Siqi Huang

SpaceStation_Page_1

SpaceStation_Page_2

Impressive conceptual design through to a credible amount of development along with elements of detail. The use of magnetic field proves a effective approach although fairly experimental, with possible electrical and satellite interruptive side effects which will have to be considered. Additionally, the proposal could require organization with respect to the habitation modules, which appear spontaneous. Must be a method in the madness.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Siqi Huang”

  1. Siqi Says:

    Although it is a fantasy race, but I think we still need to consider some common knowledge about the universe. Firstly, the atmosphere does not exist in the outer space; there is no air resistance there. That is why, the space station doesn’t need to be designed streamlined, and does not need to be designed as the airplane, which we are familiar in the film. Instead, the space station will be probably still like rocket, because the Anti-Gravity force system proved to be impossible. That is to say, in the future we would still use rocket rather than aircraft. It is more reasonable. The space station thus would be composed with vertical skeletons and horizontal extended structures. At the same time the demand for energy would cause the use of a large area of solar panels. But these solar panels should not be seen as the same that we know now. So I did this work based on these Principles

  2. Morgan Says:

    Siqi you made a valid point regarding the formal design of space vehicles. There is absolutely no reason why they should be designed aerodynamically. Yes, in the near future we will still see rocket propelled vehicles in space. NTRs are a sure bet, since they produce the best specific impulses “on the market” so far (almost twice the SI chemical rockets produce). However… there are some things that should be put into perspective. The way a spacecraft is propelled in seemingly empty space (space is NEVER empty – there are always particles!) DOES produce enormous forces – no, it’s not drag, there is no friction but there is tremendous stress in the structure when accelerating or decelerating (planet-hopping). And the fact there is only microgravity and almost no atoms around the vessel doesn’t affect this fact at all. The structure will still have to endure several Gs. So designs that are not compact but instead spread out would have to be reinforced – that means more material in the final consequence, more propellant,… The second thing I noticed is the solar sail you propose – sorry to say but to harness any meaningful radiation pressure in order to add to your primary rocket motor it should be 10x or maybe even 100x times bigger (depends on MT used for the vehicle and desired final velocity). Bigger sail means heavier fabric, more structure, more payload to assembly in LEO, more propellant, etc.. Regarding radiation shielding – you would encounter 2 main types of radiation – bursts of solar radiation (highly charged protons) and cosmic radiation (mostly gamma rays). Now, as we speak sub-atomic here, the main danger is for the astronauts, not for structure itself. Micro meteorites, dust and debris on the other hand can damage the structure… It’s a neat idea to form a magnetic shield for the station but it’s not a feasible one. The amount of energy to generate such field is not achievable unless we come up with a Star-Trek type of technology 🙂 A better way is to shield the astronauts with water tanks, propellent tanks and heavier parts of the structure.

    Just my 5 cents…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: