Space Station Size

[Deepwater6]

http://www.space.com/20414-space-station-launching-docking-today.html

 

Obviously there is plenty of room in space to build onto the space station. Although I would think at some point it will become to large to maneuver? There are plans to add new modules including inflatable ones shortly. However the station will still need to have thrusting capabilities to avoid space junk would it not?

 

If the modules have a life span we would be switching them out fairly often, but if not they will need to add additional engines in different locations to orient the station so it operates properly right? This will no doubt have the added space of the solar panels on the station correct? It would seem to me that with the onset of space vacations the station would require a larger footprint.

[CraigD]

http://www.space.com/20414-space-station-launching-docking-today.html

Cool article. So a trip to the ISS will now take 6 hours rather than 48.

 

Like most of the space.com stuff I've seen, though, it's light on details. Transfer orbits aren't especially complicated, but their most detailed explanation, How 1-Day Space Station Trips Work (Infographic) trims it down to "Soyuz executes a sequence of rocket engine burns". They're a bit more complicated than that! ;)

 

Obviously there is plenty of room in space to build onto the space station. Although I would think at some point it will become to large to maneuver? There are plans to add new modules including inflatable ones shortly. However the station will still need to have thrusting capabilities to avoid space junk would it not?

The old (launched in 2000) Zvezda module still does all the ISS's maneuvering, though a docked Soyuz, Progress, or other spacecraft can also. As long as it's supplied with propellant (about 7000 kg/year), Zvenvsa's expected to last as long as the ISS as a whole, about another 7 years or so.

 

If the modules have a life span we would be switching them out fairly often, but if not they will need to add additional engines in different locations to orient the station so it operates properly right?

Zvezda's thrusters can orient and accelerate the ISS adequately for all expected future needs, I believe.

 

When you're maneuvering as gently as the ISS does, where the thrusters are isn't especially important, as long as they're exhaust isn't fouling some other parts. Zvezda is right in the center on the end.

 

There were plans to have a replaceable module with thrusters that could be delivered by the Space Shuttle, but with the Shuttle's retirement was the final end of that idea. If Zvesda's old thrusters fail badly, I believe the plan is to use visiting cargo or passenger spacecraft for maneuvering.

 

This will no doubt have the added space of the solar panels on the station correct? It would seem to me that with the onset of space vacations the station would require a larger footprint.

From all I've heard, there are no plans to have any more space tourists on the ISS. Any "space hotel" will be an all new construction.

 

Though companies like Bigalow have generated a lot of publicity about space hotels and the like, and seem to have semi-solid plans put a little (4 x 3.2 x 3.2 m) "proof of concept" inflatable module on the ISS in 2015, I think space vacations beyond short sub-orbital or orbital spacecraft flights are still far from certain to be happening anytime soon.

[sigurdV]

I cant make up my mind: Is the Space station a success or a failure?

[Deepwater6]

I surely wouldn't call it a failure. That's not to say things couldn't have gone better in some of the steps of construction, but it did give us valuable information. Sooner or later we have to start with something.

 

I like to look at this way. It's the early footprint of space occupation by humans. That footprint will hopefully grow in size to huge space structures. Of course as it continues to grow it will shed it's original modules by swapping them out with newer and larger ones. Until it eventually creates a permanent large orbiting spaceport and a colony. If that's what ends up happening it will be from this original rag-tag set of modules that started it all.

[Eclogite]

I cant make up my mind: Is the Space station a success or a failure?

My mind is made up. As big a failure as the shuttle and for much the same reason: political short sightedness, coupled with poor cost control. The same funding properly invested could have placed us on Mars by now. Low Earth orbit is not much more exciting than climbin Mount Everest, though it is somewhat safer.

[Moontanman]

The space is a fail in many ways but it is the best we've done so far. A space station should have artificial gravity to start with, it should have reasonable maneuverability but most importantly it should serve as a way station to the rest of the solar system. The space station we currently have is none of these things...

[moonguy]

Space Shuttle + ISS + Constellation = '0' credibility for NASA.

[SaxonViolence]

Some years ago Jerry Pournelle said that recent research indicated that 20% Gravity was sufficient to keep one healthy indefinitely.

 

A.} He didn't quote his source.

 

B.} We don't know if this hypothesis held up to subsequent research.

 

C.} My Own Extrapolation:

 

Loss of both bone and strength might indeed occur _{(or they might not—particularly with regular vigorous exercise)} but presumably:

 

i) Nothing will deteriorate to the point of killing us.

 

ii) Except for the very old and ill, one could always recover enough to live a Normal life under one Gee—i.e. No Bridges get burned.

 

D.} It is conceivable that we will develop drugs that tell the body—_{on a chemical level}—"Yeah, I know you're living under 0 gee; or .2 gee or whatever. Ignore it and stay prepared to carry on under 1.0 gee at any time."

 

But lets take Pournell's figure and run with it.

 

Assume that you've been placed in charge of NASA with carte blanche.

 

Your mission is to build a Space Station at least a quarter mile across that can be spun fast enough to give 25% gravity at the outer rim.

 

Assume a reasonable and proportionate width.

 

A.} How Many RPMs are we talking about?

 

B.} How noticeable would Coriolis forces be to the Inhabitants?

 

B.'} How much stress are we putting on our structure spinning it that fast?

 

C.} What sort of Tonnage are we talking about—rough ball park—to build this station?

 

D.} Assume that it got a Very High Priority Economically:

 

How fast could we build it?

 

E.} How many people could we expect to house in such a structure as we're describing?

 

F.} Presumably, we'd provide for future growth by having a hub wide enough to support two more "Rims"—one on either side of the Original.

 

F'.} We might also choose to build smaller concentric rings, one inside the other—the ceiling of the outer serving as the floor for the next.

 

i.) How many 10 foot "Stories" can we add before the Centrifugal Force falls below the "Magic" 20%?

 

ii.) How rapidly Does the smaller circumference reduce usable floor space, level per level?

 

 

How Happy would y'all be to see this as a "Top-Priority" NASA Project?

 

 

Saxon Violence

[moonguy]

I encountered much the same comment from someone during the 1980's when they only had data form the Skylab missions to work with. Sadly, I cannot quote the source either.

One of the reasons a 0-g station is a non-starter is the amount of time that has to be spent just approximating the stress of Earth's 1-g. A station might be permanent fixture, but the crewmembers trained on experiments or manufacturing processes cannot take 90+ minutes out of a work day just to exercise so they can barely walk when they return home.

Edited September 19, 2013 by moonguy