|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Trends in space station design, weight versus volume
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:31:22 +1100, Ian Davies
wrote: Mass Vol m3 per kg Salyut 7 20 90 4.5 Skylab 76 361 4.75 MIR 124 350 2.82 ISS 246 425 1.72 So ISS is 12 times as massive as Salyut 7, but only provides about 5 times as much habitable volume. It's three times as massive as Skylab, but only provides 18% more volume. The trend seems to be that the newer or larger the space station, the poorer the relationship of volume to mass. In the case of ISS, the reduction is due to habitable modules being cancelled while the heavy power system remained intact. The truss structure and its solar arrays/radiators/batteries were intended to provide power for the large-ish U.S. Hab module and the Centrifuge Accomodation Module, both of which were cancelled due to budget cuts. And at what point in time do your figures represent? If that is current ISS mass/volume, then the heavy Truss is close to complete, while two JEM modules and Node 3 have yet to be added. Brian |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Trends in space station design, weight versus volume
Each station had a certain volume, and weighed what it weighed. Trying to
derive some meaning based on ratios is not productive. Each one was built differently. When looking at the various structures and parts on ISS, usually while a space walk is going on, it seems to me that they use a lot of thick metal.... a strong machine. The drive unit for the solar arrays is a good example. The thing is massive. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Trends in space station design, weight versus volume
Revision wrote:
Each station had a certain volume, and weighed what it weighed. Trying to derive some meaning based on ratios is not productive. Each one was built differently. When looking at the various structures and parts on ISS, usually while a space walk is going on, it seems to me that they use a lot of thick metal.... a strong machine. The drive unit for the solar arrays is a good example. The thing is massive. The structural strength is driven by launch loads, since each truss was launched pre-assembled. The old 5-meter truss (sticks-n-balls) would have been a lot lighter, as it would have been assembled in orbit. Considering the problem they have with docking loads now, it would have been interesting to see how a lighter, more flexible station would have fared. Mike Ross |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Trends in space station design, weight versus volume
On Feb 23, 8:25 am, Mike Ross
wrote: Revision wrote: Each station had a certain volume, and weighed what it weighed. Trying to derive some meaning based on ratios is not productive. Each one was built differently. When looking at the various structures and parts on ISS, usually while a space walk is going on, it seems to me that they use a lot of thick metal.... a strong machine. The drive unit for the solar arrays is a good example. The thing is massive. The structural strength is driven by launch loads, since each truss was launched pre-assembled. The old 5-meter truss (sticks-n-balls) would have been a lot lighter, as it would have been assembled in orbit. Considering the problem they have with docking loads now, it would have been interesting to see how a lighter, more flexible station would have fared. Mike Ross Less station mass = greater radiation dosage, and not as robust for when ISS has to frequently get its orbit boosted. .. - Brad Guth |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Trends in space station design, weight versus volume
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:31:22 +1100, Ian Davies
wrote: Here's an interesting table, showing the mass (in metric tonnes) and habitable volume (in cubic metres) of various space stations, and hence how many cubic metres of habitable volume you get for each kilogram of mass. One of the channels showed a clip of the Skylab crew demonstrating (playing really) in free fall in the large open space of the Skylab and I had to think that they had the best living area of any station to date. Being built out of a large diameter rocket stage did help a little in that aspect of volume verses weight. Though if I had a choice I would like to go to a station more along the Skylab lines than the rest. Am I correct in thinking that none of the Skylab crewman were ever on any of the other stations? Has there been any comparisons of living facilities and conditions on the various stations? J Larson |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Trends in space station design, weight versus volume
J Larson schrieb:
Am I correct in thinking that none of the Skylab crewman were ever on any of the other stations? Correct! Conrad, Kerwin, Bean, Carr, Gibson and Pogue had no further flight. Weitz, Lousma and Garriott had one shuttle flight each in 1982/1983. The next American in a space station? I think it was Norman Thagard in Mir, in March 1995, more than 20 years after Skylab. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Trends in space station design, weight versus volume
J Larson schrieb:
Am I correct in thinking that none of the Skylab crewman were ever on any of the other stations? Correct! Conrad, Kerwin, Bean, Carr, Gibson and Pogue had no further flight. Weitz, Lousma and Garriott had one shuttle flight each in 1982/1983. The next American in a space station? I think it was Norman Thagard in Mir, in March 1995, more than 20 years after Skylab. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Trends in space station design, weight versus volume
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Ian Davies wrote: As it happens, I'm still ignorant as to the reason. All you've told me is ISS is a bunch of bolted-together modules with over-engineered power supply. If you think that's all I've told you, you've understood nothing. Ok - that bit where I said the arrogance was unbecoming ... I retract that. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Trends in space station design, weight versus volume
Rand Simberg wrote:
On 22 Feb 2008 01:11:32 -0500, in a place far, far away, Jim Kingdon made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Mass Vol m3 per kg Salyut 7 20 90 4.5 Skylab 76 361 4.75 MIR 124 350 2.82 ISS 246 425 1.72 It is hard to prove anything from only 4 data points (which have hard-to-control-for differences such as nationality, whether the purpose was quick-and-dirty or "optimally" designed, etc), but if I had to guess, I'd say that people have gradually figured out that big stations have a lot of air drag and thus require a lot of reboost fuel. Only if at low altitudes. This is a function of launch costs. If costs of reaching it weren't a consideration (and earth observation weren't an issue), a station would like to be much higher than ISS is, with an upper limit as it gets into the belts. The altitude is constrained by the increasing reduction of payload to reach it with the Shuttle (a problem that could be solved by a station-based tug). Not just the shuttle. Soyuz/Progress have a rendezvous ceiling of 425 km. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Trends in space station design, weight versus volume
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:16:35 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand Simberg wrote: On 22 Feb 2008 01:11:32 -0500, in a place far, far away, Jim Kingdon made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Mass Vol m3 per kg Salyut 7 20 90 4.5 Skylab 76 361 4.75 MIR 124 350 2.82 ISS 246 425 1.72 It is hard to prove anything from only 4 data points (which have hard-to-control-for differences such as nationality, whether the purpose was quick-and-dirty or "optimally" designed, etc), but if I had to guess, I'd say that people have gradually figured out that big stations have a lot of air drag and thus require a lot of reboost fuel. Only if at low altitudes. This is a function of launch costs. If costs of reaching it weren't a consideration (and earth observation weren't an issue), a station would like to be much higher than ISS is, with an upper limit as it gets into the belts. The altitude is constrained by the increasing reduction of payload to reach it with the Shuttle (a problem that could be solved by a station-based tug). Not just the shuttle. Soyuz/Progress have a rendezvous ceiling of 425 km. Indeed. But that remains a function of expensive launch. If it were cheaper, we'd like to have a higher station. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trends in space station design, weight versus volume | Ian Davies | Space Station | 15 | February 27th 08 05:23 AM |
Fast Math - Numeric Conversions such as Weight, Volume, Roman Numerals, etc (angstroms to light-years) | javawizard | Misc | 0 | October 11th 07 05:35 PM |
Maynard's space station (was Felxibility of Apollo design ) | Kieran A. Carroll | Policy | 4 | December 19th 04 08:04 AM |
Maynard's space station (was Felxibility of Apollo design ) | Kieran A. Carroll | Space Station | 4 | December 19th 04 08:04 AM |
Maynard's space station (was Felxibility of Apollo design ) | Kieran A. Carroll | History | 4 | December 19th 04 08:04 AM |