A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Technology
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Partial Torus Station



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 26th 16, 01:43 PM posted to sci.space.tech
David Hoag
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Partial Torus Station


Does anyone have any comments on the viability of a spacecraft such as the one I posted in the link below?

(I couldn't figure out how to post a photo so I posted it to my Facebook feed and linked it below.)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...1288363&type=3

I'm sure more learned people have considered such an intermediate approach to provide artificial gravity while conserving construction costs but it's hard to find information about current research on it.

If a successor to the ISS has been in the planning, why can't it be a partial torus?

David Hoag
Space Enthusiast

Ads
  #2  
Old December 26th 16, 07:11 PM posted to sci.space.tech
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 307
Default Partial Torus Station

On Dec/26/2016 at 8:43 AM, David Hoag wrote :

Does anyone have any comments on the viability of a spacecraft such as the one I posted in the link below?

(I couldn't figure out how to post a photo so I posted it to my Facebook feed and linked it below.)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...1288363&type=3

I'm sure more learned people have considered such an intermediate approach to provide artificial gravity while conserving construction costs but it's hard to find information about current research on it.

If a successor to the ISS has been in the planning, why can't it be a partial torus?

David Hoag
Space Enthusiast



A full torus is a stronger shape than a partial torus. You would have
large stresses at the T junction where the axis meets the circle arc. If
you want to reduce costs by having less than a full torus, why not just
have a habitat at the end of a long spinning cable. At the other end of
the cable you can put a second habitat, or just dead weight (spent fuel
tanks could be used for the dead weight). The habitat can have any
shape, so you choose the shape which best suits your needs. That shape
is unlikely to be a partial torus.


Alain Fournier

  #3  
Old December 28th 16, 12:03 PM posted to sci.space.tech
David Hoag
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Partial Torus Station

Mr. Fournier,

A complete torus station is a bit far-fetched at this stage I suppose due
to construction costs (R&D, a multitude of launches, diameter of torus tub
e sections), and having a single habitat connected with a cable (or series
of cables for redundancy) with a counterweight would be cheaper than two co
nnected with a traversable tunnel and hub, I agree. I wanted to suggest a
scalable/modular design that could be augmented proportionately with more a
nd more segments until it became a full torus.
As far as I know (I'm not a mechanical engineer by any means), the curren
t hull structure of the ISS is considerably stronger than it needs to be so
we have somewhat suitable materials already. The stresses you mentioned,
of course, were stresses experienced by spinning. While a tube connecting
two habitats with a large enough diameter to serve as a passageway would be
more expensive, the hull of said tube could contain several cables as well
as life-support systems, storage and gradients of micro-gravity to serve a
s research for partial-gravity experiments. I would advocate a second habi
tat to act as counterweight for safety reasons as well as a more financiall
y justifiable payload. Spent fuel tanks would be impractical because fuel
tanks are rarely empty and even if they are, it is temporary thus necessita
ting constant rearranging. A second habitat of identical mass would be dif
ficult to engineer (say four astronauts piled into one habitat and nobody w
as in the opposite one - would that throw out the orbit?) but cantilevers o
r gyroscopic controls may hold an answer.
The rudimentary sketch I drew was tube-shaped to anticipate the addition
of more modules eventually making a stronger, full torus. Politically and
financially, the initial construction would have to be somewhat habitable t
o justify the years (perhaps decades) of planning and likely billions and b
illions of dollars. Without proper artificial gravity designs to test near
Earth, interplanetary travel carries too great a cost mentally/physiologic
ally to participants in Mars missions.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stanford Torus Launch William Mook[_2_] Policy 0 July 21st 11 03:30 PM
Stanford Torus rendering & question Joe Strout Science 2 June 19th 06 10:18 PM
Speaking of the Stanford Torus John Savard Policy 1 April 9th 06 10:43 PM
Where's the analysis of the DART mission partial success/partial failure? Jeff Findley History 22 October 26th 05 06:57 PM
Finite Universe: The Torus Shape Maria Chiquita Alvarez Astronomy Misc 4 July 31st 04 10:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.