Space Stations Without Compromise

https://www.gravitics.com/

by danboarder • 3 years ago

57 27 3 years ago

gravitics.com

two_handfuls• 3 years ago

I’m surprised the web site does not say which rockets this will fit in.

tycho-newman• 3 years ago

The USS Defiant, if we’re counting fictional vessels.

samwillis4• 3 years ago

According to the PDF data sheet it has a diameter of 7.6m, length 9.8m. The only rocket I know of that could launch that is the SpaceX Starship - when it's ready.

I would go as far as saying this looks specifically designed for the Starships payload dimensions, 8m dia by 17m. Baring in mind that the front ~7m are in the nose cone of the rocket.

I think it's quite sensible for a startup to be working on space station designs that are utilising the expected capability of starship.

https://gravitics.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/StarMax_One_Pa...

See payload section on: https://www.spacex.com/media/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf

samwillis4• 3 years ago

With about 60 of these and an angled interconnect of about 5.8deg you could build a rotating "Von Neumann ring" of about 200m diameter. Then depending on speed have up to 1g simulated at 3rpm...

Just casually pointing out also that their interior designs have floors and doors that are earth like. Along with the company name, I strongly suspect they are already thinking this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_regular_ring

jacknews• 3 years ago

60 is quite a lot to manage, they probably plan to use affiliated operators for some of them. Personally, I think a boolean ring would be more logical.

Scalene2• 3 years ago

And then you're on your way to a topopolis.

schiffern2• 3 years ago

The CEO says their ultimate goal is spin gravity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btuiMlMI2Po&t=257

They show off a (notional / early-stage design) ring station in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Typ9MEhkDmI&t=49

There's also this great talk from their Chief Engineer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QycmHTHav8

dogma1138• 3 years ago

You don’t need to construct a full ring, it can be disconnected sections over the full radius with struts or just a partial slice of the ring with a counter weight.

schiffern2• 3 years ago

just a partial slice of the ring with a counter weight

AKA "Bolas," AKA "Barbell," AKA "Tumbling Pigeon"

https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/artificialgrav...

I think the main reason people neglect this sort of design (which actually has a lot going for it) is because they don't look like that cool scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

senectus1• 3 years ago

unless they have figured out artificial gravity... none of these pictures or videos make sense. the only way I know how they can add gravity to these quarters is by spinning them...

the "floor" will be the curved sides (or I guess the ends) not the middle of the things?

What am I missing here?

Edit: oh, they ARE with compromise? no gravity. which makes the name "Gravitics" more than a bit cheeky.

Incipient2• 3 years ago

With any commercial fairly extreme engineering activity, is safety not going to suffer?

Not thinking of any particular recent extreme (high) pressure endeavours.

samwillis4• 3 years ago

The pressure differential for a sub at Titanic depth is almost 6,000psi, for a spacecraft in a vacuum it's 14.7psi. It's a very different problem.

euroderf2• 3 years ago

But then again, don't most materials work better in compression than in tension ?

imtringued2• 3 years ago

gravity is truly the weakest force

panick21_3• 3 years ago

This is just a recency bias thing. There are gigantic private cars, private ships, private planes and even private rockets used everyday all over the world. Not to mention gigantic mining equipment, huge oil platforms and so on and so on.

Safety is always critical and commercial and non-commercial projects both can have safety issues or engineer something very safe.

Incipient2• 3 years ago

Wouldn't really talk about aviation. We're still killing lots of people due to dodgy maintenance. Lack of understanding brought us popular hits such as the Hindenburg, and cars/ships/etc don't fail as catastrophically but they break all the time.

constantcrying3• 3 years ago

With any commercial fairly extreme engineering activity, is safety not going to suffer?

Many, many commercial companies work on safety critical systems. You ensure safety through standards, testing and independence. Despite recent lapses, e.g. flying is still incredibly safe.

panick21_3• 3 years ago

Color me skeptical. There have recently been a lots and lots of commercial space station proposals. Partly this is because Starship and for some people New Glenn might be ready sometime.

The other reason is that NASA is doing a Commercial Space station program (that is underfunded) and a lot of people wont in on that.

But I very skeptical of any of these actually making it anywhere close to orbit. The actual investment required to get this build and launched and operated is incredibly large. And the costumer base is questionable.

chalcolithic• 3 years ago

non-rotating?

imtringued2• 3 years ago

Space stations are meaningless luxuries. We don't have a resource extraction industry in space.

Space Stations Without Compromise

Related Stories