5 ms·

Space Stations Without Compromise

57 points by danboarder 3y ago

two_handfuls 3y ago
I’m surprised the web site does not say which rockets this will fit in.
- tycho-newman 3y ago
  The USS Defiant, if we’re counting fictional vessels.
- samwillis 3y ago
  According to the PDF data sheet it has a diameter of 7.6m, length 9.8m. The only rocket I know of that could launch that is the SpaceX Starship - when it's ready. I would go as far as saying this looks specifically designed for the Starships payload dimensions, 8m dia by 17m. Baring in mind that the front ~7m are in the nose cone of the rocket. I think it's quite sensible for a startup to be working on space station designs that are utilising the expected capability of starship. https://gravitics.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/StarMax_One_Pager_Dark_06_23.pdf https://gravitics.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/StarMax_One_Pa... See payload section on: https://www.spacex.com/media/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf https://www.spacex.com/media/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf
samwillis 3y ago
With about 60 of these and an angled interconnect of about 5.8deg you could build a rotating "Von Neumann ring" of about 200m diameter. Then depending on speed have up to 1g simulated at 3rpm... Just casually pointing out also that their interior designs have floors and doors that are earth like. Along with the company name, I strongly suspect they are already thinking this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_regular_ring https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_regular_ring
- jacknews 3y ago
  60 is quite a lot to manage, they probably plan to use affiliated operators for some of them. Personally, I think a boolean ring would be more logical.
- Scalene2 3y ago
  And then you're on your way to a topopolis.
- schiffern 3y ago
  The CEO says their ultimate goal is spin gravity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btuiMlMI2Po&t=257 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btuiMlMI2Po&t=257 They show off a (notional / early-stage design) ring station in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Typ9MEhkDmI&t=49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Typ9MEhkDmI&t=49 There's also this great talk from their Chief Engineer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QycmHTHav8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QycmHTHav8
- dogma1138 3y ago
  You don’t need to construct a full ring, it can be disconnected sections over the full radius with struts or just a partial slice of the ring with a counter weight.
  - schiffern 3y ago
    >just a partial slice of the ring with a counter weight AKA "Bolas," AKA "Barbell," AKA "Tumbling Pigeon" https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/artificialgrav.php#tumblingpigeon https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/artificialgrav... I think the main reason people neglect this sort of design (which actually has a lot going for it) is because they don't look like that cool scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
senectus1 3y ago
unless they have figured out artificial gravity... none of these pictures or videos make sense. the only way I know how they can add gravity to these quarters is by spinning them... the "floor" will be the curved sides (or I guess the ends) not the middle of the things? What am I missing here? Edit: oh, they ARE with compromise? no gravity. which makes the name "Gravitics" more than a bit cheeky.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Incipient 3y ago
With any commercial fairly extreme engineering activity, is safety not going to suffer? Not thinking of any particular recent extreme (high) pressure endeavours.
- samwillis 3y ago
  The pressure differential for a sub at Titanic depth is almost 6,000psi, for a spacecraft in a vacuum it's 14.7psi. It's a very different problem.
  - euroderf 3y ago
    But then again, don't most materials work better in compression than in tension ?
    - samwillis 3y ago
      To some extent but the stark difference in pressures makes it inherently a different problem. It's actually easer to build a balloon than a compressible can. 0.5mm hole in a space craft is a slow leek you can fill with epoxy (it's happened). The same in a sub at the depth of the Titanic, there is no fix and it's not a 0.5mm hole, it's an implosion.
      - euroderf 3y ago
        I hope this means we'll get a Chesley Bonestell -style space wheel in our lifetimes.
  - imtringued 3y ago
    gravity is truly the weakest force
- panick21_ 3y ago
  This is just a recency bias thing. There are gigantic private cars, private ships, private planes and even private rockets used everyday all over the world. Not to mention gigantic mining equipment, huge oil platforms and so on and so on. Safety is always critical and commercial and non-commercial projects both can have safety issues or engineer something very safe.
panick21_ 3y ago
Color me skeptical. There have recently been a lots and lots of commercial space station proposals. Partly this is because Starship and for some people New Glenn might be ready sometime. The other reason is that NASA is doing a Commercial Space station program (that is underfunded) and a lot of people wont in on that. But I very skeptical of any of these actually making it anywhere close to orbit. The actual investment required to get this build and launched and operated is incredibly large. And the costumer base is questionable.
chalcolithic 3y ago
non-rotating?
imtringued 3y ago
Space stations are meaningless luxuries. We don't have a resource extraction industry in space.

57 points by danboarder 3y ago

two_handfuls 3y ago

I’m surprised the web site does not say which rockets this will fit in.

tycho-newman 3y ago
The USS Defiant, if we’re counting fictional vessels.
samwillis 3y ago
According to the PDF data sheet it has a diameter of 7.6m, length 9.8m. The only rocket I know of that could launch that is the SpaceX Starship - when it's ready. I would go as far as saying this looks specifically designed for the Starships payload dimensions, 8m dia by 17m. Baring in mind that the front ~7m are in the nose cone of the rocket. I think it's quite sensible for a startup to be working on space station designs that are utilising the expected capability of starship. https://gravitics.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/StarMax_One_Pager_Dark_06_23.pdf https://gravitics.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/StarMax_One_Pa... See payload section on: https://www.spacex.com/media/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf https://www.spacex.com/media/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf

samwillis 3y ago

With about 60 of these and an angled interconnect of about 5.8deg you could build a rotating "Von Neumann ring" of about 200m diameter. Then depending on speed have up to 1g simulated at 3rpm... Just casually pointing out also that their interior designs have floors and doors that are earth like. Along with the company name, I strongly suspect they are already thinking this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_regular_ring https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_regular_ring

jacknews 3y ago
60 is quite a lot to manage, they probably plan to use affiliated operators for some of them. Personally, I think a boolean ring would be more logical.
Scalene2 3y ago
And then you're on your way to a topopolis.
schiffern 3y ago
The CEO says their ultimate goal is spin gravity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btuiMlMI2Po&t=257 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btuiMlMI2Po&t=257 They show off a (notional / early-stage design) ring station in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Typ9MEhkDmI&t=49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Typ9MEhkDmI&t=49 There's also this great talk from their Chief Engineer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QycmHTHav8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QycmHTHav8
dogma1138 3y ago
You don’t need to construct a full ring, it can be disconnected sections over the full radius with struts or just a partial slice of the ring with a counter weight.
- schiffern 3y ago
  >just a partial slice of the ring with a counter weight AKA "Bolas," AKA "Barbell," AKA "Tumbling Pigeon" https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/artificialgrav.php#tumblingpigeon https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/artificialgrav... I think the main reason people neglect this sort of design (which actually has a lot going for it) is because they don't look like that cool scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

senectus1 3y ago

unless they have figured out artificial gravity... none of these pictures or videos make sense. the only way I know how they can add gravity to these quarters is by spinning them... the "floor" will be the curved sides (or I guess the ends) not the middle of the things? What am I missing here? Edit: oh, they ARE with compromise? no gravity. which makes the name "Gravitics" more than a bit cheeky.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Incipient 3y ago

With any commercial fairly extreme engineering activity, is safety not going to suffer? Not thinking of any particular recent extreme (high) pressure endeavours.

samwillis 3y ago
The pressure differential for a sub at Titanic depth is almost 6,000psi, for a spacecraft in a vacuum it's 14.7psi. It's a very different problem.
- euroderf 3y ago
  But then again, don't most materials work better in compression than in tension ?
  - samwillis 3y ago
    To some extent but the stark difference in pressures makes it inherently a different problem. It's actually easer to build a balloon than a compressible can. 0.5mm hole in a space craft is a slow leek you can fill with epoxy (it's happened). The same in a sub at the depth of the Titanic, there is no fix and it's not a 0.5mm hole, it's an implosion.
    - euroderf 3y ago
      I hope this means we'll get a Chesley Bonestell -style space wheel in our lifetimes.
- imtringued 3y ago
  gravity is truly the weakest force
panick21_ 3y ago
This is just a recency bias thing. There are gigantic private cars, private ships, private planes and even private rockets used everyday all over the world. Not to mention gigantic mining equipment, huge oil platforms and so on and so on. Safety is always critical and commercial and non-commercial projects both can have safety issues or engineer something very safe.

panick21_ 3y ago

Color me skeptical. There have recently been a lots and lots of commercial space station proposals. Partly this is because Starship and for some people New Glenn might be ready sometime. The other reason is that NASA is doing a Commercial Space station program (that is underfunded) and a lot of people wont in on that. But I very skeptical of any of these actually making it anywhere close to orbit. The actual investment required to get this build and launched and operated is incredibly large. And the costumer base is questionable.

chalcolithic 3y ago

non-rotating?

imtringued 3y ago

Space stations are meaningless luxuries. We don't have a resource extraction industry in space.