Spacious space stations

[Deleted User] · 14/03/15 - 19:02

I had a look at the insides of the ISS, MIR, Salyut(s) and Skylab, and they is all well cramped and have no space, even the ISS, which is like a load of corridors stuck together, except Skylab, which is well roomy and you could swing a cat in it. So, why is all the space stations have no space in them, apart from the Skylab ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJb2yjtDYaY

Shrike · 14/03/15 - 19:28

I think Skylab was launched by the Saturn V rocket - which was also used for the moon landings. I'm guessing we don't currently have such a powerful rocket?

supertalk · 14/03/15 - 19:31

I suppose it's down to funding, weight and necessity. Space related matters are just incredibly expensive.

[Deleted User] · 14/03/15 - 19:31

The later space stations are modelled on new build houses to make the British astronauts feel at home.

solarflare · 14/03/15 - 19:38

Probably because we did all the swing-a-cat-in-zero-g experiments we needed to do in the 1970's.

Richard46 · 14/03/15 - 19:54

Not making use of the BBC's Tardis technology has been a huge mistake IMO.

swingaleg · 14/03/15 - 20:00

They should train midgets and dwarves to be astronauts........it would look like there's a lot more room if they did.

.......or all those people in the other thread who can't reach the top shelf in the supermarket

perhaps that could be included in the Astronaut Selection Programme.

CravenHaven · 14/03/15 - 20:04

"This is a space station staff message. Would petertard please report to the airlock"

Andrue · 14/03/15 - 20:16

petertard wrote: »

I had a look at the insides of the ISS, MIR, Salyut(s) and Skylab, and they is all well cramped and have no space, even the ISS, which is like a load of corridors stuck together, except Skylab, which is well roomy and you could swing a cat in it. So, why is all the space stations have no space in them, apart from the Skylab ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJb2yjtDYaY

Mass. Larger structures are heavy and getting anything into space is expensive (several thousand pounds per kilogramme) plus we don't currently have enough lifting capacity for large scale construction nor sufficient motivation to develop it. I think what we'd need to build a proper city in space would be manufacturing and raw materials storage at Lagrange 1 and extensive mines on the moon.

bart4858 · 14/03/15 - 20:58

Vernon Bennett wrote: »

The later space stations are modelled on new build houses to make the British astronauts feel at home.

The space stations have a bigger garden outside.

[Deleted User] · 14/03/15 - 21:05

bart4858 wrote: »

The space stations have a bigger garden outside.

And you can't fit a shuttle in the loading bay.

Andrue · 14/03/15 - 21:37

Scuffedwalls wrote: »

And you can't fit a shuttle in the loading bay.

Plus they park the damn' things so close together there's barely room to walk between them.

planets · 14/03/15 - 21:44

swingaleg wrote: »

They should train midgets and dwarves to be astronauts........it would look like there's a lot more room if they did.

.......or all those people in the other thread who can't reach the top shelf in the supermarket

perhaps that could be included in the Astronaut Selection Programme.

i'm happy to volunteer

Nilrem · 14/03/15 - 21:52

The main reason they aren't bigger is the fact that they're normally launched as modules that have to fit on existing rockets.
So you're very limited by what you can fit onto your preferred rocket in terms of size, weight and possibly more importantly time/difficulty in putting it together (as you need humans to put it together, which means all the life support and weight associated with those humans for however long it takes to do).
And as at the moment we don't have any really cheap/effective rockets to carry bigger modules up they are stuck being relatively cramped.

The other reason is that when sending them up in prebuilt modules they can make sure they're airtight on the ground.

Maybe if some of the new designs for rockets/space planes work out and the price per kilo to orbit drops we might see see larger stations more like the Clark wheels that are assembled in space from panels rather than prebuilt habitable modules.

ChocolateCheese · 14/03/15 - 22:18

Vernon Bennett wrote: »

The later space stations are modelled on new build houses to make the British astronauts feel at home.

Nope, not at all funny!

agrainofsand · 14/03/15 - 22:20

A fear of floating turds is enough to put me off this whole space station thing...

Addisonian · 14/03/15 - 22:23

agrainofsand wrote: »

A fear of floating turds is enough to put me off this whole space station thing...

I've always wondered what happens when an astronaut vomits. Dodging that must be horrendous.

agrainofsand · 14/03/15 - 22:26

Addisonian wrote: »

I've always wondered what happens when an astronaut vomits. Dodging that must be horrendous.

I suppose it just floats around and you have to chase it with a bucket...

David (2) · 15/03/15 - 00:47

In all cases we are severly limited in terms of size and weight on what we can get into space.

Skylab was a bit different as it was actually originally a 3rd stage space booster rocket from the Apollo moon project. They simply stripped it out and put people and stuff in it, and as it wasn't going to the moon, the 1st + 2nd stage boosters alone from the moon rocket (called the Saturn 5) was enough to get it into earth orbit. Very primative by today standards, it maintained communication with the ground station by a dozen or so nasa aircraft flying round the world relaying radio signals.

Ethel_Fred · 15/03/15 - 01:10

Skylab WAS part of a Saturn 5 rocket.

There was a proposal to make space stations from space shuttle main fuel tanks

[Deleted User] · 15/03/15 - 01:38

petertard wrote: »

I had a look at the insides of the ISS, MIR, Salyut(s) and Skylab, and they is all well cramped and have no space, even the ISS, which is like a load of corridors stuck together, except Skylab, which is well roomy and you could swing a cat in it. So, why is all the space stations have no space in them, apart from the Skylab ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJb2yjtDYaY

Confirmation,if any was needed, that most contributors to this forum are out of work, and have nothing better to do,

archiver · 15/03/15 - 03:01

I don't know why they don't have inflatable space stations. They could have an attachment on the front of the rocket that blows up a big sort of bubble and then the astronauts would climb in and close the entrance flap. They could float around all day then.

Would be really good if it was transparent.

Si_Crewe · 15/03/15 - 03:36

Problem is that the bigger you make something, the stronger it has to be.

Build a tubular space-station module that is, say, 10m long by 5m diameter and it has a surface area of 196m² or 304,341 inches²

Space is a vacuum and the vessel would have to be pressurised to around 14.5psi.

So, a vessel with 304,341 in² of surface area would have to withstand roughly 2,000 tonnes of stress.

Make your space-station module 3m diameter instead and it ends up with roughly half the surface area and, as a result, only has to be strong enough to withstand half the stress, which means it can be much lighter.

Si_Crewe · 15/03/15 - 03:37

archiver wrote: »

I don't know why they don't have inflatable space stations. They could have an attachment on the front of the rocket that blows up a big sort of bubble and then the astronauts would climb in and close the entrance flap. They could float around all day then.

Would be really good if it was transparent.

Right up to the point where a micro-meteorite (or a dropped fork) ruins your whole day.

exlordlucan · 15/03/15 - 03:53

The more space you have the more junk you clutter it with so it makes sense.

solarflare · 15/03/15 - 05:16

Hogface wrote: »

Confirmation,if any was needed, that most contributors to this forum are out of work, and have nothing better to do,

Well done, you took 2 plus 2 and got negative 435 million.

Hey there!

Quick Links

Spacious space stations

Comments