Building A International Space Port

[belovelife]

i have a question, like china is building a science lab in space, and we have the iss, is there a specific reason why we don't build thes in a dome shape,

consider assembly in space, (and all the issues), and inflatable modules, and/or situation

but we have the shell built in space, similar to geodesic dome, but made of materials that handle the heat varyances of space

question one, could it be done? (built around an iinflatable module, or just built)

question two, if it can be built, how big can we build it? http://www.physicsforums.com

[belovelife]

and can it be built around a inflatable module to increase safety (loss of pressure due to inflatable habitat fail, and puncture of outer shell due to space debris

[CraigD]

i have a question, like china is building a science lab in space, and we have the iss, is there a specific reason why we don't build thes in a dome shape,

The main engineering virtues of an arch or dome are that they distribute the force of gravity on their materials in a uniform way, and being curved, shed rain and snow. Since in space there’s practically no gravitational force on materials, nor rain or snow, there’s not much advantage to these structures.

 

consider assembly in space, (and all the issues), and inflatable modules, and/or situation

“All the issues” of assembling airtight modules in space are pretty daunting – to the best of my knowledge, it’s yet to be done, and thus the habitable sections of every spacecraft flown, including the ISS, have been single or multiple modules assembled on Earth and joined via docking connectors in space. As a result, none of them have been very large – The 1970s short-lived Skylab, with a cylindrical main section 6.7 m diameter by 14.6 m long, was the largest.

 

A US-made inflatable ISS module, TransHab, was planned for 2005, but canceled by Congress in 1999. A 7.6 m internal diameter cylinder divided into 3 floors inflated, it would have been the largest every flown.

 

Despite TransHab’s cancelation, I think inflatable spacecraft will play an important role in the future of manned spaceflight. Since TransHab’s cancelation, a private company, Bigelow Aerospace (, has continued design work on the technology, and test flown two unmanned 1/3 scale models. I’m skeptical that Bigelow can be commercially successful – their main business idea is to use inflatable module technology to orbit space hotels for the very wealthy – but I think the technology is fundamentally sound.

[dduckwessel]

The main engineering virtues of an arch or dome are that they distribute the force of gravity on their materials in a uniform way, and being curved, shed rain and snow. Since in space there’s practically no gravitational force on materials, nor rain or snow, there’s not much advantage to these structures.

 

I may be out of my league here but I'm going to attempt it anyway. What about plexi-glass? Could it withstand the elements (i.e. no atmostphere, etc.) A dome shape would mean the use of less plexi-glass. Start with a small dome just to try it out. Clear plexi-glass would be best as it would allow for the suns rays to penetrate. With an artificial earth-like atmosphere, could plants freely grow if they got sufficient sun and water? New domes could be added to each successive ones. It would be hugely expensive but would it be something worth attempting?

[belovelife]

the idea was to get larger modules, so if an inflatable module was used while using stronger materials for an outer shell, it would be strong against meteor impacts, and still be able to be flown on a souyez

 

the shape of a sphere if for strength of impact

[belovelife]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=34249&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+spaceref%2Fjext+%28SpaceRef+-+Space+News+as+it+Happens%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail

 

 

 

using this concept, we could fly materials and make the shell in space, or at least try it to see what the outcome is

[CraigD]

I may be out of my league here but I'm going to attempt it anyway. What about plexi-glass?

Plexiglass – PMMA – is a useful material because it’s cheap, and having a low melting point, easy to mold into many shapes. It’s not very strong when thin, however, heavy, brittle and easily scratched even when thick, and, as I already mentioned, melts at a low temperature, so isn’t a very good material for spacecraft, which is why, to the best of my knowledge, all spacecraft windows are made of silicate glass, not thermoplastics like Plexiglass, Lexan, etc.

 

Could it withstand the elements (i.e. no atmostphere, etc.)

Spacesuit helmet’s have been made of Lexan (polycarbonate) for nearly 50 years, so evidently thermoplastics behave OK in vacuum and other space conditions. They’re good for applications where a rounded shape is desired and high temperatures, impact, etc. aren’t expected to be survived, like spacesuits, which are exposed to space for only brief periods, but not for spacecraft, which are exposed for a long time

 

the idea was to get larger modules, so if an inflatable module was used while using stronger materials for an outer shell, it would be strong against meteor impacts, and still be able to be flown on a souyez

 

the shape of a sphere if for strength of impact

Note that this isn’t the approach taken with TransHab or its subsequent commercial spinoffs. They’re built of multiple layers intended to absorb and disperse the kinetic energy of an impacting projectile, much like anti-bullet body armor. The outer layer is designed to provide thermal insulation against the extreme high and low temperatures of sunlight and shadow.

 

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=34249&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+spaceref%2Fjext+%28SpaceRef+-+Space+News+as+it+Happens%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail

 

 

 

using this concept, we could fly materials and make the shell in space, or at least try it to see what the outcome is

While “3D printer” and other small, versatile fabrication technology will likely be valuable for making small, unusual parts in space, they aren’t well-suited for making large structural elements like spacecraft hulls, either the usual cylindrical kind, or spherical “domes”.

 

Ultimately, I think small spherical structures won’t be very useful for spacecraft for the same reason they’re not very useful for shelters on Earth: they have a lot of awkward, unusable interior space, because human beings and most of our artifacts are generally rectangular. If you’ve lived for long in a dome-shaped house, you’ll understand intuitively about what I speak.

 

I’m hopeful that we will, in the near future, build spacecraft, including permanently manned habitats, much bigger than can be launched from Earth via a single vehicle. With large habs, like O'Neill cylinders, we’ll likely want to spin them to produce centrifugal pseudo-gravity. Sphere’s aren’t much good for this, as only a narrow band along their equator will be “flat” and suitable for Earth-like habitation.

[belovelife]

ok, point taken

 

but how about producing the shell in space, say cylindrical , rectangular , or whatever

 

 

if we can just get the material in space and shape it there

example

 

rocket full of powder that can be used to make a shell

 

then in vacume of space, form the shell

 

like eject the powder and laser heat it to bond

 

or something like that

 

say ( just for instance )

 

you use iron powder

 

as you heat the iron powder and it forms to itself, there is no oxygen to rust the process

 

 

 

 

 

[CraigD]

if we can just get the material in space and shape it there

example

 

rocket full of powder that can be used to make a shell

I’m can’t decide from what you’ve written here, BL, whether you’re talking about getting material from space (for example, from an asteroid), or from earth via a rocket. Which are you talking about :QuestionM

 

Building structures in outer space out of material from asteroids, the Moon, or other bodies smaller than Earth, is key to what folk like Gerard O’Neil began seriously promoting 35+ years ago. They predicted – accurately, we now see – that getting material from Earth to space would, well into the first decades of the 21st century, remain much too difficult and expensive to let us build the kinds of big (a “standard” O’Neill cylinder is 8 kilometers wide and 32 long) structures they were proposing.

 

If you’re launching your material from Earth into space, it makes sense to complete as much of its manufacturing and assembly on Earth as possible, as is currently done with the little (by O’Neill standards) ISS.

 

then in vacume of space, form the shell

 

like eject the powder and laser heat it to bond

 

or something like that

Sound’s tricky to me. It’s hard to keep stuff from drifting off in space when it’s in nice, easy-to-hold pieces, let alone powdered metal being heated with a laser!

 

There are lots of ideas floating around (pardon the pun ;)) for making big structures in space. one of my favorites appeared in Steven L Burn’s 1989 short story The Nearly Infinite Possibilities of Junk: make a giant balloon out of thin Mylar (the same stuff most pre-inflated party balloons are made of), then spray it with melted rock to make a ceramic shell.

 

If I had a billion dollars or two to throw into a demonstration-of-concept space construction project, that’d high on my list of ideas.

[belovelife]

mabe you could take lunar dust and using a magnet, get iron then using some elaborate tecnique melt the iron togetherin a shell, then find a way to coat that with a ceramic

[belovelife]

http://thisiscolossal.com/2011/06/markus-kayser-builds-a-solar-powered-3d-printer-that-prints-glass-from-sand-and-a-sun-powered-laser-cutter/

[belovelife]

http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

[OMICSGroup]

i have a question, like china is building a science lab in space, and we have the iss, is there a specific reason why we don't build thes in a dome shape,

 

consider assembly in space, (and all the issues), and inflatable modules, and/or situation

 

but we have the shell built in space, similar to geodesic dome, but made of materials that handle the heat varyances of space

 

question one, could it be done? (built around an iinflatable module, or just built)

 

question two, if it can be built, how big can we build it?

 

 

Hiii,

Is it possible to built International Port in Space..

[sPAMLINK REMOVED]