A Better Space Station?

The business and politics of space, NASA, and their intersection with the $ of Wall Street.

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby WillCarney » Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:46 pm

tampaDreamer wrote:I just dont think it's needed at this time. Why do we need gravity in space?


It was a Russian astronaut that got off MIR after 18 month's that could not walk. He had to be carried off.
He had trouble walking for at least a month and he did exercise in space. Send people to Mars without some
type of induced gravity would be stupid. It would take more than 18 month's just to get there and they could
not walk when they do, maybe for a month or more.

The travel time to Mars would have to be 30 days or less if you are not inducing gravity in some form. Only
a NERVA type engine with plenty of fuel could do this. With the present anti-nuclear crowd that ain't going
to happen. No other propulsion tested to date could get us there faster. Any time longer than 30 days you
start to loose muscle and bone. That is also why the ISS is needed for such long space flight tests.

William
User avatar
WillCarney
nucleus
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:31 pm

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby aremisasling » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:43 pm

Jazman1985 wrote:What size station and what scale of g forces are necessary?


Judging by this, not very large at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge ... ons_Module

Granted this experimental module was not meant to provide gravity for crew, but it was a standard tin-can module like the one's we're used to. It would need to be bigger, I'm sure, to be effective for human occupation and operations, but we can create centrifuges capable of several g's that are very small for purposes here on earth.
aremisasling
atom
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:00 am

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby b0bhill » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:06 pm

I disagree that the ISS is in the proper position. Proper position for what? So that it could be built with the space shuttle? IMHO it should be located at a point where it is not constantly being pulled back toward the earth. A space station needs to be designed to last indefinitely with proper maintenance. It should be large enough to house at least 50 people possibly more with an engineering crew to make repairs, a medical team for everyday needs and emergencies. Everything we have put in orbit is temporary so far and we need to think permanent. It might take a lifetime to build but would serve mankind for centuries.
b0bhill
proton
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:00 am

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby Rootieboy » Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:48 pm

NASA's original concept of the external fuel tank was to use them as nodes for a space station. There is a group who is still very interested in the idea but I doubt it will ever get done. Check out this site for more details. They are called space island group.

http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/wheel-stations.html
User avatar
Rootieboy
proton
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:41 pm

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby holmec » Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:53 pm

Very nice design for a wheel.

But, it might be cheaper to make a space station with artificial gravity to be in an in-line configuration.

That way you have the hab modules on one end and power modules or something else at the other.

With this configuration you can expirment with different mass at different ends and allow the "center" to vary. You could have a central docking port or you could just stop the lab from rotating all together to dock.

In-line configuration allows for freedom of operations while the wheel may require the center of gravity to remain in the center of the wheel. But as mass moves around so does the center of gravity (really center of centrifugal force).

Things I think that need to be experimented with are:

-Various docking configurations.
-Various G forces on humans - <1G and >1G.
-rotation control-traditional thruster, ion thrusters, mechanical gyroscopic type control.
-space station configuration to provide more than one level of artificial gravity for various experiments.
-design configuration research for an interplanetary crewed craft with artificial gravity - ie like taking crew to Mars and back.

To me a wheel would not allow for variations like these. And the primary goal of space stations so far has been for research.
User avatar
holmec
star
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:00 am

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby holmec » Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:58 pm

BTW I give little credence to the idea that a relatively small radius is detrimental to crew for an artificial gravity crewed craft. We have flown in planes, and experienced various G forces.

But for the sake of argument, lets test it in a real crewed space station with artificial gravity. That's a good reason as any to get one started.
User avatar
holmec
star
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:00 am

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby supag33k » Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:42 pm

Well the concern would loading of any structure caused by rotational forces and rigidity of the rotating station.

The weight of the pieces would go up markedly, especially the central section, that would have to be assembled in space. Ideally the larger and heavier the diameter of the central hub mounting structure, the better the load carrying capacity to deal with these rotational forces.

The existing IIS could be reused in this newer station, just construct a 30 or 40 metre hub in space that is structural and not pressurised then connect the existing modules into place on the hub and join via temporary access tubes until the more permanent pieces are brought up.

Then the outer ring structure would have to be mostly in place before it could be spun up to around 2RPM or less.

The whole thing would be around 120 metres to 150 metres across and be several times heavier than the current ISS - and yes it really comes down to both big $$$ and lots of lifting capacity.

Also the new station should be in a higher orbit with less maintenance involved.
supag33k
proton
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:50 pm

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby zenofjazz » Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:48 pm

The idea of an extruded aluminum skin wrapped around an inflatable torus is an excellent idea. The torus can be sized to fit in whatever launch vehicle is available at launch time. The trick is to avoid having to launch EVERYTHING from Earth's surface.

The best way to decrease the cost of this exercise is to do this in a repeatable, reproducible fashion.

The single biggest cost is currently launch costs. The fastest way to decrease launch costs is to launch from someplace with lower gravity. The nearest place where we can find the resources for this type of exercise is the moon. The lunar surface is rich with the following resources: Silicon, Oxygen, Aluminum, Iron, Magnesium, Calcium, Titanium, Hydrogen, Helium, Argon, Nitrogen, Neon, Krypton, and Carbon.

So, what can we do with these resources? Well, first off, silicon, and various other materials can be used to create solar cells. Not necessarily high efficiency solar cells. But, if they can be manufactured in-place, on the moon, efficiency doesn't matter, because we simply trade # of cells for efficiency. Secondly, we can build capacitors. Big capacitors. And thirdly, we can build a rail-gun for launching refined materials back to earth-orbit. Fourth, we build solar powered smelters, capable of being used to refine aluminum, iron, magnesium, and titanium. Purified, and extruded as wire, they can be used on-orbit for a variety of purposes.

Additionally, Iron can be processed into high tensile strength steel, formed into functional length trusses, and also boosted to Earth orbit. While many of these processes may require human intervention, to set up, and get running, automation should allow for a limited manned presence on the moon, while a stream of prepared resources moves from the moon's surface to Earth Orbit.

By boosting the torus up, deflated, and then inflating it on orbit, it would be possible to wrap it with a combination of carbon fibers, and aluminum wire, to provide extremely high strength exterior armor. Once the torus is wrapped, trusses can be added, to provide mount points for all necessary fittings. The wrapping process could be highly automated, with relatively simple robotic wrappers slowly traversing the exterior of the torus, until sufficient layers of carbon fiber, and aluminum have been deposited. Alternatively, a layer of expanding foam could be laid down first, then carbon fiber, then another layer of foam, and a final layer of aluminum wire.

This would allow for some protection from micro-meteorite impacts.

Once the structure is completed, solar arrays (again from lunar resources) could be arrayed around the outer rim of the station, giving a sun-flower look, and leaving the central hub area free for maneuvering.

By having a two-part central hub, with one portion rotating with the station, and the remainder stationary for docking maneuvers, it should be possible to simplify the interface between.

Any zero gravity labs can be tethered nearby, with the understanding that access is by way of spacesuit. That way they will not be disturbed by any vibrations caused by the occupants moving within the station.

Finally, expansion comes in one of two ways. A second ring can be created (with a larger diameter) away from the current station, and flown into place when completed, providing a bulls-eye type arrangement, once attached, or a second torus can be inflated, and wrapped, adjacent to the first.

In either case, accessways would be necessary, but should be a relatively simple exercise, after all we've done so far.

The advantage with the "bulls-eye" arrangement is that you can have multiple levels of gravity on the station, for example, a lower gravity section, for those who would be unable to survive at full earth gravity.
zenofjazz
nucleus
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:00 am

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby Mee_n_Mac » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:07 pm

zenofjazz wrote:The trick is to avoid having to launch EVERYTHING from Earth's surface.

The best way to decrease the cost of this exercise is to do this in a repeatable, reproducible fashion.

The single biggest cost is currently launch costs. The fastest way to decrease launch costs is to launch from someplace with lower gravity. The nearest place where we can find the resources for this type of exercise is the moon. The lunar surface is rich with the following resources: Silicon, Oxygen, Aluminum, Iron, Magnesium, Calcium, Titanium, Hydrogen, Helium, Argon, Nitrogen, Neon, Krypton, and Carbon.
{snip}


I agree whole-heartedly with the above. So why have a mammoth space station ? Why not a Moonbase instead ? (not to go completely OT here but .....)
User avatar
Mee_n_Mac
solar system
 
Posts: 2582
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:00 am

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby zenofjazz » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:03 pm

Mee_n_Mac wrote:
zenofjazz wrote:The trick is to avoid having to launch EVERYTHING from Earth's surface.

The best way to decrease the cost of this exercise is to do this in a repeatable, reproducible fashion.

The single biggest cost is currently launch costs. The fastest way to decrease launch costs is to launch from someplace with lower gravity. The nearest place where we can find the resources for this type of exercise is the moon. The lunar surface is rich with the following resources: Silicon, Oxygen, Aluminum, Iron, Magnesium, Calcium, Titanium, Hydrogen, Helium, Argon, Nitrogen, Neon, Krypton, and Carbon.
{snip}


I agree whole-heartedly with the above. So why have a mammoth space station ? Why not a Moonbase instead ? (not to go completely OT here but .....)


Microgravity is VERY difficult to achieve on the lunar surface. An Earth orbit station is also very useful for many things.
1) orbital shipyard (good place to build ships, with all those lunar sourced resources)
2) lab space, zero-G, and other details.
3) tourist attraction (with sufficiently low launch costs)
4) jumping off point to other locations
5) additional lab space ideas.. quarantine station for biological research that would be too dangerous for on-earth work.
6) fuel depot, supply depot, etc.

These of course, assume that you have places to go, things to do, all over the solar system. Once you're out of the Earth's gravity well, you're 1/2 way to everywhere. Using the Lunar surface for resources, is a good start. Asteroid belt for additional resources. You may have noticed that Hydrogen and Oxygen are both plentiful on the moon. That's life support gasses, and water. All you have to do is liberate them from the surface. Sufficient heat, will do that.

You say you need to be able to grow hydroponic plants for food/life support purposes? Nitrogen is plentiful, too.

So, what can we do, on orbit? Solar power satellites... Beaming power down to the surface of the Earth, helping to get rid of Coal fired plants, and other less than perfect solutions to our energy needs.

We can capture asteroids, and mine them for resources scarce on the moon.

A moon base? Why stop there?

In the 70's the Nixon administration told NASA you can have your space station, or you can have your truck (the Shuttle) to get there. See what came from that delay?
zenofjazz
nucleus
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:00 am

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby MasterMiend » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:18 pm

There are a lot of good ideas out there, but engineers had to design this station 30 years ago using reliable concepts. With a rotating station, there are several problems:
Coriolis effect- still unknown at this point. How will astronauts react? Why spend $50 Billion just to find it doesn't work? We can investigate this later.
Balance - If the mass in any place changes, by just a little, the whole station can begin to violently wobble. Just having astronauts walk around the station would not be tolerable without some sort of active balance system (read high maintenance, prone to failure, dangerous). Loading and unloading people and supplies would be very difficult.
Vibration - most of the arguments for building the station was as a research center, but the experiments require microgravity and extreme stability. A rotating station would not provide either. There would have to be a portion of the station that was not rotating, that would remain fixed in its orientation requiring motors (read high maintenance again).
Solar power - solar panels require a fixed platform facing the sun at all times. In order to get power, you need to mount a counter-rotating strut permanently fixed to the hub of the station.
Safety - all of the other issues aside, a rotating ring or wheel is inherently unsafe since the only point of egress is through the hub which also happens to be the only place to mount experiments, for the solar power panel struts, and a docking ring.
Docking - A hard dock in which two objects are physically connected so people can transfer easily between the two in a shirtsleeves environment is preferable to a soft dock
MasterMiend
nucleus
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:24 pm

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby MasterMiend » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:47 pm

Continued:

Weight - is another issue. A rotating structure would require much more strength in structural members which complicates design and launch requirements.

Flexibility - as mass shifts in a wheel, the wheel gets out of shape requiring a lot of flexibility in joints between units and components.

Attitude adjustment - how could the station's orbit be modified. Again, placing rockets and propellant around the central hub doesn't sound like a great idea to me. They would also need to be refueled. A visiting rocket would have to push ecxactly along the axis... Listen, this is getting too complicated.

Finally, if the rotating docking hub seizes up, goodbye. No hard docking, maybe not even soft docking. If a ship is hard docked at the time, the forces between a rotating station and a stationary space shuttle could rip both apart.

For a real emergency, where would escape vehicles be? You don't have time to suit up and space walk over to a co-orbiting vehicle. Escape "pods" in sections of the ring would be terminal. The first to leave would destroy the entire station, throwing the remainder off balance, ripping it apart.

Clearly there are lots of issues to be worked out. Bigelow could work on those problems now. But 30 years ago, there were many arguments about what was possible. I was in college then working for the military. One of my assignments was to provided documentation for visiting scientists discussing the space station (it was not international yet). I got to see documents and articles arguing all of these issues, and to listen to some of the debate. At another event I met Freeman Dyson and some other great minds of the century.

The ISS is what it is. We need to do more research. We need to understand the requirements of a space station, how to handle the environment, recycle water, etc,... first. We are taking baby steps. Dream away, but understand that taxpayers are paying the bills in every nation that is participating in ISS. The engineers owed it to everyone to deliver something that would work, and they did. They removed as many critical moving parts as possible.

Many of these problems could be worked out with a much larger station than we can reasonably consider now. Rotating the shuttle is not likely. The position of its docking apparatus makes it a no-go for rotating or being able to boost its orbit. A large station with its own maintenace crews could work. A gravity gradient tethered system might work better. Like a small space elevator in the sky. If you anchor your station to a large mass and let out a line a cetrtain distance, you begin to experience gravity. If you set up a docking station near the middle and fashion an elevator to go down or up, you will experience some fractional gravity as you descend to the station, or rise to it, depending on how long the tether is.. That might be a little easier way to get gravity that eliminates the rotation... Also, how much gravity do we need to maintain the health of astronauts on long missions? Is a third gravity required, 1/6, 1/16? We still don't know. Until we do, why build one if we can't design its specs?
MasterMiend
nucleus
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:24 pm

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby Gravity_Ray » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:35 am

I too love the idea of a spinning station, however, do we really need another station? Right now, I would like to see NASA continuing to focus on a space ship. The most important issue facing us space advocates is money. To make money in space we need to get around in space first. Once we have that we can then think about semi-permanent space stations (spinning or no).

The ISS will answer most of the mundane questions regarding a low gravity environment and its affects on the human body that we need answered for now.

If for example you begin in-situ resource utilization of the Moon, Mars, or asteroids then a space station in one of the Lagrange points makes sense as a rally point or base. Or, if the space tourism industry takes off and they need some more space up there for rich folks to spend their money, then that will make sense as well.

For now lets focus on a space ship that will allow easy access to space not just LEO. Lets see if its even worth going to places like the Moon or Mars or the asteroids before we start building space stations. Remember if you are getting your resources in space rather than lugging them up the Earth gravity well, your space station will be that much cheaper.
User avatar
Gravity_Ray
molecule
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 3:59 pm

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby moonmadness » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:04 am

lol

what space cadet hasn't designed their own station. if only in their head.

mine are always based on modularity design.

the first one I designed consisted of only two major parts.

Some oblong cylinder habitat modules and spherical connector units with six axis connection points(think the jack in the game of jacks).

I even used one of the first 3D modeling programs to flesh it out.

I was a little feaked out when I saw the first rendering of a Bigalow module because it looked almost exactly how I imagined my habitat modules so long ago.

My gravity station I called Big 8 because it was octagon shaped built out of tube sections that themselves were octagon shaped.

lol
User avatar
moonmadness
comet
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:00 am

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby Gilmoy » Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:19 am

Jazman1985 wrote:Afterall, we seem to do fine for 6 months at 0 g ...

Humans don't do "fine". Each 6-month stint on the ISS seriously drains astronauts' bone density and mass, by 14% average at the hip. That's even considering that ISS astronauts exercise two hours every day specifically to counteract it. It'd be even worse if they were in a cramped Orion phone booth the whole time. They have to recuperate for months on return. (Russians who flew long stints on Mir did experience even higher loss rates.)

In fact, bone loss is one of the reasons why we fly only six-month tours, and we limit astronauts to at most one long-term stay per 3+ years. It's one of several show-stopper reasons that prevent a Mars mission using current technology. (Lack of an effective radiation shield is the main one there.)

We do have some exercise machines in development that could generate substantial Gs in space. The Space Cycle sounds more fun than a barrel of monkeys: a spinning bar, powered by a bike on one side, with a cage counterbalance on the other. On Earth, it generates up to 7g for the guy in the cage! But the prototype is too large (in physical radius) and heavy. And there's the rather serious issue of whether the ISS is structurally ready for a 70 kg astronaut spinning at 7g in a small room. That's one mechanical failure away from throwing 70 kg of wet parts very hard against a non-reinforced wall. On Earth, we call that a trebuchet :shock:
Gilmoy
quark
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:05 am

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby Jazman1985 » Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:36 am

Gilmoy, my point wasn't that there is no appreciable decay in the human body at six months exposure to zero g, there certainly is, the point is that we can survive this time period. 6 months in an extreme environment is quite a long time without serious problems such as inability to walk or move. I imagine that in the future, foregoing Martian expeditions, we won't spend more than a year in low gravity, even with artificial gravity. Afterall, even professional astronauts will need a vacation... I would be very interested to see the effects that the mentioned gravity inducing bike would produce on the station, both psyhiological as well as structurally.
Jazman1985
dust
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:14 pm

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby spinor » Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:49 am

I have done a lot of reading in this area (artificial gravity using spinning spacecraft) and the fact is: we know very little about this area because
there is very little space mission flown for the purpose of researching in - artificial gravity using spinning spacecraft. For example we DO NOT
know very reliably the following:
1) the minimum rotation arm radius of the spacecraft to produce a comfortable habitat.
2) the maximum rate of rotation for the same reason - yes some says 4 rpm - but the
jury is still out on that
3) How long does it take for a healthy human to adapt to rotating habitat?

You just simply can not answer these questions with real degree of reliability with out flying real space missions with real rotating "tin can" or spacecrafts.
I don't know about you but I find it absolute amazing that for over 50 years of space history and there were maybe one (Russian) space mission
on rotating spacecraft for habitat purpose.

I also find it absolute crazy and even criminal that NASA would rather spend billions of tax dollars on "solving" the zero-gravity problem on the human body
than solving the engineering problem of artificial gravity via spinning spacecraft. Just imagine every time NASA builds some gadget for the ISS they have
to take into account zero G. Things like space toilet or urine recycling are example.

As Dr. Robert Zubrin pointed out - the zero G problems on human is an engineering problem. It is not a medical problem. Zubrin also site a very
interesting source to explain this idea. In what follow I am borrowing the same line of argument from him.

I would like to invite you to ask yourself these questions:
1) What do scuba divers do to help them breath under water? - They bring oxygen with them
The same with jet fighter pilot.
Now imagine if someone tell you that you can solve this problem by pouring a lot of money into
researching for a drug to reduce your oxygen requirement so you can live under water- you would
think that's a little nut don't you?

But we are facing the same problem with weightlessness on the human body! and the solution
is to "bring gravity with you". As Zubrin pointed out, It is infinitely more difficult to develop a drug that will combat the
zero-g effect than to solve the engineering problem of rotating spacecraft.

The human body is designed – over million of years by nature to live the a gravity environment.
You are not going to change that with any drug!

It is true that there are a many engineering problem associated with rotation spacecraft but all these
can be solved with some creativity or at the very least lived with. It may not be convenience but considering
how much money NASA have spent on "solving" the zero-g problem I can not imagine the solving
the engineering problems would be more expansive. The fact that it has been 50 years and we have not
come anywhere near a satisfactory medical solution for this problem should already tell you that something
is not right.

Also It is just my opinion but I do not believe that the maximum rotation rate for space habitat is 4 rpm.
I am willing to bet that when a large number of space experiments are carried out on this with a large
number of astronauts on varying length of stay you may find out the rotation rate can go up as high
as 12 rpm with habitat radius as low as 12 meters.

I am basing this on the losely notion that the effect of rotating space habitat may not be that much different
from what sailors experience at sea. I imagine that the effect of Corilois force and gravity gradient would
make you feel similar to sea sickness. Yet have you ever heard anyone said "you can not live at sea on
a boat below a certain size"? Of course not. On such boat you will feel seasick at first but after a certain
period most people will adapt. I will venture as far as to say that it is the same with rotating habitat.
You will undoubtedly experience motion sickness at first but perhaps after a few weeks who knows
many astronauts may adapt. We have to do the experiment to find out.

Finally imagine what if in the ancient day when the first wooden boat was invented and people would
abandon it because a few sailors experiences motion sickness?. The said men were meant to be at
sea? Aren't you glad that did not happen?
spinor
quark
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:17 pm

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby Aerospace_Cadet » Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:53 am

The original design of the Space shuttle had larger external tanks that were going to be used as building blocks for a large wheel-like Station. Great idea making use of every part that you used all that energy to get to orbit. For some stupid reason (they quote monetary and political) they killed the plan and went with a smaller tank. Could you imagine the size of a station we would have today if we had over 125 external fuel tank sized building blocks in orbit? And now with the shuttle program winding down I'd say we missed a golden opportunity.
User avatar
Aerospace_Cadet
proton
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:17 pm

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby RocketsRedGlare » Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:55 am

I think instead of an I.S.S. on steroids, we should build it large but, keep it as simple as possible and as cheap as possible! It should only be our indeavor alone. I doupt it will happen by us howevwer because we have an administration and congress that is bent on bankrupting our nation. In fact they don't even want America to be a nation at all! There is a reason that Europe after all these years has yet to put a man is space. They couldn't afford to, and that is where we are headed. So stop kidding that America has fute in space. we don't, soon we wont have the money to continue our programs. Our money will be worthless! We are so deap in debt we couldn't pay attention, we certainly won't be making a new space station with or without partners!
RocketsRedGlare
proton
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:10 am

Re: A Better Space Station?

Postby xXTheOneRavenXx » Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:58 am

Giulio, I agree that we should have abandoned the old space station concept and worked on this kind of design since then. There are a couple of concepts we could utilize for modules that would not be affected by the artificial gravity. One would be a module on top of the outer ring. As the ring spins, the module remains stationary as it's attached to the outer ring via a magnetic track. It's not a new concept to have magnets keeping one body stationary while the other spins. To access these modules, a retractable access tunnel could be utilized. Another concept is to have the modules completely separate, but held close to the station again by magnets. Also, again magnets have been used before to keep two bodies at a given distance from each other, while still preventing them from drifting apart further. All that would be needed is a magnetic strip around the outer ring of the station, and magnetic panels on the module.

The cost factor always plays a roll in these projects, but you are absolutely correct in saying "who says this has to be done all at once".
User avatar
xXTheOneRavenXx
asteroid
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:01 am
PreviousNext

Return to Space Business and Technology