I had recently raised a math-related question while figuring the size of a space station intended for a science-fiction story I'm working on. At this point, I've managed to put together a preliminary sketch and basic volume (displacement) figures for something that looks like two elaborate hubcaps glued together and floating above the planet. In the course of that discussion, a couple of members raised a counterproposal for the basic shape of the thing, and I would like to acknowledge their idea while also, for the time being, declining. (I am not firmly set on my own design yet, but you know how it goes ....) To that end, some constrictions I've managed to place on myself: • Period is centuries into the future; humans have basic guidance, but not FTL/hyperdrive capabilities. The setting is local, within the solar system. • Station serves as primary hub for a cosmonautical armed service; one early scene placed over two hundred spacecraft in the main bay. While this scene is tentative, it does provide a basic suggestion of scale. • The station must be large enough to accommodate the repair and housing of a large number of spacecraft, in excess of two hundred. • Additionally, the station must be prepared to handle the necessary commercial traffic (supply deliveries, personnel transport, &c.) • The station must be large enough to support a human infrastructure; someone must feed the service members; there must be provisions for everyone onboard, and in order to overcome "space madness" (as such), you can't just leave that many people floating around in the middle of austerity. • In other words, the need to serve the service demands a floating city. At present, the central structure is a massive disk. The diameter is 5 km, and it is 1 km tall. There are structures extending from the disk, but so far it's a very basic design that equals over 22 billion cubic meters displacement. I am fortunate enough to count among my friends a structural engineer who has expressed interest in helping with this design. Heaven knows what we will be coming up with. The end result, as I mentioned, makes the thing look like two hubcaps glued together or, if you prefer, a massive and vicious spinning top. I've also been playing with the notion of how to distribute the artificial gravity. (What? It's science fiction ....) At present, there would be at least three separate primary gravity fields, which presents complications of its own, but I like the idea because it's goofy and excessive, and it also provides for a form of gravity sickness, where one becomes ill from moving between the fields too much and confusing the body. But nothing is set in stone. Quite obviously, we have an example like the Death Star, which was spherical, and also the cloud city Bespin, which I actually thought about when sketching out this design. I came up with the idea of multiple gravitational fields because I considered the "cone" section of Bespin, through which a wounded Luke Skywalker tumbled in an incredibly botched suicide attempt°, wasted space. Certainly it had some theoretical utility, but also in theory, there would be places at the "bottom" of a space station where people couldn't walk because there would simply be no room. I got around this with a generally symmetrical design and theorizing gravity distribution so that people on the centermost levels would, essentially, be standing foot to foot; in other words, up and down are not consistent throughout the station. I don't know how many folks recall the Comet Empire from the third Star Blazers series, which was a massive city atop a hemisphere traveling through space like, as the name suggests, a giant comet. I need not have this thing big enough to contain an entire civilization, but the Comet Empire does remind that the station needs to be huge. The first sketch of my station had r=1.25 km, and h=0.5 km. This was clearly too small, since I could draw in one of the spacecraft it was supposed to service, and, well, at that point .... The current basic structure (r=2.5 km, h=1.0 km) will likely have to get bigger yet again, but in the meantime Dinosaur and Facial have made the point that a disk structure would not necessarily serve best, and have proposed instead a torus. For reasons not quite valid, it seems, I had already ruled against this shape. Further review convinced me that my concern was not entirely justified, and, to be honest, the discussion is fascinating. It's just not one to carry out in Physics & Math at this point. (Maybe if we were proposing a real space station, as opposed to one designed to serve for speculative—at best—fiction°.) In the meantime, I thought (hoped) it would be fun to open up this part of the discussion. Because at some point we're talking about thousands of people existing on a big, floating cosmonautical marina. A floating port city, as such. What happened with the current design was that I started with a "rosy cross" (a torus with crossbeams), and decided that at some point, the crossbeams would get long enough to be flexible and cause all sorts of problems. My first instinct, of course, was to fill in the empty space with structure, hence a big disk. Next, of course, I slapped on a few structures, elevating the crossbeams for extra volume and adding a few towers here and there, and that's pretty much all I've done. Right now, all that's happening is that the thing is just getting bigger. And I won't be "stealing" your ideas. That's not my purpose. If someone puts up something that I want, I'll certainly ask and acknowledge. But, mainly, I didn't want to simply cut off the discussion that arose in Physics & Math by saying, "Not here, guys." So here we go. Have at it. Hell, I'm not going to try to oblige people to talk about my idea for a station. Any idea. Go for it. Have fun. (That's why we're here, right?) _____________________ Notes: ° botched suicide attempt — Or a brilliantly intuitive escape plan, I suppose. The Force works in its own mysterious ways, and the Skywalker/Solo clique tends to figure things out as they go. ° speculative—at best—fiction — Or, such as it is, almost pure fantasy.
Just curious so please bear with me. Why can't you try to use an asteroid and build everything underground on it instead? It would seem much cheaper and practicle to do so and many asteroids are HUGE, over 10 KM easily.
In general, there are very few reasons I can think of why not, aside from the practical considerations of any particular asteroid. As for myself, I actually intend to have a few of those floating around this story cycle.
They could put thrusters on an asteroid and manuver it back to Earth to work on it easier also. Just a thought, thank you. Good luck.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Barring a great Asimov story in which humans went to Saturn in search of water, our species is generally not predicted to be so bright. Of course, these humans were also Martians, and not Earthlings, so that might be the difference right there. Besides, it fits with my backstory to build a big freaking station. The future will be owned by mining interests.
Yet you make them bright enough to have discovered artificial gravity??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Personally - any Sci-fi story that uses artificial gravity, or any other "magic" that is unexplained, is really fantasy rather than sci-fi. I much prefer to see space stations that utilise centripetal/fugal force to create semblance of gravity - and for that you need a spinning station. The spinning-top design is... meh. With artificial gravity you can do what you want in terms of design - and it is up to what you deem aesthetically pleasing, although the sphere will remain the most efficient use of materials (in terms of volume / capacity). But to be honest - think of the functionality of the station - and then come up with a design that suits, rather than thinking of a design and trying to match functionality to it. At least that is the way I'd work.
The station could be inside the asteroid which was dug out by the mining interests for the minerals to build the station inside with. A station doesn't have to be built of metal everywhere you know and an asteroid is a good thing for defense against stuff hitting it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But there's profit to be had if you mine the raw materials, refine them into the proper products, and sell them to the government. It's a grim, cynical outlook, I admit, but my story will not pretend that corporate influence has been erased from government. In fact, part of my premise is that the people elect a government the way investors can elect an entire corporate slate. In short, they will essentially elect a corporation to run the government for several years. • • • I agree. But look at the propulsion and guidance in science fiction. I'm not out to make a space odyssey on this one. Although, I suppose it could be done. The publishing community I find myself getting close to wouldn't tolerate it; since I have no moral objection to space operas, and since this should be fun, I see no reason to not accommodate their desires.
But Star Trek uses theoretical science to explain their technologies. Star Wars on the other hand... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Indeed. I'm trying to think of where, but I once saw a contour map describing the gravitational field of a particular large asteroid. I'll see if I can remember, and try to dig it up.
*cough* *splutter* [drops cup of coffee] OW!! That was hot!! [/drops cup of coffee] You're joking, right? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "Theoretical science" in the context of Star Trek is merely some wishful thinking and imagination. There is no "theory" behind the majority of it. Yes - it spouts a lot of science - such as Heisenberg compensators (which, when asked how they work, the reply was "very well, thanks") and the like, but there is little "theory". Sorry - Star Trek is fantasy but in a futuristic setting. There is very little "Science" in their Sci-fi. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, don't get me wrong. I'm just one who prefers slightly more "realism" in their sci-fi... possibly what one would term "hard sci-fi". And when writing, one should always be aware of the audience they are going for and the style / type of sci-fi they are intending.
Fair enough. As I say in the response to Enterprise above - it is no bad thing - but one should be aware of the audience, the style of sci-fi and the associated risks and weaknesses of the approach taken. This is true regardless of style ("realistic", comic-book, fantasy etc) - and some of the more enjoyable (albeit pulpy) books I have read have spared little in ensuring accuracy or realism in their science. But my preference is (unless I know up front not to expect it) toward the more "realistic" (by which I mean reasonably extrapolated) sci-fi. Good luck with it, though. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Harry Turtledove had an extremely unique take on that in a short story of his. He had the idea that anti-gravity and FTL were, in fact, quite simple to create. Most intelligent species just stumbled upon them very early in their development. But the theory behind them was so unique and bizarre that discovering anti-gravity and FTL before science was well developed tended to send societies off in the wrong direction. It perverted their understanding of the universe. He has this great scene where a massive fleet of ships is spotted entering earth's solar system. We immediately began to try to contact them via radio yet the aliens maintain radio silence. When they finally land, they immediately attack us utilizing the classic formation used by the British with their muskets and black powder. We, of course, easily repel the invasion and decimate the aliens. Turns out, they maintained radio silence because they hadn't invented radio! When we examine their ships, they have no internal lighting, no air supply, no electricity, etc. Then, when we see the FTL and anti-gravity drive, we can't believe no one ever stumbled across them before. Humanity is then unleashed upon the universe.
