It also hasn't generated nearly the debate and controversy of yesterday's article; there is quite a bit of buzz on my roller coaster inspired artificial gravity article did. And the pro-camp can be found on Engineer in Progress and the con-camp can be found on SFConsim-1. I personally plan on keeping the design in some form for American IPVs, as the hallmark of American aerospace design when it comes to manned spaceflight has tended toward over-engineering a bit. I also plan on introducing other designs that are less involved for other space-faring nations.
How do you feel about the artificial gravity design? Do you like the roller coaster, or would you prefer a simpler approach? Comment below.
See you tomorrow, RocketFans!
Ray, if you're feeling like the Marquisa being left out, here's a quibble for you about the docking system: the petals of the hatch need to be larger. In real designs like APAS and LIDS, the petals serve as the final alignment, so the petals of the active unit and the passive unit need to be able to touch. As such, they need to be substantially larger than the ones you have. I thought they looked small in the side view, but in the front view it's really clear that they need to be larger. The ring around the actual hatch should likewise be increased a bit.
ReplyDeleteI didn't feel she was left out; however I appreciate the input. Turns out that is not the only scale problem with the design...both the docking tube and the cupola need to be smaller to be in scale. Fortunately, I have time to fix. ;)
ReplyDelete...What ratio would you consider to be optimum between the petals and the ring? Assume the standard ring is 1.5 meters in diameter.
ReplyDeleteOuter diameter or hatch diameter? If you want, I can take your dimensions and make up a best guess diagram of proper sizes and shapes (Yay, CAD!), and then you can refine and incorporate that for your ships.
ReplyDeleteHatch diameter. An image would be awesome!
ReplyDelete