Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2/9/2015 7:06 PM, Alain wrote:
> > I see two solutions:
> > 1 - Place the domes closer to the station's body, maybe in a circle
> > around it and push the pannels outward beyong the domes.
>
> This is interesting. This would induce "gravity", but the exposure to
> the sun would not be as good since the domes would all face inwards.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 2 - Keep the current geometry, but rotate the domes or pannels 90°
> > arount the main axis of the station.
> >
> > Alain
>
> Not sure if I understand. You mean at right angles with respect to each
> other? I think Le_Forgeron has a better idea in this case.
>
> Except that I think both of you misunderstand. The *entire* station does
> not rotate around the central axis. Just the inner shell (currently
> colored blue) rotates. The outer shell remains fixed. I don't have a
> good explanation why I chose to do it this way.
>
> Anyway, I've attached my latest design. The panels and domes are no
> longer blocking each other. But I think it is ugly. :(
>
> What do you think?

certain features of your design need attention drawn to i think.
  having a non-rotating nacelle over the rotating pseudo-gee habitat can provide
for shielding.  figure up to two meters of concrete/regolith/plastic.  with the
shielding separate from the hab, you do not have to invest in the angular
momentum.  however, your design is a 'long tom'; rotating cylinders on such a
long axis are inherently unstable and will seek to precess to a rotation around
a more stable principle axis, with disastrous results.  the instability can be
overcome i think by carefully orchestrated counterweights moving radially from
the axis of rotation, but clearance with your nacelle might be a problem.  most
designs that deal with the stability problem just make the cylinder shorter,
more like 'square', diameter=length.  'kalpana one' is such a design; it is near
the size of yours.
  if you intend to have near-earth-strength artificial illumination, then
consider the basic efficiency of photon-in (to the solar cell) vs photon-out
(from the lighting).  ten percent is ridiculously high i suspect; but that would
mean having ten times the surface area of your hab in solar cell area, just for
lighting alone.  usually this problem is solved with natural sunlight and
mirrors.  a good example is the o'neill-type cylinders in alexis gilliland's
'rosinante' trilogy (available for kindle).  instead of giant whirling plane
mirrors (at ten or twenty gees at the tips) gilliland embeds the habs in vast
conical arrays of small mirrors, each steerable.  as a bonus, since the mirrors
are stationary, they can be heavy, and are dichroric mirrors reflecting only
visible light, no heat or u.v.   also, since the novels are set in the asteroid
belt, much larger surface areas are needed than can be provided by the mirrors
of the classic o'neill cylinder.
  you can hypothesize food plants that thrive in zero gee but that is a big leap
of faith.  the classic o'neill cylinder had a ring of 'small' 'farm modules' to
feed the cylinder (the gilliland habs were in the business of agriculture).  the
o'neill farms were rotating structures about the size of your spinner.  even
stipulating zero gee crops, i am wondering, why the domes instead of flat
coverings (tho they do look cool).  radiation protection is another concern; i
have forgotten if o'neill's 'high frontier' addressed it.  in a 'current state
of the art' pragmatic cop-out, it might be necessary to move agriculture into
the main hab, send everybody 'underground'.  coolness counts, tho, and every
design feature, or bug, can be rationalized away.

i fear my ideas seem limiting and stifling whereas i hope they inspire and help.
 there are a lot of divergent ideas out there, and that is a good thing.

Post a reply to this message