Commercial Space Station Design

[Racescort666]

45 minutes ago, DDE said:

Also, do not underestimate just how unrealistic reality can be.

Getting off topic

Spoiler

Movie minigun:

 

Real life minigun:

 

 

[Ultimate Steve]

28 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Why would starship or new Glen kill the station, yes you could run something like the shuttle's spacelab in an manned starship but it would not replace an station for long term research. 

If the station in small enough, 2 things:

1. Why go to a 200m^3 station with cramped quarters and a bunch of stuff that is hard to change out when you can outfit a 1000m^3 starship on Earth with all the equipment you need and park it in orbit for a while? Especially for tourism. But I can't argue with long term research, you're right, that will need a dedicated facility, but I don't think there are too many experiments that need timescales that long.
2. The small station will be made at least partially obsolete by the first station to be built using huge modules lifted by these large lifters. Granted, it will take a while for this station to be built.

But you do have a point. I think I overemphasized the time constraints we're under, it's not going to become obsolete overnight.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Ultimate Steve

[scottadges]

22 hours ago, HvP said:

Still, with the cost of launches coming down and the cost of movies going up, it's only a matter of time.

A few comments regarding the idea of film production in space, I think it would definitely be a novelty item but not realistic for a host of reasons. In general, I cannot in any way see an "orbital film studio" unless we're already talking about a gargantuan space station that houses thousands of people with a massive habitation infrastructure (and some elements of gravity) so humans are living there nearly full time. So that's science fiction for a good long time. 

If we're talking about practical/near-term film production in space, there are obvious technical and habitability issues, but a very limited analog would be James Cameron's "The Abyss" which was the first film to shoot underwater for such extensive scenes and featured a lot of custom-built equipment to create that type of realism in a pre-digital film era circa 1989. (And even that was a HIGHLY controlled environment, where several mishaps did occur)

Not only is it extremely expensive as far as financial cost, but we're talking about the aggregated physical mass of the specific film equipment, personnel, etc. plus anything like sets or narrative-related equipment. It's hard to see how it would be practical to orbit the massive amount of material required for anything like full-scale film (modern, current-day) production.

Of course, this might be adapted for small film setups, with highly controlled situations and limited human involvement (like Earth-controlled drones) to get specific shots. But there again, the sheer numbers of people involved in actual film production are prohibitive. Film production techniques could certainly adapt, although in current terms you're still talking about a dozen or more people closely involved with each shot. Again, unless you're talking about semi-autonomous AI-controlled camera drones that will intuit what a director wants, account for photographic elements, can follow directive elements from a script, manage technical aspects of storage media, etc.

But overall... if we're at the point where it's even an option to send people and equipment to space to shoot a movie, it would be clearly more cost-effective (and just more efficient on about every level) to do that digitally and supplement with select shots where you want to see *actual* microgravity on certain objects within an enclosed habitat, or with a select number of actors, and with limited narrative scope... simply for the sake of putting on the poster "Made in SPACE".

Anyway, just my thoughts!

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by scottadges

[sevenperforce]

3 minutes ago, scottadges said:

A few comments regarding the idea of film production in space, I think it would definitely be a novelty item but not realistic for a host of reasons. In general, I cannot in any way see an "orbital film studio" unless we're already talking about a gargantuan space station that houses thousands of people with a massive habitation infrastructure (and some elements of gravity) so humans are living there nearly full time. So that's science fiction for a good long time. 

Not only is it extremely expensive as far as financial cost, but we're talking about the aggregated physical mass of the specific film equipment, personnel, etc. plus anything like sets or narrative-related equipment. It's hard to see how it would be practical to orbit the massive amount of material required for anything like full-scale film (modern, current-day) production.

But overall... if we're at the point where it's even an option to send people and equipment to space to shoot a movie, it would be clearly more cost-effective (and just more efficient on about every level) to do that digitally and supplement with select shots where you want to see *actual* microgravity on certain objects within an enclosed habitat, or with a select number of actors, and with limited narrative scope... simply for the sake of putting on the poster "Made in SPACE".

Getting off-topic...

Spoiler

To the extent that a business model closes, a reality-style "Big Brother In Space" is vastly closer to closing than feature films being shot in space.

Not that the former closes.

 

[scottadges]

37 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Getting off-topic...

Fair enough, although I was going down the line of refuting orbital film production as a business case, but I think you're guiding towards more a space station design discussion.

On 3/10/2019 at 9:47 PM, sevenperforce said:

a price that is at least reasonably low in comparison to every other possible launch provider

I guess I would just add here that certainly all these questions go back to cost. And while launching (and presumably maintaining long-term) such a station is more cost-effective than in the past, it's still incredibly expensive.

Personally, I keep coming back to the idea that spending 10s of millions per launch and 10s of billions or more over the longer term, it's ultimately hard to justify spending this type of money in the face of all the terrestrial problems that would evaporate if such sums were put towards them. Anyway, sorry I won't hijack your thread. 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by scottadges

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

46 minutes ago, scottadges said:

I cannot in any way see an "orbital film studio" unless we're already talking about a gargantuan space station that houses thousands of people with a massive habitation infrastructure (and some elements of gravity) so humans are living there nearly full time.

Why? A home video.

 

[scottadges]

Spoiler

7 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

  Hide contents

Why? A home video.

I guess when I say "orbital film studio" my interpretation is as a studio, i.e. sound stages and production facilities, not just a small space to shoot videos. But full-scale film production or even smaller-scale film production with cast, crew, etc. So certainly there are other definitions of a "studio" but when it comes to making full-scale movies, you can't really do that in orbit. Or maybe I'm wrong! LOL

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by scottadges

[DDE]

3 hours ago, scottadges said:

Again, unless you're talking about semi-autonomous AI-controlled camera drones that will intuit what a director wants, account for photographic elements, can follow directive elements from a script, manage technical aspects of storage media, etc.

Don’t forget that the reason for all those gratuitously large spacecraft corridors in sci fi is the camera crew(s) have to fit somewhere.

On a much simpler note, film-makers rarely leave California or that one Vancouver forest that’s on every Stargate planet. Do you really expect them to bother going to space?

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

On a much simpler note, film-makers rarely leave California or that one Vancouver forest that’s on every Stargate planet. Do you really expect them to bother going to space?

I would gladly send some of them to take a ride with the Musk's Starman if I could.

[Codraroll]

Call it no more than a gut-feeling, but I suspect that going really simple would be the most useful way to start orbital commercial operations. Not building another ISS analogue, but another Salyut analogue. A rather tiny thing, launched in one piece, manned by a crew of 1-2, taking in 1-2 visitors at a time (with a duration of visits of around a week), deorbit after a couple of years. It'd save the hassle of designing for longevity and orbital construction. And limiting the service life of the station from the start would also make the concept very flexible in the long term, as the design could be adjusted significantly according to lessons learned and/or the requirements of the upcoming "season".

And if, by chance, bigger launch vehicles become available, the thing could be scaled up some time later in the program's life. Another advantage is that it would build and maintain knowledge on how to construct space stations from scratch, as that would essentially have to be done continuously. As soon as station 1 is launched, you start planning station 2. If Starship becomes available, you design station 3 for that one, using the knowledge gained from operating the first two stations. If there's no Starship, well, you've already got a working concept based on another launcher.

The problem, of course, is cost (isn't it always?). But in terms of technical feasibility, starting small and expendable seems like the way to go. Much easier than trying to design the "perfect" long-term station on your first try, while basing the entire program's architecture on a lot of uncertainties whose outcomes will only materialize years in the future.

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Call it no more than a gut-feeling, but I suspect that going really simple would be the most useful way to start orbital commercial operations. Not building another ISS analogue, but another Salyut analogue. A rather tiny thing, launched in one piece, manned by a crew of 1-2, taking in 1-2 visitors at a time (with a duration of visits of around a week), deorbit after a couple of years. It'd save the hassle of designing for longevity and orbital construction. And limiting the service life of the station from the start would also make the concept very flexible in the long term, as the design could be adjusted significantly according to lessons learned and/or the requirements of the upcoming "season".

The problem, of course, is cost (isn't it always?). But in terms of technical feasibility, starting small and expendable seems like the way to go. Much easier than trying to design the "perfect" long-term station on your first try, while basing the entire program's architecture on a lot of uncertainties whose outcomes will only materialize years in the future.

That's a really interesting idea I had not considered. Going partially expendable seems like a very good possibility.

[kerbiloid]

Maybe not Salyut, but MOL.
Its habitable compartments are basically a chain of cubes 2x2x2 m, surrounded by a 3 m wide cylinder hull.
2 m is enough to extend the limbs.
Maybe a basic primitive like a 3 m wide x 2 m short cylinder is the elementary chunk of station?

And instead of the module inflatability, cover the module with deflated bags. Then deliver a cystern and fill the bags with sticky snots. It will be an external anti-radiation and anti-meteorite protection.
So, you can have windows and avoid the Bigelow-like mechanics.

Edited March 13, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Ultimate Steve]

I've mentioned storage before, but if you look at the interior of the ISS and roam around a little:

https://www.google.com/maps/space/iss/@29.5602853,-95.0853914,2a,75y,223.98h,86.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szChzPIAn4RIAAAQvxgbyEg!2e0!7i10000!8i5000

You can see just how much of the space is used for storage.

I'd wager that any single module space station launched on a Falcon 9 can't really be used as a research station to any significant capacity, and would have to have multiple modules.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Ultimate Steve said:

You can see just how much of the space is used for storage.

Spoiler

"The First Orbital Lost & Stored Company, UnLtd."

An orbital storehouse and a lost&found.
No room in your station? The rocket launcher too small? Call us.
Just for a half of usual price our roomy and capacious containers will shelter your goods until you take them back or launch other rockets with the rest of your heavy payload to assemble them in orbit.

Lost your sat? Dropped your wrench?
No problem! Our specialists are monitoring the whole orbit and will find it and bring it to the station. Your thing will be waiting for you in our cargo module.

Building a space lift?
We'll keep every reel with your nanocable until you deliver them all to start building.

Wanna Moon?
First give a try to our orbital guest apartments. If you still wanna Moon, we can keep your taxi ship while you are mooning!
Of course, you can always use our space parking.

Cleaning Services.
We are patented vacuum cleaners, lol!
No, seriously. We are officially contracted to keep the orbit clean, and to filter out space garbage.
But we appreciate and private commercial contracts.
If you don't need your upper stage, we will be glad to take it and deliver to the station for recycling.
(If you need it, we'll do this anyway.)

Don't forget to visit our Practical Astronautical Museum and have a look at our excellent collection of space vintage, the best and the only in the world!
We are gathering old satellites and giving them a rebirth.
(You can buy most of our artifacts. We shall anyway catch more!)

You can find our franchise partners almost everywhere!
Do you remember that ISS toilet which they keep repairing every year? That's because it is the true authentic toilet seat from Salyut-2.
We have found it, caught it, colored it, and it looks like a new.
Just imagine, what you can get with our help! Thousands of vintage sats are orbiting above your head and asking: "Just catch me!"

Your spouse is wasting relations into trash? Your child is hanging out with a gang of junk?
Our special "Sky Spy Eye" offer may be interesting for you. You can be always keeping your eye on them right from the sky!

Artistic persons may find our small but lovely hotel, bar, and gallery inspiring!

Welcome to our friendly online shop, make your choice, and pay your money let us help you!

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by kerbiloid

[wumpus]

7 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

I've mentioned storage before, but if you look at the interior of the ISS and roam around a little:

https://www.google.com/maps/space/iss/@29.5602853,-95.0853914,2a,75y,223.98h,86.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szChzPIAn4RIAAAQvxgbyEg!2e0!7i10000!8i5000

You can see just how much of the space is used for storage.

I'd wager that any single module space station launched on a Falcon 9 can't really be used as a research station to any significant capacity, and would have to have multiple modules.

 I understand Bigelow's inflatable storage room is being used (presumably for expendable equipment) and doing well.  I wouldn't be too surprised if they wind up sending up some real storage space based on the existing one.

The falcon 9 (in recovery mode) can handle the mass of most of the Salyut space stations, although I don't know if they would fit in the fairing.  Finding a justification to put a  new Salyut in space after seeing the ISS in operation for decades is another story.

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, wumpus said:

Finding a justification to put a  new Salyut in space after seeing the ISS in operation for decades is another story.

It looks like somebody was returning to single-use capsules after 135 flights of a spaceplane. Totally unbelievable.

[DDE]

5 hours ago, wumpus said:

Finding a justification to put a  new Salyut in space after seeing the ISS in operation for decades is another story.

China doesn’t have a problem. Nor would a commercial venture.

Nor does the Gateway, BTW.

[wumpus]

7 hours ago, DDE said:

China doesn’t have a problem. Nor would a commercial venture.

Nor does the Gateway, BTW.

The Gateway has a completely new set of problems (summed up by the nickname "tollbooth") and orbiting the Moon would expect less mass.  I don't know what a commercial venture would do with a [non inflated] 20ton space station.  Perhaps a slightly longer stay than Dragon 2/New Glen spacecraft, but little else.  China (and India) might be willing to retrace Russia's path to the ISS.

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

It looks like somebody was returning to single-use capsules after 135 flights of a spaceplane. Totally unbelievable.

What's better about a Solyut than a space station that requires more than one launch?  Few of the advantages the shuttle had were from being a "spaceplane" (the only being that it was capable of retrieving a satellite in orbit and returning it to Earth.  That hardly justified carrying the wings and other heavy "spaceplane" bits into orbit each time).

Edited March 14, 2019 by wumpus

[DDE]

4 hours ago, wumpus said:

What's better about a Solyut than a space station that requires more than one launch?

It’s cheaper, and it’s low-risk. The need for rendezvous and docking either imposes a certain overhead of mass, or requires a rather specific supporting platform.

4 hours ago, wumpus said:

Few of the advantages the shuttle had were from being a "spaceplane"

You’re forgetting that it was rather... handy.

[Ultimate Steve]

I've created a challenge partially based off of this thread, just so you know:

 

[tater]

I'm one of those that thinks that tourism is likely the only rationale for decent numbers of humans visiting space at any time anyone reading this might live to see. That is predicated on much cheaper access, however.

With Crew Dragon and CST-100 as the only US vehicles, and Soyuz added in, any such station would have to be pretty cheap. So we're looking at a Bigelow or similar. If the goal is to be inclusive, it has to be in an orbit Soyuz can service. The use would be pretty low, frankly, it's just too expensive.

I'd tend to want to violate the thread rules, and assume a next-gen vehicle. This would include any crew component added to New Glenn (given their naming scheme, it seems like minus crew they should have used "New Explorer", adding a person implies people as the payload to me). It would also include Starship.

One thing to consider is trip duration. There are pluses and minuses to longer duration visits. The plus is value for money. $250,000 for a couple minutes in microgravity is kind of steep. Having the ability to really enjoy zero g, and look out at the Earth for a meaningful amount of time matters. OTOH, a large % of people will spend a decent % of the first few days sick, possibly very sick. So the minimal trip needs to exceed the typical course of space sickness, so that they can enjoy their trip. Assuming tourists won't spend months on orbit, perhaps only a week or so, the advent of any craft that is comfortable for a typical flight size minus a station obviates the need for such a station (I'm looking at you, Starship). Assuming something intermediate to that in terms of habitable volume, then perhaps a partially spun station---a zero g area, then a connected part with some small effective g to mitigate sickness, and make things like plumbing (toilets) easier.

[kerbiloid]

Some optimistic numbers related to space tourism.
http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2017/12/17/everest-by-the-numbers-2018-edition/

Spoiler

The Big Picture

The headlines include that Everest summits are growing, death rates are reducing and climbing from Tibet is getting more popular. As I summarized in How Much Does it Cost to Climb Mt. Everest-2018 edition, look for Everest to become more crowded, more expensive over the next five years, regardless of which side you climb, and six to eight people to lose their life each year – more on the south side due to more people climbing that side.

• 4,833 different people have summited Everest for a total of 8,306 summits
• 288 people have died attempting Everest on all routes

 

	NEPAL	CHINA	TOTAL
Members	2,627	1,706	4,333	52%
Hired	2,653	1,320	3,958	48%
TOTAL Summits	5,280	3,026	8,306
	64%	36%
Member Deaths	89	84	173	60%
Hired Deaths	92	23	115	40%
TOTAL Deaths	181	107	288
	63%	37%
Death Rate	1.27	1.15

 

(Replace "hired" → "crew members", "members" → "pax", "summit" → "flight")

So, probably this is appropriate for the space tourists as well.

Also some prices.
http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2018/12/17/how-much-does-it-cost-to-climb-mount-everest-2019-edition/

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by kerbiloid

[tater]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Some optimistic numbers related to space tourism.
http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2017/12/17/everest-by-the-numbers-2018-edition/

  Reveal hidden contents

The Big Picture

The headlines include that Everest summits are growing, death rates are reducing and climbing from Tibet is getting more popular. As I summarized in How Much Does it Cost to Climb Mt. Everest-2018 edition, look for Everest to become more crowded, more expensive over the next five years, regardless of which side you climb, and six to eight people to lose their life each year – more on the south side due to more people climbing that side.

• 4,833 different people have summited Everest for a total of 8,306 summits
• 288 people have died attempting Everest on all routes

 

	NEPAL	CHINA	TOTAL
Members	2,627	1,706	4,333	52%
Hired	2,653	1,320	3,958	48%
TOTAL Summits	5,280	3,026	8,306
	64%	36%
Member Deaths	89	84	173	60%
Hired Deaths	92	23	115	40%
TOTAL Deaths	181	107	288
	63%	37%
Death Rate	1.27	1.15

 

(Replace "hired" → "crew members", "members" → "pax", "summit" → "flight")

So, probably this is appropriate for the space tourists as well.

Also some prices.
http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2018/12/17/how-much-does-it-cost-to-climb-mount-everest-2019-edition/

 

I think that's close to a short term number, it all depends on established (and perceived) safety.