg to orbit, which is an absolutely necessary step for such visions.
nonethewiser 4y ago
Hopefully they solve more important problems first though.
- vbezhenar 4y ago
- ch4s3 4y ago
  Isn't this a logical fallacy? Rocket scientists and engineers are going to best suited to getting stuff into orbit, they aren't simply going to be able to go a solve a "more important problem". Other people are already working on those things and are likely specialists.
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    It's hard to make items that achieve their function and can be transported into space. There are still improvements to be made with functionality and launch-ability. It's more important to focus on those - if you can make something fit a subjective standard of beauty at the same great. Except that's only 1 person's ideal so who cares.
  - ElevenLathe 4y ago
    It's true in a way but just pushes things back a level of causality: if we train more people as aerospace engineers, then we will have fewer trained people in other specialties. We have a finite supply of enthusiastic, smart young people to drive change. The best answer of course is "do both" and make sure more of our young people are happy, enthusiastic, and able to access necessary training and education. There are also skills that overlap: every welder that SpaceX or Lockheed employs is one less welder able to help install a water treatment plant somewhere. Here again, the solution is to train more welders.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      > if we train People choose those paths on their own, not because some human industrial policy plucked them out of middle school and put them on that path.
      - ElevenLathe 4y ago
        Nonetheless, if they choose to be an aerospace engineer, they've chosen not to be, for example, a surgeon, or whatever else.
        ch4s3 4y ago
        Yes, that is how choice and specialization work, we don't live in a feudal or autocratic system where heredity or fiat determine your life path.
        ElevenLathe 4y ago
        I didn't say any of that?
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > We have a finite supply of enthusiastic, smart young people to drive change And currently most of them go into trading, which is a zero-sum game, or into building another social network that causes depression. Look at top-ten list of high paying jobs, and ask youself how much crucial work for society they do
frozenport 4y ago
If only we could put down our differences and use the Flat UI color scheme.
dmitriy_ko 4y ago
It will happen after AGI singularity.
elil17 4y ago
We need a reason to do it first.
- Victerius 4y ago
  More habitable space, more luxurious accommodations, more energy generating capacity, more space for laboratory equipment and experiments.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    Here in SF, we have cars with bumper stickers that say "Leave space alone". So it starts, the birth of space environmentalists.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    More habitable space than the ground? Maybe some day but that would be a grim future indeed.
  - elil17 4y ago
    It sounds like you're saying that a bigger space station would enable more experimentation quantity and quality. I would still say that the benefits need to justify the costs. We've gotten better at being frugal/scrappy with how we use space resources, whether that's small experiments on the ISS or cubesats.
outworlder 4y ago
That requires a truly astounding amount of material. Unless the cost to place it in orbit gets within an order of magnitude of our current terrestrial freight, it's not happening. Best bet is to construct these things in orbit, with materials sourced in orbit. But now you have a chicken and egg problem - need to send an incredible amount of material (and people) in order to (potentially!) save in the future.
- Victerius 4y ago
  - TremendousJudge 4y ago
    I think you're seriously overestimating Chinese economic capabilities. They are still constrained by the same economic realities as everybody else, and -- much as we wish it were possible -- they cannot afford to just do whatever.
    - buscoquadnary 4y ago
      "You can accomplish anything when you have vision, determination and an endless supply of expendable labor"
      - post-it 4y ago
        The type of labour needed to build a space station isn't expendable.
      - detritus 4y ago
        Presumably the problem there is that even a sea of expendable labour's useless, if what you need is a Von Braun[1]-esque figure and a paddling pool of engineering talent... . [1] Korolev, Musk, &c.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    You’re afraid china will beat the us to aesthetic space stations?
riffic 4y ago
form follows function though.
JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
Unfortunately it’s about $2,720 per 2.2 lbs in even the best case scenario.
- edm0nd 4y ago
  TIL for about ~$3,090, I could send a 40oz of Old English to space.
  - jotm 4y ago
    As long as it's set on a collision course with the Sun. Although I'm not sure the latter would survive.
- poooogles 4y ago
  How have you come up with this number?
  - JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
    >For a SpaceX Falcon 9, the rocket used to access the ISS, the cost is just $2,720 per kilogram. https://theconversation.com/how-spacex-lowered-costs-and-reduced-barriers-to-space-112586 https://theconversation.com/how-spacex-lowered-costs-and-red...
- Fatnino 4y ago
  You are allowed to say kilogram on the internet.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    You're also allowed to say 2.2 pounds, and many (though not most) will understand. You're even allowed to be a pedant, as I am often accused! :)
- erik 4y ago
  SpaceX aims to reduce that by two orders of magnitude with Starship. It will be a big deal if they can achieve it.
vasco 4y ago
Even if the cost to launch would be way cheaper, that weigth allowance would be used for useful stuff like laundry machines, more "sterile" modules as you call them for more research, and potentially for industrial applications like factories to build low-gravity-only components and low gravity biomedical applications. Your vision is useful for tourism and little else.
stickfigure 4y ago
To stay within the protection of Earth's magnetosphere, habitable stations are put in low earth orbit. Low earth orbit entails atmospheric drag, and bigger stations have more drag as well as larger propellent requirements to boost.
baybal2 4y ago
It's extremely hard to join large structures airtight, with joints being stronger than the material itself. Soviet, and Russian spacecraft, and modules were traditionally made with extremely uneconomical method of machining the vessel from a single giant piece of aluminium to not to worry about joints, and their strength under space conditions.
- choonway 4y ago
  The difficulty is not about joining large structures airtight. otherwise we would have trouble with building commercial aircraft. the problem is when you want to make something out from the absolute minimim weight possible due to economy of putting things into space, then you can't do with any connections whatsoever. The pressure of -1 bar isn't particularly challenging engineering wise.
  - baybal2 4y ago
    Jet airliners are not airtight, nor they deal with 1 bar of pressure difference. In space, you have to make it airtight with most rubbers drying our, and constant intense thermal cycling.
aerophilic 4y ago
While I too look forward to that day, at least for awhile longer due to physics, we are going to continue to have “rounded cylinders”. The main reason for this is very simple: Pressurized vessels. If you look at any type of air tank, and there is a reason they are a certain shape. The moment you do any type of “point” or “edge” it becomes a weak point in the design. That said… you can always make a really large pressure vessel and put things inside…
- pavlov 4y ago
  A torus shape has no sharp edges and can be pretty useful in space if it rotates.
  - aerophilic 4y ago
    Absolutely, but now you are talking pretty large structures… which will take time for us to get there.
  - choonway 4y ago
    from a mechanical engineering standpoint, a torus is also easier to construct than a sphere.
    - funnymony 4y ago
      How so?
RobotToaster 4y ago
That will probably require finding an efficient way to extract building materials in space (possibly from the moon), moving those materials to where you want your station (probably a Lagrange point), and building with those materials. These are non-trivial problems. Also solar is far more efficient in space, without any annoying atmosphere in the way, it makes perfect sense to use it there.
stefan_ 4y ago
Why, there is already barely anything useful to do with the current crop of space stations.
- grubbs 4y ago
  Uhmmm...at least we get to find out how spiders spin a web in zero-g.
wainstead 4y ago
I think this company is highly optimistic, but this might fit the bill: https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/space-hotel-orbital-assembly-scn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/space-hotel-orbital-assem...
- yoz-y 4y ago
  It’s a scam ran by an ex airline pilot with no engineering experience whatsoever. https://youtu.be/lue35X4DFeQ https://youtu.be/lue35X4DFeQ
bnralt 4y ago
You should check out videos from inside Skylab if you haven't[1]. You can see people jogging around the perimeter like in 2001. It was so big that they worried that people who ended up in the middle would get stuck and have a hard time getting back to the walls. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNKVnDvQY4&t=250s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNKVnDvQY4&t=250s
- orbital-decay 4y ago
  Zero g tends to expand living spaces in general due to them becoming truly 3-dimensional. The volume of a tiny room on Earth can easily accomodate several people in orbit. Large spaces don't make much sense in these conditions, not just because of inefficiency, but because of the inconvenience of being stranded in the middle. You need some kind of handles or separators within the immediate reach - why not have actual walls then.
kube-system 4y ago
Floors and ceilings are concepts that only make sense in the context of gravity. The reason that science fiction movie space stations look like that is because they were filmed on earth.

Diederich 4y ago

Some more recent launch providers are focusing on greatly lowering $/kg to orbit, which is an absolutely necessary step for such visions.

nonethewiser 4y ago

Hopefully they solve more important problems first though.

vbezhenar 4y ago
ch4s3 4y ago
Isn't this a logical fallacy? Rocket scientists and engineers are going to best suited to getting stuff into orbit, they aren't simply going to be able to go a solve a "more important problem". Other people are already working on those things and are likely specialists.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  It's hard to make items that achieve their function and can be transported into space. There are still improvements to be made with functionality and launch-ability. It's more important to focus on those - if you can make something fit a subjective standard of beauty at the same great. Except that's only 1 person's ideal so who cares.
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  It's true in a way but just pushes things back a level of causality: if we train more people as aerospace engineers, then we will have fewer trained people in other specialties. We have a finite supply of enthusiastic, smart young people to drive change. The best answer of course is "do both" and make sure more of our young people are happy, enthusiastic, and able to access necessary training and education. There are also skills that overlap: every welder that SpaceX or Lockheed employs is one less welder able to help install a water treatment plant somewhere. Here again, the solution is to train more welders.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    > if we train People choose those paths on their own, not because some human industrial policy plucked them out of middle school and put them on that path.
    - ElevenLathe 4y ago
      Nonetheless, if they choose to be an aerospace engineer, they've chosen not to be, for example, a surgeon, or whatever else.
      - ch4s3 4y ago
        Yes, that is how choice and specialization work, we don't live in a feudal or autocratic system where heredity or fiat determine your life path.
        ElevenLathe 4y ago
        I didn't say any of that?
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > We have a finite supply of enthusiastic, smart young people to drive change And currently most of them go into trading, which is a zero-sum game, or into building another social network that causes depression. Look at top-ten list of high paying jobs, and ask youself how much crucial work for society they do

frozenport 4y ago

If only we could put down our differences and use the Flat UI color scheme.

dmitriy_ko 4y ago

It will happen after AGI singularity.

elil17 4y ago

We need a reason to do it first.

Victerius 4y ago
More habitable space, more luxurious accommodations, more energy generating capacity, more space for laboratory equipment and experiments.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Here in SF, we have cars with bumper stickers that say "Leave space alone". So it starts, the birth of space environmentalists.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  More habitable space than the ground? Maybe some day but that would be a grim future indeed.
- elil17 4y ago
  It sounds like you're saying that a bigger space station would enable more experimentation quantity and quality. I would still say that the benefits need to justify the costs. We've gotten better at being frugal/scrappy with how we use space resources, whether that's small experiments on the ISS or cubesats.

outworlder 4y ago

That requires a truly astounding amount of material. Unless the cost to place it in orbit gets within an order of magnitude of our current terrestrial freight, it's not happening. Best bet is to construct these things in orbit, with materials sourced in orbit. But now you have a chicken and egg problem - need to send an incredible amount of material (and people) in order to (potentially!) save in the future.

Victerius 4y ago
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  I think you're seriously overestimating Chinese economic capabilities. They are still constrained by the same economic realities as everybody else, and -- much as we wish it were possible -- they cannot afford to just do whatever.
  - buscoquadnary 4y ago
    "You can accomplish anything when you have vision, determination and an endless supply of expendable labor"
    - post-it 4y ago
      The type of labour needed to build a space station isn't expendable.
    - detritus 4y ago
      Presumably the problem there is that even a sea of expendable labour's useless, if what you need is a Von Braun[1]-esque figure and a paddling pool of engineering talent... . [1] Korolev, Musk, &c.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  You’re afraid china will beat the us to aesthetic space stations?

riffic 4y ago

form follows function though.

JohnJamesRambo 4y ago

Unfortunately it’s about $2,720 per 2.2 lbs in even the best case scenario.

edm0nd 4y ago
TIL for about ~$3,090, I could send a 40oz of Old English to space.
- jotm 4y ago
  As long as it's set on a collision course with the Sun. Although I'm not sure the latter would survive.
poooogles 4y ago
How have you come up with this number?
- JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
  >For a SpaceX Falcon 9, the rocket used to access the ISS, the cost is just $2,720 per kilogram. https://theconversation.com/how-spacex-lowered-costs-and-reduced-barriers-to-space-112586 https://theconversation.com/how-spacex-lowered-costs-and-red...
Fatnino 4y ago
You are allowed to say kilogram on the internet.
- tomrod 4y ago
  You're also allowed to say 2.2 pounds, and many (though not most) will understand. You're even allowed to be a pedant, as I am often accused! :)
erik 4y ago
SpaceX aims to reduce that by two orders of magnitude with Starship. It will be a big deal if they can achieve it.

vasco 4y ago

Even if the cost to launch would be way cheaper, that weigth allowance would be used for useful stuff like laundry machines, more "sterile" modules as you call them for more research, and potentially for industrial applications like factories to build low-gravity-only components and low gravity biomedical applications. Your vision is useful for tourism and little else.

stickfigure 4y ago

To stay within the protection of Earth's magnetosphere, habitable stations are put in low earth orbit. Low earth orbit entails atmospheric drag, and bigger stations have more drag as well as larger propellent requirements to boost.

baybal2 4y ago

It's extremely hard to join large structures airtight, with joints being stronger than the material itself. Soviet, and Russian spacecraft, and modules were traditionally made with extremely uneconomical method of machining the vessel from a single giant piece of aluminium to not to worry about joints, and their strength under space conditions.

choonway 4y ago
The difficulty is not about joining large structures airtight. otherwise we would have trouble with building commercial aircraft. the problem is when you want to make something out from the absolute minimim weight possible due to economy of putting things into space, then you can't do with any connections whatsoever. The pressure of -1 bar isn't particularly challenging engineering wise.
- baybal2 4y ago
  Jet airliners are not airtight, nor they deal with 1 bar of pressure difference. In space, you have to make it airtight with most rubbers drying our, and constant intense thermal cycling.

aerophilic 4y ago

While I too look forward to that day, at least for awhile longer due to physics, we are going to continue to have “rounded cylinders”. The main reason for this is very simple: Pressurized vessels. If you look at any type of air tank, and there is a reason they are a certain shape. The moment you do any type of “point” or “edge” it becomes a weak point in the design. That said… you can always make a really large pressure vessel and put things inside…

pavlov 4y ago
A torus shape has no sharp edges and can be pretty useful in space if it rotates.
- aerophilic 4y ago
  Absolutely, but now you are talking pretty large structures… which will take time for us to get there.
- choonway 4y ago
  from a mechanical engineering standpoint, a torus is also easier to construct than a sphere.
  - funnymony 4y ago
    How so?

RobotToaster 4y ago

That will probably require finding an efficient way to extract building materials in space (possibly from the moon), moving those materials to where you want your station (probably a Lagrange point), and building with those materials. These are non-trivial problems. Also solar is far more efficient in space, without any annoying atmosphere in the way, it makes perfect sense to use it there.

stefan_ 4y ago

Why, there is already barely anything useful to do with the current crop of space stations.

grubbs 4y ago
Uhmmm...at least we get to find out how spiders spin a web in zero-g.

wainstead 4y ago

I think this company is highly optimistic, but this might fit the bill: https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/space-hotel-orbital-assembly-scn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/space-hotel-orbital-assem...

yoz-y 4y ago
It’s a scam ran by an ex airline pilot with no engineering experience whatsoever. https://youtu.be/lue35X4DFeQ https://youtu.be/lue35X4DFeQ

bnralt 4y ago

You should check out videos from inside Skylab if you haven't[1]. You can see people jogging around the perimeter like in 2001. It was so big that they worried that people who ended up in the middle would get stuck and have a hard time getting back to the walls. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNKVnDvQY4&t=250s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNKVnDvQY4&t=250s

orbital-decay 4y ago
Zero g tends to expand living spaces in general due to them becoming truly 3-dimensional. The volume of a tiny room on Earth can easily accomodate several people in orbit. Large spaces don't make much sense in these conditions, not just because of inefficiency, but because of the inconvenience of being stranded in the middle. You need some kind of handles or separators within the immediate reach - why not have actual walls then.

kube-system 4y ago

Floors and ceilings are concepts that only make sense in the context of gravity. The reason that science fiction movie space stations look like that is because they were filmed on earth.