Nautilus-X - A Real Spaceship At Last

[@andrewjazdzyk1215]

As a child I always dreamed of designing a space ship, and in my dream it was named the Nautilus.So if this is an actual concept, it kind of hurts.

[@vincentdethomas9471]

I have been trying put it out there that the 1st maned ship too Mars be named Nautilus..

[@wilboersma9441]

I designed a modular spaceship that was meant to have interchangable modules, but it was more based on technologies currently on the ISS, with no gravity ring, so this is probably better.

[@sid2112]

Please tell me you found Kerbal Space Program

[@wilboersma9441]

@@sid2112 yes and i love it im stilling learning the basics tho

[@beaclaster]

F

[@nathanloomis7508]

I will be utterly shocked if NASA does not use a variant of this for mars missions. This coupled with VASMIR rockets would truly be a sight to behold. 5 week cruise to mars, yes please!

[@fragomatik]

Nathan, I couldn't agree with you more!

[@spaceman081447]

@Nathan Loomis I agree with you, but I doubt that NASA will do it. They don't want to use other people's idea. They seem to have the "Not Invented Here" syndrome. I hate to say it, but I've gradually lost faith in NASA since 1972.

[@wilboersma9441]

@@spaceman081447 I have to agree, NASA's golden age of Apollo and von Braun are over, but that doesn't mean they arn't capable. After all, they are trying to pass the torch on the companies like SpaceX and Bigelow.

[@HalNordmann]

Their current Deep Space Transport is essentially a scaled-down, simplified and cheaper variant of this. Not as fast though, and without a centrifuge.

[@spaceshipmania5476]

I mean i really like SpaceX and their Starship but a little artificial gravitiy would be nice in a long duration space mission so i rather go with the Nautilus-X

[@isaiahphillip4112]

Starship is a very different kind of vehicle, eventually I think larger spacecraft that are more similar to Nautilus but probably fusion/fission powered will be the ideal for large scale interplanetary transport while Starship-like vehicles will still be widely in use as orbital shuttles bringing cargo and people to the larger spacebound ships.

[@spaceshipmania5476]

​@@isaiahphillip4112 my thoughts on the future are similar to yours

[@peterkabonyo6417]

@@isaiahphillip4112 agreed

[@kerbodynamicx472]

That kink of vehicles are only constructed in orbits... we need Starship to bring the parts to orbit to construct a thing like Nautilus

[@const1988]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aXS1mn2Kf86eoM0 Here is an example how artificial gravity could be handled on Starship.

[@SuperKidsCostumes]

This is so under appreciated it's ridiculous. Thank you so much for making this!

[@fragomatik]

Glad you enjoyed!

[@Wordsmiths]

Agreed. I discovered Fragomatik via Marcus House... then Everyday Astronaut... then Angry Astronaut... finally the name clicked and here I am. Wow. [subscribed! Why did it take me so long?]

[@icarus387]

Im suprised that no private space company has taken inspiration from this concept. Imagine a space company operating or even selling interplanetary ships to willing countries, companies or even private individuals. I do think that there should be a public and private cooperation for the future of space exploration.

[@spaceman081447]

Beatiful!!! I notice that the Nautilus-X uses the habitats from Bigelow Aerospace.

[@willb5278]

Can this get funding yesterday? I'd like this to have funding yesterday.

[@wilboersma9441]

SAME

[@galactic5781]

we should crowdfund this

[@barrymcdougal4816]

WE ARE CROWDFUNDING THIS - IT IS CALLED TAXES -- THE RICH NEED NOT CONTRIBUTE.

[@wilboersma9441]

GoFund me page lol just say "for star trek/star wars ship" and you'll get donations

[@LipitzanerStallion29]

Absolutely badass finally a ship to take us to Mars. With a Vasimr engine we could be there in three months so I'd love to go.

[@octobre79]

fantastic mockup and animation. nice work!

[@fragomatik]

AtomDog Cheers mate! Glad you enjoyed!

[@johnunderwood-hp8rj]

This should be a 100% reusable vessel. It should be kept in space and always used for missions to the planets. All it lacks is an electroagnetic field to protect against cosmic radiation.

[@wilboersma9441]

USS Nautilus, approaching the USS Enterprise, hail them "Hello Kirk how are you? Nice to meet you FINALLY"

[@blreeves]

Beautiful work as usual. I really like this concept for a ship that would be suitable for a variety of solar system missions. Keep up the great work.

[@fragomatik]

Many thanks, mate! Glad you enjoyed :)

[@Gunner6391]

Its so amazing knowing there are out there.. RT10 is my favorite

[@yoshyoka]

Nicely done! For the extended missions module I would make the living quarters spinning in a tension structure for artificial gravity. A 50m hexagonal structure supported by radial cables with central access tunnels would give plenty of artificial gravity room and require as little as 7 heavy launches to complete.

[@ruforeal5991]

Nice .. will probably need a second counter rotational centrifugal ring or internal counter rotational weight to offset friction and keep the aft command deck level. Beautiful design.

[@fragomatik]

Thanks! At timestamp kzbin.info/www/bejne/noDFk39qeaiYqas you can see the dynamic flywheel. This is used to counter rotation of the centrifuge (it's a smaller mass spinning at a faster rate). I can't take credit for the design, it was designed by NASA TAAT (see video info text for more).

[@ruforeal5991]

Thanks, I missed that.. good video.

[@fragomatik]

Hey no worries, glad you enjoyed!

[@ItsCoreyLynxxYall]

Hopefully within my lifetime I will see something like this constructed and sent off into space, perhaps to Mars.

[@fragomatik]

I hear you, brother! You appear to be less than 50 years old, so there's a *good* chance you'll see a piloted Mars mission in your lifetime. Could happen as early as mid-2020's or as late as mid-2040's; that's the impression I'm getting from my research for these videos.

[@spaceman081447]

@@fragomatik RE: "You appear to be less than 50 years old, . . ." I'm 72 years old and I'm still hoping to see a manned Mars mission. And to think that NASA could've done it by 1985 if the congress-critters hadn't cut their funding. I doubt, however, that NASA will be the first to get to Mars. I think that SpaceX will do it though - maybe not by 2024 (although I hope so) but soon after then. Excellent animations, by the way!

[@aawqaq620]

@@spaceman081447 i hope

[@wilboersma9441]

I cried when Obama cut the Space Shuttle program

[@aawqaq620]

@@wilboersma9441 dont cry

[@MuonRay]

Very impressive modelling and concept. Something like a transportable space station, with large spacecraft docking capability to make trips to and from the Martian surface is really the only option to have a proper mission to Mars. I am not the biggest supporter of manned Mars missions, due to the cost and the true scientific merit of such missions, but I think a spacecraft like this has the only real possibility of getting people on Mars and back safely. It may take the latter part of this century to do it but it is possible.

[@fragomatik]

Thanks for the comment! I like the scalable approach of this concept. Also, it builds upon more than a decade of ISS operations and materials experience. It's a space-only vehicle, which can be re-used, re-configured, and re-deployed to fulfil varying roles. Yes, it seems to me it's very much like a mobile "mini-ISS". Some practical and clever considerations have gone into the concept, such as standard science-package mounts and commercial vehicle compatible docking ports and power/data mating-adapters. The centrifuge is a potentially revolutionary feature which may be a solution to health concerns due to micro-gravity on long missions. The dynamic-flywheel is used to counteract torque effects of the rotating centrifuge. Another feature (which I didn't illustrate) is the use of Hobermann-sphere-type devices to assist on the deployment and stabilisation of the inflatable centrifuge. These are supposed to be semi-autonomous systems, I believe, to automatically allow for variations in mass distribution within the torus. If I understand correctly, the "base" module can be parked at an Earth-Moon Lagrange Point or in CIS-Lunar space. There is supposed to be a semi-autonomous capability built into the concept, so that different modules can be sent from Earth orbit to dock with the main-module at its parking-point. The extended duration version includes a pair of hangers (the hollow hexagonal components just forward of the comms dish) for probes, or landers, or whatever mission-specific EVA hardware is required. As new technologies and hardware become available, they can be adapted to interface with the main-module. This takes advantage of new propulsion units, be they chemical-rocket, or ion-class drives like VASIMR, perhaps even exotic nuclear drives (when-and-if they ever become available). This is my favourite piloted-vehicle design, so far! Hopefully NASA will get the funds to go ahead with this, or something similar, soon.

[@etiennevandamme3566]

***** I could see a kind of Altair for Mars and a one person exploration vehicle in those two compartements.

[@willb5278]

***** "Nuclear propulsion" Ever heard of NERVA? Or its Russian counterpart-program? If not you're in for some fun wiki-searching :)

[@willb5278]

Muon Ray "True scientific merit of such missions" What part of going to Mars is lacking in scientific merit? Please illuminate me as to what you mean before I start assuming things and ranting about humans v robots. I've always defaulted to human exploration being best and I'm curious what the other side of the argument is.

[@fragomatik]

Will B Oh yes, you're preaching to the choir there, Will. I'm familiar with NERVA, and Fission Fragment, etc, etc, and the potential they represent. Still, there's a ways to go before we see them in action, 'though... Certainly we could have a nice versatile MMSEV system like this up-and-running using conventional propulsion systems in the relative short-term, and then capitalise on the nuclear stuff when the technology is more mature. Just my 2c :)

[@jkoeberlein1]

like a basset hound so homely, she's beautiful!

[@BdogFinal14]

Love this concept. Something that could be built using existing technology, to explore our solar system.

[@fragomatik]

Yes, that's important but not only that, it also allows for adding new technology as it becomes available Glad you enjoyed!

[@clayerickson567]

I'm a movie fan, used to seeing sci-fi starships. It's so far away. This doesn't seem so distant. Refreshing to see something a little closer to reality.

[@fragomatik]

Glad you enjoyed, Clay! I'm with you, I love watching and reading sci-fi, but the realistic stuff always inspires and excites me more because of how achievable it is, how close it is to becoming a reality.

[@matthewjacobs141]

As much as I like the visual of the revolving part , all I can think of is That's a lot of moving parts waiting to breakdown. There is another way that has no moving parts. Take 2 or More ships connected by a tether and they rotate around each other... forever. As they spin around each other on their course toward their destination, Gravity could be calibrated by lengthening or shortening the Tether

[@fragomatik]

Hey there! I think we already discussed this, about 11months ago...further down in the comments... An enjoyable exchange about the relative pros & cons of various AG strategies.

[@fedesur7261]

Really cute spaceship.

[@rabroger6721]

I like it ! The modular construction is the logical evolution and can be increased without make another entire ship

[@johnwang9914]

Ultimately, we need to construct out of materials readily available in space instead of launching everything from Earth. That means producing plastics from the hydrocarbons, dry ice and ammonia water of type c asteroids, using regolith as filler material and smelting iron, and aluminum from type m and type s asteroids. Also, we need to automate part of the procedure so that radiation and micrometeorite shielding could be provided before sending workers for extended stays.

[@fragomatik]

Definitely, that should be the end-goal: to create largely self-sustaining settlements and outposts supported by autonomous systems for in situ resource utilisation.

[@mikeholloway6302]

the easiest most economical way to construct a starship hull is by putting a really huge balloon in orbit then filling it in with fiberglass resin and composite fibers... it is basic fiberglass sailboat construction and technique... it reduces cost and complexities from impossible to easy to do....

[@skyearthocean5815]

That is very clever!

[@FarSeeker8]

The balloon would have to have a structure to it; more like a dirigible than a balloon or blimp. Simply take one of those inflatable modules and wrap it in fiberglass cloth & resin for more strength. Can resin be applied in a vacuum? Another idea someone came up with back in the 70's or 80's was spray coating it with plasma-sprayed aluminum. It solidifies on contact; making an almost solid plate.

[@Skythedragon]

love the artificial gravity ring!

[@37VQV]

yeah there is no reason to have a continuous loop, a counter weigh is better. The longer the tethering the less the coriolis effect is.

[@fragomatik]

Yes, tethers have their advantages, but they also have their disadvantages. For example, most tethered designs "split" the habitable volume in two, and course corrections cannot be done in "tethered mode". All AG methods have their pros & cons, but what is clear is that MORE EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH is required to determine the best AG strategy for a given mission architecture.

[@fragomatik]

Well, I think you're underestimating the resilience of highly trained and skilled personnel. Most of the (very little experimental) research indicates that acclimatisation is possible even with low radius centrifuges at 6-RPM. Everyday, normal people would take longer to acclimatise than trained pilots/astronauts, but by the time we're ready to send significant numbers of civilians into orbit, we'll have (hopefully) developed large-radius habitats, or other less physically demanding AG strategies.

[@lorditsprobingtime6668]

An artificial gravity ring that size WILL work fine. Not that I even know how big that one is, neither do you though James Lines. There would be no sensation of movement in the ring except when you use engines or thrusters. Strength of gravity can easily be varied or adjusted simply by speeding up or slowing it down. The only times you'd even realise you were spinning is if you looked out a window or moved to another section that's not rotating with the ring. The ring could of course be bigger too. You could easily have bunk beds along the sides so you could sleep with the feeling of gravity just like home, and best of all, they can have a running and or walking track around the ring so you could run in a nice straight line for as long as you felt like. The ring might be an especially good place to have pretty much absolutely normal type toilets, showers too maybe. I call dibs on the top bunk in the side of the ring towards the back of the ship, it'd be kinda nice to look out my bedside window to see home (earth) out there as I nod off to sleep.

[@realDonXeon]

You will need two rings counter rotating..... or you will use up valuable fuel constantly making course corrections....with one ring the sausage section of the ship might rotate and not the doughnut...know what I mean Vern ???

[@TimeSpaceWanderer]

Great work, very interesting concept for solar system exploration.

[@terryburge6763]

Now this makes sense! Finally someone is truly thinking about the serious problems created by long duration weightlessness.

[@fragomatik]

You may be interested to know that the original presentation also proposed a smaller demonstration version of the toroidal habitat to be installed on the ISS, but it never eventuated ( www.scribd.com/document/51592987/Nautilus-X-Holderman-1-26-11 ). NASA's and affiliated aero-space engineers have historically often considered artificial gravity in space-vehicle design: In the late 60's, NASA's Fred Ordway (former staff to Dr. Wernher Von Braun) was consulted on the design of 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 for Stanley Kubrick's 1969 film 𝟮𝟬𝟬𝟭: 𝘈 𝘚𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘖𝘥𝘺𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘺, which featured a rotating artificial gravity habitat. In 2001, a team under Craig Williams of NASA Glenn Research Center designed 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘐𝘐, an updated version of the original ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/j2bdiqSterCheqM ) which also served as a tribute to the space-agency veteran Fred Ordway. In the late 80's / early-90's, Martin-Marietta Corp. designed a number of artificial-gravity concepts. One of these was dubbed 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡-6 ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/mYanfWWaitWLjZI ). In 2014 another NASA GRC team led by Dr Stanley Borowski incorporated the 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡-6 artificial gravity hab in their Nuclear-Thermal propulsion Mars transfer vehicle variant, the 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘳 𝘊. 𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦 ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYupnX6ZaLmNpbM ). The same team also proposed an alternative artificial gravity strategy - dubbed "tumbling pigeon" - used for the 𝘊𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘴-𝘉 NTR Mars vehicle ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/nX7bgp2XpJJ5q8k ). EDIT: links & formatting 😉

[@billgraham7262]

Nice work! Very professional!

[@smokeless7774]

Followed your link.Superb work!

[@tfcabral]

That's one lovely boat! The modular thing is spot-on; flexibly configurable for a range of missions. Respect for the VASIMR Drive! Only note I'd toss in is that the diameter of that centrifuge system is altogether too short. Without a *much* longer moment arm, the gradient in 'spin-grav' from head to feet would be considerable, so coriolis forces would be wicked. You'd have to pour your beverage from a few degrees to anti-spin in order to hit your cup....that is, assuming you could keep anything down. Researching a novella, I found a calculator on line which helped me work out that, in order to generate approximately .5-G (wanted my travelers to arrive a bit more like John Carter than Charles Xavier, y'see), with an acceptable coriolis level, you'd need a spin radius of about 300 meters (at around 1 rpm). So, a rigid structure would seem to be right out, for the foreseeable future. Perhaps equip a logistics module with a rotating ring which, during transit (coast or constant low thrust) spools out/spins up two habs to the appropriate ends of the right diameter. You could have pressurized lifts (which double as airlocks, equipped with emergency vac-suits and maneuvering packs) to ferry crew members in the spin-habs (crew quarters?) to and from the free-fall core modules. Be a helluva sight! Nice work!

[@fragomatik]

Cheers, glad you enjoyed, and thanks for your thoughts! The centrifuge is actually intended as a micro-gravity rehabilitation measure, not for continuous habitation. The tube cross-section is about a metre-and-a-half wide on the inside - barely enough room to crouch. It's meant to be used as exercise and/or sleeping quarters. Yes, Nautilus-X is a bold design - props to Mark Holderman and his team at NASA TAAT for coming up with such a pretty ship! I like your idea of incorporating "extensible" rotating habitats - reminds me of some tether designs... My intuition, however, says that Nautilus-X is already a *very* complex assembly, what with the centrifuge, and its flywheel counterbalance, and it's double-ended hermetically-sealed rotating airlock-hub! Although I love the bold concepts embodied by Nautilus-X, in my heart-of-hearts I know that budgetary constraints will ultimately be the driving factor. We'll see frugal, simple designs with the aim of minimising complexity as much as possible. Rather than VASIMR, we'll see nuclear-thermal propulsion. Instead of a separate centrifuge system, we'll see "tumbling pigeon" artificial gravity (eg. Copernicus-B kzbin.info/www/bejne/nX7bgp2XpJJ5q8k), or "whole-ship" artificial gravity, as with the AC Clarke (kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYupnX6ZaLmNpbM). So, this calculator website you mentioned - was it SpinCalc by any chance? It's my go-to site for mucking about with artificial gravity: www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/

[@tfcabral]

Oh, yah, Awesome as it is, this is not the kind of thing that stands a snowball's chance on Venus of getting built until/unless there is some economic justification for the Voluminous Lucre it would cost. Needs to be some kind of reciprocal trade (Belt ores, H3, Martian mineral water, whatever) to necessitate something of this caliber for anything but a DEEP-space run (like outer planets kind of deep). And, let's face it, *that's* going to be a while. As for the spin thing, I do see what you're saying about minimizing complexity (always a good goal!) by keeping the 'grav' low in the hab ring. But there has been --*bewilderingly*-- little actual research into the physiological effects of various (or *any,* really) levels of spin-grav. Until such data are gathered, I'm thinking of ways to at least approach a 1G environment, since we don't know how much less will still do. The Copernicus idea is an interesting one. I'm a fan of nuclear-thermal rockets; they strike me as good candidates for the sturdy, relatively simple, "Pack Mule" sorts of engines we'll need for the Earth-Mars run. Constant-thrust VASIMR or other plasma-based systems are lovely, but I'd see them more as a Belt/Outer Planets kind of thing, to take greatest advantage of all that juicy ISP. But, again, it's the spin arm thing that's a Big Deal. Months under high-coriolis conditions would pretty much be a showstopper (unless it's found that fractional gravity is good enough, anyway, in which case those short arms will do you). Heck, *hours* would probably serve as a really effective but *really* Unpleasant weight-loss system! Perhaps we could visualize a variant on the Copernicus system where, instead of the rigid frame (which it would be CRAZY-expensive to build 1000-ish feet long!), the drive module gets spooled out on a long tether, and set to spin opposite the hab and logistics modules. In the event of a redundant tether failure, you just jettison the cables, re-dock the two segments, and just suck up the ziggy conditions for your transit. If you'll pardon a bit of shameless (but topical) self-promotion, I play with some of these ideas in a hard SF novella, here: www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004CLYHKC and never shut up about them on the Facebook page I made for the book: facebook.com/Night-Music-239356059419117/ Do have a peek if you're inclined, but I didn't get into this conversation to close a sale! ;-) Oh, and yes, it WAS SpinCalc! :-)

[@fragomatik]

Oh yes, I'm convinced that nuclear-thermal will be used eventually - its performance is too good to ignore, its Technological Readiness Level is very high (just a little bit less than chemical rockets) but with around twice the impulse. What's not to like? :) I love illustrating all these cool concepts, even the ones that are unlikely to see the light of day, because they're just so exciting and inspirational to learn about. My videos are homage to the truly clever folks at NASA and the other agencies that actually do the science and the math to support these efforts. But lately I've had a hankering to try my hand at something more..."speculative". I'm currently mulling over a design consisting of ring of individual modules (around the same scale of the individual ISS modules such as the Destiny lab), maybe a ring of inflatable Bigelow BA330 hab modules, for example. That way you could get a decent size rotational radius and plenty of living/working/logistics space. You see, this is why we need some long-term, empirical research on the potential positive effects of artificial gravity, so that we can work out exactly how small of a rotational radius we can get away with, and still reap the health benefits for the crew. Maybe we only need 1/8 G to maintain healthy astronauts, or maybe not. But when we *know*, we can engineer accordingly. Until then, we can only speculate! Hey your book sounds pretty cool, and very relevant to my interests! I'm a big fan of hard SF and Greg Bear is one of my faves. Dude, I think you're definitely on the right track with your research.

[@tfcabral]

Cheers! Really digging the animations (just about jumped out of my seat when I laid eyes on the Lying Bastard!). I like the idea of the ring of habs. Are you thinking of some kind of truss assembly to hold them together, or relying just on centripetal force to keep them in place? Love to see what comes of that. But yes, it really blows my mind that I've been unable to find evidence that *any* serious empirical examination has *ever* been done on the effects of spin-grav on organisms. Just doesn't make sense, given all the scary stuff we keep finding about the effects of ziggy on our bodies. It's like the habit has become so entrenched to catalog those deleterious effects, that no one seems to be thinking about how to mitigate them through anything much beyond treadmills with bungee cords! It's a head-scratcher, and no mistake. Glad you're digging whatever you've seen of the book (I've been told by multiple independent sources that my writing is very "cinematic," and "visual," and other shiny things of that sort. Given what you're doing here, I can see where that would appeal! :-) ). As for Greg Bear, well, there's a reason one of my most common screen names involves some variant of "Noocyte."...

[@tfcabral]

Hey, man. Had a thought (always a dangerous thing, that!)... If you do decide to have a peek at my book, I would love to get your thoughts on having a go at visualizing portions of it. In particular, there's a scene in Chapter Five (location 909, beginning with "I still can't believe...") in which a converted Transfer and Utility Vehicle, or "Buckyball" (described in Chapter One) makes planetfall on Mars, at the summit of Ascreus Mons. It's a sequence which several people have Honored me by describing as highly Visual and even "Cinematic" (which, given that this is *precisely* what I was going for, all-but required me to adjust my hat size to accommodate the data! ;-) ). I'd love to see what it might form behind your retinae, considering some of the Shiny imagery you've generated, to date. Once again, here's a link to the Amazon page for the book: www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004CLYHKC Cheers!

[@norrislaitinen5011]

love an interior video

[@SimonDScott]

You are a very gifted animator, and I love the flow of your videos. Do you work professionally in that field or it's an amazing expression of a personal passion?

[@fragomatik]

Hey Simon - Thank you, that's very kind! Yes, mostly I do these videos out of personal passion, but from time-to-time I catch the eye of someone who is happy to pay for something custom-made. I'm self-taught (I'm sure it shows lol!), but I really enjoy featuring vehicles described in aerospace publications and academic papers. The NASA publications are my favourite - the specs are usually very detailed and realistic, which makes modelling them much more enjoyable. As a result, I've had the pleasure of corresponding with some very inspiring and clever folks in the industry; some of them have commented here-and-there on my videos... Thanks for the comment - I'm glad you enjoyed!

[@Wordsmiths]

@@fragomatik Wow. I have a possible project for you, if you're interested. I'll reach out to you privately

[@fragomatik]

@@Wordsmiths Sounds good 🚀

[@DanyalAdam-n3n]

Ooh I like that... Yes I very much like that!

[@fragomatik]

Glad you enjoyed! Yes, it's a great design - modular and efficient - and allows for adding new technology as it matures, whether it's a new propulsion system such as nuclear thermal, or plasma, or fusion (if and when such tech becomes available).

[@DanyalAdam-n3n]

@@fragomatik We have the plasma engines already... the only problem I have with the design is that its gravity ring is too small...

[@matthewjacobs141]

As much as I like the visual of the revolving part , all I can think of is That's a lot of moving parts waiting to breakdown. There is another way that has no moving parts. Take 2 or More ships connected by a tether and they rotate around each other... forever. As they spin around each other on their course toward their destination, Gravity could be calibrated by lengthening or shortening the Tether

[@fragomatik]

Tethering is ok but still has problems. Tethered AG designs are best when configured to prevent unnecessary duplication of modules and systems (otherwise it can be expensive!). It's best to keep the crew together, as opposed to, for example, two crewed modules rotating about their CoG via non-rigid tethers. Better to have the crew module "balanced" with a storage or fuel module, for example. Tethering requires additional resources and mass (motors, cabling, control systems, and the power to run them, etc), which is straightforward, but increases complexity. Centrifuge designs are effective but also require complex engineering (airtight seals and bearings, stability control hardware, etc). This adds mass and complexity (as you mentioned), and for small-radius centrifuges acclimating to Coriolis and gravity gradient effects could be problematic. **"Tumbling Pigeon" is the best**. That's where the entire vehicle is rotated around its axis to provide AG. It's simpler and more elegant than tethers, less complex than a centrifuge and requires less active mass, and less control hardware. Reaction mass is required to spin-up and -down, but otherwise it's fairly cheap, and requires little power (for example : kzbin.info/www/bejne/nX7bgp2XpJJ5q8k )

[@matthewjacobs141]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The more I thought about it, the more meat I put on the bone. Yes, the Crew and all their stuff are on one of the ships, the other used for Bulk Cargo. Foreseeing a need to draw down some of that cargo a trolley is used. A side benefit of the trolley is that it can change the center of mass to one side or the other giving subtle course correction possibilities. I like your idea as well and think we both can agree, the spinning wheel shown in the video that accompanies the article, is too complex to be used . P.S using a Tether would not be limited to just 1 Cargo ship but you could have 2 or 4 Cargo Modules in the mix which gives you unlimited cargo capacity on each trip.

[@fragomatik]

Hey no worries! Always fun to discuss with another fellow space-exploration fan! You seem pretty knowledgeable and raise some interesting points. The tethered configuration you outlined above seems pretty-much the way to go. I particularly like the use of a "dynamic" counterweight to adjust attitude. That's also a feature of the centrifuge/flywheel combination on the Nautilus-X btw. I must confess: I like centrifuges! Their engineering challenges (ie. airtight rotary seals, ultra-low-friction bearings, etc) are by no means insurmountable. Similar technology has been around for many decades (eg. submarine drive-shafts). Yes, I'll agree centrifuges are more challenging, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're "too complex to be used" ever. Rather that they are *more* complex than other alternatives, therefore less likely to be chosen *in the first instance*. All the AG methods have pros and cons, and I suspect their relative value would depend on very specific objectives and circumstances. From the point of view of an exploration agency like NASA (with a limited budget), my totally unqualified guess is that they would rate them like this: (1)Tumbling Pigeon (no additional mass, simple, cheap, easy) > (2)Tethered (a bit more mass & power, a bit more expensive, some complexity) > (3)Centrifuge (more mass & power, more expensive, more complex) Even as a centrifuge fan-boy, my guess would be Tumbling Pigeon, because it's simple, cheap and easy...and that's NASA's thing. Other players, like Bigelow or Space-X might choose differently I suppose...but I've already expended my daily quota of wild guesses for today!

[@matthewjacobs141]

" Yes, I'll agree centrifuges are more challenging, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're "too complex to be used" ever." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, I'll change it to ..To Expensive... because of its weight and the weight of spare parts and special tools and Stands ...all that and more is weight and weight = Money.

[@fragomatik]

Remember those "specific objectives and circumstances"? In some applications it makes sense to spend more to achieve a higher level of "comfort", such as the Kalpana One Habitat ( www.nss.org/settlement/space/kalpana.htm ), and EOS Station Alpha ( www.eosmarsprogram.org/Page21-04-Earth.html ) which are intended to cater to many non-astronaut occupants and visitors. Never say never...

[@braydentoth8442]

Amazing. Freakin' amazing!!! Please do more!!!!

[@fragomatik]

Thank you, glad you enjoyed! In case you missed it, there's a *bit* more here...: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZmWrqoutYtCWeZI

[@braydentoth8442]

Thank you!

[@robertheber3871]

As has been pointed out, having such a small rotating component to create artificial "gravity" woud require too rapid a rotation rate. It should take at least twenty seconds per revolution to avoid problems from labyrinth fluid accelerations when occupants turn their heads or move within the rotating ring. The seals are also important, and having the rotating component congruent with the longitudinal axis will cause significant issues with seals where it rotates against the stationary components.

[@robertheber3871]

Robert Heber Having the rotating ring off to one side would make the seals much easier to fabricate and maintain, and reduce the risk of serious problems keeping air inside for long missions. The Russian "spacecraft" in the movie "2010," had this kind of mid-section rotating component, and it was criticized by actual engineers for this feature, since it would be so difficult to seal.

[@fragomatik]

Robert Heber Thanks for taking the time to comment! Most of the (very little) experimentation work on centrifuge-generated artificial gravity indicates that some subjects are affected more than others. A period of "adjustment" is all that is required for some subjects. Even now, practically all astro/cosmo-nauts suffer from "space-sickness" to some degree or another until they acclimatise. The same is expected of coriolis effects - some will be more affected than others, and a period of acclimatisation will improve their tolerance. Since the centrifuge in the Nautilus-x is intended as a sleep and exercise area to stave off microgravity effects (eg. calcium leeching) the coriolis effect is reduced because when lying down the inner-ear is at the same "height" as the rest of the body so there is no dizzyness caused by different body parts being at different heights and rotating at different rates. Obviously much more experimental work needs to be done to test the viability of such centrifuge systems, but the indications are clear that the concept has huge potential, even at small scales such as this. Yes, there are engineering challenges, but the *purpose of the NASA TAAT presentation is to identify what areas of tech research need to be fulfilled in order to achieve the desired result*, namely a "multi-mission space exploration vehicle". Nautilus-X is the focus of only one such presentation. The authors take into account many of your concerns. I think you would appreciate reading it if you haven't already :) www.scribd.com/doc/51592987/Nautilus-X-Holderman-1-26-11

[@Hey_MikeZeroEcho22P]

I Needed THIS!!! Thanks for the post!! I have seen something a 'Little' similar to your design, but Your design is 3D compared to a 2D drawing of a model........ that was never produced. It gives me a little imagination on how to develop something like this.

[@fragomatik]

Hey there, glad you enjoyed but it's not actually *my* design - I'm merely an illustrator! It was designed by NASA's Technology Applications Assessment Team (led by Mark Holderman in 2011). If you haven't already done so, have a look at the source documents linked in the video info text - you might find them helpful in your design quest!

[@Hey_MikeZeroEcho22P]

@@fragomatik Well.....it was 'Cool Beans' to see this, great job illustrating it..... it gives me ideas on how to make/mount such a thing on my 1/44 ISS!!

[@fragomatik]

@@Hey_MikeZeroEcho22P Ah I see! Modelling in the real world, as opposed to digital...wonderful stuff!

[@DavidLanglois1]

Question: Would you put the ship's "gym" in the rotating ring or in micro-gravity? Or differing equipment in each? It would take up less weight & space if the equipment to be used could move between the two parts of the ship. Radiation exposure might better be mitigated by having each habitable part of the ship inside a jacket or shell of water with hull metal containing it. But if that is too expensive water could be sprayed onto the exterior of the craft as an icy radiation shell. That "extra" supply of water comes with a thousand uses. You really can't have enough of that.

[@Kneedragon1962]

It is fascinating to look at these concepts, and ask where people get their concepts and ideas from. Some people seem to start with the idea of a 1930s steam locomotive, and push it into space. Others start with a hundred foot tramp steamer, or a submarine. I can see why you'd want artificial gravity, to stop bone and muscle degeneration. But why oh why make that a separate section on the ship, with a rotating seal? And why make it so small it needs to spin once every 3 seconds to produce any useful acceleration? Start with the idea that everything that goes up, costs about a million bucks a pound to get there. Better idea - build a ball or sphere that can hold pressure at 60% or so of sea level - let's say 10 psi. Now make a list of everything than can stand to be kept or stored in hard vacuum. Put all that stuff in a net, attached to a rope or cable, and hang it a hundred metres or so outside, then spin the bolas, to create artificial gravity. You spin up the ship using gyros, and when you spin down, you regenerate the energy and store it in batteries or big capacitors or something, perhaps the angular momentum in the flywheel that is also your stability system, your gyro. You need artificial gravity, but not constantly. You need to be able to manoeuvre, but not constantly. One thing you can do in micro gravity is store energy. A big flywheel with magnetic bearings, in vacuum, will store lots of energy and be incredibly efficient. That's one huge problem you have down here on earth that you wouldn't have in space.

[@wesleymccurtain166]

love it!!!

[@mikeloghry9521]

This Is Really COOL

[@trimekmontra278]

so good

[@bimokoro3841]

I hope in 20 years this thing will exist and i can be an astronaut

[@TheKevphil]

Still needs an AG-FTL Drive, but it just takes time... Beautiful animation, BTW!

[@fragomatik]

Thanks Kevin, glad u enjoyed! Yes, it takes time. We're still in the horse and buggy days, comparatively, but one day it will be 'autobahns' and 'supersonic flight'. Here's hoping!

[@pacific7775]

Awesome

[@40Kens]

Replace the solar panels with Nuclear power. RTGs..Nuclear ion propulsion along with traditional chemical propulsion. A continuous, short term, 1g or even .5g acceleration will achieve large velocities over time. This spacecraft concept is ideal for an Interplanetary Vehicle. Tantalum/heavy water shielding. We have the Technology today. We had it in 1975. We just need a National effort and will power to do this. Explore the Solar System with ease.

[@josenavas9968]

Although I see it mention. I wanted to see more about the engine drive, EM propulsion system.

[@fragomatik]

The propulsion mentioned in the presentation is a type of ion drive.

[@josenavas9968]

f r a g o m a t i k; thanks sir I must have missed it. Once again thanks.

[@fragomatik]

Hey no problem! Hope u enjoyed!

[@davidnagore725]

Okay, engineers, why the flywheel? Is it to counter the torc caused by the centrifugal section so the ship can fly straight?

[@caav56]

Yes.

[@centaurusa99764]

I can imagine NASA building 6 of those going back and fourth to Mars in the late 2020s and in the 30s as well.

[@chrissexton5613]

i hope ill be in one :D

[@centaurusa99764]

nightlightabcd The real cost was between 100 billion to 120 billion to build the ISS and that's because Nasa contractors wanted to make money. Privetlee owned contractors like Bigelow Aerospace and Space X's reusable rockets will cut the cost down to working progress. I would hope to say by 2025, we will be doing things that we keep on Imagining we would be doing.

[@tfcabral]

I believe you might benefit from considerably more research into the *details* of the emerging business models that seek to achieve what you dismiss as unachievable. Look closely at SpaceX's incremental, ratcheting sequence of steps for booting up a commercial space presence. Each step (reusable boosters for paying customers, satellite-based internet service, a [no-doubt *blisteringly* expensive] private circumlunar jaunt [plus copycats], etc) enables the next, and the next, layered like a 3D-printed object, built from the bottom-up. Linking up with complementary efforts from Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada, etc., as well as prospective Destination providers (like Bigelow Aerospace). Contrast this with the Juggernaut of Appropriated Energy that is a Government Program. Look at ARM, which, in the pursuit of its dubiously-useful objectives, would have been wholly dependent on hardware that has yet to leave the realm of craniums and CAD models (with the exception of, like a robotic arm prototype, anyway). Gives me the vapors (so beware)! That's all Top-Down, 'make it flashy for the next Town Hall meeting, funnel the maximum amount of budgetary appropriations into my district' thinking (to use the term loosely). SpaceX *has* gotten Public funds...but a comparative *pittance* compared to what is currently being shoveled into that putrescent porcine pit of the Senate Lunch System/Awry-On. SpaceX had to spend much less (though still a WHOPPING load) of their own money to do what they were going to do anyway. The taxpayers are on the hook for a *fraction* of the cost to develop a launch system of Falcon's caliber. As for mineral exploitation, I quite agree that Mars is a poor candidate. Indeed, I believe that Luna herself is a Big Nothingburger, at least with any tech that's in any pipeline that I know if. Gravity wells are just too frakking deep to make it anything but a net energy/capital loss. The Moon's a cul-de-sac, an eternal suburb of the ol' Home-O'-Sapiens (GREAT place for observatories, though...and spas for folks whose joints just aren't as well-suited to 1-G as they used to be). And Mars? Well, sheee-it. You don't go to Mars to send ingots back to Isabella... The *asteroids*, by contrast... Like I said before, you don't need ARM, you need a robust, enforceable, international regime of property rights and mineral claims. Then you'll get your missions. In *droves*. When the estimated value of the minerals and volatiles in even a modest-sized asteroid can stack up in the tens of $Trillions-With-A-T, you'll get a *lot* of people's attention. And hey, look! Someone's been building cheaper launchers, to boot... And humans need to be in space. Period. End of Report. Lest we forget, possibly *THE* most important reason to spread out through the System is to heed Santayana, and not repeat the Dinosaurs' Error.

[@SLAMSTERDAMN]

Crabpulsar6629; But how lengthy a trip to Mars? The SpaceX craft are WAY roomier.

[@TheDrumminguy]

you have seen the BFR right? If that is not a HUGE rocket I don't know what is.

[@n0_XcusZ]

A ship like the Discovery from 2001 A Space Odyssey would take us 50 plus years to build at todays pace

[@fragomatik]

A mere 5% of the 2022 US Defence budget (US$858 billion) would be more than enough to develop and build one of these *Nautilus-X* multi-purpose, re-usable explorers, at about 4 billion US$. As for the "Discovery": Unfortunately the original paper for NASA's 'Discovery' concept vehicle did *not* include any costings, but as it specified something like 3,000 metric tons assembled in orbit, and many, many launches, I would expect it to be significantly more expensive, and to take more than 5 to 10 years to build, even with the political will & funding to do so. So no, we're definitely not there yet!

[@vilhelmkb2087]

When are we getting a 2022 Nautilus-X "v2" design? ^^

[@psycronizer]

when I saw just the first bit of the ship I immediately thought oh no it's "space 1999" again !

[@antoninaandrusevich6839]

psycronizer щ

[@LeeCarlson]

It does look interesting, however, I would assume that we would want one centrifugal spin ring for every two inflatable habitat sections (or fraction thereof) in a ratio similar to what is used for the bathrooms-to-bedrooms ratio when house hunting.

[@sailordolly]

It looks nice, but assuming that the propulsion is something similar to VASIMR, then you probably need more propellant if you're flying an interplanetary trajectory faster than a Hohmann orbit. Even WITH VASIMR we'd still need 20-40% of total mass as propellant.

[@Mutos4]

Reminds of the "Mc Leod design" from Jovian Chronicles ^-^ Convergent evolution !

[@theo9952]

Very nice. I suppose that the ''wheel'' or rotating part, will be the artificial gravity living quarters of the crew.

[@peterlutz7191]

Something like this is how we'll get to Mars. There's no way a crew could live aboard an Orion capsule for a lengthy flight to Mars, though Orion would ferry crew to a larger ship and then to the surface of Mars

[@fragomatik]

Exactly! Orion was always meant to be the "brains" of a larger vehicle assembly - to provide avionics & communications, command & control. Also, as you say, it's intended as the general crew transport, from launch, to planetary transfer vehicle, then to-and-from the lander, and later for re-entry through Earth's atmosphere at the end of the mission.

[@marcoflumino]

nice concept, but I foresee a couple of problems. first the rotation of the gravity module will produce lateral force so you need to continue adding opposite trust to make the others modules to tumble. second it will be a problem for astronauts to go from the modules without gravity to the one who got gravity, that problem should be resolved by extending the connections of the gravity module by a couple of meters each side. also I notice that the solar panel even when retracted are still vertical that would increase the chance for damage by micrometeorites, it would be advised to orient the panels or forward or horizontal.

[@fragomatik]

There is no problem with "lateral force" because the rotating habitat is counter-balanced by a dynamic flywheel (see time-stamp 00:16). Please note that I'm not the designer of this concept - I am an illustrator. This vehicle was designed by NASA's Technical Applications Assessment Team in 2011. If you wish for more information, please *read the video description text.*

[@thefrog7697]

Great work

[@fragomatik]

Cheers!

[@CBT19601]

oh my. seems so...POSSIBLE I can touch it.

[@fragomatik]

Thank you! 🙂 There's a little bit more of Nautilus-X here, if ur interested: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZmWrqoutYtCWeZI

[@Rat-nl1xe]

Still love this concept, but a see the habitats attached to spacex starship.

[@FarSeeker8]

I think they will need more solar cells for more power and sun/micrometeoroid shielding for the fuel tanks and engine. And maybe more engines, backups in case any fails.

[@waynejgolding]

I don't understand why there aren't two counter rotating torus' to give stability to the craft.

[@fragomatik]

Hi +Wayne Golding For stability you need either two equal masses, counter-rotating at the same RPM, *or* different masses counter- rotating at different RPM, to cancel out each other's "torque" (I think that's the right term :) Note the "dynamic flywheel" which first appears at 13s. This is a smaller mass, counter-rotating at a *faster rate*, in relation to the centrifuge. This provides the required stability. In addition, my understanding is that by varying the relative RPM of the rotating elements, fine adjustment to the attitude of the vehicle can be made, without using reaction-control thrusters.

[@waynejgolding]

+f r a g o m a t i k Ok I see that now (thanks) but it still seems less than optimal. Of course we have no real experience to date how centrifugal forces will impact on our long term ability to perform in low grav situations. So far we seem to test in 0(ug) & 1G environments not even evaluating simulated 1/3g & 1/6g forces and the impact on physiology/gestation. I can't see how extrapolation can be applied to the micro G environment vs the 1/6 (Lunar) gravity model or the 1/3 (Mars model) especially when we have no real experience of either long term. But again thanks for pointing out the counter rotating energy loss mechanism.

[@fragomatik]

+Wayne Golding Hey, no problem! Let's face it, there's a real need for space-based research and experimental data. That's what's needed to definitively determine the minimum level of artificial G required to prevent/ameliorate micro-gravity health issues. You may be interested to know that the Nautilus-X proposal included a centrifuge demonstrator for the ISS, but alas it never eventuated. Refer to the document below, about midway: www.scribd.com/doc/51592987/Nautilus-X-Holderman-1-26-11

[@dwightk.schrute6743]

Great Job. My question is why don't the space agencies of the world unite to build such a craft. They certainly have the time, money, and resources. Plus think of the international cooperation it would foster.

[@fragomatik]

*Bears, Beets, Battlestar Galactica!* Sorry Dwight, couldn't resist! Seriously, I agree with you 100% There's no limit to what we could achieve as a species if the world's nations and their "leaders" would just get their act together long enough to co-operate and stop acting like spoiled and selfish children.

[@dwightk.schrute6743]

@@fragomatik "You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, 'Look at that, you son of a bitch." - Edgar Mitchell Probably one of my favorite quotes on the subject. When countries fight we get World War 1 and 2. When we unite we get the ISS. I remember watching a Soyuz launch a couple months ago. On board was a German, American and Russian. Seeing three different countries with a tumultuous past,working together to promote science and exploration, was a beautiful thing to watch.

[@fragomatik]

Dwight K. Schrute This beautiful quote from astronaut Ed Mitchell always reminds me of the classic 1956 SF short story "The Far Look" by Theodore Thomas : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Far_Look

[@dwightk.schrute6743]

@@fragomatik Thanks. I'll definitely have to check that out. With companies like SpaceX, I have greater hopes that humanity will soon become an interplanetary species. Doing so will not only ensure our species survival but the survival of our collective knowledge.

[@manofvision2711]

wow cool

[@furryface1057]

Very Kool Man !

[@TarisRedwing]

are those Bigelow modules?. Very good design looks like it has more space then the ISS and way more compact and has a micro gravity area, Also looks as if it can travel. Very cool

[@fragomatik]

Yep, they're supposed to be a variant of the B330 module from Bigelow: bigelowaerospace.com/b330/ Almost like a mobile mini-ISS, with configurable elements to fulfil different roles. An exciting concept IMO.

[@Afterburner]

I think it would make sense to have a secondary propulsion unit - If you are going into deep space with this thing, it's best to have a second means of getting home should the primary propulsion system quit working for whatever reason...

[@fragomatik]

Personally, I like the idea of redundancy, but most designs don't seem to incorporate additional propulsion units, probably because they're so massive and expensive. On the other hand, Lockheed-Martin's "Mars Base Camp" mission-design doubles-up on virtually *everything*. Two propulsion units, two Orion command modules, two crew habitats, etc. kzbin.info/www/bejne/j16vdHlth9idsNE

[@Afterburner]

Having grown up in the industry and that "two is better than one" viewpoint being hammered in our heads repeatedly, I just can't shake the idea - LOL. It did occur to me that perhaps a much smaller reserve propulsion system at the other end of the craft would be feasible. One is reminded of how Apollo 13 used the Lunar Module to get the crew home.

[@fragomatik]

Exactly! Apollo 13 is the example that occurred to me as well. And also the idea that at least some of the components could serve double-duty, with more than one function, for contingency purposes. Some of the earlier reference missions considered that...sort of. Things like fuel tanks clustered around the crew habitat to double-up as rad shielding, for example. Another possibility explored was to include substantial stores of contingency consumables, along with missions planned with "free-return" opportunities so that in the event of a major failure, minimal systems could still return the crew safely to NEO.

[@Afterburner]

Agreed - I like the idea of extra consumables as emergency stores. After watching "The Martian", it occurred to me that NASA should pre-position such extra supplies and a second escape vehicle on any landing site. As for this particular design, my analogy of Apollo 13 and even the philosophy in, of all things, Star Trek, with warp drive AND impulse engines, is something that should be part of the basic philosophy of spaceflight. My father designed the nozzle for the Apollo AJ10-137 Service Module Main Engine and I remember his horror at what happened on Apollo 13. He was on call throughout the entire disaster and ultimate triumph. It is a lesson never to forget. I like your idea of fuel tanks doing double duty as radiation shielding. It's going to take some amazing tech to make this ship happen and I only wish I had been born in this era to see more of where this will go. I retired from Aerojet last year after 32 years and worked on my share of amazing programs and loved it all. It's time for these new kids to take the baton and make it happen.

[@fragomatik]

The anecdote about your father was absolutely fascinating to me! I imagine it would've been quite inspirational to witness an event like that, especially with a parent involved...wow! My memories of Apollo 13 are still strong...Lovell is one of my heroes! I think we're of a similar generation - I'm not quite at retirement age yet, but nearly there lol! One of the reasons I like to make these videos is to try and re-capture that "sense-of-wonder-and-awe" that I felt as a young boy witnessing the Apollo missions on TV. I was space-crazy at that age, and I still am! The recent SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch, along with that incredible shot of the simultaneous autonomous booster landings, was the first time in a long time I've felt that sense-of-awe in a significant way. Thanks for sharing!

[@underwaterkingdom7881]

not sure i'd like to be on a ship that has crew/passenger modules right next to the propulsion systems! i'd swap the cargo section round with the crew modules xxx

[@fragomatik]

+underwater kingdom It's perfectly safe the way it is. This is a VASIMR propulsion craft. The propellant is converted to ionised plasma using microwave energy. In this instance, the microwave energy is generated using photovoltaic arrays (PVA solar panels). There are no radioactive reactors involved in this configuration. On the other hand, the HOPE VASIMR here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pHmoXpauo9Jpnbs ...uses fission reactors and the Brayton Cycle to generate the required energy for the VASIMR engines, as well as for general equipment power, rather than PVAs. Note the reactor shadow-shields, and the elongated configuration with habitation modules at maximum separation from the reactors. Compare with the "hybrid" PVA/Nuclear Thermal Rocket, here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYupnX6ZaLmNpbM ...which uses a reactor to heat propellant, but uses PVAs for general equipment power. Once again, this design uses shadow-shields, and habitats placed at the furthest distance from the reactor, within the radiation-free shadow.

[@underwaterkingdom7881]

ty for clearing that up for me and for the links xx

[@Jimmy8her]

+underwater kingdom Either way they build it, the concept beats the current suicide idea that the O'Bummer (Obama) administration currently proposing. As things currently stan, O'Bummer's NASA is planning on sending people to Mars in the Orion spacecraft. The Orion is a "Spaccraft", not a "Spaceship" and it shouldn't be mistaken for a Spaceship. To do that would be a death sentence for the crew.

[@fragomatik]

+James Morris Speaking purely as an interested amateur artist, from my research for these videos it is apparent that the Orion is intended as a "crew ferry"; it is invariably coupled with a much more substantial planetary transfer vehicle. There is no intention of using the Orion as the *only* habitable module for a 12-month-plus mission to Mars. For example, in my AC CLARKE video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYupnX6ZaLmNpbM ...the Orion is used only for carrying the crew to the Mars Transfer Vehicle, which then proceeds to Mars. And then in Mars orbit the MTV makes rendezvous with the pre-placed Mars Lander, and the Orion is used to transfer the crew to the Mars lander. At the end of the mission, the Orion is used as a re-entry vehicle to return the crew to Earth. Of course, it is still a very bare-bones, no-frills sort of mission, but considering the budgeting constraints that NASA is obliged to work under, they are obviously trying to do the most they can with what little funding is made available to them.

[@Jimmy8her]

+f r a g o m a t i k I went and looked at your AC Clark concept, very nice, but I like this one better :)

[@CabrioDriving]

Good, quality stuff. Would love to see this with Samsung Odyssey Plus VR googles.

[@theutopianoutopioan464]

This type of craft could be a colony ship to transport people to Mars, Venus and beyond! It could also be the space version of a cruise ship! When are these bad boys going to be in production?

[@lorditsprobingtime6668]

The Utopiano Utopian. I kinda really like your "cruise ship" idea. We could easily have 1 or a dozen just circling the earth for a week or month. The whole time the main view would just be watching the earth going around below them, I have a feeling it would take a LONNNNNG time to get bored with that view. Another good and more adventurous cruise would be to launch from (probably) orbit around earth after using some sort of shuttle to get you to it, then head out to and around the moon and back. How many people have seen the far side of the moon first hand, and from a low orbit where you can see there either are or aren't all this alien rubbish people keep trying to say lives there. Then again, if that was true then it's time we made friends with them and maybe come to an arrangement with them where they don't try and shoot us down. If there somehow is life there, they've been there a hell of a long time without blowing us away so I see no reason to assume they'd be hostile.

[@mrfrogg46able]

The Utopiano Utopioan venus!! really?

[@lorditsprobingtime6668]

Peter Schiotis. Please give us all the information you've gathered and show us your calculations proving that can't be done. Otherwise, shut the fuck up!

[@amanofmanyparts9120]

@@mrfrogg46able Don't know about you, but I like to vacation in warm climes. Venus sounds warmish to me.

[@djgahekan5822]

Cool!

[@fragomatik]

thx for subbing!

[@djgahekan5822]

@@fragomatik np: D

[@Patchuchan]

NASA really needs to build this and since it has solar or nuclear electric propulsion you have the ability to abort or redirect at any point in the mission. One glaring issue with all chemical propulsion is right after the TMI burn there is no turning back you are committed to at least doing a Mars flyby.

[@Doriandotslash]

I realize this is actually a NASA design and not your own, but the centrifuge would need to be larger so that there isn't such a difference in "gravity" between your feet and your head. There's also currently no ability to create a rotating seal that is airtight. It may work for a while, but after months of rotating there will be wear and tear, and the seal will be lost. I honestly think that the ship from the movie Interstellar is probably the way to go. Just spin the entire ship and have the computers compensate the rotation for navigation and external video feeds. When maneuvers are needed, stop rotation and perform burns.

[@fragomatik]

The centrifuge is only for sleeping and exercise, not for continuous habitation. It's barely big enough to crouch inside! When laying down, head and feet are at same level, so virtually no gravity-gradient. According to NASA TAAT the rotating components use liquid metal bearings, and seals similar to those used for submarine screw drive-shafts. These are challenging technologies, no doubt! But the purpose of the NASA TAAT exercise was to identify and explore various areas of research and development required to achieve their design goal. Personally, I too like the elegance and simplicity of "tumbling-pigeon" or rotating the entire vehicle (as you mentioned) and have illustrated both methods: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nX7bgp2XpJJ5q8k kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYupnX6ZaLmNpbM

[@Doriandotslash]

But for months-long or years-long trips, astronauts will need to spend most of their time in the artificial gravity. The Nautilus is a good "test ship", but for long-term, they'll have to definitely go bigger. As for the liquid metal bearing, do you have some kind of link to this? Because NASA uses no such bearings that I know of, and neither do submarines. Submarines use Wartsila face seals, or labyrinth seals, which allow water to pass through to lubricate the seals and prevent overheating (and wear) from dry friction, and any water that gets in gets pumped back out. This is by design. You can't do this in space, and you can't afford to continually lose air. You need a 100% airtight seal. Also, the types of seals on prop shafts cause lots of friction, which isn't a problem when you have large diesel engines, or nuclear-powered electric motors spinning them, but in space, it'll continually slow down the centrifuge and you'll have to always expend energy to keep it spinning.

[@fragomatik]

Like I said, I'm a fan of tumbling pigeon and large scale centrifuges. And as you recognised, I'm an illustrator not an engineer, so please understand my position: I'm not here to "defend" designs made by people much more qualified than me :)

[@Doriandotslash]

Oh I know, that's why my first comment stated just that. I can imagine that sometimes the artists that draw up their designs don't always take everything into account (sizes, scales, etc).

[@joeys.6906]

or have the engines rotate/what the burn is for with the rotation

[@rogerpenna]

that artificial gravity ring seems quite small in diameter and also quite narrow for humans inside. I suppose you don´t fit much inside so maybe it would be only for sleeping? Well, not much use. Maybe a running track... It's somewhat weird that the ship dramatically increases in size but the propulsion unit stays the same, including the propellant tanks.

[@fragomatik]

Yes the centrifuge is quite narrow, and yes it's for prone exercise and sleeping. Not much use, you say? How can one be so definite about its usefulness (or lack thereof) when there is *so very little empirical data available* on the use of centrifuges to ameliorate micro-g health effects? Arguably it is a valid area of research to determine its usefulness, because that's what is needed: more data! As for the propulsion unit on the larger "extended-duration" version - ok that's on me - just a bit of artistic license. I did attempt to address that in a half-arsed way, in a follow-up video here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZmWrqoutYtCWeZI ...which shows larger tanks and "twin" VASIMR® drives. Not very authentic or accurate I must admit but it looked cool to me at the time lol! At some stage I may do another version with an alternate propulsion unit, perhaps a conventional chemical or maybe even a nuclear-thermal unit...just not enough hours in the day :(

[@rogerpenna]

I said not much use after wondering if it was ONLY FOR SLEEPING. If only for sleeping, thus on a horizontal position in relation to the artificial gravity, there wouldn´t be much use, with or without much empirical data for space, but based solely on what we know about loss of muscle mass for people who, due to disease, stay in bed for long times. After I said that, I wondered "maybe a running track", which obviously means I am wondering about better uses for the ring than sleeping, while also considering the narrow space inside. The VASMIR concept fooled me for some time, with all that "to Mars in 39 days" propaganda. Until you realize you need 200 MW of power for that. And with reactors that have unrealistic weight to power specs. You would need probably a simple and quite low mass FUSION reactor, possibly something like a Polywell, to get that much power AND weight to power ratios needed for VASIMR's 39 days to Mars mission concept.

[@fragomatik]

Well, as I said, more research into micro-g mitigation would be a good thing, right? As for VASIMR: it's disappointing that there's no "space-ready" proof-of-concept hardware available; and - as you say - its considerable energy requirements means we have to wait for a suitably "dense" energy source to make it useful. But hey, we're all learning here, right? I'm optimistic enough to believe that all these problems will be solved eventually. I'm sure it will be fun getting there :)

[@rogerpenna]

Research into micro-g is ok, and of course artificial gravity helps mitigate the effects. But it won´t help with people only sleeping in Gs, The ring must be used for daily activities. As for VASIMR, I share Zubrin's opinion about it. And when we get a suitably dense energy source with the required parameters to get a VASIMR to take us to Mars in 39 days, that same energy source can be used in other fusion propulsion methods, more efficient than VASIMR. There are already other sort of ion propulsion systems that are better...

[@fragomatik]

Once again I put it to you: how can you be so sure of how helpful or not it would be without the actual research? Doesn't seem very scientific to me, but then again what do I know - I'm just an illustrator lol! Anyway, it seems a moot point if we're talking about "39 days to Mars" since one wouldn't even need AG for such a short transit time, right? As for Zubrin, his sentiments regarding VASIMR® are well-known, and others better qualified than me (and I dare say you) have addressed that antipathy ad nauseam. Frankly, debating me about any of this is unlikely to be productive as I don't really care one way or another. I have no interest in convincing anyone to adopt one position over another. I prefer to let the publications written by the actual scientists and designers (upon which my illustrations are based) to speak for themselves. Artistic license aside, I would never condescend to speak for those guys, as I'm definitely not qualified to do so. However, I do understand that to some their opinions and preferences are akin to religious conviction, whereas I prefer to ignore such fervour because it seems contentious to engage ;) On the other hand, if "there are already other sort of ion propulsion systems that are better" than VASIMR®'s "39 days to Mars", then it is your absolute *duty* to call NASA, and Boeing, and SPACEX, and Lockheed-Martin, and all the rest of them because my friend they're gonna wanna know about that ASAP! Personally, I don't care how it's done - hell they could use a giant trebuchet as a launcher for all I care - so long as someone walks on Mars within my lifetime, that would be fucking awesome to me! Peace! ✌️

[@dandaintac388]

I've read that a fellow at Stanford named Winkler (can't remember his first name) did a study on what the RPMs should be for a rotating habitat. His conclusions were that it should rotate no faster than 1 RPM. Even with 2 RPM there would be some physiological problems. I don't think the centrifuge would be useful--too small and too high on the RPMs. Although I would say much more research needs to be done. We need to start with very small temporary rotating habitats and gradually work our way up in size to study the special problems and characteristics. We haven't even begun in that area, and NASA shows no signs of taking up that challenge as far as I can tell.

[@fragomatik]

Dand AinTac It would great to see some real experimental and research work done on this. A centrifuge on the ISS, or an inflatable assembly in LEO to test some of the factors would be fantastic, but alas, nothing on the horizon as yet... Al Globus and Theodore Hall of the National Space Society and San Jose State University, recently wrote a paper on the subject, which may be of interest. In the paper they review the previous literature on rotation tolerance, including the earlier "classic" work by Graybiel and Stanford Uni in the 60's and 70's, as well as some later research... Here's the link and the abstract: space.alglobus.net/papers/RotationPaper.pdf Abstract: "Space Settlement Population Rotation Tolerance" by Al Globus and Theodore Hall, preprint, May 2015. This paper reviews the literature to find that space settlement residents and visitors can tolerate at least four, and probably six, rotations per minute to achieve 1g of artificial gravity. This means settlements can be radically smaller, and thus easier to build, than previously believed. Combined with a second paper on radiation shielding which is being revised, the first space settlements can be two orders of magnitude less massive and much closer than previous designs making launch from Earth practical

[@bearlemley]

About the research on rotating habitats, what do think about starting with larger habitats that we suspect might work with with a 1 to 2 rpm range and the work smaller to see if we can find a range somewhat smaller to better fit mission parameters. ? Starting with a structure that works and working smaller might give usable results faster.

[@fragomatik]

+test two I guess the challenge is to build a suitable test rig in space, that isn't too massive/expensive to launch, assemble and maintain, but versatile enough to provide a range of useful data. Have a look at the calculator on this site: www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/ Note the variables: * Angular Velocity (RPM) * Radius * Centripetal Acceleration (the amount of artificial Gravity - 1 = Earth G) (There's also Tangential Velocity, but for our purposes we can ignore it) To produce 1G at 1 x RPM requires a radius 894m. At 2 RPM you need radius of 228m. That's pretty big. My guess is that most space agencies would start with a smaller (cheaper!) structure of around 20-40m radius. They'd design a configuration that would facilitate testing with a wide range of RPM and gravity gradients. The experiments would be long term efforts over week and months, using crews trained and selected for tolerance. They'd gather data related to mitigation of microgravity health issues, while minimising unpleasant Coriolis effects caused by the rotation.

[@dromeiro]

Great!

[@DrayseSchneider]

Where's the radiators and how are you preventing direct radiation and backscatter from the engine from irradiating the crew?

[@DrayseSchneider]

Gah, can't edit from the app. To reword my question about radiation to make myself clearer: How are you protecting the crew from direct radiation from the engine and from engine radiation that is back scattered off of things like the communications dish, the solar panels and such?

[@fragomatik]

This isn't nuclear powered. It's VASIMR via PVAs. ...and I'm just the illustrator - I didn't design this beast. It was proposed as a possible MMSEV by NASA TAAT, as an exercise to flag potential areas of research required to provide a re-usable, multi-mission exploration and science platform. For more information feel free to read the linked document: www.scribd.com/doc/51592987/Nautilus-X-Holderman-1-26-11

[@DrayseSchneider]

Ah, okay. Your video description didn't say it was VASIMR. I suppose I could have guessed that it was solar power had I read the link though, but in my defense VASIMR thrusters can be powered by a nuclear source too.

[@MilesEdgeworth129]

Several Cupolas on this thing? That's pretty nifty! At least you get to look out and see some cool cosmic stuff on the road trip to Mars!

[@fragomatik]

Yep, heaps of 'em! TBH I added *one* extra - the rest were all specified on the original nasa design.

[@drrsc]

looks interesting, inflatable modules and all, but im wondering why are there only 3 spokes on the artificial gravity unit - seems to me that would make it out of balance and nullify the effects of the internal flywheel imo

[@nameremoved4010]

In my imagination, the scale larger than most people imagine, I suspect. A truly aircraft carrier sized craft could have a thick enough shell thickness to provide real earth sea level grade shielding. The other thing I imagine is people would work in virtual environments controlling semi-human form avatars/robots in space or on the surface of some toxic planet.

[@fragomatik]

Every scientific and technological advance starts off as a "seed" in someone's imagination, it's true! Well, we're a long way from being able to build aircraft-carrier sized spacecraft at this stage, but I'm optimistic that someday we will...though it could be a century or two before it's practical and economically feasible. These are not new ideas, by any means. A lot of literary SF has dealt with monumental artefacts, massive ships, and tele-operated robots, from all the way back in the Golden Age of pulp SF in the 1920's (eg. Doc Smith's Lensman series) to the 1970's "New Wave" Hard-SF (eg. Niven's Ringworld series)...and many, many more... The HOPE (Human Outer Planet Exploration) studies done by NASA RASC in 2003 included provision for autonomous and tele-operated robots for exploration and construction on the surface of their target, Callisto. It makes sense! Author Clifford Simak went a step further, writing about "augmented" human explorers, biologically adapted to the harsh environments of alien worlds. There was even an Outer Limits episode "The Architects of Fear" (1963) which dealt with this concept in a dramatic way: www.dailymotion.com/video/x4dpm4i

[@Gabdimension]

This was the right way to fly into space and not this dangerous little starship. Sry for spacex fanboys. You need a motherchip in space and good landers docked on...

[@BugRib]

How is the external centrifuge sealed against the vacuum of space? I don't understand how there can be metal moving against metal (or whatever material is making the seal) without major leaking of air. Wouldn't the centrifuge have to be contained entirely within a pressurized hull to avoid leakage (like in the Discovery One in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY)?

[@fragomatik]

The centrifuge itself is the donut-shaped wheel. It's an inflatable construction, and is pressurised. It's not very big inside - barely enough room to crouch or lie down, which makes sense since it's only intended to be used for sleep, or for exercising within while in a prone position. It's not supposed to be a full-gravity environment, but rather a micro-gravity health-effect countermeasure, operating at a fraction of a G. The centrifuge hub sealing technology was never specified in the presentation by Mark.L.Holderman and his team at NASA TAAT (link in the info text for this video). I seem to recall some mention of liquid/hermetic seals on a NASA forum somewhere, something about similar tech used to seal submarine drive-shafts, or some-such. Fortunately, as an artist I don't have to worry or care about such details ;)

[@geoffroberts1126]

Reminds me of 'Discovery' from 2001 a bit. Nice.

[@fragomatik]

In that case, you might enjoy this one, too...: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j2bdiqSterCheqM

[@williamstucke5445]

797 comments and no Likes? That's rather weird, unless KZbin have changed their systems since 2014 - easily possible. Question: What do the multiple gold spheres attached to various surfaces represent?

[@fragomatik]

Hey there! The coppery/gold metal spheres are storage tanks for either propellant, or breathing air. The ones on the inflatable modules are primarily propellant storage for the RCS (Reaction Control System) thrusters, (used to adjust the object's attitude during assembly in orbit). The ones seen on the centrifuge access tunnel are for storage of contingency/emergency breathing air. The "LIKES" display can be toggled on or off in the creator's YT Channel settings. For some reason it was turned off for this video! KZbin has a habit of changing the way some features work from time-to-time - without notice! I'll have to check my other videos to see if the same thing has happened to them! 🤪

[@williamstucke5445]

@@fragomatik Thank you for the prompt reply to a comment on a very old video! And I see that the "LIKES" has been fixed - you have 4.5K of them 😉

[@fragomatik]

@@williamstucke5445 No worries!

[@EmporerOfMankind40k]

This is REALLY cool. I plan on becoming an aerospace engineer. One flaw I see about this is not only engineering, but what about space debris? The mission habitation modules are inflated. So if a piece of debris was to puncture that.....then your screwed? Or does nasa have some sort of repairing agent their going to introduce? :/ 1 MAJOR flaw.

[@fragomatik]

The inflatable hab modules are variants of the Bigelow B330 unit. During my research for making this video, I was surprised to learn that the B330 inflatables are rated higher for ballistic and radiation protection than what is currently accorded to the ISS, and with a designed service life of 20 years. bigelowaerospace.com/b330/ These guys are pretty serious! They're looking to provide components for the next generation of long-term space stations to replace the current ISS.

[@EmporerOfMankind40k]

Wow. Thanks man! I've been doing research too and basically found the answer to my own comment. Stupid me. :/ Thanks again! I'll follow the link! :D

[@Caver-Greg]

Beautiful concept, hopefully this leads to something real in the near future. From what I have read however, the gravity module would need a much larger diameter to work. Any thoughts?

[@fragomatik]

The centrifuge works even at this small diameter, there's no question of that. The question is how small can it be and still provide a benefit, while minimising the negative effects on occupants. There are other concepts that utilise artificial gravity of one type or another. The Mars Mission Design Reference Architecture (DRA) 5 Updates from 2014 listed a few examples: ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140017461.pdf The AC Clarke uses a 17m diameter centrifuge: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYupnX6ZaLmNpbM The Copernicus-B uses the "tumbling pigeon" method: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nX7bgp2XpJJ5q8k

[@chasq1]

my only problem with the ship is there is no backup engine if your only engine breaks down on a long mission your screwed!

[@TheAznative101]

I have tweeted neil de grass tyson about this concept for space stations and long journey treks..no reply lol..the revolving part is needed instead of static exercises.

[@hurrdurr25]

how would you keep the ring pressurized and the rest of the ship pressurized with the rotating like that?

[@BugRib]

That's my question. Never gotten a good answer to this question. Maybe I'm missing something?

[@reeereeeyeee1563]

Waow! That is amazing. Now i wanna be a space pirate :D

[@DeafDiver]

What are you wait for? BUILT IT!

[@fragomatik]

Well, according to the original presentation published in 2011 (linked in the video info text) the cost of the base configuration was estimated to be US$3.7 billion. The current US defence budget is about $725 billion per year, or around *$2 billion per day!* So, they could build a fleet of *180 Nautilus-X explorers* for what they spend on the military in *one year!* Scary huh?

[@Fold-103]

@@fragomatik holy..... I mean can you imagine if they turned all of those ships for military purposes

[@richwilliam3864]

So how many of these are up there now in service. And are they used for peaceful exploration or war. Peace

[@fragomatik]

This design has never been built. It is a concept vehicle designed by a group within NASA. As such, it was meant for exploration.

[@panzermacher]

how the hell do you maintain a seal against the vacuum between a rotating hub & the rest of the modules??

[@TeslaNick2]

I've got something similar to this in orbit over Kerbin right now !

[@fragomatik]

Lol, pics or it didn't happen!

[@TeslaNick2]

***** You mean 'screen grab' - it's a game called Kerbal Space Program - highly recommended.

[@fragomatik]

Nicholas Hall Yes, I am aware of KSP. The "pics or it didn't happen" is a reference to a well-known meme. Here's another one: "whooooosh!". Basically, what I'm saying is that if you've got something like this built in KSP, please share pics or video or screen-shots, captures, whatever...I'm genuinely interested in seeing what you've made.

[@TeslaNick2]

***** Sorry dude, the meme reference was a bit wasted on me... It was on an older KSP build, using the 'hollow structures' mod. I think it was on KSP .22. If I still have the save file I'll post it.

[@schlaznger8049]

Great idea but every moving part on the ship is a chance to break unless it i put in place one time and lasts.

[@jorgesolis1500]

I liked as long as is plasma powered or Eternal engine powered, you have got a very good concept. Now, how long would it take you to build one of this and were would you build it?..

[@fragomatik]

Not my design, NASA's - I'm just an artist 🙂. Yes, this video shows plasma version. The presentation paper published in 2011 (linked above) said 5 years to build (assembled in low Earth orbit) and would cost ~$3.5B.

[@TairnKA]

Even if there's only the smallest amount of friction, what would be done to counteract the accumulation of torque from the wheel (without using power)?

[@fragomatik]

The rotating habitat is counter-balanced by a dynamic flywheel system (see time-stamp 00:16). *Nothing* can be manipulated without expending either mass or energy, so your stated condition "without using power" is meaningless and idealistic.

[@TairnKA]

First of all, I admit despite seeing the "Dynamic Flywheel" being referenced, I didn't perceive its purpose to counteract the ring. Unfortunately the "without using power" remark was to be part of a longer sentence but I got distracted and sent it without creating the coherent thought I'd had. Alas, old age. Thank-you for the reply.

[@fragomatik]

@@TairnKA No worries...as a sexagenarian myself I can relate to that 🤟😎 🤟

[@arcachofo]

So Modeling and animation is your work? congratulations, very good job. At first i thought it was part of NASA's presentation.

[@fragomatik]

Thank you, glad you enjoyed!

[@leecrystal1]

Neat animation. Was there anything about a module with a lander?

[@fragomatik]

Cheers! There was no lander design specifically for Nautilus-X. In the original publication it mentions Orion and ISS compatible docking ports, and on the Extended Duration configuration it specifies "hangars" behind the hab modules for carrying landers or other secondary EVA vehicles. In my other NX video, I show a "generic" lunar-lander for NEO version: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZmWrqoutYtCWeZI ...and Red Dragon type landers on the Extended version at the end: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZmWrqoutYtCWeZI