pressure containment: not a major issue?
- From: Joe Strout <joe@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:40:54 -0600
I've been thinking some more about containing air pressure in a space
habitat, and concluded that I (and most authors) have been making too
much of this. Please check my reasoning and let me know if I'm
overlooking something.
I was sipping a can of soda last night, and it occurred to me to look up
the internal pressure of an unopened soda can -- it turns out to be
around 2-4 atmospheres. Yet this is contained quite neatly by a very
thin aluminum wall. Pressure doesn't scale with size; 1 ATM is 1 ATM
whether it's a soda can or Rama. So, even that soda can is a couple
times thicker than the wall of a space habitat would have to be.
Suppose for a good safety margin, we make our pressure walls ten times
thicker than that -- it's STILL going to be a very tiny amount of mass
compared to the shielding and structural mass.
So, it seems to me that we really shouldn't be worrying about pressure
containment when choosing a geometry; containing 1 ATM is easy and won't
add much to the mass budget, no matter what shape we choose. (Of course
I realize that in the case of shapes that can buckle, the buckling
problem probably DOES scale with size, but I suspect that accounting for
this still leaves a much smaller amount of mass than that needed for
shielding and weight support.)
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
- Joe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: pressure containment: not a major issue?
- From: Jeff Findley
- Re: pressure containment: not a major issue?
- From: Alex Terrell
- Re: pressure containment: not a major issue?
- From: Mike Combs
- Re: pressure containment: not a major issue?
- Prev by Date: Really large airlocks
- Next by Date: Re: Need help of really smart astronomer
- Previous by thread: Really large airlocks
- Next by thread: Re: pressure containment: not a major issue?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|