## Space Station Rotational Stability

David W. Jensen, Ph.D. Technical Fellow, Retired Rockwell Collins / Collins Aerospace Cedar Rapids, IA 52302 david.jensen@alumni.iastate.edu

## Abstract

Designing for rotational stability can dramatically affect the geometry of a space station. If improperly designed, the rotating station could end up catastrophically tumbling end-over-end. Active stabilization can address this problem; however, designing the station with passive rotation stability provides a lower-cost solution. This paper presents passive rotational stability guidelines for four space station geometries. Station stability is first analyzed with thin-shell and thick-shell models. Stability is also analyzed with models of the station's major constituent parts, including outer shells, spokes, floors, air, and shuttle bays.

Keywords: Rotational stability,  space  station,  station  size, station geometry, human limits, gravity, air pressure

## 1 Introduction

components.  The components  are analyzed  separately and then combined to represent the station. This section defines those components and provides the analytic equations used to model them and the rotational stability.

Rotational  stability  is  the  property  of  a  body  for  which  a small angular  displacement  sets  up  a  restoring  torque  that tends to return the body to its original position [McGraw-Hill 2023]. Recently, a research team considered this stability for a rotating cylindrical space station [Globus et al. 2007]. They analyzed a thin shell model of a rotating cylindrical space station. There is much more to space stations than a thin shell cylinder model. Our Asteroid Restructuring paper introduced station details such as centripetal gravity, air pressure, and multiple  floors  for  four  station  geometries  [Jensen  2023]. This paper focuses on the rotational stability of the four main types of station geometries. Not only does it cover hollow thin-shell models, but it also evaluates rotational stability for stations  with  their  constituent  components  such as  spokes, shuttle  bays, air, and  floors.  Figure  1-1  shows  an external view of a rotating station with many of those components.

Section 2 briefly reviews the four station geometries, including  refinements  for  stability and  gravity constraints.  Other constraints are identified, and renderings are provided to help visualize these large space stations.

Section 3 provides more details on space station limitations. Human frailty imposes many limits on the design of a space station. These limits include gravity, air pressure, rotational stability,  population,  and  radiation.  These  limits  and  key characteristics are reviewed for use in stability modeling.

Section  4  defines  rotational  stability,  explores  its  background, and provides alternative approaches. It provides a set of three rules required for passive rotational stability. Stability analysis is the purpose of this paper, and this section provides background for this analysis.

Section 5 introduces the analysis of rotational stability. For this analysis, stations are decomposed  into  constituent

Section 6 covers the single-floor rotational stability. This extends the original work of [Globus et al. 2007] and our own work in [Jensen 2023]. It focuses on the rotational stability of a projected single floor on only the outer shell. All four geometries are evaluated with thin and thick shells.

Section 7 evaluates the stability of multiple-component stations. This evaluation includes the rotational stability of all the major components of the stations. These components include the shell, spokes, main floor, multiple floors, air, shuttle bay, and dividers. The station stability is found by summing the moments of inertia of all the components.

Section 8 summarizes the station stability results. This paper details the  rotational  stability  of  large,  complex  space  stations. This section summarizes the station constraints from this analysis and presents the stability results using the single-floor and multiple-component models.

Credit: Self-produced using Blender. Background Milky Way from NASA SVS Deep Star Maps [NASA Image Public Domain]

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-953ef7f9-3639-4e48-a34a-e8f2b25ff1ce.jpg)

Figure 1-1 -Example Rotating Torus Space Station

This paper details the rotational stability for rotating space stations. We review and extend results from our Asteroid Restructuring paper [Jensen 2023]. We use details from our Design Limits on Large Space Stations paper [Jensen 2024d]. Because this paper is a continuation of those previous papers, their details are often cited for context. We also liberally reuse charts, images, and text from those publications.

## 2 Space Stations

This section introduces the space station geometries and concepts used in this paper. The concepts include summaries of the geometries and assessment approaches. It also introduces the refinement of these geometries to address gravity and stability  constraints.  Other  constraints  are  briefly  introduced. This section also provides renderings to help visualize these large space stations.

## 2.1 Geometries

There are four common  space  station geometries:  Sphere, Dumbbell,  Torus,  and  Cylinder  [Johnson  and  Holbrow 1977]. All four of these geometries have symmetry to support spinning and the production of centripetal gravity. They also have hollow regions to hold the atmosphere.

## 2.2 Station Assessments

Studies have used multiple approaches to assess and select a station geometry. These approaches include maximizing volume, and O'Neill found that the sphere geometry was superior [O'Neill 1976]. Another was to minimize the mass for a given  population,  and  the  cylinder  geometry  was  superior [O'Neill 1976] [Globus et al. 2007]. A third example was to minimize the station mass for a given rotation radius, and the torus geometry was superior [Johnson and Holbrow 1977] [Misra 2010]. Providing passive rotational balance imposes a  geometry  constraint  on  space  station  designs  [Brown 2002]. This constraint dramatically changes the shape of cylinder space stations.

## 2.3 Refined Space Station Geometries

This paper presents a refined set of space station geometries to address rotational stability and gravity constraints. Figure 2-1 introduces those refined geometries with line drawings. Long  cylindrical  stations  become  short  hatbox  stations; spherical stations become ellipsoidal stations; circular crosssection  torus  stations  become  elliptical  cross-section  torus stations; and dumbbell structures are doubled. This paper introduces other constraints from multiple floors, air pressure, and stability. Our geometry designs are ultimately modeled with multiple components to reflect these constraints and to evaluate the station's stability.

## 2.4 Station Details

The rendering of a large elliptical torus space station helps to visualize our goal. Figure 1-1 shows an exterior view. Figure 2-2 includes a cutaway rendering and shows an interior view. These renderings show many of the station's features. The interior view shows a central floor curving upward, providing open space and an excellent vista for the residents. Below that central floor are multiple lower floors that can be seen in the cutaway drawing. These floors provide space for agriculture, industry, commercial, residential, and services. The station is designed to provide an Earthlike gravity range from the main floor to the bottom outer rim. The station is also designed to provide passive rotational balance. The station uses high-tensile strength structures for its construction.

## 2.5 Multiple Floors

These  historical  assessments  and  selections  were  typically based on only thin space station shells and a single projected floor.  Because  this  study  uses  thick  shells  and  multiple floors, refinement of those earlier geometries is explored.

Adding multiple floors to a space station greatly increases the available floor space [Jensen 2023]. Examples of terrestrial  multiple-floors  structures  include  skyscrapers,  underground cities,  submarines, and cruise ships. Limited space and  costs  in  urban  environments  promote  high-rise  living. Adding floors to a structure greatly increases the available floor  space.  Historic  and  modern  underground  cities  exist [Garrett 2019]. Entrepreneurs have begun to convert abandoned military missile silos into multiple-floors homes and underground cities [Garrett 2019]. Our papers [Jensen 2023] and  [Jensen  2024d]  provide  more  information  on  multiple floors in rotating space stations.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-aeb1fb50-d422-481a-a70e-8a660ffcbc49.jpg)

| HATBOX CYLINDER                                   | OBLATE ELLIPSOID                                       | ELLIPTICAL TORUS                                                  | DOUBLE DUMBBELL                                                         |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |                                                        |                                                                   | R z y x c a R c a                                                       |
| Shortened to provide passive rotational stability | Sphere reduced to provide passive rotational stability | Circular cross-section expanded to ellipse to increase population | Single dumbbells can be doubled to provide passive rotational stability |
| Figure 2-1 - Refined Space Station Geometries     | Figure 2-1 - Refined Space Station Geometries          | Figure 2-1 - Refined Space Station Geometries                     | Figure 2-1 - Refined Space Station Geometries                           |

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-08343eb4-bd1b-43c0-9c38-9e957d1581b5.jpg)

Figure 2-2 also helps to visualize the multiple components in these stations. This torus station has a major radius of 2300 meters. The torus has an elliptic cross-section with minor radii of 400 and 1150 meters. The interior view rendering labels many of the components. This station provides an open vista like a long valley of 6 kilometers over the curved top floor. The cutaway rendering shows the multiple floors beneath the main floor in the torus station. More details on this torus are in [Jensen 2023].

## 3 Space Station Limitations

gravity acceleration at the station's outer rim. The station's centripetal gravity is gh = g0 (R-h)/R, where R is the rotating station's radius and h is the height above the outer rim. Figure  3-1  shows  this  centripetal  gravity  for  several  station sizes. These stations rotate at a speed to produce the gravity g0 equal to 1.05g at the outer rim (h=0). The centripetal gravity in small stations reduces quickly with increasing height. The centripetal gravity in large stations  is  more  similar  to Earth's  gravity  with  height.  Earth's  gravity  is  gh  =  g0 (R/(R+h)) 2 where R is the Earth's radius, and h is the height above Earth's surface.

Space stations must be designed to support personnel. The first set of constraints considered are those affecting the welfare of the occupants. These limits include gravity, air pressure, material, top floor, population, and radiation. Human frailty imposes many limits on the design of a space station. These limits constrain the station design and, ultimately, the station's  stability.  The  risk  from  rotational  instabilities  in space stations is feedback that could cause an abrupt change in  orientation  in  the  rotating  space  station  [Globus  et  al. 2007].

## 3.1 Gravity Limits

Gravity plays an important role in the regions where humans will live long-term. Our human bodies have evolved in a very narrow range of gravity. Centripetal gravity, with its benefits and detriments, was covered in our previous paper [Jensen 2023].  Rotating  space  stations  can  be  designed  to  create Earth-like centripetal gravity in the most inhabited regions. Keeping the rotation less than 1 rpm will help prevent motion sickness. This rotation rate and gravity imply a station radius greater than 900 meters. The gravity of an example large station is reviewed in this section. The section also defines the range of acceptable gravity and the gravity range effect on the station design.

In a rotating station, the centripetal gravity is always directed radially towards the center of rotation. In the rotating station, this force is ω R, where ω is the station rotation speed, and 2 R is the radius to the center. The variable g0 is the centripetal

With an outer torus major radius of 2400 meters, rotating the station once every 1.6 minutes produces a sensation of Earthlike gravity on the main floor of the large outer elliptic torus. The station used in Figure 1-1 has a gravity range of 1.0g to 1.12g on the floors of the large torus.  Stations can  be designed with different radii and rotation rates to vary the gravity values over the station floors. Historically, organizations have  used  different  ranges  in  their  designs.  Most  are  designed using a single floor at 1.0g. A 1977 NASA study used a gravity range of 0.9g to 1.0g [Johnson and Holbrow 1977]. They also considered a relaxed constraint range of 0.7g to

Figure 3-1 -Earth and Centripetal Gravity

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-258e46ef-4c85-4f9f-ab75-3ce704d63f8f.jpg)

1.0g. A decade later, NASA authors designed a torus station with a gravity range from 0.97g to 1.03g [Queijo et al. 1988]. They felt this range would not have any significant influence on human physiology and performance.

We usually design the multiple-component stations with a gravity range of 0.95g to 1.1g. The inhabitants will spend most of their time on floors with Earth-like gravity. The gravity range of 0.95g to 1.05g over those floors would minimize the health risk to the residents.

Gravity range details in this subsection were introduced in [Jensen  2023]  and  considered  two  classes  of  rotating  stations.  One  class  rotates  about an  axis outside  the  enclosed habitable region and includes the torus and dumbbells. The other class rotates about an axis inside the enclosed region and includes the cylinder and ellipsoid. The number of floors in the station volume can be varied in our analysis. So can the floor locations for the minimum and maximum gravities.

Table 3-1 includes equations that define the relationships between  the  gravities,  the  radius,  and  the  multiple-floors height. This analysis introduces a scale variable m that defines R as equal to m times a. The scale m is equal to the minimum gravity over the difference of the maximum and minimum gravity. The same table works for a cylinder or ellipsoid. Using the outer radius Ro to analyze those geometries is often convenient. Table 3-1 provides a small table of the habitability scale metrics for a range of minimum gravities (gmin) and maximum gravities (gmax). Broader ranges of gravities support more floors and greater populations in the station. Two values are highlighted in the table: 9.5 and 6.33. These represent a minimum of 0.95g on the top floor and a maximum of 1.05g or 1.1g on the outer rim. Those values and gravity ranges are used extensively throughout this paper and our earlier research [Jensen 2023].

## 3.2 Air Pressure Limits

Air is obviously required to support our station's population. Early space missions used low-pressure, pure oxygen to reduce weight and still provide a breathable atmosphere. We assume the station will have an Earth-like mixture of nitrogen,  oxygen,  and  carbon  dioxide.  This  section  provides  a brief overview of the limits from air pressure.

Human bodies have adapted to a range of air pressures on Earth's surface. The highest air pressures are at low elevations. The Dead Sea is 430 meters below sea level and has an air pressure of 106,624.5 Pascals. Sea level has an air pressure of 101,325 Pascals. The highest permanent settlement, La Rinconada, is 5100 meters above sea level and has a low air pressure of 53,500 Pascals. This is in the range where severe altitude sickness can begin to occur (above 3,500 meters). Mountain climbers call the region above 8,000 meters the  death  zone  with  less  than  35,600  Pascals  air  pressure. Mount Everest has an altitude of 8,850 meters and air pressure of 33,700 Pascals.

This study uses a maximum air pressure of sea level and a minimum of the air pressure at an altitude of Denver.  Sea level is 101,325 Pascals. The Denver air pressure is 83,728

Table 3-1 -Half-Filled Floor Scaling Factor for Various Centripetal Gravity Ranges

| Scale (m)   | gmin   |      |       |      |
|-------------|--------|------|-------|------|
| gmax        | 0.85g  | 0.9g | 0.95g | 1.0g |
| 1.05g       | 4.25   | 6.00 | 9.50  | 20.0 |
| 1.1g        | 3.40   | 4.50 | 6.33  | 10.0 |
| 1.15g       | 2.83   | 3.60 | 4.75  | 6.67 |
| 1.2g        | 2.43   | 3.00 | 3.80  | 5.00 |

Torus (and Dumbbell) Major Radius=R; Minor radius=a; Outer Radius=R+a; R=m×a; m=gmin/(gmax-gmin)

Ellipsoid (and Cylinder) Outer  Radius=Ro;  Top  Floor Height=h; Ro = (m+1) h = m̂ ×h; Top Floor Radius R=Ro-h; m̂ = gmax / (gmax-gmin)

Pascals at 1609 meters above sea level. On rotating stations, this  implies  a  similar  maximum  habitable  altitude.  These limits are conservative. Nearly all individuals would breathe comfortably at  these  air  pressures.  Large  air  pressures  are denser and would use more air to fill the station. Smaller air pressures would be uncomfortable for some colonists.

This study uses the air pressure analysis and equations from [Jensen 2024d]. That analysis is built on works by [Lente and Ősz 2020] and [O'Neill 1974]. As a summary, we include the resulting equations from that effort. The following equation is used to calculate the Earth's air pressure at altitudes above its surface:

$$P _ { h } = P _ { 0 } e x p \left ( - \frac { M g _ { 0 } } { k T } h \right )$$

Where P0 is the air pressure at the outer radius and h is the height above Earth's surface. The variable M is the air molar mass constant, g0 is the gravity constant, k is the gas constant, and T is temperature. In a rotating cylinder (and ellipsoid) space station, the following equation computes the air pressure above the outer rotating rim:

$$P _ { h } = P _ { 0 } \, e x p \left ( - \frac { M g _ { 0 } } { k T } \left ( h - \frac { h ^ { 2 } } { 2 R } \right ) \right )$$

Constants are the same as with the Earth air pressure equation. For the rotating station, R is the outer radius of the station, and h is the height above that outer rim. Similarly, for the torus (and dumbbells), the radius R is typically the major axis radius, and the outer rotating rim is at that radius plus the minor axis, R+r. With this change, the equation becomes:

$$P _ { h } = P _ { 0 } \, e x p \left ( - \frac { M g _ { 0 } } { k T } \left ( h - \frac { h ^ { 2 } } { 2 ( R + r ) } \right ) \right )$$

Assuming constant temperature, the air density analysis in the  station  produces  the  same  equation.  Additional  details and the values of these constants are in the air pressure constraints section of [Jensen 2024d]. All stations have sea-level air pressure at the outer rim by design. The air pressure decreases with height, just like the pressure on Earth. The air pressure in rotating stations decreases with height but not as much as  on  the  Earth.  Air  density  becomes  important  because of the air mass and its influence on the station's stability.

## 3.3 Station Material Limits

The materials used in the construction of a rotating space station must be able to withstand a variety of stresses and forces. The materials must be strong enough to support the weight of the station and its inhabitants, as well as withstand the centrifugal  forces  generated  by  the  rotation.  The  stresses  that space  station  materials  must  endure  include  mechanical, thermal,  and  radiation  stresses.  Mechanical  stresses  are caused by the station's weight and the forces that act upon it, such as when the station is maneuvered or docked with another  spacecraft.  Thermal  stresses  result  from  the  extreme temperature variations that the station could experience. Radiation stresses come from the station's exposure to cosmic radiation and solar flares.

A report on Space Structures and Support Systems [Bell and Hines 2012] focused on glass, basalt, metals, concrete, and anhydrous glass. They presented that glass, basalt, and metals have high compressive strength [Bell and Hines 2012]. Of those materials, anhydrous glass had the greatest tensile strength. Our previous paper [Jensen 2023] covered stresses produced in the rotating space station. Newer details in [Jensen 2024d] provide maximum station radius values. Table 3-2 replicates a subset of those results. These results use the hoop stress from the rotating station. Steel could be used to create the exterior station shell, which could be almost 4 kilometers  in  radius.  The  tensile  strength  of  anhydrous  glass suggests that a station of over 25 km could be feasible. Table 3-2 includes a filled shell structure using anhydrous trusses and processed  regolith  fill.  The  structure  does  have  lower tensile strength; however, the low density keeps the station radius close  to 20  kilometers.  Conservatively,  a much smaller radius closer to 3 or 4 kilometers seems more appropriate. Such stations may seem absurd today; however, in the future, such sizes may be possible using in-situ extraterrestrial materials, robotic automation, self-replication, and artificial intelligence. Asteroids, moons, and dwarf planets can provide nearly unlimited amounts of building material. Our study has shown that automation can provide nearly unlimited amounts of labor to build these rotating space stations [Jensen 2023].

Figure 3-2 presents the working stress for various materials. Again,  these  stresses  were  covered  in  [Jensen  2023].  The working stress is the sum of the stresses from the air pressure,

Table 3-2 -Materials and Space Habitat Radius

| Material              | Tensile Strength (MPa)   |   Density (g/cm3) |   Radius (km) |
|-----------------------|--------------------------|-------------------|---------------|
| Anhydrous Glass (max) | 13,800                   |              2.7  |         123.4 |
| Anhydrous Glass       | 3,000                    |              2.7  |          26.8 |
| Filled Structure      | 1,500                    |              1.72 |          21.1 |
| Steel                 | 1,240                    |              7.8  |           3.8 |
| Aluminum              | 352                      |              2.65 |           3.2 |

Credit: Self-produced in [Jensen 2023] using data from [O'Neill 1974] [McKendree 1995] [Bell and Hines 2012]; [Facts].

the centripetal forces on the shell, and the centripetal forces on the internal structures and furnishings. The chart shows the  working  stresses  in  megapascals  ranging  from  1  to 20,000 on the logarithmic y-axis. The x-axis shows the outer rim  radius  of  the  rotating  station  and  ranges  from  100  to 100,000 meters. The station is rotating at a speed to produce 1g at the outer rim. The chart includes the material stresses for four materials. The anhydrous glass has the largest tensile strength, and aluminum has the smallest. Steel, with the highest  density,  creates  the  largest  working  stress.  The  filled structure, with the lowest density, creates the smallest working stress. All the materials support their working stress below the rotation radius of 10,000 meters. Because of this material strength limit, we use this radius as a maximum value. Note that filled structures have the potential to increase this rotation radius to over 40,000 meters, and anhydrous glass could increase the radius to over 100,000 meters.

A  simple  analysis  of  the  strength  of  materials  shows  that large stations can be built. The desired construction materials for rotating space stations must be strong, lightweight, durable, and resistant to the harsh conditions of space. We advocate  that  anhydrous  glass  from  asteroid  oxides  is  a  valid choice for constructing large stations.

## 3.4 Multiple Floors Limits

There are issues with creating and using many floors. Studies have found that people living in highrises on the Earth suffer from issues such as greater mental health problems, higher fear  of crime,  fewer  positive  social interactions,  and  more difficulty with child-rearing [Barr 2018]. NASA studies have considered  the  potential  oppressive  closed-quarters  ambience to be a risk to the colonists' psychological well-being [Johnson  and  Holbrow  1977]  [Keeter  2020]. Fortunately, researchers offer approaches to address these issues and risks using  proper  planning  and  space  allocation.  As  such,  we

Figure 3-2 -Space Station Stress Comparisons

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-88ab36ef-66e8-471b-b3a0-648fd62ffd08.jpg)

believe using many floors is acceptable for space station habitation.

## 3.5 Top Floor Limits

Historically, most space stations have a single floor on the interior of their outer shell. Our research has introduced and analyzed multiple floors in the rotating station geometries. The entire station could be filled with floors; however, leaving  open  space  above  the  floors  produces  an  aesthetically pleasing region for the inhabitants. The top floor could be anywhere from the outer rim, to the center, or to the top rim. Figure 2-2 provides a rendering of the multiple floors and the open space.

There  are  limits  on  the  number  of  floors  in  our  multiplefloors  station  designs.  The  viable  gravity  range  is  one  of those limits. The floors typically range from 0.95g to 1.05g. A viable air pressure is another limit in the design. The air pressure in the habitable portion of the stations ranges from sea level to at least Denver air pressure. Like on the Earth, the air density in the rotating station varies with height. The station size and centripetal gravity affect the station air pressure. In our large rotating stations, the air pressure limits the top floor height to about 1600 meters. The station could have a maximum of over 300 floors with a 5-meter spacing between  the  floors.  Generally,  the  minimum  gravity  and  air pressure limits represent the habitable top floor height for the station designs. In small stations, the gravity limits the height of the top floor. In large stations, the air pressure limits the position of the top floor.

This top floor location and limits are detailed in our original Asteroid Restructuring paper  [Jensen 2023] and  our Large Space Station s  paper  [Jensen  2024d].  The large  space  stations paper introduces a straightforward approach to increase the top floor in large stations above the minimum air pressure limit. Consider a floor at the air pressure height limit. That floor could be made airtight. Immediately below that floor the air pressure would be at the Denver limit. Immediately above that top floor, the air pressure could be raised to the sea level maximum. Additional floors could be constructed above that original top floor. Another 1600 meters of floors could be added before reaching the Denver air pressure limit again.

As  an  example of  this  air  pressure  and  the  use  of  airtight floors, we include Figure 3-3. The chart shows the air density in  a  35,000-meter  radius  station  along  the  left  y-axis  and ranges from 0 to 1.3 kilograms per meter cubed. The x-axis shows the height in the station. For reference, the right y-axis shows the gravity in the station and ranges from 0g to 1.3g. The chart shows the air density at station heights with the air pressure limit (open floors), the gravity limit (airtight layers), and a non-rotating uniform density. Without airtight layers (open floor), the red line shows the air density monotonically decreasing (using air density equations).

The stability analysis considers stations with the air pressure limit (open floors) and the gravity limit (airtight layers). The mass of the air and the  number of floors  are considerably

Figure 3-3 -Air Density Examples

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-5fad58e4-44fd-4b49-aedd-2e48d51b92df.jpg)

different between the two designs. The air-pressure top floor design  has  less  air,  fewer  floors,  and  less  weight  than  the gravity-limited design. Our Large Station paper includes additional details and mass examples [Jensen 2024d].

## 3.6 Population Limits

This section briefly reviews the population limits for our rotating space station. These concepts were introduced and detailed  in  our  Restructuring  Asteroid  paper  [Jensen  2023]. Some of the graphs and text are reused to review details. This section briefly overviews two topics from those papers for context. First is the required allocation of floor space. Second is a review of the effects from single and multiple floors in the design.

## 3.6.1 Floor Allocation Usage

The allocation of floor space to categories such as living, agriculture, industry, and openness creates limits for the population. Everyone in a space station needs space to support their living, working, industry, and agriculture needs. As an example, a 1970s NASA design study created a set of surface usage metrics [Johnson and Holbrow 1977]. These included residential,  open  spaces,  transportation,  and  agriculture. These totaled to 155.2 square meters per person. Using multiple-story buildings, the projected floor space on the single floor became 67.0 square meters per person with an average height of 11.2 meters.

The stations in our studies have multiple floors and consider floor spacings of 5, 10, and 15 meters, and they use slightly different categories (open areas, support, agriculture, industry,  and  residential).  Usage  expectations  and  requirements have changed in the 50 years since the NASA study. With a fixed floor spacing of 15 meters, the updated space allocation provides  each  individual  65.5  square  meters  per  person, which is close to the 1970s NASA metric. With the 5-meter floor spacing, each person is allocated 144.2 square meters. Details are available for these different usage metrics [Jensen 2023].

## 3.6.2 Single and Multiple Floors Examples

Figure 3-4 shows populations in a torus space habitat. These estimates use the original NASA estimate of 67 square meters per person. The population is based on the available surface area of the floors. The vertical axis shows the population and ranges from 10 to 1 billion on a logarithmic scale. The horizontal  axis  shows  the  major  radius  of  the  torus  and ranges from 100 to 40,000 on a logarithmic scale.

Figure 3-4 shows three population allocations for a torus surface area. The lowest population results from using only a single floor projected across the minor diameter. This living area is twice the minor radius times the major radius circumference. This population is proportional to the radius squared. Larger populations are supported with the multiple floors. Those multiple floors are under the center main floor; see Figure 2-2. As the minor radius increases, the space under the center diameter floor increases. This space provides additional floors. For stations with a small radius, Figure 3-4 shows little increase in population by adding floors. As the radius increases, the benefit from adding floors appears. A torus station with a major radius of 1000 meters and a minor radius of 100 meters would have about 20 floors under the main floor. Each floor extends entirely around the major radius  of  the  torus.  The  population  with  multiple  floors  is nearly proportional to the radius cubed.

There will be open vistas on the main floor for colonists to enjoy.  Unfortunately,  with  large  habitats  using  multiple floors, most of the square footage is on the lower levels. We tend to think the lowest floors would be undesirable as living quarters. To compensate, Figure 3-4 also includes a population estimate using only the top 20 floors. The lower floors are not used in our population estimate but could support additional industrial, research, ventilation, transportation, storage, and agriculture. Figure 3-4 shows population results that are first proportional to the radius cubed. Once there are more than 20 floors (at a radius of about 1000 meters), the population is only proportional to the radius squared. This 20-floor allocation is only relevant for large stations.

Figure 3-4 includes several tori at their published major radii and  population.  These  include  Tiny  Torus  [Johnson  and Holbrow 1977], Stanford Torus [O'Neill et al. 1979], Atira Torus [Jensen 2023], and Elysium Torus [Brody 2013].

## 3.6.3 Population Summary

More details on the single and multiple-floors populations are in [Jensen 2023] and [Jensen 2024d]. For all four geometries, using multiple floors significantly improved the supported population. For a single floor, the population is proportional to the radius squared. For geometries with multiple floors,  the  population  is  nearly  proportional  to  the  radius cubed. Multiple floors take advantage of the internal station volume.

## 3.7 Radiation

There is sufficient radiation in space to cause sickness (e.g., damage  to  DNA  and  cancer).  The  radiation  comes  from

Figure 3-4 -Torus Space Station Populations

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-e11b86d6-e99f-4751-8288-24700f5549cb.jpg)

galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and from solar particle events (SPE) [Dunbar 2019]. Earth's magnetic field and thick atmosphere protect people on the surface from this radiation.

Various studies suggest using a layer of regolith to provide protection from cosmic rays. The depth of the regolith ranges from  2.5  meters  [O'Neill  2008]  to  more  than  8  meters [Turner and Kunkel 2017] to reduce the radiation to an Earth background level. In our station design, the outer shell has a thick regolith layer to protect our station's residents. A truss framework used as the shell provides most of the structural integrity. Ten-meter walls would be sufficient to provide radiation protection. We prefer solutions with greater thickness on the outer walls. The extra thickness provides additional integrity for potential debris, small meteoroids, and ship collisions. Our designs typically use a shell thickness of 20 meters in our analysis.

Historically, researchers have been concerned with the substantial  structural  shell  weight  penalty  from  an  attached shielding.  As  a  reference, a  1979  NASA  paper  considered radiation shielding and offered requirements and analysis for the various geometries [Bock, Lambrou, and Simon 1979]. They considered an attached shield integral to the design and an unattached stationary shielding with a separate living area rotating inside. As another reference, a different author stated that  the  material  strength  of  attached  shielding  would  not support a rotation rate greater than 1 revolution per minute [Graem 2006]. This implies stations must be larger than  a 900-meter radius to have an integrated attached shield. Even for  thin-shell  single-floor  designs,  one  quickly  finds  that shielding mass dominates the station structural mass [Bock, Lambrou, and Simon 1979].

The mass and inertia of this shield will affect the  station's inertia.  For  smaller  stations,  the  shielding  is  100  to  1000 times greater than the structural mass of the habitat interior. For large stations, the shielding is only 10 times greater than the structural mass of the habitat interior. The external shell and shielding still dominate the mass and inertia for multiplefloors stations. With very large multiple-floors stations, other

components of the station begin to equal or exceed the outer shell (shield) mass and inertia.

## 4 Rotational Stability

This section provides background and definitions to introduce rotational stability. It also covers alternative approaches to stabilize the rotating space station. A preview of the rotational stability of a cylinder is included.

## 4.1 Rotational Stability Background

Newton's first law of motion is a body in motion tends to remain  in  motion.  The  space  station  will  rotate  about  a central axis to produce centrifugal force as a psuedogravity. In the vacuum of space, once the space station is spinning, it will tend to remain spinning. Other forces on a space station could potentially disrupt the spinning stability. Examples of these forces include crafts arriving and leaving the station, movement of objects internally, solar wind, and micrometeors.

The  stability  criterion  was  recognized  and  addressed  in  a recent space station design [Globus et al. 2007]. The team described in the Kalpana One Orbital Station paper:

'In an ideal space environment, any cylinder rotating about its longitudinal axis will continue to do so forever; but in the real space environment perturbations cause rotating systems to eventually rotate about the axis with the greatest angular moment  of  inertia.  If  that  axis  is  not  along  the  cylinder length, this introduces a catastrophic failure mode where the settlement  gradually  changes  its  rotational  axis  until  it  is tumbling end-over-end.' [Globus et al. 2007]

Obviously, it is essential to prevent a catastrophic instability that results in a settlement tumbling end-over-end.

## 4.2 Spin Stabilized System

There is a risk for rotation instabilities with asymmetric geometries. This instability was named after the Soviet cosmonaut Vladimir Dzhanibekov, who discovered this effect on the  MIR  space  station  in  1985.  The  cosmonaut  spun  a  Tshaped  handle  and  discovered  bi-stable  rotation  states.  A Berkeley website [O'Reilly et al. 2021] provides an analysis of this rotational behavior; see Figure 4-1. This site also includes a link to a video showing a rotating T-handle in zero gravity on the ISS (International Space Station). The abrupt

Figure 4-1 -Dzhanibekov Rotational Instability

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-30a57373-6531-42d5-9864-ffed0aca4596.jpg)

changes in orientation between two states would not be desirable in a space station.

Even though our space stations are symmetrical about the rotation axis, one must still design the geometry to maintain stability and avoid this behavior. In the Elements of Spacecraft  Design ,  Charles  Brown  recommends that the desired axis  of  rotation  should have an angular moment of inertia (MOI) at least 1.2 times greater than any other axis to provide rotational stability [Brown 2002]. Moments of inertia can be computed for each of the three rotation axes of a space station. The following quotes from the Globus paper and a more recent Fitzpatrick paper serve as our rules to provide passive rotational stability:

'Experience with spin-stabilized spacecraft suggests that the desired axis of rotation should have an angular moment of inertia at least 1.2 times greater than any other axis.' [Globus et al. 2007]

'Finally, if two of the principal moments are the same then it can be shown that the body is only stable to small perturbations when rotating about the principal axis whose moment is distinct from the other two.' [Fitzpatrick 2011]

'In conclusion, a rigid body with three distinct principal moments of inertia is stable to small perturbations when rotating about the principal axes with the largest and smallest moments, but is unstable when rotating about the axis with the intermediate moment.' [Fitzpatrick 2011]

Not meeting these guidelines could lead to instabilities. Historic  station  designs  did  not  appear  to  use  these  stability rules. The paper on the Kalpana cylinder space station investigated  this  inertial  stability  [Globus  et  al.  2007].  The  researchers noted that the Bernal Sphere and the O'Neill Cylinder would be unstable because their desired axis of rotation was not 1.2 times greater than the other axes. They applied this  guideline  to  design the  Kalpana cylinder  design  space station. Applying this stability criterion dramatically changed  the  original  long-and-narrow  O'Neill  Cylinders [O'Neill 1976] to the short-and-squatty Kalpana One Station [Globus et al. 2007].

## 4.3 Rotational Stability Alternatives

There are multiple ways to maintain the rotational stability. The paper [Jensen 2024d] covers three techniques: passive spin  stabilization,  three-axis  stability  with  thrusters,  and three-axis stabilization with momentum wheels. That paper covers  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  those  three techniques.

This paper focuses on the passive spin stabilization for our designs.  The  space  stations  of  this  study  are  rotating  to provide  centripetal  gravity  to  the  residents.  This  rotation provides spin stabilization;  however, this  stabilization  will not  be  perfect.  The  mass  distribution  will  not  be  uniform about  the  rotation  axis.  Shuttles,  material,  equipment,  and people will be in motion  in  the station and  possibly destabilize the station. Large space stations will have large angular  momentum,  and  most  movements  will  have  little impact on the stability. Ultimately, station designs will use

computers and accelerometers to provide active control and counteract such instabilities. Authors have suggested active control  techniques  using motors to move large weights on cables [Globus et al. 2007] or using pumps to move water [Lipsett 2005].

## 4.4 Rotational Stability Preview

Our study follows guidelines and rules based on [Fitzpatrick 2011] [Globus et al. 2007] [Brown 2002] and [Birse 2000]. A key stability rule is that the moment of inertia (MOI) about the rotation axis should be greater than 1.2 times the other axes [Brown 2002]. With the rotation axis assigned as the zaxis, the system would be stable when Iz≥1.2 Ix.

Consider the cylinder geometry as an example of this relationship. In §6 Single Floor Rotational Stability , we provide the thin shell analysis for the cylinder. That analysis finds the cylinder length over the cylinder radius (L/R) should be 1.3 to  be  stable  (Iz=1.2Ix). This  analysis  and  result  match  the Globus study [Globus et al. 2007].

The stability of the cylinder geometry includes multiple station  components  (outer  shell,  endcaps,  spokes,  multiple floors, air, and a center shuttle bay). In §7 Multiple Component Rotational Stability, we detail these station components . Figure 4-2 shows the stability when including the multiple components and varying the cylinder geometry. The x-axis shows  the  cylinder  rotation  radius  on  a  logarithmic  scale ranging from 100 to over 100,000 meters. The y-axis shows the stability as the ratio of the z moment of inertia (Iz) over the x moment of inertia (Ix). The minimum stability limit is a dotted  black  line at  1.2  on the  stability  axis.  Geometries with stability values greater than 1.2 are rotationally stable, and values less than 1.2 are unstable.

Using the thin shell L/R=1.3 and multiple components, the chart  data  shows  the  station  stability crosses the  1.2 limit. This shows instability with the multiple components when the radius is less than 1300 meters and stable for larger radii. Figure 4-2 shows geometries that are longer in length tend to be  more  rotationally  unstable;  see  L/R=2.0.  It  also  shows shorter  geometries  (cylinder  hatbox)  are  more  rotationally stable; see the L/R=0.5. In our analysis, the stability ratio of

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-8101be3a-e851-41e8-817d-4aaec559759d.jpg)

1.2 is attained by varying the L/R with the changing radius. Most of the following sections use this stability ratio.

## 5 Station Component Analysis

This section introduces the components used to model our stations. One can model a space station as its outer shell. The outer shell is often the highest mass component in the station. The mass and geometry are combined to determine moments of inertia (MOIs) and the station stability. Decomposing the station into its constituent pieces improves the model results. The pieces are analyzed separately and combined to represent the components and the station. Those components include the outer shell, spokes, main floor, multiple floors, air, shuttle bay, and dividers. This section defines those components for each station geometry and provides analytic equations that model their volume and mass.

## 5.1 Station Component Equations

Figure 2-1 illustrated the four space station geometries. This subsection describes the major components used in our analysis  for  each  of  the  four  refined  space  station  geometries. Different sizes, densities, and quantities of individual pieces represent the major station components. Equations to compute the volume and the mass of those components follow. Variable subscripts define the component. They also define the inner  dimensions with subscript 'i'. Outer dimensions are labeled with subscript 'o'. This analysis uses the density values from Table 5-1 with the volumes to compute the mass.

Hatbox Cylinder :  The  hatbox  cylinder  is  comprised  of  7 components. It is decomposed into the outer shell, end caps, the air, the floors, the main floor, the spokes, and the shuttle bay. The variables in the equations include subscripts for the inner and outer dimensions. The equations are:

$$m _ { s h e l l } = \rho _ { f i l l } V _ { s h e l l } = \rho _ { f i l l } \ p i _ { L } ( R _ { o } ^ { 2 } - ( R _ { o } + t ) ^ { 2 } ) \\ m _ { e n d c a p s } = 2 \, \rho _ { f i l l } V _ { e n d c a p } = \, \rho _ { f i l l } \ p i _ { t } \, R _ { o } ^ { 2 } \\ m _ { a i r } = \rho _ { a i r } V _ { a i r } = \, \rho _ { a i r } \ p i _ { L } \, R _ { o } ^ { 2 }$$

𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑟 = ρ𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑉 𝑎𝑖𝑟 = ρair 𝑝𝑖 𝐿 𝑅 𝑜

𝑚𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5 = ρ𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5 𝑉 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5 = ρ𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5 𝑝𝑖 𝐿 (𝑅 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑚 ) 2

𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 = ρ𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑉 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 = ρ𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑖 ℎ (𝑟 𝑚 - (𝑟 2 𝑚 + 𝑡) 2 )

𝑚𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 = ρ𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 V 𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 = ρ𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 π 𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 2 2 𝑅 𝑜

𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑦 = ρ𝑏𝑎𝑦 π 𝑟 𝑏𝑎𝑦 2 2 𝐿 𝑏𝑎𝑦 +ρ𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒  π 𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 2 2 max(𝑐 - 𝐿𝑏𝑎𝑦 , 0)

Where  L=cylinder  station  length;  Ro=radius  to  the  outer floor;  t=thickness  of  shell  and  endcaps.  The  variable  rm

## Table 5-1 -Densities of Station Components

| Density    |   Value (kg/m3) | Density     |   Value (kg/m3) |
|------------|-----------------|-------------|-----------------|
| 𝜌 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙    |            7850 | 𝜌 𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒     |         337.4   |
| 𝜌 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑡   |            2790 | 𝜌 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 |          64.4   |
| 𝜌 𝑟𝑜𝑑      |            2790 | 𝜌 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5    |          32.2   |
| 𝜌 𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑠   |            2790 | 𝜌 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟10   |          17     |
| 𝜌 𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑚 |            2650 | 𝜌 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟15   |          11.2   |
| 𝜌 𝑏𝑎𝑦      |            2291 | 𝜌 𝑎𝑖𝑟       |           1.5   |
| 𝜌 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙     |            1721 | 𝜌 𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙  |           1.225 |

represents  the  radius  to  the  main  floor  where  rm=Ri-hm, hm=Ri/m,  and  m=gmax/(gmax-gmin).  Lbay  is  the  maximum shuttle bay length. The shuttle bay and spokes are interior to the shell and endcaps. This air mass equation uses a uniform air  density  in  the  station.  Later  analyses  use  varying  air density to account for the centripetal gravity effects.

Oblate  Ellipsoid: The  oblate  ellipsoid  is  comprised  of  6 components. It is decomposed into the outer shell, air, floors, main floor, spokes, and shuttle bay. The equations are:

$$\text{components: $t$ isogeneous} \text{ into the outer shell, air, IOors,} \\ \text{main floor, spokes, and shuttle bay. The equations are:} \\ V _ { i - s h e l l } = \frac { 4 } { 3 } \, \dot { p } \, a b c ; \, V _ { o - s h e l l } = \frac { 4 } { 3 } \, \dot { p } \, i ( a + t ) ( b + t ) ( c + t ) \\ V _ { s h e l l } = \frac { 4 } { 3 } \, \dot { p } \, i ( t \, ( a b + a c + b c ) + t ^ { 2 } \, ( a + b + c ) + t ^ { 3 } ) \\ V _ { s h e l l } = \dot { V } _ { o - s h e l l } - \dot { V } _ { i - s h e l l } \\ m _ { s h e l l } = \dot { \rho } _ { f i l l } \, V _ { s h e l l } \\ m _ { a i r } = \dot { \rho } _ { a i r } \, V _ { a i r } = \dot { \rho } _ { a i r } ( V _ { i - s h e l l } ) = \dot { \rho } _ { a i r } \left ( \frac { 4 } { 3 } \, \dot { p } \, a b c \right ) \\ m _ { \min } = \dot { \rho } _ { f i l l } \, V _ { \min } = \dot { \rho } _ { f i l l } \, t \, 2 \, \dot { p } \, a _ { m } \, 2 \, c _ { m } \\ m _ { s p o k e } = \dot { \rho } _ { s p o k e } \, V _ { s p o k e } = \dot { \rho } _ { s p o k e } \, \dot { \pi } \, r _ { s p o k e } \, L _ { s p o k e } \\ m _ { b a y } = \dot { \rho } _ { b a y } \, \dot { \pi } \, r _ { b a y } \, 2 \, L _ { b a y } + \dot { \rho } _ { s p o k e } \, \dot { \pi } \, r _ { s p o k e } \, 2 \, \max ( c - L _ { b a y }, 0 ) \\ \text{Where} \, c \, \text{is the distance to the ellipsoid outer shell on the axis} \, \text{of rotation} \, \text{ and a and b are the other axes and equal distances}$$

Where c is the distance to the ellipsoid outer shell on the axis of rotation, and a and b are the other axes and equal distances to the outer shell. The floors in the ellipsoid are cylinders. The variable am represents the radius to the main floor where am =Ri-hm, hm=Ri/m, and m=gmax/(gmax-gmin); the width of the main floor is 2cm where 𝑐𝑚 = 𝑐𝑖 √1 - 𝑎𝑚 2 𝑎 𝑖 2 / ; the variable t is the thickness of the shell and main floor. Like the cylinder, the shuttle bay and spokes are interior to the ellipsoid shell.

The volume of the multiple floors is challenging to visualize in the ellipsoid. Figure 5-1 is included to assist. Our analysis uses the volumes of an ellipsoid, a cylinder at the main floors, and ellipsoid endcaps on the cylinder. The length ci is on the shorter  polar  axis  along  the  rotation  axis.  The  variable ℎ𝑐 represents the height of the endcap ℎ𝑐 = (𝑐𝑖 -𝑐𝑚) and ai is equal to  bi  in  the  oblate  ellipsoid.  The equations  for those volumes are:

$$& \text{volumes are: } & \quad \quad \quad$$

𝑚𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5 = ρ𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5 𝑉 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5

Elliptical  Torus: The  elliptical  torus  is  comprised  of  7 components. It is decomposed into the outer shell, the air, the floors, the main floor, the dividers, the spokes, and the shuttle bay. The main floor of the torus is at the major radius R. The floor is at the center of the torus tube and separates the tube into  inner  and  outer  volumes.  The  outer  tube  contains  the multiple  floors.  The  tube  has  a  minor  radius,  a,  that  is coincident with R and a minor radius, c, that is perpendicular

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-02f6ddb4-91ad-4134-a434-ce5fda9fc6f5.jpg)

to  R.  The  floors  range  from  radius  R  to  radius  R+a.  The dividers separate the tube into airtight compartments as part of a fail-safe design. The equations are:

$$\text{is} \colon & \text{is} \text{is$$

Where  a=horizontal  minor  axis;  c=vertical  minor  axis; R=major axis; t=thickness. The divider thickness is about the radius of the spoke. Figure 2-1 does not show the dividers, shuttle bay and spokes.

Double  Dumbbell: The  double  dumbbell  is  comprised  6 components. It is decomposed into the outer shell, air, floors, main floor, spokes, and shuttle bay.  The main floor of the dumbbell  node  is  placed  at  the  major  radius  R.  The  main floor is at the node's center, and the node is separated into equal inner and outer volumes. The outer volume contains the multiple floors. The equations for single components in the dumbbell follow. There are multiple nodes, spokes, air, main  floor,  and  floors  in  both  the  dumbbell  and  double dumbbell. For one of those nodes:

$$\text{dumbbell. For one of those nodes: } \quad$$

$$m _ { b a y } = \rho _ { b a y } V$$

Where R is the distance to the center of the dumbbell node. For the prolate ellipsoid nodes, the longer axis c is parallel to the  axis  of  rotation.  The  other  axes,  a  and  b,  are  equal  in length and perpendicular to the axis of rotation. The double dumbbell has four nodes and two sets of spokes.

## 5.2 Ellipsoid Analysis

Several  of  our  station  designs  use  ellipsoids  and  elliptical cross-sections. Spherical designs offer more structural strength. Spherical designs inefficient space usage. Angled polygons offer simpler and more efficient designs but have higher stress at the angled joints. Elliptical shapes appear to be  a  good compromise between the spherical and polygon shapes. The elliptical shapes in our stations and components produce cumbersome mass and inertia equations.

The ellipsoid shell can be modeled with two concentric ellipsoids. We design a uniform thickness shell. Figure 5-2 illustrates this using two concentric ellipsoids. As shown, the inner and outer ellipsoids produce a  shell of nearly uniform thickness for the space station designs.

Figure 5-3 shows the volume of the shell between two concentric ellipsoids using four models. Two models use the uniform thickness model shown in Figure 5-2. The other two models scale all the ellipsoid dimensions. This approach has historically been used to simplify analytic analysis [Tatum 2017] [Routh 1877]. One clear result is that the scaled axes volume version is significantly greater than the other estimates.  To  address  this  variation,  it  is  wise  to  follow  the advice  of  Tatum  regarding  ellipsoids: 'At  first  this  looks easy, but I do not think you can do it in terms of elementary functions. No problem, then - just integrate it numerically.' [Tatum 2017].

Two of the models in Figure 5-3 represent the results from such a numeric approach. That approach divides the ellipsoid shell into many thin disks around the rotation axis. The shell totals are found by summing the mass and moments of inertia of those disks. Figure 5-3 provides the results from the two analytic  and  two  numeric  approaches.  The  volumes  are  a function of the ellipsoid radii a, b, and c. The x-axis shows the rotation radius, a, ranging from 100 to 1 million meters. The radii b and c are equal, and c=3a. The y-axis shows a normalized volume and ranges from 0.8 to 2.0. The volume results are normalized to the disk summation model. The disk summation  results  matched  the  corresponding  thick  shell equation results of Table 5-2. We also found that the disk summation matched the results of the thin shell equation.

The  numeric  and  analytic  analysis  results  matched  for  a broad  set  of  ellipsoid  and  shell  dimensions  within  99.9%. The  station  shell  will  typically  be  created  with  20-meter straight trusses and flat panels. It may be more realistic and

Ellipsoid with Uniform Thickness

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-4d221c33-6f31-4517-bedb-b8999d3bfbaa.jpg)

Figure 5-2 -Ellipsoid Shell Analysis

Figure 5-3 -Ellipsoid Shell Volume Results

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-ddfd6991-7150-4623-bd23-7a9df92c46a4.jpg)

accurate  to  use  these  disk  elements  and  create  a  polygon shape to fit to the ellipsoid shell.

## 5.3 Dumbbell Modeling Details

In a torus geometry space station, the floor curves inside the rotating  tube.  Visually,  an  inhabitant  would  see  the  floor curving upwards like inside a valley. The floor would be flat across  the  valley.  Cylinders  and  ellipsoids  also  have  this same floor characteristics of being flat in one direction and curved  (upwards)  in  the  rotation  direction.  In  those  three geometries,  the  floor  curvature  would  be  constructed  to match the geometry curvature. A curved floor in the rotation direction  has  the  advantage  that  the  centripetal  gravity  is consistently directed perpendicular to the curve. The curved floor would feel flat to an inhabitant walking on the rotating curved floor.

The floor inside a dumbbell only extends across the node. The edges of the curved floor would be bound by the node shell. A flat floor is easier to analyze than a curved floor. It could  be  easier  to  construct  in small  dumbbell  nodes. Unfortunately, one would experience a lean when walking on the rotating flat disk. Technically speaking, ' The nonaligned Coriolis component skews the total apparent gravity and alters the apparent slope of surfaces.' [Hall 1999] .

Newton's laws can be transformed into a rotating frame of reference [Hand and Finch 1998]. Those laws of motion take this form to model a rotating body:

.

𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒

| 𝑭 ⏟ 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠   | = 𝑚𝒂 ⏟ 𝑀𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒   | + 𝑚 𝑑𝝎 𝑑𝑡 ×𝒓+2𝑚𝝎×𝒗+𝑚𝝎×(𝝎×𝒓) ⏟ ⏟ ⏟ .   |
|-----------------------|-----------------------|---------------------------------------|
| 𝑭 ⏟ 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠   | = 𝑚𝒂 ⏟ 𝑀𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒   |                                       |

This equation is used to evaluate the floors in the dumbbell. More details  on  this  equation,  centripetal  gravity,  and  the Coriolis effect are provided in [Jensen 2023]. Flat floors are used  for  most  of  our  dumbbell  analysis.  The  following subsections offer a brief comparison of the flat and curved floors.

## 5.3.1 Flat Floors

Figure 5-4 illustrates flat floors in a rotating dumbbell node. The  second  node  would  be  mirrored  across  the  center  of rotation, but it is not shown. Because the floor is rotating, the centripetal gravity acceleration is proportional to the distance to the center of rotation. Different locations on the flat floor would have different centripetal gravity. As one moves away from  the  center  of  the  node  in  the  rotation  direction,  the distance to the center increases. With  the  increase in distance, the centripetal gravity increases. The distance also increases  with  deeper  floors  in  the  station.  The  increasing distance is computed using Pythagorian's formula. It uses the station radius and the position on the floor √(𝑅 + 𝑑) 2 +𝑓 2 where f is the distance from the center in the Y-axis direction and d is the depth below the top floor.

The three charts in Figure 5-5 illustrate the perceived effects from  this  changing  centripetal  gravity.  Two  of  the  charts show  the  perceived  gravity  and  slope  at  the  edges  of  the rotating flat floor. The third shows the perceived gravity as one traverses the floor. These include data from walking on the floor in the spinward and antispinward directions.

The x-axes in two of the charts show the station radius. This is the distance to the center floor in the sphere or ellipsoid. The  node  in  the  rotation  direction  has  a  width  of  R/6.33 (same as the sphere radius). The radius ranges from 10 to 100,000 meters on a logarithmic scale. The y-axis in the top chart  shows  the  perceived  gravity  ranging  from  0  to  14 meters per second squared.  The y-axis in the middle chart shows  the  gravity  range  from  9  to  12  meters  per  second squared. The y-axis in the bottom chart shows the perceived slope of the floor ranging from 0 to 12 degrees. All the charts show a color-coded set of data for stationary or walking at 1 meter per second in the spinward or antispinward direction.

Figure 5-5a shows there will be a noticeable effect on the gravity  in  small  stations.  At  a  radius  of  1000  meters,  this effect  becomes  negligible,  where  the  gravity  ranges  from

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-0a78f643-cc02-4e54-9fca-cbca1ce77c84.jpg)

9.73 to 10.12 meters per second squared (0.99g to 1.03g) in the antispinward and spinward direction.

Figure  5-5b  shows  the  perceived  gravity  increases  when walking in the rotation direction from the center to the edge of the floor. The data in this chart uses R equal to 200 meters,

a) Perceived Gravity at Edge of Dumbbell Flat Floor

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-176c844e-b087-4a4b-96b6-5fb6f430453a.jpg)

## ra ity  er ei ed    ra er i    lat  l  r R 200m  R  .  a    a  R tati   C   ter Cl    i e

b) Perceived Gravity Across Flat Floor in Dumbbell

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-1c627622-296b-4b24-af7e-2f468461a0de.jpg)

c) Perceived Slope at Edge of Flat Floor in Dumbbell

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-ec69c1a1-a1a5-4a23-98ec-bf518f299ece.jpg)

Figure 5-5 -Perceived Acceleration and Slope with Flat Floor Rotating About Center of Station

and the floor position ranges from 0 to 31.6 meters. In small stations, there will be  a more  noticeable increase (or decrease) in gravity as one reverses direction on the flat floor. In this 200-meter case, the gravity will change from 0.97g to 1.06g.

One  would  also  perceive  a  sloped  surface  standing  at  the outer edge of the rotating node's flat floor. Figure 5-5c shows a  slope  chart.  The  slope  changes  are  opposite  to  those covered  in  the  gravity  charts.  Walking  in  the  spinward direction decreases the perceived slope. The  increased effective  radius  reduces  the  perceived  slope  [Hall  1991]. Walking in the antispinward direction causes the perceived slope to increase.

The dumbbell results are above and below a stationary slope of  about  17%  or  9.6  degrees.  This  slope  would  exceed specifications  for  terrestrial  ramps.  The  ADA  and  ANSI impose  a  maximum  2%  slope  for  in-door  maneuvering clearances, accessible parking stalls, and other spaces. They recommend that a path can have up to 5% slope before it requires  handrails.  The  2010  ADA  cross-slope  limit  was 2.1%  [Tessmer  2014].  A  thorough  analysis  of  footway crossfall gradients  for wheelchair  accessibility found  a guideline  of  2.5%  to  be  reasonable  [Holloway  2011].  Flat floors need to be designed carefully to avoid slope issues.

The charts show that rotating floors on stations larger than 1000  meters  in  radius  exhibit  little  difference  between walking in the spinward and antispinward directions. Designing for acceptable gravity will not be as constraining as  designing  for  an acceptable  slope  for these  rotating  flat floors. Designs will need proportionately much smaller floor lengths to reduce the slope at the edge of the floor. A curved floor  or  multiple  narrow  flat  floors  are  two  approaches  to address this slope issue.

## 5.3.2 Curved Floors

An alternative  to  the  flat  dumbbell  floor  is  to  construct  a curved floor. Figure 5-6 shows an example of the single floor in the rotating dumbbell. The figure shows a single curved floor as a dark grey line in one of the nodes. The floor would be a curve that is equidistance to the center. This is perhaps the most complex floor surface for our surface area analysis. The floor is cylindrical about the rotation axis and is cut from the spherical or ellipsoidal node. A three-dimensional view of the floor is shown to assist the visualization of this floor. This illustration shows the surface area shape of the circle cut from a cylinder. The vertical height is exaggerated with the chart scales. This particular floor is located at radius, R, and depth, d, in the node.

The floor curved radius is dependent primarily on the radius of the tether, R. The floor length varies with distance from dumbbell center of rotation. As the rotation radius becomes large, the floor approaches a flat surface. Viewed from this side view in Figure 5-6, with an increasing radius, the floor would appear like a circle arc, a curved line, and a nearly flat line.

Figure 5-6 -Curved Dumbbell Floor

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-ef31e88c-5632-496f-8c49-0f8c07b4a3a3.jpg)

## 5.3.3 Multiple Curved Floors

Figure 5-7 shows an example of the half-volume flooring in the dumbbell module. The curved floors are dark grey lines. The top floor is located at the center of the spherical module of  the  dumbbell.  The  spherical  modules  rotate  about  the center  of  the  dumbbell  station.  The  floors  are  circular  (or elliptical)  within  the  dumbbell  node  when  viewed  from above along the tether a-axis. The floors are circular around the dumbbell rotation c-axis. The floors are flat when viewed from the third b-axis. The cylindrical floors would eliminate most of the flat floor slope and gravity problems. Instead of a curved floor, trusses and panels could follow the circle as a polygon and provide similar results.

The top floor is positioned near the center of the dumbbell node. This provides openness for the station population. The top floor would typically be used for open space, public use, and recreation. The floor lines illustrated in  Figure 5-7 are mirrored  in  the  other  dumbbell  module.  The  floor  area changes with the depth in the cylinder. Floors reside from the center of the spherical module to the outer perimeter. There will be approximately fn= r / fd floors in each node, where r is  the  radius  of  the  dumbbell  node  and  fd  is  the  distance between floors. The areas of flat disks and curved disks are close enough for a first analysis and a rough engineering estimate.

Half Filled with Floors - Side View from X-axis

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-863ce2c5-ee6d-4223-906b-b55cc5c08f9f.jpg)

Figure 5-7 -Dumbbell -Area -Multiple Floors

## 5.4 Stability and MOI Equations

A goal of this paper is to evaluate the rotational stability of all our space station geometries. To provide rotational stability, the desired axis of rotation should have an angular moment of inertia (MOI) at least 1.2 times greater than any other axis [Brown 2002]. Each of the station geometries will produce different MOI equations. Table 5-2 includes the MOI equations for various geometry shapes expected in the space station geometries. The MOI of the station is the sum of the MOIs for each of the component geometries in the station. The table includes equations for solid, thin-shell, and thickshell geometries. The axes in Figure 2-1 define the x-, y-, and z-axes  in  Table  2-3.  These  equations  come  from  multiple sources such as  [Myers 1962] [Young and Budynas 2001] [Diaz, Herrera, and Martinez 2005] and [Globus et al. 2007]. We could not find sources for some elliptical geometry equations, so we derived our own using the difference between solid concentric ellipsoids. Table 5-2 identifies self-derived equations with asterisks.

The parallel axis theorem is also used to compute the MOIs with solids of revolution. This is calculated using a body of mass m with an MOI Im computed from rotating about an axis z passing through the body's center of mass. When the body rotates about a parallel axis z′, which is displaced by a distance d, the new MOI adds the body mass times the distance  squared to the  original  MOI.  As an equation,  this  is

Table 5-2 -Moment of Inertia (MOI) Equations for Various Geometries

| Geometry                                                  | MOI for Solid Geometry                                                    | MOI for Thin Shell Geometry                                               | MOI for Uniform Thick Shell Geometry                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Cylinder Height: h/z Radius: r/xy                         | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚𝑟 2 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3𝑟 2 +ℎ 2 )                             | 𝐼 𝑧 = 𝑚𝑟 2 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(6𝑟 2 +ℎ 2 )                                 | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟 𝑖 2 ) 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟 𝑖 2 ) +ℎ 2 )                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| Ellipsoid * Axes:a/x, b/y, c/z                            | 𝐼 𝑥 = 1 5 𝑚(𝑏 2 +𝑐 2 ) 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 5 𝑚(𝑎 2 +𝑐 2 ) 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 5 𝑚(𝑎 2 +𝑏 2 )      | 𝐼 𝑥 = 1 3 𝑚(𝑏 2 +𝑐 2 ) 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 3 𝑚(𝑎 2 +𝑐 2 ) 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 3 𝑚(𝑎 2 +𝑏 2 )      | 𝐼 𝑥 = 1 5 𝑚 (𝑎 𝑜 𝑏 𝑜 𝑐 𝑜 )(𝑏 𝑜 2 +𝑐 𝑜 2 ) - (𝑎 𝑖 𝑏 𝑖 𝑐 𝑖 )(𝑏 𝑖 2 +𝑐 𝑖 2 ) 𝑎 𝑜 𝑏 𝑜 𝑐 𝑜 - 𝑎 𝑖 𝑏 𝑖 𝑐 𝑖 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 5 m (𝑎 𝑜 𝑏 𝑜 𝑐 𝑜 )(𝑎 𝑜 2 +𝑐 𝑜 2 ) -(𝑎 𝑖 𝑏 𝑖 𝑐 𝑖 )(𝑎 𝑖 2 +𝑐 𝑖 2 ) 𝑎 𝑜 𝑏 𝑜 𝑐 𝑜 -𝑎 𝑖 𝑏 𝑖 𝑐 𝑖 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 5 𝑚 (𝑎 𝑜 𝑏 𝑜 𝑐 𝑜 )(𝑎 𝑜 2 + 𝑏 𝑜 2 ) -(𝑎 𝑖 𝑏 𝑖 𝑐 𝑖 )(𝑎 𝑖 2 +𝑏 𝑖 2 ) 𝑎 𝑜 𝑏 𝑜 𝑐 𝑜 -𝑎 𝑖 𝑏 𝑖 𝑐 𝑖 |
| Oblate Ellipsoid * Polar Axis: c/z Other Axes: a/x=b/y    | 𝐼 𝑧 = 2 5 𝑚𝑎 2 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 5 𝑚(𝑎 2 + 𝑐 2 )                              | 𝐼 𝑧 = 2 3 𝑚𝑎 2 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 3 𝑚(𝑎 2 + 𝑐 2 )                              | 𝐼 𝑧 = 2 5 𝑚 𝑐 𝑜 𝑎 𝑜 4 -𝑐 𝑖 𝑎 𝑖 4 𝑐 𝑜 𝑎 𝑜 2 -𝑐 𝑖 𝑎 𝑖 2 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 5 𝑚 (𝑐 𝑜 𝑎 𝑜 2 )(𝑐 𝑜 2 + 𝑎 𝑜 2 ) - (𝑐 𝑖 𝑎 𝑖 2 )(𝑐 𝑖 2 +𝑎 𝑖 2 ) 𝑐 𝑜 𝑎 𝑜 2 - 𝑐 𝑖 𝑎 𝑖 2                                                                                                                                                 |
| Sphere Radius: r/xyz                                      | 𝐼 = 2 5 𝑚𝑟 2                                                              | 𝐼 = 2 3 𝑚𝑟 2                                                              | 𝐼 = 2 5 𝑚((𝑟 𝑜 5 -𝑟 𝑖 5 )⁄(𝑟 𝑜 3 -𝑟 𝑖 3 ))                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| Torus Major Axis: R/xy Minor Axis: r/xy                   | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 4 𝑚(4𝑅 2 + 3𝑟 2 ) 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 8 𝑚(4𝑅 2 +5𝑟 2 )                  | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚 (2𝑅 2 + 3𝑟 2 ) 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 4 𝑚(2𝑅 2 + 5𝑟 2 )                | 𝐼 𝑧 = 𝑚(𝑅 2 + 3 4 (𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟 𝑖 2 )) 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 8 𝑚(4𝑅 2 +5(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟 𝑖 2 ))                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
| Elliptical Torus * Major Axis: R/xy Minor Axes: a/xy, c/z | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 4 𝑚 (4𝑅 2 + 3𝑎 2 ) 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 8 𝑚(4𝑅 2 +3𝑎 2 + 2𝑐 2 )          | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚 (2𝑅 2 + 3𝑎 2 ) 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 4 𝑚(2𝑅 2 + 3𝑎 2 +2𝑐 2 )          | 𝐼 𝑧 = 𝑚(𝑅 2 + 3 4 ( 𝑎 𝑜 3 𝑐 𝑜 -𝑎 𝑖 3 𝑐 𝑖 𝑎 𝑜 𝑐 𝑜 -𝑎 𝑖 𝑐 𝑖 )) 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 8 𝑚(4𝑅 2 +3 𝑎 𝑜 3 𝑐 𝑜 -𝑎 𝑖 3 𝑐 𝑖 𝑎 𝑜 𝑐 𝑜 -𝑎 𝑖 𝑐 𝑖 +2 𝑐 𝑜 3 𝑎 𝑜 -𝑐 𝑖 3 𝑎 𝑖 𝑎 𝑜 𝑐 𝑜 -𝑎 𝑖 𝑐 𝑖 )                                                                                                                                  |
| Rod Length: L/z Radius: r/xy                              | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚𝑟 2 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚𝐿 2                                      | 𝐼 𝑧 = 𝑚𝑟 2 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚𝐿 2                                          | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 0 2 +𝑟 𝑖 2 ) 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚𝐿 2                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| Disk Height: h/z Radius: r/xy                             | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚𝑟 2 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3𝑟 2 +ℎ 2 )                             | 𝐼 𝑧 = 𝑚𝑟 2 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 2 𝑚𝑟 2                                           | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟 𝑖 2 ) 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟 𝑖 2 ) +ℎ 2 )                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| Elliptical Disk * Height: h/z Radius: a/x, b/y            | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 4 𝑚(𝑎 2 +𝑏 2 ) 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3𝑎 2 + ℎ 2 ) 𝐼 𝑥 = 1 12 𝑚(3𝑏 2 +ℎ 2 ) | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑎 2 +𝑏 2 ) 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(6𝑎 2 + ℎ 2 ) 𝐼 𝑥 = 1 12 𝑚(6𝑏 2 +ℎ 2 ) | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 4 𝑚(𝑎 𝑜 2 +𝑎 𝑖 2 +𝑏 𝑜 2 + 𝑏 𝑖 2 ) 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑎 𝑜 2 + 𝑎 𝑖 2 ) +ℎ 2 ) 𝐼 𝑥 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑏 𝑜 2 + 𝑏 𝑖 2 ) +ℎ 2 )                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| Cuboid Axes:a/x, b/y, c/z                                 | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 12 𝑚(𝑎 2 +𝑏 2 ) 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(𝑎 2 +𝑐 2 ) 𝐼 𝑥 = 1 12 𝑚(𝑏 2 +𝑐 2 )   | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 12 𝑚(𝑎 2 +𝑏 2 ) 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(𝑎 2 +𝑐 2 ) 𝐼 𝑥 = 1 12 𝑚(𝑏 2 +𝑐 2 )   | 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 12 𝑚(𝑎 2 +𝑏 2 )(1 -𝑆 5 ) 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(𝑎 2 +𝑐 2 )(1 - 𝑆 5 ) 𝐼 𝑥 = 1 12 𝑚(𝑏 2 +𝑐 2 )(1 - 𝑆 5 )                                                                                                                                                                                                     |

Geometries rotate about the z-axis; Inner dimensions are labeled with subscript 'i'. Outer dimensions are labeled with subscript ' o '. Outer dimension -Inner dimension = ' ' t (thickness) ; Scale sides using InnerDimension /OuterDimension = 'S'. Height of object = 'h' Asterisks identify geometries with self-derived inertia equations.

I mnew=Im + m d 2 . Details and derivations of this theorem are found in [Baker and Haynes 2024].

It is usually possible to create a closed-form equation for the station stability for a single-floor geometry with the thin shell (or  thick  shell)  equations.  For  multiple-floor  designs  with varying densities, one can often replace the mass m in the equations and use a density ρ (using the  relationship mass equals density time volume). This often simplifies the effort to  analytically  combine  the multiple  inertias  of  the  station components.

The multiple MOI equations can be used to compute the stability of the geometries with various radius and floor designs. Unlike the single-floor designs, creating closed-form equations  for  stability  became  impossible  (at  least  tedious).  In those cases,  the  geometries  of  some  components  were  divided into many small pieces with well-defined masses and MOIs. The masses and moments of inertia were summed for all the pieces. Most often thin disks rotating about the z-axis were used for this effort. This would be a numerical Riemann sum of small parts of the component. The Newton Raphson numeric algorithm method (goal seek in Excel) was used to solve the stability equations with the many components and produce a rotationally stable station. The disk summation results matched the self-derived equation results in Table 5-2 (better than 99.9%).

## 6 Single Floor Rotational Stability

The station rotates  to  produce  an  Earthlike  gravity for  the residents. This is important for human long-term health. Perturbations will cause rotating systems in space to eventually rotate about the axis with the greatest angular moment of inertia [Globus et al. 2007]. There is the risk that the changing axis of rotation would cause the station to catastrophically fail and tumble end-over-end. Globus and his co-authors designed a cylinder station that would not have this risk [Globus et al. 2007]. They designed the axis of rotation to be 1.2 times  greater  than  the  other  rotation  axes  [Brown  2002]. They  analytically  derived  the  geometry  ratio  of  cylinder length-to-radius to produce this stable station.

This section extends the Global cylinder analysis approach [Globus et al. 2007]. It uses the refined set of station geometries; see Figure 2-1. This section analyzes the stations with thin and thick shells. Like the Globus analysis, this section's analysis only considers the outer shell of the geometries.

## 6.1 Assumptions

The station is assumed to have a habitable gravity range. On the cylinder geometry, the single floor is on the outer shell and has a gravity of 1.0g. The other geometries are curved on all three axes and the single floor ranges from 0.95g to 1.05g.  This  limits  the  usable  distance  up  the  curved  outer shell. As an example, to support that gravity range the habitable region height of the ellipsoid has a height of the rotating radius over 10.5; see §3.1 Gravity Limits.

The goal of this analysis is to determine the geometry dimensions  to  provide  passive  rotational  stability.  Again,  the desired axis of rotation should be 1.2 times greater than the other rotation axes [Brown 2002]. To compute the stable designs, the Moments of Inertia (MOI) equations from Table 5-2 are used for the analytic analysis. For consistency, the axis of rotation is labeled the Z-axis. The moment of inertia about that preferred axis of rotation is labeled Iz. For the cylinder, sphere, and ellipsoid station geometries, the MOIs of the other two axes are equal. The station is designed so the other two axes have smaller MOIs than the z-axis. In the upcoming dumbbell subsection, the MOI of the rotation axis Iz is the same as Iy. Even though Ix and Iy are not equal, this matching Iz and Iy MOIs introduces a passive stability problem in the dumbbell subsection.

## 6.2 Stability of Cylinder

Al Globus and his team evaluated the stability of the cylinder space station geometry [Globus et al. 2007]. They identified stability  issues  with  long,  narrow,  rotating  cylinders.  This section presents the Globus approach and then extends that approach to a thick shell cylinder. Given his results, a stable cylinder is short and squatty (hatbox) and has a rotation radius  (R)  larger  than  the  height  (h);  see  Figure  6-1.  A  line drawing of the cylinder is in Figure 2-1. The moment of inertia (MOI) for the cylinder uses the mass (M), radius (R), and length (L).

The inertias for a thin-shelled cylinder using the axes and dimensions in Figure 6-1 are:

$$& \varkappa ^ { \cdot } \cdot \cdot \$$

The endcaps are offset by L/2, as shown in Figure 6-1. Their inertias are increased using the parallel axis theorem:

$$& \cdots \quad \varnothing \quad \kappa \cdots \quad \cdots \\ & I _ { z } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } M c a p \ R ^ { 2 } \\ & I _ { x } = I _ { y } = \frac { 1 } { 4 } M c a p \ R ^ { 2 } + \frac { 1 } { 4 } M c a p \ L ^ { 2 } \\ & \cdots \quad \cdots \quad \cdots \quad \cdots \quad \cdots$$

Globus  uses  thin  shell  inertia  equations  and  assumes  the disks and shell have the same thickness and density. For the thin shell cylinder, he combines the endcap and shell to find these MOI equations:

$$\Phi ^ { \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots } _ { I _ { z } } & = M s h e l l \, R ^ { 2 } \, \left ( 1 + \frac { R } { 2 L } \right ) \\ I _ { x } = I _ { y } = M s h e l l \, \left [ \frac { R ^ { 2 } } { 2 } + \frac { L ^ { 2 } } { 4 } + \frac { R ^ { 3 } } { 4 L } + \frac { R L } { 4 } \right ] \\. & \quad \dots \quad. & \quad. & \quad. & \quad. & \quad.$$

Using the stability rule of Iz &gt;= 1.2 Ix, the single floor thin shell cylinder stability is met when:

$$\dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \\ R ^ { 2 } + \frac { R ^ { 3 } } { 2 L } & \geq 1. 2 \, \left ( \frac { R ^ { 2 } } { 2 } + \frac { L ^ { 2 } } { 1 2 } + \frac { R ^ { 3 } } { 4 L } + \frac { R L } { 4 } \right ) \\ 4 R ^ { 2 } + \frac { 2 R ^ { 3 } } { L } - \, L ^ { 2 } - 3 R L & \geq 0 \\. \quad \varkappa \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \end{cases}$$

The  Newton-Raphson  method  determines  that  the  system would be stable when L is approximately 1.3R. This corroborates the result in [Globus et al. 2007].

The thin shell analysis is extended to evaluate a thick shell cylinder. This uses the axes and dimensions for the cylinder in Figure 6-1. The radius R is subscripted as Ro for the outer

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-f1ce3583-6fa8-4063-a2bd-242c8408069f.jpg)

radius and Ri for the inner radius. In this thick shell case, the inertias for the cylinder are:

$$\mu _ { \ } u \quad & \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ } \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \ \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \mu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ _ { \ } u \quad \nu \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \, \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nu _ { \ } u \quad \nolimits$$

$$l l \, \left ( \frac { 1 } { 4 } ( R _ { o } ^ { 2 } + R _ { i } ^ { 2 } ) + \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } L ^ { 2 } \right )$$

The inertias for the endcaps, as shown in Figure 6-1, are:

$$\dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \delta$$

Using the average distance (Lo+Li)/2 instead of L in these thick shell inertia equations would be more accurate. When Ro=Ri=R, the equations match the thin shell moment of inertia equations for the cylinder and disks. Combining the cylinder shell and the two disk endcaps:

$$\mu _ { 2 } ^ { \mu } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } M s h e l l \left ( R _ { o } ^ { 2 } + R _ { l } ^ { 2 } \right ) + \, 2 \, \left [ \frac { 1 } { 2 } M c a p \, R _ { o } ^ { 2 } \right ] \, & \\ I _ { x } = I _ { y } = M s h e l l \left ( \frac { 1 } { 4 } \left ( R _ { o } ^ { 2 } + R _ { l } ^ { 2 } \right ) + \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } L ^ { 2 } \right ) + 2 \left [ \frac { 1 } { 4 } M c a p \, R _ { o } ^ { 2 } + M c a p \left ( \frac { L } { 2 } \right ) ^ { 2 } \right ]$$

Assuming the endcaps  and  shell  have  the  same  thickness, volumes and equal densities are used to find the relationship between their masses:

$$M _ { c a p } = M _ { s h e l l } \, \frac { R _ { o } ^ { 2 } } { L \left ( R _ { o } + R _ { i } \, \right ) }$$

Combining these equations, the moments of inertias for the thick shell cylinder station become:

$$\text{use some some} \, \text{com}. \\ I _ { z } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } M s h e l l \, \left ( R _ { o } ^ { 2 } + R _ { i } ^ { 2 } + \, 2 \frac { R _ { o } ^ { 4 } } { L \left ( R _ { o } + R _ { i } \right ) } \right ) \\ I _ { x } = I _ { y } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } M s h e l l \, \left [ \left ( 3 ( R _ { o } ^ { 2 } + R _ { i } ^ { 2 } ) + L ^ { 2 } \right ) + 6 \, \frac { R _ { o } ^ { 2 } } { L \left ( R _ { o } + R _ { i } \right ) } \, ( R _ { o } ^ { 2 } + L ^ { 2 } ) \right ] \\ \vdots \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \end{array}$$

Evaluating as Ro and Ri approach R, the thick shell equations match the original thin shell MOI equations. The thick shell stability uses Iz &gt;= 1.2 Ix:

$$\text{samy uses } \lambda \sim \lambda. \\ \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( R _ { o } ^ { 2 } + R _ { i } ^ { 2 } \right ) + \frac { R _ { o } ^ { 4 } } { L \left ( R _ { o } + R _ { i } \right ) } \geq \\ 1. 2 \left [ \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } \left ( 3 ( R _ { o } ^ { 2 } + R _ { i } ^ { 2 } ) + L ^ { 2 } \right ) + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \, \frac { R _ { o } ^ { 2 } } { L \left ( R _ { o } + R _ { i } \right ) } \, ( R _ { o } ^ { 2 } + L ^ { 2 } ) \right ]$$

$$2 \left ( R _ { o } ^ { 2 } + R _ { i } ^ { 2 } \right ) + 4 \, \frac { R _ { o } ^ { 4 } } { L \left ( R _ { o } + R _ { i } \right ) } - L ^ { 2 } \, - \, 6 \, \frac { L \, R _ { o } ^ { 2 } } { \left ( R _ { o } ^ { \square } + R _ { i } ^ { \square } \right ) } \geq 0$$

With a thin shell and Ro and Ri approaching R, the thick shell stability equation reduces to:

$$4 \, R ^ { 2 } + \frac { 2 \, R ^ { 3 } } { L } - L ^ { 2 } \, - \, 3 \, L R \, \geq 0 \\. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad \cdots$$

This matches the previous thin shell stability equation. Globus found for cylinders with thin shells and endcaps that Iz ≥1.2 Ix when L≤1.3R [Globus et al. 2007]. For thick shells and endcaps, Iz≥1.2 Ix consistently when  L≤1.29R over a wide range of radii and wall thicknesses. The length-to-radius  ratio  increased  slightly  with  very  thick  shells.  The graphs  in  Figure  6-2  show  this  geometry  increase.  The graphs show the length-to-radius ratio (L/R) along the y-axis. All  cylinders  are  designed  to  be  rotationally  stable  with Iz/Ix≥1.2. The charts show differences between the thick and thin shells. The y-axis only ranges from 1.2 to 1.45. This geometry ratio is used to control the stability of the cylinder. Both charts in Figure 6-2 show an L/R of about 1.29 for most of their data.

Figure 6-2 -Thick Shell Stability Detail

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-3b58d312-0e0d-44f3-8021-788dcd853f33.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-d1c6fcc9-f6bf-42bf-8020-d08bf08aa0f6.jpg)

The x-axis in Figure 6-2a shows the cylinder radius ranging from 100 to 300,000 meters. The shell thickness is a constant 20 meters for the range of cylinder radii. The shell becomes more proportionately thick for the small radii. The geometry ratio  L/R  increases  from  1.29  to  1.42  as  the  radii  become small in Figure 6-2a.

The  x-axis  in  Figure  6-2b  shows  a  normalized  thickness scaled with the radius. Shells with thicknesses up to 1% of the radius require a length-to-radius ratio (L/R) of 1.29, like the thin shell geometry ratio. Shells with thicknesses greater than  1% of the radius support longer-length cylinder sides and remain rotationally stable. A shell with a thickness of 10% of the radius permits a ratio of L up to 1.35R.

## 6.3 Stability of Sphere and Ellipsoid

This section applies the cylinder stability analysis to an ellipsoid-shaped rotating space station. As noted in the Kalpana paper references, a spherical space station would not be rotationally stable [Globus et al. 2007]. The moments of inertia for an ellipsoid instead of the sphere are used to provide passive control. This single-floor section considers just the ellipsoid shell. The two rotation axes are kept the same length to provide double symmetry. This supports stable spinning and the production of centripetal gravity.

As an initial investigation, assume the ellipsoid wall thickness is much less than the radius. This can be modeled as a thin shell. An oblate ellipsoid has two major axes that are the rotation  radius  length  (a=b)  and  a  third  minor  axis  with  a length (c) that is shorter than the other two; see Figure 6-3. A line drawing of the ellipsoid is in Figure 2-1. The moments of inertia for the oblate ellipsoid use the mass (M) and the radii (a, b, and c). The ellipsoid rotates about the minor axis. The MOIs of the ellipsoid around its axes are:

$$\tilde { n } \cap \text{pop} \, \text{around} \, \text{as} \, \text{as}. \\ I _ { z } = \frac { 2 } { 3 } M s h e l l \, a ^ { 2 } \\ I _ { x } = I _ { y } = \frac { 1 } { 3 } M s h e l l \, ( a ^ { 2 } + c ^ { 2 } ) \\ I _ { z } > 1 \,? \, I v \text{ and this result} \, \text{in}.$$

To be stable, Iz ≥1.2 Ix, and this results in:

$$\frac { 2 } { 3 } M s h e l l \, a ^ { 2 } \geq 1. 2 \left ( \frac { 1 } { 3 } M s h e l l \, ( a ^ { 2 } + c ^ { 2 } ) \right )$$

$$a ^ { 2 } \geq 1. 5 \, c ^ { 2 } \, \text{or} \, a \geq 1. 2 2 5 \, c \, \text{or} \, c \leq 0. 8 1 6 5 \, a$$

The length of the minor axis c must be less than 0.8165 times the major axis (a or b) length. This shows that an ellipsoid can be stable. This also mathematically validates that a thin shell sphere would not be stable.

Table 5-2 contains the MOI equations for triaxial elliptical thick shells. The shell thickness is assumed to be a uniform thickness. Where essential and for validation, these inertia values were computed numerically with a Riemann sum of small parts of the uniform thickness shell. These MOI equations produce analytic results that are nearly identical (better than 99%) to the numeric summation results.

Figure 6-3 contains the dimensions and axes for our thick shell analysis. The polar axis c is shorter than the other radial axes a and b in that diagram. The MOIs of the oblate ellipsoid

Figure 6-3 -Ellipsoid Cross Section

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-02451c30-562a-487b-b4b0-b43817fb20de.jpg)

around the rotation axis (z-axis)  are  used.  The  radii  of  the other two axes and their inertias are equal (a=b). This results in:

$$\text{in} \colon & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & && & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \text{in} \colon & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &  & & & & & &  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &  & & & & & && & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &  & & & & & &
 & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &
 & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &  & & & & & & - & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ; & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &. & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & - & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &  & & & & & &. & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &
 & & & & & &  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &. & & & & & &. & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &. & & & & & &
 & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &. & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &. & & & & & & } & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &$$

Using these inertia equations for the ellipsoid to be rotationally stable, Iz ≥1.2 Ix, which results in:

$$6 { - 3 } \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \\ \text{$1$ the $x$ is} \, \begin{matrix} \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt{ \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots} \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \quad \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \sum \, \sqrt { \cdots } \, \frac { 1 } { 2 } } { 3 } } \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \ \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \ } \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \,
 \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \
 \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \
 \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \
 \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad
 \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \,
\quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \,

\, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad\, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad$$

Our  evaluation  used  a  broad  range  of  thicknesses  and  the Newton  Raphson  numeric  algorithm  method  (Excel  goal seek) and found that:

$$a _ { o } \geq 1. 2 9 \, c _ { o } \, \text{or} \, c _ { o } \leq 0. 7 7 5 a _ { o }$$

And as a reminder, for a thin shell ellipsoid:

$$a \geq 1. 2 2 5 \, c \, \text{or} \, c \leq 0. 8 1 6 5 \, a$$

The length of the polar axis c must be less than 0.8165 times the radial axis (a or b) length. This shows that the stability relationships of the thin shell and thick shell ellipsoids are similar. This also implies that a thick shell sphere would not be rotationally stable.

Analytically  the  solid  ellipsoid  formula  matches  the  thick shell results using inner dimensions of zero. Using:

$$I _ { a s h e l l } = \frac { 1 } { 5 } \overset { \kappa } { m } _ { s h e l l } \frac { ( c _ { o } a _ { o } ^ { 2 } ) ( c _ { o } ^ { 2 } + a _ { o } ^ { 2 } ) - \left ( c _ { i } a _ { i } ^ { 2 } \right ) \overset { \kappa } { \kappa } } { c _ { o } a _ { o } ^ { 2 } - c _ { i } a _ { i } ^ { 2 } }$$

With ai, bi, and ci equal to zero:

$$I _ { a s h e l l } = \hat { \frac { 1 } { 5 } } m _ { s h e l l } ( a _ { o } ^ { 2 } + c _ { o } ^ { 2 } ) = I _ { s o l i d s h e l l } \\.. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad.$$

A similar comparison to the thin shell equations is attempted by having the outer radii dimensions approach the inner radii dimensions:

$$I _ { a t h i n } = \frac { 1 } { 5 } m _ { s h e l l } \frac { ( c _ { o } a _ { o } ^ { 2 } ) ( c _ { o } ^ { 2 } + a _ { o } ^ { 2 } ) - ( c _ { i } a _ { i } ^ { 2 } ) ( c _ { i } ^ { 2 } + a _ { i } ^ { 2 } ) } { c _ { o } a _ { o } ^ { 2 } - c _ { i } a _ { i } ^ { 2 } }$$

This is zero over zero and this analysis likely needs to set the inner  dimensions  equal  to  the  outer  dimensions  less  the thickness as  the  thickness  approaches  zero.  We  attempted this  approach  analytically  and  computationally.  Those  approaches did not simplify to the thin shell oblate ellipsoid inertia equation results. This is one of the cases where such complexities are avoided by using numeric summations of small disks about the center of rotation to compute the station masses and MOIs. The stability was evaluated numerically using this  approach.  The evaluation  used  the  inertia  equations in this subsection and used goal-seeking to obtain the stability ratio. This supported comparing the scaled and uniform shell thickness and their effect on the cross-section ratio. Section 5.2 Ellipsoid Analysis introduced different ellipsoid models.  The chart in Figure 6-4 shows the difference between a thick shell that is scaled with the shell axes dimensions and a thick shell that is uniform over the entire shell. This  ellipsoid  difference  was  covered  analytically  in §5.1 Station Component Equations.

Figure 6-4 contains data from an ellipsoid station with a polar radius  (ci)  equal  to  2,000  meters.  The  x-axis  of  the  chart shows  the  shell  thickness  of  an  ellipsoid.  The  thickness ranges from 1 meter to 1,000 meters. The thickness affects the stability and the dimension of the longer radial axis (ai) is  adjusted  to  maintain  the  stability  (Iz=1.2Ix).  The  y-axis shows the ratio of the two axes (a/c). The evaluation of multiple-size  stations  produced  nearly  identical  results  in  this chart. For reference, a black dashed line on the chart shows the thin shell stability result of 1.225. The scaled shell ratio matches the thin shell result. Until the shell thickness on the uniform thickness is more than 5% of the station radius, there

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-5907bae0-3862-4238-b0be-0b58d3a77f42.jpg)

is  little change in its ratio. The radial length can be longer with a thicker shell. Thicker shells provide more material on the outer rim area of the ellipsoid and provide more inertial stability. The inertias of many small disks representing the uniform and the scaled thick ellipsoid shell were summed to compute the thick shell stability. The summed inertia of the disks matched the inertia equation results and helped validate the ellipsoid shell inertia equations.

## 6.4 Stability of Elliptical Torus

This  study  has  considered  tori  with  circular  and  elliptic cross-sections. The elliptic cross-section provides more habitable space than the circular cross-section. Figure 6-5 shows the elliptic cross-section. This subsection again applies the stability analysis to this station. A stable station is designed so the desired axis of rotation has an angular MOI at least 1.2 times greater than any other axis [Brown 2002].

## 6.4.1 Thin Shell

The initial investigation assumes the torus wall thickness is much less than the radius and can be modeled as a thin shell. A torus has a major axis R, and the elliptical cross-section has lengths (a) and (c); see Figure 6-5. A line drawing of the torus is in Figure 2-1. The moments of inertia for the torus use the mass (M) and the radii (R, a, and c). The elliptical torus rotates about the z-axis.

Using the moment of inertia equations from Table 5-2, the MOIs of the torus are:

$$I _ { z } & = m _ { s h e l l } \, ( 2 R ^ { 2 } + 3 a ^ { 2 } ) / 2 \\ I _ { x } & = I _ { y } & = m _ { s h e l l } \, ( 2 R ^ { 2 } + 3 a ^ { 2 } + 2 c ^ { 2 } ) / 4$$

These MOIs are used to compute the stability. To be stable, Iz ≥1.2 Ix and results in:

$$\underset { \substack { 1 \rfloor } } { \text{is} } \quad \frac { 1 } { 2 } m _ { s h e l l } \left ( 2 R ^ { 2 } + 3 a ^ { 2 } \right ) \geq 1. 2 \left ( \frac { 1 } { 4 } m _ { s h e l l } ( 2 R ^ { 2 } + 3 a ^ { 2 } + 2 c ^ { 2 } ) \right )$$

2𝑅 2 +3𝑎 2 ≥ 0.6 (2𝑅 2 +3𝑎 2 +2𝑐 2 )

Figure 6-5 -Elliptical Torus Cross  Section

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-cfe5483b-6cac-4781-9911-cbc254569703.jpg)

$$8 R ^ { 2 } & \geq 1 2 c ^ { 2 } - 1 2 a ^ { 2 } \\ R ^ { 2 } & \geq \frac { 3 } { 2 } ( c ^ { 2 } - a ^ { 2 } )$$

$$\geq \frac { \omega } { 2 }$$

The design of the elliptical torus station often uses c set to 2a or 3a. Using those assignments:

| With c=2a              | With c=3a              |
|------------------------|------------------------|
| 𝑅 2 ≥ 3 2 (4𝑎 2 -𝑎 2 ) | 𝑅 2 ≥ 3 2 (9𝑎 2 -𝑎 2 ) |
| 𝑅 2 ≥ 4.5 𝑎 2          | 𝑅 2 ≥ 12𝑎 2            |
| 𝑅 ≥ 2.12 𝑎             | 𝑅 ≥ 3.46 𝑎             |

Analytically solve for Iz/Ix:

$$\ m u y { \ m u y { \ s o v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v o v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e s t o v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v ev e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v ev o v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e vs e t o v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v o v o v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v o u v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v u e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e s e t o v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v ev e v o u v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v o u v e s e t o v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v u e v e v ev e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v ev e v e v ev e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e v e s t o v e v u b e t i v e t o v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t e v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t  i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e s t o v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v e t i v$$

When R=6.33a or 9.5a and c=2a or c=3a the stability Iz/Ix is greater than 1.2. As the c becomes larger, the stability degrades. When c=7.8a, the stability reaches 1.2 with R=9.5a. The stability is less than 1.2 with greater values of c. With R=9.5a  and  c=2a,  the  stability  Iz/Ix  equals  1.916.  With R=6.33a and c=2a, the stability Iz/Ix equals 1.824. In general, the thin shell is stable for our planned torus designs.

## 6.4.2 Thick Shell

Table 5-2 shows the moments of inertia for a thick shell elliptical torus along the minor rotation axis (Iz) and perpendicular major axes (Ix and Iy) are:

$$\text{una map} \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ b a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a s \, \iota \ a a a a s \, \iota \ a a a a s \, \iota \ a a a a s \, \iota \ a a a a s \, \iota \ a a a a s \, \iota \ a a a a s \, \iota \ a a a a s \, \iota \ a a a a s \, \iota \ a a a a s \, \iota \ a a a a s \, \iota \ a a a a s \, \iota \ a a a a s \, \iota \ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a b a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a c a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a$$

The torus's shell is defined with concentric ellipses, with ci scaled as 3ai. Adding the thickness t to the inner dimensions obtains ao=ai+t and co=ci+t. The  results of the thick shell ellipsoid  equations  were  validated  against  the  results  from summing the masses and MOIs of many small disks representing the uniform-thickness shell.

The 1.20 metric for rotational stability  rule  mandates 𝐼 𝑧 ≥ 1.2 𝐼 𝑥 . Explicitly evaluating the Iy MOI is unnecessary because it is equal to Ix. Given this stability rule, the thick shell elliptical torus would be stable when:

$$\begin{array} { l } \text{cause it is equal to $1$. Given this stability rule, the thick shell} \\ \text{ elliptical torus would be stable when:} \\ m _ { s h e l l } \left ( R ^ { 2 } + \frac { 3 } { 4 } \left ( \frac { a _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } c _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } \right ) \right ) \\ \geq 1. 2 \left ( \frac { 1 } { 8 } m _ { s h e l l } \left [ 4 R ^ { 2 } + 3 \frac { a _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } c _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } + 2 \frac { c _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } a _ { o } - c _ { i } ^ { 3 } a _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } \right ) \\ R ^ { 2 } - \frac { 1 2 } { 2 0 } R ^ { 2 } \geq \frac { 3 } { 2 0 } \left [ 3 \frac { a _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } c _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } + 2 \frac { c _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } a _ { o } - c _ { i } ^ { 3 } a _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } \right ] - \frac { 3 } { 4 } \left ( \frac { a _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } c _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } \right ) \\ \quad & 8 R ^ { 2 } \geq 6 \frac { c _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } a _ { o } - c _ { i } ^ { 3 } a _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } - 6 \left ( \frac { a _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } c _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } \right ) \\ R ^ { 2 } \geq \frac { 3 } { 4 } \left ( \frac { c _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } a _ { o } - c _ { i } ^ { 3 } a _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } - \frac { a _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } c _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } \right ) \end{array}$$

This study's elliptical torus designs often set ci to be 2ai or 3ai. A scaled, thick shell elliptical torus uses ci equal to 3ai and co to be 3ao. This elliptical torus would be stable when:

$$\i v e { \i a _ { o }. \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph  \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph { \emph \emph { \emph { \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \perp \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \begin \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \imph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph \emph
 \end{array} } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } ) } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } }, } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } { } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } _ } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } \ } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } & } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } ( } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } }. } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } ; } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } | } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } \\ } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } }; } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } \$$

Using a thin shell where ai is approximately equal to ao, the torus would be stable when:

$$R ^ { 2 } \geq 1 2 \, a _ { i } ^ { 2 } \, \text{and} \, R \geq 3. 4 6 \, a _ { i }$$

Which matches our thin shell result with c=3a.

Setting co equal to 2ao, the scaled thick shell elliptical torus would then be stable when:

$$\L \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdot & \cdot \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdot & \cdot \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdot & \cdot \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdot & \cdot \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdot & \cdot \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdot & \cdot \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdot & \cdot \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdot & \cdot \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdot & \cdot \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdot \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 1 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & - \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 2 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 3 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 5 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 6 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 7 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 8 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 9 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } \cdots & 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} {$$

Evaluating a thin shell where ai is approximately equal to ao, the torus would be stable when:

$$R ^ { 2 } \geq 4. 5 \, \alpha _ { i } ^ { 2 } \text{ and } R \geq 2. 1 2 \, \alpha _ { i }$$

Which matches the thin shell result for c=2a. These matches provide us with confidence in our analysis and equations.

Figure 6-6 includes more data on the elliptical torus stability and the torus geometry. The graph shows the stability (Iz/Ix) on the left axis and ranges from 0 to 2.5. The x-axis shows the ratio of the major radius over the minor radius. This ratio defines  the  gravity  range  in our  stations;  see §3.1 Gravity Limits . The chart includes the value of Iz/Ix=1.2 as a minimum stability value for reference. The graph includes stability values for the thin, scaled thick, and uniform thick shell models. It also includes the stability ratio using the

Figure 6-6 -Torus Geometry and Stability

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-d4857574-2db1-4f1b-bc24-3af9fada0b1e.jpg)

summation of many small disks. All three models become stable  as  the  major-to-minor  radius  ratio  becomes  greater than 4. The summation of the small disks matches the uniform thick shell model results.

## 6.4.3 Stability Equation

Table 5-2 provides the moments of inertia for a thick shell elliptical torus along the minor rotation axis (Iz) and perpendicular major axes (Ix and Iy) are:

$$\dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \ delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta\delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \dots \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \ delta \ delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \dia \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \Delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta
I _ { x } = I _ { y } = \frac { 1 } { 8 } m _ { s h e l l } \left ( \frac { 4 } { 2 } + \frac { 3 } { 4 } \left ( \frac { 4 } { 2 } + \frac { 3 } { 4 } \left ( \frac { 4 } { 2 } + \frac { 3 } { 4 } \left ( \frac { 4 } { 2 } + \frac { 3 } { 4 } \left ( \frac { 4 } { 2 } + \frac { 3 } { 4 } \left ( \frac { 4 } { 2 } + \frac { 3 } { 4 } \left ( \frac { 4 } { 2 } + \frac { 3 } { 4 } \right ) \right )$$

The stability ratio for the thick shell elliptical torus would be:

$$\frac { I _ { z } } { I _ { x } } = \frac { m _ { s h e l l } \left ( R ^ { 2 } + \frac { 3 } { 4 } \left ( \frac { a _ { o } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } c _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } \right ) \right ) } { \frac { 1 } { 8 } m _ { s h e l l } \left [ 4 R ^ { 2 } + 3 \frac { a _ { o } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } c _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } + 2 \frac { c _ { o } ^ { 3 } a _ { o } - c _ { i } ^ { 3 } a _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } \right ] } \\ \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$$

$$\frac { I _ { z } } { I _ { x } } = \frac { 8 R ^ { 2 } + 6 \left ( \frac { a _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } c _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } \right ) } { 4 R ^ { 2 } + 3 \frac { a _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } c _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } + 2 \frac { c _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } a _ { o } - c _ { i } ^ { 3 } a _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } }$$

$$\frac { I _ { z } } { I _ { x } } = 2 - \frac { 4 \left ( \frac { c _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } a _ { o } - c _ { i } ^ { 3 } a _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } \right ) } { 4 R ^ { 2 } + 3 \frac { a _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } c _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } + 2 \frac { c _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } a _ { o } - c _ { i } ^ { 3 } a _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } }$$

$$& \cdot \top \circ \frac { } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } \top \epsilon \frac { } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } ] \\ & \frac { 3 R ^ { 2 } + 6 \left ( \frac { a _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } c _ { i } } { i \frac { a _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } + 2 \frac { c _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } a _ { o } - c _ { i } ^ { 3 } a _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } \\ & \frac { 4 \left ( \frac { c _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } a _ { o } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } a _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } } - a _ { i } c _ { i } \right ) } { \vdash 3 \frac { a _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } c _ { i } } + 2 \frac { c _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } a _ { o } - c _ { i } ^ { 3 } a _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } \\ & \text{evaluate the stability of an e}$$

This equation is used to evaluate the stability of an elliptical torus for several specific examples. First, the analysis sets the major radius R equal to 9.5 times the minor radius a. The perpendicular minor radius c is 2 times the minor radius a. This uses a uniform thickness of t added to the minor inner radii to set the minor outer radii. Using Wolfram Alpha  to find the Iz/Ix ratio produces a Taylor series of:

$$\frac { I _ { z } } { I _ { x } } = 1. 9 3 0 0 7 - \frac { 0. 0 3 7 0 1 8 9 t } { a } - \frac { 0. 0 0 8 9 8 2 5 2 \, t ^ { 2 } } { a ^ { 2 } } - \frac { 0. 0 0 1 0 8 6 7 4 \, t ^ { 3 } } { a ^ { 3 } } - O ( t ^ { 4 } ) \quad \ \ ^ { \dagger } _ { i } ]$$

Next, the analysis sets the major radius R equal to 6.33 times the  minor  radius  a.  The  perpendicular  minor  radius  c  is  2 times the minor radius a. Again, a uniform thickness of t is added to the minor inner radii to set the minor outer radii. The Iz/Ix ratio produces a Taylor series of:

$$\frac { I _ { z } } { I _ { x } } = 1. 8 5 2 3 5 - \frac { 0. 0 7 2 0 4 1 9 t } { a } - \frac { 0. 0 1 4 0 8 7 7 \, t ^ { 2 } } { a ^ { 2 } } - \frac { 0. 0 0 3 6 4 1 1 9 \, t ^ { 3 } } { a ^ { 3 } } - O ( t ^ { 4 } )$$

As a third example, the analysis sets the major radius R equal to 9.5 times the minor radius a. The perpendicular minor radius c is 3 times the minor radius a. Again, a uniform thickness of t is added to the minor inner radii to set the minor outer radii. The Iz/Ix ratio produces a Taylor series of:

$$\frac { I _ { z } } { I _ { x } } = 1. 8 6 3 4 6 - \frac { 0. 0 5 0 5 4 6 5 t } { a } - \frac { 0. 0 0 7 0 1 9 7 9 \, t ^ { 2 } } { a ^ { 2 } } - \frac { 0. 0 0 1 1 9 8 3 1 \, t ^ { 3 } } { a ^ { 3 } } - O ( t ^ { 4 } )$$

These three example values match the stability values from the  summation  of  the  disks  comprising  the  uniform  shell. Figure  6-6  includes  the  third  Taylor  series  Iz/Ix  stability value of 1.863 at R/a equal to 9.5. Again, these matches provide confidence in the analysis and equations.

## 6.4.4 Thickness

Evaluating the stability for different thicknesses, t , provides an additional comparison. Consider the stability equation using the thickness when co=3ao. Using the previous thick shell stability equation result:

$$R ^ { 2 } > 6 ( a _ { o } ^ { 2 } + a _ { i } ^ { 2 } )$$

Setting ao=ai+t:

$$\cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, & R ^ { 2 } > 6 ( ( a _ { i } + t ) ^ { 2 } + a _ { i } ^ { 2 } ) \\ & R ^ { 2 } > 6 ( ( a _ { i } ^ { 2 } + 2 a _ { i } t + t ^ { 2 } ) + a _ { i } ^ { 2 } ) \\ & R ^ { 2 } > 1 2 a _ { i } ^ { 2 } + 1 2 a _ { i } t + 6 t ^ { 2 } \\ \cdot \, & \cdot \, \cdot \, & \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot$$

This shows the relationship of the major radius R as a function of the minor axis a. For two example thicknesses, there is only a small difference in the radii relationship:

| For t=a i /10                                                                                              | For t=a i /100                                                                                                        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 𝑅 2 > 12𝑎 𝑖 2 +12𝑎 𝑖 𝑎 𝑖 10 +6 𝑎 𝑖 2 100 𝑅 2 > 12𝑎 𝑖 2 +1.2 𝑎 𝑖 2 +0.06𝑎 𝑖 2 𝑅 2 > 13.26 𝑎 𝑖 2 𝑅 > 3.64𝑎 𝑖 | 𝑅 2 > 12𝑎 𝑖 2 + 12𝑎 𝑖 𝑎 𝑖 100 +6 𝑎 𝑖 2 10000 𝑅 2 > 12𝑎 𝑖 2 + 0.12 𝑎 𝑖 2 +0.0006𝑎 𝑖 2 𝑅 2 > 12.1206 𝑎 𝑖 2 𝑅 > 3.48 𝑎 𝑖 |

Figure 6-7 shows the effect of varying the shell thickness on the stability of the elliptical torus. The graph compares scaled and uniform shell thickness and their effect on the cross-section ratio. The scaled ellipsoid has more material close to the rotation axis; see Figure 5-2. The smaller MOI is appropriate because the MOI is proportional to mass times the distance squared. For reference, the chart includes the thin shell crosssection ratio to provide the Iz/Ix=1.2 stability ratio. The analysis of the scaled and uniform models uses the same equations from Table 5-2. The inner and outer axes are set appropriately to provide the scaled and uniform shell thickness.

## 6.4.5 Stability Overview

Table 6-1 provides an overview of the elliptical torus stability. This table includes results for three different shell models.  This  compares  the  stability  of  stations  using  the  thin shell, the scaled thick shell, and the uniform thick shell models. The table has a column for the shell model, the ratio of the  elliptical  cross-section  axes,  and  the  resulting  stability (Iz/Ix). A major radius of 2000 meters is used for these data.

Figure 6-7 -Torus Shell Thickness and Stability

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-f09d9135-c477-47f1-855f-1b22f430aba2.jpg)

| Table 6-1 - Stability for Different Shell Models   | Table 6-1 - Stability for Different Shell Models   | Table 6-1 - Stability for Different Shell Models   |
|----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Shell Model                                        | Elliptical Axes Ratio (ci/ai)                      | Stability (Iz/Ix=1.2)                              |
| Thin                                               | 7.82                                               | 1.20                                               |
| Scaled                                             | 7.82                                               | 1.15                                               |
| Scaled                                             | 7.46                                               | 1.20                                               |
| Uniform                                            | 7.82                                               | 1.45                                               |
| Uniform                                            | 10.15                                              | 1.20                                               |

The gravity ratio is ai=R/9.5. The thin shell model is stable (Iz/Ix=1.2)  when  the  elliptical  cross-section  ratio  (ci/ai)  is 7.82 or less. Using the same thin cross-section ratio (7.82) with the scaled thickness shell model, the stability reduces to 1.15. The scaled thickness model needs the elliptical axes ratio to be 7.46 or less to be stable. The table data also shows the uniform thickness shell model is stable when the elliptical cross-section  ratio  (ci/ai) is 10.15  or  less. The  stability improves  to  1.45  using  the  same  thin  cross-section  ratio (7.82)  with  the  uniform  thickness  shell  model.  This  table shows  that  the  uniform  thickness  elliptical  torus  becomes more rotationally stable with the thick shell. This is desirable because the station's elliptical cross-section dimensions can be increased to support larger populations. The scaled thickness  elliptical  torus  model  requires  smaller  elliptical  axes than  the  uniform  thickness  model  to  retain  the  same  rotational stability.

The torus designs are rotationally stable for the desired dimensions of elliptic cross-sections. Figure 6-8 shows two regions of stability and instability with the uniform thick shell elliptical torus. The y-axis along the right side of the chart represents the ratio of the major radius R over the minor radius a. The y-axis ratio ranges from 1 to 40. This R/a ratio typically defines the gravity range on the elliptical station. The x-axis across the bottom of the chart represents the c/a ratio of the elliptical radii. The minor radius a is coincident with the longer major axis R. The minor radius c is perpendicular to the major axis R. The x-axis ranges from 1 to 70.

The data in Figure 6-8 was produced with the major radius R equal to 2000 meters. As a test, the radius  was changed to values between 1000 and 20000 meters, and the chart was visually identical. Changing the large major radii appear to have minimal effect on the station stability. These tests were done with a 20-meter shell thickness. The stability was tested using 𝐼 𝑧 ≥ 1.2 𝐼 𝑥 as derived earlier in this subsection:

$$\mu _ { \mu } \quad & R ^ { 2 } > \frac { 3 } { 4 } \left ( \frac { c _ { o } ^ { 3 } a _ { o } - c _ { i } ^ { 3 } a _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } - \frac { a _ { o } ^ { 3 } c _ { o } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } c _ { i } } { a _ { o } c _ { o } - a _ { i } c _ { i } } \right )$$

The analysis used a uniform shell thickness. The outer a-axis and outer c-axis dimensions are the inner dimensions plus the thickness. The chart has four white lines and intersections. The two vertical lines are at c=2a and c=3a. Both are typical design ratios used for the elliptical cross-section of the torus designs. The two horizontal lines are at R=9.5a and R=6.33a. Both are typical ratios in our designs to define a habitable gravity range over our outer torus. Those four intersections on the chart represent four of our common station designs. Those four designs are well within the stable region.

Figure 6-8 -Elliptical Thick Shell Torus Stability

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-19eeadfe-9317-4d37-8cca-3327246021e4.jpg)

## 6.5 Stability of Dumbbell

This study has analyzed dumbbell geometries with spherical and ellipsoid nodes. Figure 6-9 shows the cross-section of a dumbbell  space  station  with  spherical  nodes.  The  stability analysis is again applied to this geometry. To be stable, the station design should have the desired axis of rotation with an angular moment of inertia at least 1.2 times greater than any other axis [Brown 2002]. The z-axis is defined as the preferred axis of rotation, and its MOI is Iz. With cylinder, sphere, and ellipsoid station geometries, the other two MOIs (Ix and Iy) are equal because of symmetry. Those geometries could be stable, with the other two axes having smaller MOIs than the z-axis. The Ix and Iy for the dumbbell are not equal and appear to introduce an unsolvable stability problem.

## 6.5.1 Are dumbbell stations rotationally stable?

There are many posts and papers on dumbbell or bolo geometry space stations. Such stations have been advocated since the 1920s. It is hard to believe they are not rotationally stable. To address this question, the stability rules presented at the beginning of this section are used.

Figure 6-10 previews the rotational stability of a  dumbbell with a diagram and equations for a simple dumbbell model. This representation shows two spheres connected with a very low-mass rod. The MOI about the z and y axes are equal for this model. The MOI about the x-axis is much smaller than the moment of inertia about the z-axis.

In the diagram, the station is rotating about the z-axis. According to the Fitzpatrick rule, the station should not be stable because the principal axis moment Iz is not distinct from the moments of the other two axes (Iz is equal to Iy). According to the stability rule, the station should not be stable because Iz is not greater than 1.2 times Iy (again, Iz is equal to Iy).

An advanced dynamics class, the University of Manchester also  offers  analysis  and  guidelines  for  rotational  stability.

1.2000-2.4

0.0000-1.2

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-e8de9c17-1e8d-4c28-837e-a88bd968f887.jpg)

Mike Birse writes ' For rotations about the other two principal axes, the frequency of small perturbations is zero. This implies that these rotations are marginally (un)stable: small perturbations do grow with time, but only linearly. ' [Birse 2000]. He also offers analysis on precession about the axis of symmetry [Birse 2000p]. Birse's analysis would support the result that the dumbbell space station is not rotationally stable but would only have small perturbations.

To validate the applicability of the [Fitzpatrick 2011] analysis guidelines to the dumbbell, we communicated with Dr. Fitzpatrick. In his response, he wrote: 'The dumbbell space station would appear to be rotationally unstable under the standard criterion because the principal moments of inertia about the y and z axes are the same, which means that there is no reason why the station should prefer to rotate about any particular axis perpendicular to the x axis. However, the instability with two equal moments of inertia is algebraic rather than exponential. Also, even if the rotation is unstable that only means that the rotation will settle into a limit cycle in which the rotational axis wobbles slightly.' [Fitzpatrick 2023].

These guidelines, analysis, and communication all lead to the conclusion that the dumbbell station is not rotationally stable. Its instability grows only linearly and would introduce a wobble into the station. This section continues to analyze the single dumbbell station, knowing this wobble could exist and cause issues for the residents.  A later  section  introduces  a simple extension to the dumbbell station to eliminate this instability and wobble.

## 6.5.2 Two Spherical Thin Shell Nodes

As an initial investigation the dumbbell is modeled with thin shell nodes. The shell thickness is much less than the radius of the station. A dumbbell has a major axis R, and spherical nodes  have  a  minor  radius  of  a.  A  line  drawing  of  the

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-35d0bff7-d1d7-42e3-a430-f0314893c92e.jpg)

spherical node dumbbell is in Figure 6-10. Prolate ellipsoid nodes have radial minor radius (a) and perpendicular radius (c). This first analysis ignores the tether mass and moment of inertia. The MOI for the dumbbell uses the mass (M) and the radii (R, a, and c). The dumbbell rotates about the z-axis. The MOIs about the z-axis and the y-axis are equal in our rotating framework analysis [Temples 2015]. Table 2 3 provides the moment of inertia equations.

This analysis uses the same approach used with the previous geometries. The station stability uses the MOI equations and the stability ratio 𝐼 𝑧 ≥ 1.2 𝐼 𝑥 . The analysis finds:

$$\text{use warnings } \alpha \, \iota _ { Z } \leq \iota _ { X }. \, \iota _ { X }. \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \quad \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \ iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \  \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \junit \, \text{$\frac{1} { 2 } } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \, \iota _ { X } \\ \text{The rotation station with two thin shell schemes would be $cta$} _ { \cdot }$$

The rotating station with two thin shell spheres would be stable when 𝑅 2 ≥ 0.4 3 𝑎 2 or 𝑅 ≥ 0.365 𝑎 . The radius R is typically much greater than the minor radius a. This would nearly always be true.  Unfortunately, Iz and Iy are equal for our simple model of the dumbbell system and would not meet the Brown stability criteria for Iz&gt;1.2Iy. This system also violates the Fitzpatrick's stability rule. This paper accepts that the dumbbell system would be unstable and assumes it would have a rotational wobble.

## 6.5.3 Two Spherical Thick Shell Nodes

More  complex  dumbbell  models  were  analyzed  with  the hope  of  finding  a  rotating  system  with  passive  stability across all three axes. Including the tether does not help the stability because the Iy and Iz remain equal.

Evaluating the thick shell spherical nodes found the inertias for two thick shell spherical nodes would be:

$$\psi \quad \text{$10$ two unique $sigma$ spent a moves would $\varepsilon$}. \\ \psi \quad \text{$1_{z}=2\left(\frac{2}{5}m_{sphERE}(\left(a_{0}^{5}-a_{i}^{5})\right)/\left(a_{0}^{3}-a_{i}^{3}\right))+m_{sphERE} R^{2}\right)$}. \\ \psi \quad \text{$1_{y}=2\left(\frac{2}{5}m_{sphERE}(\left(a_{0}^{5}-a_{i}^{5})\right)/\left(a_{0}^{3}-a_{i}^{3}\right))+m_{sphERE} R^{2}\right)$} \\ \psi \quad \text{$1_{x}=2\left(\frac{2}{5}m_{sphERE}(\left(a_{0}^{5}-a_{i}^{5})\right)/\left(a_{0}^{3}-a_{i}^{3}\right))\right)$} \\ \psi \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \ \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \text{$1$} \quad \end{cases}$$

Our  analysis  found  that  Iz&gt;=1.2Ix.  Unfortunately,  with  Iz equal to Iy, the thick shell spherical node system would still violate the Iz=1.2Iy stability rule and not be passively stable.

## 6.5.4 Other Thick Shell Ellipsoid Nodes

Analysis  was  performed  using  other  geometry  configurations. This included thin and thick shell ellipsoid nodes using various thicknesses and axes lengths. This also included adding tethers and a cylindrical shuttle bay. None helped to solve the passive stability problem in the dumbbell station. In all these cases, the Iz &lt; 1.2 Iy and the dumbbell system would not  be  rotationally  stable.  These  simple  dumbbell  models corroborate  the  initial  analysis  showing  that  the  dumbbell would  not  be  rotationally  stable.  Iz  is  greater  than  Ix  but equal or nearly equal to Iy.

Considering the ellipsoid nodes in the dumbbell station, it was initially thought that the asymmetric shape of the nodes could lead to a stable rotation. Using the MOIs for the ellipsoid nodes:

$$\text{$1$ now} \,. \\ I _ { x } = I _ { y } = \frac { 1 } { 5 } m \frac { ( c _ { o } a _ { o } ^ { 3 } ) ( c _ { o } ^ { 2 } + a _ { o } ^ { 2 } ) - ( c _ { i } a _ { i } ^ { 2 } ) ( c _ { i } ^ { 2 } + a _ { i } ^ { 2 } ) } { c _ { o } a _ { o } ^ { 2 } - c _ { i } a _ { i } ^ { 2 } } \\ I _ { z } = \frac { 2 } { 5 } m \frac { c _ { o } a _ { o } ^ { 4 } - c _ { i } a _ { i } ^ { 4 } } { c _ { o } a _ { o } ^ { 2 } - c _ { i } a _ { i } ^ { 2 } } \\ \text{th aoule m inor avec} \, \frac { \alpha - \cdot } { \text{thac a ellinoid node MOL} \, \alpha }$$

With equal minor axes, a=c, these ellipsoid node MOI equations match the spherical-nodes MOIs as expected. Using the ellipsoid nodes in the stability ratio equation.

$$\text{imposal nodes in the stability ratio equation.} \\ I _ { z } = 2 \left ( \frac { 2 } { 5 } m \frac { c _ { o } a _ { 0 } ^ { 4 } - c _ { i } a _ { 1 } ^ { 4 } } { c _ { o } a _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } - c _ { i } a _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } + m _ { n o d e } \, R ^ { 2 } \right ) \\ I _ { y } = 2 \left ( \frac { 1 } { 5 } m \frac { ( c _ { o } a _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ) ( c _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } + a _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ) - ( c _ { i } a _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } ) ( c _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + a _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } ) } { c _ { o } a _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } - c _ { i } a _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } } + m _ { n o d e } \, R ^ { 2 } \right ) \\ I _ { x } = 2 \left ( \frac { 1 } { 5 } m \frac { ( c _ { o } a _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ) ( c _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } + a _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ) - ( c _ { i } a _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } ) ( c _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + a _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } ) } { c _ { o } a _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } - c _ { i } a _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } } \right ) \\ As with the spherical nodes. the inertia about the z-axis I z is$$

As with the spherical nodes, the inertia about the z-axis Iz is generally  greater  than  the  inertia  Ix.  Unlike  the  spherical nodes where the Iz was equal to Iy, the MOIs for the ellipsoid nodes are different. Applying those MOIs to the stability ratio 𝐼 𝑧 ≥ 1.2 𝐼 𝑦 , analysis finds:

$$0. 8 \frac { c _ { o } a _ { o } ^ { 4 } - c _ { i } a _ { i } ^ { 4 } } { c _ { o } a _ { o } ^ { 2 } - c _ { i } a _ { i } ^ { 2 } } + 1. 2 \ \frac { \left ( a _ { i } ^ { 2 } c _ { i } ^ { 3 } - a _ { o } ^ { 2 } c _ { o } ^ { 3 } \right ) } { c _ { o } a _ { o } ^ { 2 } - c _ { i } a _ { i } ^ { 2 } } > R ^ { 2 }$$

Evaluating the equation using c=2a:

$$Evaluating the equation using c = & 2 a \colon \\ 0. 8 \frac { 2 a _ { o } a _ { o } ^ { 4 } - 2 a _ { i } a _ { i } ^ { 4 } } { 2 a _ { o } a _ { o } ^ { 2 } - 2 a _ { i } a _ { i } ^ { 2 } } + 1. 2 \, \frac { a _ { i } ^ { 2 } 8 a _ { i } ^ { 3 } - a _ { o } ^ { 2 } 8 a _ { o } ^ { 3 } } { 2 a _ { o } a _ { o } ^ { 2 } - 2 a _ { i } a _ { i } ^ { 2 } } > R ^ { 2 } \\ 0. 8 \frac { a _ { o } ^ { 5 } - a _ { i } ^ { 5 } } { a _ { o } ^ { 3 } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } } - 4. 8 \, \frac { a _ { o } ^ { 5 } - a _ { i } ^ { 5 } } { a _ { o } ^ { 3 } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } } > R ^ { 2 } \\ - & 4 \left ( \frac { a _ { 0 } ^ { 5 } - a _ { i } ^ { 5 } } { a _ { 0 } ^ { 3 } - a _ { i } ^ { 3 } } \right ) > R ^ { 2 } \\ \text{This is never true for } c = & 2 a. \, Evaluating \, \text{other ratios and con.}$$

This is never true for c=2a. Evaluating other ratios and considering previous results, it appears that dumbbells using ellipsoid nodes are also not rotationally stable.

## 6.6 Single Floor Stability Summary

Table 6-2 contains a summary of our current stability equations  for  the  four  station  geometry  types.  These  equations represent  moments  of  inertia  for  thin-shell  hollow  geometries. This table was adapted from [Jensen 2023] with minor description  changes.  Our  analysis  in  this  section  includes thick-shell geometries. The thick shell results are typically close to the thin shell results when the thickness is much less than the rotation  radius.  Our  results  match and  extend  the cylinder results from [Globus et al. 2007]. Ellipsoid geometry stations can be rotationally stable; however, spherical stations are not. Torus designs would be rotationally stable for the desired station dimensions. Dumbbell stations would not be rotationally stable. They would have a wobble that might impact the station residents.

## 7 Multiple Component Rotational Stability

$$\text{tio } I _ { z } \geq 1. 2 \, I _ {$$

The  previous  section  considered  single-floor  stations  with thin and thick shells. The analysis considered only the outer shell and ignored other components such as spokes, shuttle bays, multiple floors, and air. The analysis in this section includes the mass and MOIs of all the station components. The first subsection introduces common analysis details. This includes the analysis of each of the station components.  The following subsections analyze the stability of our geometries with all components. This generates the station components, mass and inertia equations, top floor limits, mass results, and balance results for each of the geometries.

Table 6-2 -Geometries and Rotational Stability for Thin Shell Geometries

| Geometry         | Key Stability Factor                                                          | Rotational Stability                                                                                              | Notes                                                              |
|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Cylinder         | L < 1.3 R                                                                     | Hatbox cylinders can be stable                                                                                    | Flat endcaps                                                       |
| Ellipsoids       | c < 0.8165 a                                                                  | Oblate ellipsoids can be stable                                                                                   | Sphere stations are not stable                                     |
| Elliptical Torus | R 2 > 1.5 (c 2 -a 2 )                                                         | Elliptical tori are stable where R>=6.33a and c=2a or c=3a                                                        | Torus only - inner docking sta- tion and spokes not included       |
| Dumbbell         | Iz/Ix=1.2 when 𝑅 2 ≥ 1 3 (1.2 𝑐 2 -0.8 𝑎 2 ) Iz/Iy is less than 1.2 for all R | Instability from equal MOIs on rotation and radial axes grows algebraically, and the rotational axis will wobble. | A wobble will remain an open issue for the single dumbbell system. |

Credit: Adapted from Table 3-3 [Jensen 2023] [CC BY-SA 4.0] and by extending cylinder concepts from [Globus et al. 2007] [Facts]

## 7.1 Common Analysis Details

This subsection covers much of the common analysis of all four  geometries:  cylinders,  ellipsoids,  toruses,  and  dumbbells.  This  includes the analysis approach for  components, using material densities, using variable air density, defining the top floor of the multiple floors in the stations, and previewing the component mass and inertia allocations.

The variables in this section include m for mass, V for volume, ρ for density, r for cylinder radius, I for the rotational moment of inertia, and L for the cylinder length. Variable subscripts provide an orientation, indicate inner and outer dimensions, or provide a description.

## 7.1.1 Multiple Components Analysis Approach

This section extends the stability analysis to include more of the station components. The major components in the station have different densities, geometries, and dimensions. These components include the outer shell, multiple floors, the main (top) floor, the shuttle bay, spokes, and air.

Our  single-floor  stability  analysis  assumed  homogeneous outer shell densities to compute the station's moments of inertia  (MOI).  Table  5-2  provides  the  Moments  of  Inertia (MOI) equations used as an engineering estimate for analytic analysis. The analysis produced a set of closed-form equations to evaluate the stability. The analysis ignored other station  components.  This  single-floor  approach  provides  a quick approximation for initial stability analysis.

We first tried to use a similar numeric analysis to compute the station inertia values for the multiple-component designs. Closed-form equations for the mass and inertia are available for  many  subcomponents.  Combining  those  closed-form equations became unyielding for some of the more complex components. Another approach was used to compute the rotational moments of inertia. Complex components were decomposed into many small pieces. The analysis summed the rotational  MOIs and masses of all those  individual pieces. This  can  be  considered  a  Riemann  sum  of  the  MOIs  and masses of those pieces. Where possible, these results were compared to analytic equation results for portions of those more complex components to validate our results.

## 7.1.2 Density and Moment of Inertia Analysis

The single-floor analysis could usually derive closed-form equations for the inertia using the mass of the shells. Different material densities are used with the multiple component analysis. This analysis uses the foundation of equations and densities  as  introduced  in §5.1  Station  Component  EquationsThe stability analysis of stations with multiple components requires mass and MOIs for all the components. The station's mass and MOIs are the sum of the masses and MOIs of  its  components.  Similarly,  the  components'  mass  and MOIs are the sum of the masses and MOIs of their constituent parts. The analysis uses different densities for the various components. Table 5-1 provides the different densities. The mass variables in the inertia equations of Table 5-2 can be replaced with the volumes and densities of the components and their constituent parts.

## 7.1.3 Component Mass and Inertia Preview

There is similarity in the components across the four different  station  geometries.  The  following  subsections  briefly preview the mass and moment of inertia equations for the components  in  the  four  geometries.  The  analysis  of  some components is essentially identical across all the station geometries. The analysis of those nearly identical components is detailed in the following subsections. Station components such as the shell, the multiple floors, the air, and the dividers require  geometry  (and  station)  specific  analysis.  They  are briefly introduced and then detailed separately.

## 7.1.3.1 Outer Shell

The outer shell is different for each of the four geometries. The cylinder geometry station uses a hollow cylinder as the outer shell and solid cylinders as the thick endcaps. The ellipsoid station uses the difference between concentric ellipsoids to compute its mass and MOIs. The elliptical torus is modeled with multiple thin disks that are summed to calculate its mass and MOIs. Dumbbells also require the summing of many thin disks to compute the mass and MOIs of their shells. Each station geometry section provides specifics on the mass and MOIs of their outer shells.

The shell thickness is typically 20 meters in our analysis. The outer shell contains a thick layer of regolith to provide shielding from radiation and debris and provides protection to our station's residents. The shell has a truss framework to provide most of the structural integrity. Ten-meter walls would be sufficient for radiation protection, but we prefer greater thickness to provide additional collision safety.

## 7.1.3.2 Spokes

The spokes of the station are modeled as thick shell cylinders. Our research has modeled these cylinders using a single density and radius, as well as an outer-filled thick shell cylinder with an inner hollow structure. The equation 𝑚𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 = ρ𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 𝑝𝑖 𝐿 (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) is  used  to compute  each  of these  thick shell cylinders. The inner and outer cylinders are computed separately with different densities to provide more generality with changing radius size. The length of the spoke and the cylinder is bound by the station shell. Table 5-2 shows the MOIs  of a cylinder along the x-axis length is 𝐼 𝑥 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) for  the  x-axis  and 𝐼 𝑧 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝐿 2 ) for the y- and z-axis.

All the geometries use multiple sets of these spokes to provide structural strength. The shells themselves provide structural integrity except on the dumbbell stations. These spokes are placed at equal angular distances except on the dumbbell stations. Figure 7-1 shows 4 sets of spokes at 45-degree spacing. We derived the following MOI equations for the spokes angled about the z-axis:

$$\text{$l$} \quad \text{angle} \quad \text{angle} \$$

The variable α represents the angle about the z-axis. The Iz is not dependent on the angle. The x-axis and y-axis MOIs vary with the angle but are equivalent for spokes offset by 90 degrees. This provides an angle identity rule:

$$I _ { y \alpha } = I _ { x \alpha + 9 0 }$$

Summing  the  mass  and  MOI  values  for  all  the  spokes computes the total spoke mass and MOIs. Summing the 4 spokes at 0, 45, 90, and 135 degrees and using the previous equations and angle identity rule produces:

$$\begin{array} {$$

Side spokes are offset from the x-axis and the y-axis by a distance, d, as shown in the side view of Figure 7-1. The parallel axis theorem adds the mspoke times d  to the side spokes 2 Ix and Iy.

In large stations, multiple sets of spokes are used to provide more strength for the expected stresses from centripetal gravity. These mass and inertias scale with the sets of spokes.

## 7.1.3.3 Shuttle Bay

A shuttle bay is included along the rotation axis in each station geometries. Figure 7-2 illustrates interior concepts in a shuttle bay. This level of detail supported our density analysis. The illustration removes the endcap to show the thick exterior shell, a series of concentric cylinder floors, and arrival stations (yellow thick-walled cubes). The floors are 5 meters apart and provide work areas for arrivals and departures. The thick exterior shell provides radiation and collision

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-eec4411c-8563-4d82-b23a-6e1acf20f806.jpg)

protection. The arrival stations provide space for shuttles, jet bridges, and service equipment.

The shuttle bay is modeled as a cylinder located at the center of  rotation  along  the  z-axis  direction;  see  Figure  7-3.  The shuttle bay is modeled in larger stations with two cylinders and a connecting spoke. The two cylinders are positioned at the outer and opposite edges of the station, and the spoke connects them; see Figure 7-3. The shuttle bay geometry and analysis  are  nearly identical  for  all  the  station geometries. The shuttle bay cylinder is comprised of two concentric cylinders. The outer cylinder is a filled shell; the inner cylinder is more like a spoke structure with interior walls. Originally, we considered extending a single shuttle bay cylinder across the entire station length. With large stations, the shuttle bay would be very long, use considerable material, and would not be useful space because of low gravity.

Each shuttle bay is typically limited to a maximum diameter of  360 meters and a maximum length of  200 meters. This size  could  support  multiple  space  shuttle-sized  crafts.  The length and diameter are less for very small stations. Large stations use the connecting spoke to extend along the z-axis between the two bays. This provides a structural connection between  the  two  bay  cylinders  and  uses  less  mass  than extending  the  shuttle  bays.  The  spoke  would  eventually contain  ventilation  and  illumination  in  the  cylinder  and ellipsoid stations.

Our  shuttle  bay  typically  uses  an  exterior  20-meter-thick outer shell and endcaps. Its interior has a density that is more like a spoke structure with additional walls. Each of the shuttle bay cylinders would have a mass of 𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑦 = ρ𝑏𝑎𝑦  𝑝𝑖 𝐿 𝑏𝑎𝑦 (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) where ro is the outer radius, and ri is the inner  radius.  The  density  of  the  shuttle  bay  varies  when interior to the station outer shell (cylinder and ellipsoid) and exterior  to  the  station  outer  shell  (dumbbell  and  torus).  A density of 337.4 kilograms per cubic meter is used for the interior cylinder. The  shuttle bay's exterior  cylinder  would have a density of 1721 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3) when it is exterior to the outer shell of the station. This provides more protection from radiation and collisions.

The connecting spoke has a filled outer cylinder that is 5meters thick, and the interior cylinder is assumed to have a floor-like  structure  separated  by  5  meters.  The  connecting spoke is modeled as a cylinder. It has the same radius as other

Figure 7-2 -Shuttle Bay Example

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-5b2294a2-f46c-4973-9b4f-b90a9d5b4762.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-44ba1e6f-2bca-4ed8-8ff4-e6f74752bd4a.jpg)

spokes  in  the  station.  The  spokes  do  not  have  thick-filled shells for radiation and collision protection and have smaller densities  than  the  shuttle  bay.  The  exterior  cylinder  has  a density of 337.4 kg/m3, and the interior would have a density of 32.2 kg/m3. The exterior endcaps of the shuttle bays have a density of 1721 kg/m3.

The MOIs of all the modeled cylinders use 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) for the z-axis and 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝐿 ) 2 for the xand y-axis. The Ix and Iy for the bays and endcaps also require using the parallel axis theorem dependent on the station geometry. Figure 7-3 shows the location of the shuttle bay center of mass for that computation.

## 7.1.3.4 Main Floor

The main floor is considered separately from the multiplefloors component. The main floor is positioned to create a habitable gravity range; see §3.1 Gravity Limits. The multiple floors are placed under the main floor. A gravity range between 0.95g and 1.05g in a cylinder station would use a ratio of the station radius over the floor height of 10.5. Figure 7-4 shows this height as R/m, where m is the gravity scaling factor 10.5. The main floor is placed at this height and would have the minimum gravity of 0.95g.

The top floor is thicker than other floors in the station. The top  floor  provides  open  aesthetics  for  psychological  wellbeing. In general, for modeling, the main floor has the same thickness  and  density  as  the  shell  and  endcaps.  The  floor thickness is  set to  1%  of the  rotation  radius  of  the  station shell.  For  large  stations,  the  main  floor  thickness  has  a maximum of 20 meters.  For  small  stations the  main  floor thickness  has  a  minimum  of  2  meters.  The  thick  floor structure would  also  support  2  meters  of topsoil. The structure and topsoil could be designed to form small hills and valleys. The length of the main floor is represented by the variable L and varies for the various geometries. Figure 7-4 illustrates a side view of a simple main floor in a rotating cylinder or ellipsoid station.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-5ecedce3-f3ac-4abe-b592-355ae73490a6.jpg)

The mass of the main floor (cylinder) is modeled as two hollow, thick-shell cylinders. One cylinder represents the topsoil,  and the other represents the supporting structure. The mass of those cylinders would be computed with:

$$V _ { m a i n } & = p i \ L \left ( r _ { o }$$

The variables ro and ri represent the outer and inner radius of the main floor. The two cylinders are summed to produce the total main floor mass. The thickness of the structure floor is t m and is equal to ro-ri. The topsoil uses the same equations, except the thickness is 2 meters. The length of the cylinders representing the floor is L. The main floor inertias use the thick shell cylinder MOIs from Table 2-3. The MOIs for the main floor would be:

$$\mu \cdots \dots \dots \dots \dots \\ I _ { x } = I _ { y } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { m a i n } ( 3 ( r _ { o } ^ { 2 } + r _ { i } ^ { 2 } ) + L ^ { 2 } ) \\ I _ { z } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } m _ { m a i n } ( ( r _ { i } + t _ { m } ) ^ { 2 } - r _ { i } ^ { 2 } ) \\ \mu \cdots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots$$

Again, the main floor structure and the top soil inertias are summed to produce the total inertias for the main floor.  In the dumbbell, the main floor is different from the other geometries. The dumbbell models the mass and MOIs of the main floor using a flat elliptical disk. This floor design model was previewed in §5.3 Dumbbell Modeling Details .  Additional details on the different floor models for the dumbbell are covered in the later dumbbell geometry section.

## 7.1.3.5 Multiple Floors

This component of the station typically has floors that are 5 meters apart and are bounded by the station shell. The multiple floors are modeled with a series of concentric cylinders. The  concentric  cylinders  are  closer  together  to  model  the multiple floors component more accurately. This is required because a curved shell bounds its sides. The floors and the

modeled cylinders are between the main floor and the outer rim over a distance of R/m. The cylinders are analyzed like the main floor cylinders. Each cylinder would have a mass of 𝑚𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5 = ρ𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5 𝑝𝑖 𝐿 𝑛  (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) where  ro  is  the  outer radius of the cylinder, and ri is the inner radius. The density of the multiple floors is from Table 5-1. This floor density uses the mass and volumes of the constituent trusses, panels, columns, and open space between floors. The length of each cylinder is bound by the station shell or endcaps. The radii range from the main floor to the outer rim. The mass and MOIs are computed for the series of concentric cylinders. The air density is excluded from the multiple-floors analysis; and instead, it is used in the air analysis. The MOI equation about the z-axis for the cylinder would be 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) and about the x (or y) axis the MOI equation would be 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝐿 𝑛 ) 2 . Figure 7-5 shows a simple drawing of the multiple floors in a cylinder or ellipsoid station. The length, Ln, would be a constant in the cylinder station and vary with height in the ellipsoid station. Each station geometry section provides specifics on the lengths, masses, and MOIs of their multiple floors. Those multiple cylinder values are  summed to  determine  the  total  mass  and  MOIs  of  the multiple-floors component.

## 7.1.3.6 Air

The outer rim of the station uses the sea level air density of 1.225 kg/m3 and the maximum gravity. The air density decreases with increasing height above the outer rim. The station geometries use the equations described in §3.2 Air Pressure Limits.

Figure 7-6 shows the decreasing air density of an ellipsoid and a torus. Both geometries have an outer rotation radius of

For each floor in the multiple-floors components of length Ln:

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-6b399f82-97ba-4b91-b08f-ed5c80ff881c.jpg)

$$\dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \\ I _ { z } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } m _ { f l o o r } \left ( r _ { o } ^ { 2 } + r _ { i } ^ { 2 } \right ) \\ I _ { x } = I _ { y } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { f l o o r } \left ( 3 \left ( r _ { o } ^ { 2 } + r _ { i } ^ { 2 } \right ) + L _ { n } ^ { 2 } \right ) \\ \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cd: \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \colon \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \colon \\ \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots  \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \ddots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots  \cd: \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \ddots \ddots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots  \cdjs \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \clots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots\cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdjs \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \vdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots
 \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \end{vmatrix}$$

Where ro = ri + t and t is the floor thickness.

Figure 7-5 -Multiple-Floors Component

2000 meters. The air density in the ellipsoid continues to decrease to the center of rotation (radius R=0 and h=R). The air density in the torus decreases at the same rate but ends abruptly at the inner edge of the torus tube.

In larger stations, many floors have habitable gravity. Top floors in those very large stations would have unacceptably low air pressure. The §3.5 Top Floor Limits introduces the concept of multiple airtight floor layers to provide habitable air pressure on all the floors in those large stations.  Figure 3-3 illustrated the air density being reset with each of the airtight layers. When the air density becomes the Denver limit (1.01 kg/m3), the airtight layer resets the air density to sea level (1.225 kg/m3). The height of the airtight layers varies with the geometry but is typically about 1600 meters high in the large rotating stations.

The air component is modeled and analyzed using concentric cylinders; see Figure 7-7. These cylinders of air extend from the  station  rotation  center  to  the  outer  rim.  The  mass  and MOIs of the concentric cylinders are calculated in the same fashion as the multiple floors. Each station geometry section provides specifics on the lengths, masses, and MOIs of their multiple air cylinders. The air cylinder MOI equation about the  z-axis  for  the  cylinder  would  be 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) and about the x (or y) axis, the MOI equation would be 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝐿 ) 2 .  Those  multiple  cylinder  values  are summed  to  determine  the  total  mass  and  MOIs  of  the  air component.

## 7.1.3.7 Divider

Only the torus design has dividers. The dividers separate the torus tube  into  airtight  compartments as  part  of  a  fail-safe design. A divider is comprised of two vertical walls with a structure of floors between them. In case of a catastrophic impact and loss of atmosphere, only one section of the torus tube would be lost.

A divider in the torus is modeled as two filled elliptical disks with a structure of trusses between them. The disks are represented with different densities and thicknesses. The divider ellipse rotates about the z-axis at a distance of R; see Figure 7-8. The dividers enclose the spokes; as such, their thickness is about the diameter of the spokes.

Figure 7-6 -Air Component Layer Densities

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-c369ade3-a192-4c4d-97eb-24a0ccbc6a14.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-07af194d-bc8f-408c-9e34-a5920a056e6f.jpg)

For each layer of air in the air components of length Ln:

$$I _ { z } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } m _ { a i r l a y e r } \left ( r _ { o } ^ { 2 } + r _ { i } ^ { 2 } \right ) \\ I _ { x } = I _ { y } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { a i r l a y e r } \left ( 3 \left ( r _ { o } ^ { 2 } + r _ { i } ^ { 2 } \right ) + L _ { n } ^ { 2 } \right ) \\ \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$$

Where ro = ri + t and t is the floor thickness. The mass of the air layer would be 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 = ρℎ  𝑝𝑖 𝐿 𝑛  (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 )

## Figure 7-7 -Air Component

The  following  describes  one  divider  design.  The  divider would have a center interior structure built from trusses and panels, providing floors with a spacing of 5 meters. This divider has two vertical walls filled with regolith and is 5 meters thick each. The thickness of the interior structure and the exterior walls sum to the diameter of the station spoke. This design also includes another 10 meters of floor structure on the exterior of the divider walls. Figure 2-2 shows this design with the many floors; the floors would provide a spectacular view and could be used for living quarters, shops,  and offices.

Other thicknesses could be used, and we recommend that the divider strength be designed and analyzed more rigorously. The divider must support a catastrophic outer shell failure. The width of our design is likely to be conservative, and a more refined design would provide additional building material for other components.

The mass of the divider is computed using different densities for the three different types of disks. The mass of the interior divider  structure  would  be  the  divider  ellipse  area  (π  a  c) times the structure thickness times the multiple-floors density, ρfloor5 .  The two filled disks would use a density of ρfill . The  two  outer  floor  structures  also  use  the  floor  density, ρfloor5 ,  in our analysis. The 5 walls are summed to compute the divider mass, mdiv . Conceptually, the mass mdiv = ρ  div t π ai ci .

The MOI analysis of the divider begins by using the elliptical disk equations from Table 5-2. The MOI equations for the axes of the elliptical disk positioned at its center of gravity at the elliptical torus origin are:

$$I _ { z } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { d i v } ( 3 a _ { i } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } ),$$

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-dd7212cd-ae64-4cdb-b327-d70c41717994.jpg)

For each divider:

$$\begin{array} { c } \text{$r$or each divizer:} \\ I _ { z d i v } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { d i v } ( 3 a _ { i } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } ) + m _ { d i v } R ^ { 2 } \\ I _ { x d i v \alpha } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { d i v } ( 3 a _ { i } ^ { 2 } s i n ^ { 2 } \to + 3 c _ { i } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } c o s ^ { 2 } \infty ) + m _ { d i v } R ^ { 2 } \sin ^ { 2 } \infty \\ I _ { y d i v \alpha } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { d i v } ( 3 a _ { i } ^ { 2 } c o s ^ { 2 } \in + 3 c _ { i } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } s i n ^ { 2 } \infty ) + m _ { d i v } R ^ { 2 } \cos ^ { 2 } \infty \\ \end{array}$$

Figure 7-8 -Divider Component

$$I _ { y } & = \frac { 1 } { 4 } m _ { d i v } ( a _ { i } ^ { 2 } + c _ { i } ^ { 2 } ), \, \text{and} \\ I _ { x } & = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { d i v } ( 3 c _ { i } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } ). \\ \circ \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \,.$$

Because the 8 disks rotate about the z-axis at an equal distance of R, the parallel axis theorem is used to determine the total MOI for the system Iz:

$$\text{var} \, \text{move to use by sum } \, \text{.} \\ I _ { z d i v 8 } = 8 ( I z + m _ { d i v } R ^ { 2 } ) \\ I _ { z d i v 8 } = 8 \left ( \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { d i v } ( 3 a _ { i } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } ) + m _ { d i v } R ^ { 2 } \right ) \\ I _ { z d i v 8 } = \frac { 2 } { 3 } m _ { d i v } ( 3 a _ { i } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } + 1 2 R ^ { 2 } ) \\ \text{The vectors } I v and I v MOI c are more common to two of the}$$

The systems Ix and Iy MOIs are more complex. Two of the eight disks rotate on their own axis. Two rotate in the perpendicular orientation axis at a distance of R. The other four elliptical disks are on the angled spokes and rotate at an angle of 45 degrees. They rotate at a distance of sin(45) or cos(45) times R from their axes. The x-axis and y-axis MOIs at the angle α for these 8 dividers are:

$$\text{ute} \quad & \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
 \text{ical} \quad & \quad \quad \quad$$

To match their position on the 8 spoke positions, the angle α varies  from  0 to 315  degrees  at increments  of  45  degrees. These 8 MOIs are summed to compute the total I xdiv8 and I ydiv8 in the torus. With the summing of the sine squared and cosine squared terms and simplification, those totals become:

$$I _ { x d i v 8 } = I _ { y d i v 8 } = 8 \, I _ { x d i v 4 5 } \\ I _ { x d i v 4 5 } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { d i v } \left [ \left ( \frac { 3 } { 2 } a _ { i } ^ { 2 } + 3 c _ { i } ^ { 2 } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } \right ) + 1 2 \, \frac { 1 } { 2 } R ^ { 2 } \right ] \\ I _ { x d i v 4 5 } = \frac { 1 } { 8 } m _ { d i v } [ a _ { i } ^ { 2 } + 2 c _ { i } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } / 3 + 4 R ^ { 2 } ] \\ \text{The MOI of the 4S-decore, divider is$$

The MOI of the 45-degree divider is used to find the total MOI of the 8 dividers around the torus tube:

$$I _ { x d i v 8 } = I _ { y d i v 8 } = 8 \, I _ { x d i v 4 5 } = m _ { d i v } [ a _ { i } ^ { 2 } + 2 c _ { i } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } / 3 + 4 R ^ { 2 } ] \\ I _ { x d i v 8 } = I _ { y d i v 8 } = \frac { 1 } { 3 } m _ { d i v } [ 3 a _ { i } ^ { 2 } + 6 c _ { i } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } + 1 2 \, R ^ { 2 } ] \\ \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

And as a reminder:

$$I _ { z d i v 8 } = \frac { 2 } { 3 } m _ { d$$

## 7.2 Cylinder - Multiple Component Stability

The analysis of the multiple component stability begins with the cylinder geometry. The thin shells and endcaps analysis found  that  Iz  =  1.2  Ix  when  L=1.3r  [Globus  et  al.  2007]. Thick shells and endcaps consistently produced Iz = 1.2 Ix when L=1.29r  over  a  wide  range  of  radii  and  wall  thicknesses.  The  length-to-radius  ratio  increased  slightly  with very thick shells. This increase implies the station can have a larger L/r but still be stable with thicker shells. The multiple-component stability analysis provides a more realistic estimate of the stability of the large station.

## 7.2.1 Cylinder Components

Figure 7-9 provides a cross-section of the cylinder station. This illustrates the station geometry with labels for components and densities. This includes views on the x-axis (Front) and the z-axis (Side). The drawing shows the major components of the cylinder. These include the outer shell, endcaps, main floor, multiple floors, center spoke, side spoke, and the shuttle bay.

Figure 7-10 also shows a cross-section drawing. This graph shows a specific example of a cylinder station with more details  and dimensions. Figure 7-10 shows the polar or axial axis of rotation on the z-axis, and this axis length is labeled c. The vertical axis shows the vertical distance from the axis of rotation (z-axis) and ranges from 0 to 2000 meters. The horizontal axis shows the horizontal distance from the vertical axis (x- or y-axis) and ranges from 0 to 2800 meters. The drawing only shows one-half of the complete cylinder. A full rendering of this example torus would extend from -2000 to 2000 meters on the vertical axis. It would only extend from 0 to 2800 meters on the horizontal axis.

## 7.2.2 Cylinder Mass and Inertia Equations

The  6  components  of  the  hatbox  cylinder  and  their  mass equations were presented in §5.1 Station Component Equations . These mass equations are used to develop the Moment of Inertia (MOI) equations for each of the major components of the cylinder. Our analysis uses the material densities from Table 5-1. It uses the background and the mass and inertia analysis from §7.1.3 Component Mass and Inertia Preview. The following subsections refine the common analysis of the

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-c7d46e77-18e4-4d6d-afcf-7773f856d706.jpg)

a) Front View -Cross Section on X-Z Plane

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-a80abb57-731c-45e3-a4bf-9b4eecad361f.jpg)

cylinder station, update those mass and moments of inertia equations, and provide specific examples.

## 7.2.2.1 Cylinder Outer Shell

The outer shell of the cylinder is comprised of a thick-shelled cylinder  and  disk  endcaps.  Both  of  these  components  are modeled  using  the  cylinder  mass  and  moment  of  inertia equations. The analysis typically uses a shell thickness of 20 meters. The thick layer of regolith provides shielding from radiation and debris. A truss framework of the shell provides most of the structural integrity. The truss framework is built with  anhydrous  rods  (or  tiles)  and  panels.  It  is  filled  with crushed regolith. The fill density (ρfill) is 1721 kg/m3, and the panels and tiles density (ρfill and ρrods) is 2790. The fill makes up most of the volume. As such, the fill density from Table 5-1 is used with the shell and endcap volumes to  compute their mass.

The thick outer shell mass and MOI use these equations:

$$m _ { s h e l l } = \rho _ { f i l l } V _$$

Figure 7-10 -Cylinder Station Components

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-971335df-c716-4ee6-bc24-66540a3835c1.jpg)

$$\begin{array} {$$

The following equations are used to compute the mass and MOI of the thick endcaps of the cylinder station:

$$\text{$me uncs encus op unc ymuc status} \\ m _ { e$$

The endcaps need the parallel axis theorem to adjust their MOI to reflect their distance away from the center of mass:

$$I _ { x } = I _ { y } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m$$

The length of the outer shell is Lo, and the length of the inner shell is Li. The average length of the shell is Lavg=(Lo+Li)/2, and the endcaps are at a distance of Lavg/2 from the center. Inertias are added to include the parallel axis theory:

$$\dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \ dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots\delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \ delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta$$

As an example, the outer shell center of mass is at coordinate (1370,0) in Figure 7-10. The inner length is 2701 meters, and the outer length is 2741 meters. The average length is 2720 meters, and the endcap centers of mass are 1360 meters from the station center of mass.

## 7.2.2.2 Cylinder Spokes

The spoke models were presented in §7.1.3 Component Mass and Inertia Preview. The spokes are modeled as thick cylinders. For example, in Figure 7-10 the cylinder spokes have an outer radius of 75 meters and an inner radius of 70 meters. The length of the spokes is almost 4000 meters. Only half the spoke  is  shown  in  Figure  7-10.  The  spoke  outer  shell thickness is  5  meters.  The  spokes  are  filled  with  multiple floors that are 5 meters apart. The spoke total density would be 337.4 kilograms per cubic meter; see Table 5-1. The mass of each cylinder is computed using 𝑚𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 = ρ𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 𝑝𝑖 𝐿 (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) .  The inner and outer cylinders use different densities to provide more generality with changing radius size. The cylinder shell bounds the spoke lengths.

The cylinder station in Figure 7-10 shows the center spoke and two side spokes. The cylinder uses 4 sets of these spokes at equal 45-degree spacing like the ellipsoid station shown in Figure 7-1. The MOIs use equations developed in §7.1.3 for the four sets of spokes:

$$\begin{array} { c } \cdot \\ I _ { z 4 s p o k e s } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { 4 s p o k e s } ( 3 r ^ { 2 } + L ^ { 2 } ) \\ I _ { x 4 s p o k e s } = I _ { y 4 s p o k e s } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { 4 s p o k e s } ( 1 8 r ^ { 2 } + 2 \, L ^ { 2 } ) \\ \cdot \end{array} \cdot \begin{array} { c } \cdot \\ \cdot \end{array} \cdot \end{array} \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \end{array}$$

The spokes require the parallel axis theorem for their MOI. Side spokes are offset from the x-axis and the y-axis by a distance of one-quarter the z-axis length of L. This adds the spoke  mass  times  the  distance  from  their  rotation  axis squared. This adds the mx4spokes times ( L /4)  to the side spokes 2 Ix and Iy. The mass and MOI values for the 3 sets of spokes are  summed  to  compute  the  total  spoke  mass  and  MOIs. Larger stations use more side spokes, and their mass and inertias are appropriately added to the station MOIs.

## 7.2.2.3 Cylinder Shuttle Bay

Figure 7-10 shows a cylinder example with the shuttle bay cylinders and the connecting shuttle bay spoke. Each shuttle bay cylinder has a radius of 180 meters and a length of 200 meters. The length of the connecting spoke is 2341 meters long. The shuttle bay has a 20-meter thick exterior outer shell and endcaps. Its interior is more like a spoke structure with additional walls. The connecting spoke has a filled outer cylinder that is 5 meters thick, and the interior cylinder is assumed to have multiple floors separated by 5 meters. Each of the  shuttle  bay  cylinders  would  have  a  mass  of 𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑦 = ρ𝑏𝑎𝑦  𝑝𝑖 𝐿 (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) . The exterior cylinder would have a density  of  1721  kilograms  per  cubic  meter,  and  the  interior would have a density of 337.4 kilograms per cubic meter; see Table 5-1.  The connecting  spoke  has  the  same  concentric cylinder  structure,  and  its  radii  are  the  same  as  the  other spokes of the station. The outer cylinder density is 337.4, and the  inner  density  is  32.2.  The  shuttle  bay,  the  connecting spoke, and the endcaps use the same cylinder model. The Iz MOI of the cylinders is computed using 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) for the z-axis. The cylinder and shuttle bay lengths are used to compute lengths for the parallel axis theorem, which the Ix and Iy MOIs use 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝐿 ) + 𝑚𝑑 2 2 .

## 7.2.2.4 Cylinder Main Floor

The  station's  habitable  gravity  range  is  designed  to  be between 0.95g and 1.05g. A cylinder station uses the ratio of the station radius over the main floor height equal to 10.5. The main floor is 190.5 meters above the outer rotating shell, with a minimum gravity of 0.95g. Figure 7-10 shows the cylinder radius is 2000 meters, and the radius of the main floor is  1810  meters.  At  1%  of  the  station  radius,  the  thickness would be 20 meters. This matches the thickness limit of 20

meters. With other gravity ranges, shell thickness, and station sizes, the floor thickness ranges from a minimum of 2 meters to a maximum of 20 meters.

Using  the  cylinder  length  with  the  main  floor  radius  and thickness, the mass of the main floor (cylinder) would be:

$$m _ { m a i n } = \rho _ { f i l l } \, p i \, L \, ( ( r _ { m } + t _ { m } ) ^ { 2 } - \, r _ { m } ^ { 2 } )$$

The main floor is modeled using the thick shell cylinder MOIs from Table 2-3. Those MOI equations are:

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-71bf0df5-5e65-4ca0-9d0c-1a3d4d8747bc.jpg)

## 7.2.2.5 Cylinder Multiple Floors

The cylinder multiple-floors models were presented in §7.1.3 Component Mass and Inertia Preview .  This  portion  of  the station is modeled with a series of concentric cylinders. The multiple floors are 5 meters apart between the main floor and the outer rim.

Figure 7-10 shows the outer radius of a cylinder at 2000 meters. The radius of the top of the main floor is 1809 meters. Below the topsoil and floor structure of the main floor would be the top of the multiple floors at a height of 168 meters. There would be 34 floors spaced 5 meters apart below the bottom of the main floor. The radii range from the main floor at 1832 meters to the outer rim at 2000 meters.

The multiple-floors component is divided into many more cylinders to more accurately compute the volume, mass, and inertias of the multiple-floors component. Each of the cylinders  is  analyzed  like  the  main  floor.  Each  cylinder  would have a mass of 𝑚𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5 = ρ𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5 𝑝𝑖 𝐿 (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) . The length of the cylinder is bound by the cylinder endcaps. In the Figure 7-10 example, the length of the floors is 2701 meters.

The  series  of  concentric  cylinders  is  used  to  compute  the mass and MOIs for the multiple-floors component. The air density is excluded from the multiple-floors analysis because that air density is included in the air analysis. The MOI equation about the z-axis for the cylinder would  be 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) and about the x (or y) axis, the MOI equation would  be 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝐿 ) 2 . Those  cylinder values are summed to determine the total mass and MOIs of the multiple-floors component.

## 7.2.2.6 Cylinder Air

The cylinder air component is analyzed using the air mass and inertias  of  concentric  cylinders;  see  Figure  7-7.  These cylinders of air extend from the station rotation center to the outer rim. The mass and MOIs of the concentric cylinders are calculated in the same fashion as the multiple floors. The air component is typically subdivided into many cylinders for modeling. The thickness of the cylinders is set to ensure an accurate summation of the mass and MOIs with the varying air density.

Each cylinder of air would have a mass of 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑟 = ρℎ  𝑝𝑖 𝐿 (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) .  The  air  density  decreases  from  sea  level pressure  at  the  outer  rim  to  a  minimum  of  Denver  air pressure. In extremely large cylinders, airtight layers are introduced to provide habitable air pressure on gravity-limited top  floors;  see §3.5  Top  Floor  Limits. The  length  of  the cylinder is bound by its endcaps. The air cylinder MOI equation about the z-axis for the cylinder would  be 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) and about the x (or y) axis, the MOI equation would be 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝐿 ) 2 . In the Figure 7-10 example, the floor length is 2815 meters and the radii range from  0  to  2000  meters.  Those  mass  and  MOI  values  are summed to determine the air totals.

## 7.2.2.7 Cylinder Preview

The masses and the MOIs of the components characterize the cylinder station. As a preview, Figure 7-11 shows the distribution of the component masses in two cylinder stations. One of the stations has a radius of 2000 meters, and the other has a radius of 20,000 meters. Both have the same six components. The outer cylindrical shell and endcaps are combined in the shell component of these pie charts. In these stations, the shell has a thickness of 20 meters. Multiple floors extend from the outer rim to the top floor. The floor on the outer rim has  a  gravity  of  1.05g  and  sea-level  air  pressure.  The  top floor is at a height where the gravity is 0.95g or the air pressure is at least Denver air pressure.

Given these station limits, the charts in Figure 7-11 show the shell comprises at least half the station mass. An interesting change from the 2000-meter radius station to the 20,000-meter station is the increase in the mass of the multiple floors. The mass of the floors increases from 6.7% of the total to 40% of the total. The mass of the shell and the main floor both increase as a function of area; the mass of the multiple floors increases as a function of volume. The percentage of air  increases  from  1.6%  to  6.1%.  Like  with  the  multiple floors, the size of the station interior is increasing as a function of volume. Other components are more fixed in size and represent a small percentage of the total volume. The spokes and shuttle bay masses  increase with the station diameter; however,  they  are  linear  or  fixed  in  size  and  become  a smaller percentage of the total with the larger station.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-211b9b6e-0f91-480e-8063-43d7ffe9ba48.jpg)

## 7.2.3 Cylinder Station Mass Results

As  an  introduction,  Figure  7-12  shows  the  masses  of  the components of 6 cylinder stations. The cylinder stations had radii of 2,000, 20,000, and 200,000 meters. Along the x-axis, the charts  show the  six  major components  of  the cylinder. The y-axes of the charts show the values of the mass and range from 1 to 1e18 kilograms on a logarithmic scale. The component masses change with the increase in the radius. The  shell  and  floor  masses  represent  most  of  the  system mass. Two masses are included for each radius to compare the changes with the top floor limited by gravity only and by air pressure. With the increase in the radius, the mass of the multiple floors increases significantly. Except for the multiple-floors  component  in  the  largest  radius  station,  there  is minimal  change  between  the masses  for  the  two  top-floor limits. This is on a logarithmic scale; with greater detail, the masses of the gravity-limit components tend to be slightly greater than the air pressure top floor limit for nearly all the radii and components. With larger radii, more of the station is available to use with the multiple floors. The graphs show an increase in the amount of air in the station. The spokes and the shuttle bay do not increase significantly with the increasing radii. The relative amount of mass in the spokes and bay decreases significantly with the increase in the station radius.

Figure 7-13 includes two sets of charts. Both sets show the cylinder component masses varying with the cylinder radius. The left two charts show the masses with the top floor limited by gravity, and the right two charts have the top floor limited by air pressure. These cover the same 6 cylinder components. The stations are designed to be rotationally balanced, and the z-axis MOI (rotation axis) is 1.2 times the x-axis MOI. The thickness of the shell is 20 meters.

The graphs' lines of data represent the mass of the cylinder components. The x-axis shows the radius of the cylinder station, and ranges from 100 meters to 50,000 meters. The yaxis shows the mass from 1e6 to 1e16 kilograms. This view of the components clearly shows the relatively small masses

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-b23227ea-d4e2-488a-8ed4-d0eeaf5b3078.jpg)

of the shuttle bay, spokes, and air. The masses of the shuttle bay  and  spokes  change  slowly  for  the  large  radius  sizes. There is little difference in the data between the gravity-limited and the air-pressure-limited top floor except for the multiple floors. The top-floor air pressure constraint reduces the growth  of  the  multiple-floors  mass  beyond  the  radius  of 16,000 meters. The charts also show the mass of the multiple floors being constrained by the air pressure limit on large stations.

The stacked bar charts use the same station characteristics and mass data. The stacked bar charts show the mass of the cylinder components as a percentage of the total cylinder station mass. The x-axis shows the radius of the cylinder station, and ranges from 200 meters to 50,000 meters. The stacked bar chart y-axes show mass percentages ranging from 0% to 100%. With the gravity limit on the top floor, the multiple floors become almost 70% of the total mass of the station. With the  air  pressure  limit  on  the  top  floors,  the  multiple floors scale at the same rate as the air, shell, and main floor.

## 7.2.4 Cylinder Station Balance Results

Evaluating the station balance requires the total moments of inertia along the axes of the station. The last subsection provided the equations of the components. Both the mass and moments of inertia can be summed to create a total mass or inertia for the station. The mass is used to compute the moment of inertia  (MOI). The MOIs are used to evaluate the rotational balance of the station.

Stability (Iz≥1.2Ix) is found by varying the geometry dimensions. In the case of the cylinder, the L/R ratio (the length and radius of the cylinder) is changed. The MOIs for various ratios  are  computed  to  find  the  1.2  criteria.  The  NewtonRaphson method (Excel Goal Seek) finds the L/R ratio that provides Iz/Ix=1.2. Those station geometries meet the rotational stability criteria.

Figure 7-14 shows the rotating cylinder station stability effect on the cylinder geometry. The chart uses the ratio of the radius and length on the linear y-axis in Figure 7-14 with a range from 0 to 2. The logarithmic x-axis of the chart shows the cylinder radius, and ranges from 100 meters to 500,000 meters. For the multiple component cylinder, the ratio L/R varies from 1.2 to more than 1.9 as the radius increases from R=200 to 500K meters. The extra mass in the multiple-floors component of the gravity-limited stations provides more stabilizing inertia and supports larger L/R ratios. The chart includes the thin and thick shell stability ratios for comparison. It includes a horizontal line at about L/R=1.3 for reference. Figure 7-14 shows that the ratio is smaller for small-radius cylinders and larger for large-radius cylinders. To maintain the passive rotational stability when including the multiple station components,  smaller  stations  must reduce their length-to-radius ratio below the original thin and thick shell guidelines of 1.3. Larger stations can increase their lengthto-radius ratio above the 1.3 thin-shell guideline.

Figure 7-15a shows the different changes in the constituent component stabilities. These changes help to understand the

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-4f914152-8c29-40e7-9885-0c78ee90ad05.jpg)

Top Floor Gravity Floor Limit -Kilograms

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-b736a046-75bc-45b9-80db-df24fb529c3f.jpg)

Top Floor Air Pressure Limit -Kilograms

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-066e021d-130a-4618-b54e-96cd8cd8674c.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-4b1a2b13-443c-4896-a48a-51d0f1688da8.jpg)

Figure 7-13 -Mass of Cylinder Components

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-aadfacdc-0099-4b3d-99f0-2bc74ef0ac6d.jpg)

theorem. The spokes ratio Iz/Ix reduces to less than 1.0 with the offset long spokes. Instead of being a stabilizing component, the spokes begin to degrade the stability. Bay component stability ranges from 0.24 to near zero with the increasing  radius.  The  two  bays  at  the  end  of  a  long  connecting spokes create a large Ix inertia while the Ix inertia remains relatively  constant.  The  shuttle  bay  is  also  a  destabilizing component. Outer shells greater than 1000 meters have a ratio of less than 1.3 and are also a destabilizing component. The main floor and the multiple-floors components provide stabilization over the entire range of station radii. The mass and  geometry  of  the  components  determine  their  inertia. Heavier  mass  components  create  larger  Ix  and  Iy.  Fortunately, the destabilizing components are some of the lighter mass components.

effects of component changes on the station's stability. The spoke stability ratio drops from 2.0 to 1.5 as the cylinder radius increases from 200 to 1000 meters. The 200-meter cylinder only has a center set of spokes. Larger cylinders have sets of side spokes to provide more structure integrity. These offset  spokes  increase  the  Ix  inertia  with  the  parallel  axis

To illustrate the heavy and light component masses, Figure 7-15b normalizes the component stability using the component mass (Mcomp) and the total station mass (Mstation). The yaxis values represent a form of stability and would be equal to Iz/Ix times Mcomp/Mstation. These results clearly show the minimal effect that most of the components have on the station stability. The shell stability dominates small station stabilities. The impact from the multiple floors increases and,

for  large  stations,  becomes  greater  than  the  shell  stability. The top floor reaches a maximum height at a station radius of about 16,000 meters. After that height, all the stabilities remain fairly constant. The following paragraphs further investigate these component stability masses and their MOIs.

Figure 7-12 previously showed the masses for 6 cylinder stations. The cylinder stations had radii of 2,000, 20,000, and

200,000 meters. The chart also compared masses with the top floor height limited by air pressure and gravity. Figure 7-16 includes two sets of charts to show the station Iz (z-axis) and Ix (x-axis) MOIs for 3 cylinder station sizes. In the cylinder geometry,  Ix  is  equal  to  Iy.  The  top  chart  in  Figure  7-16 shows the MOI values on a logarithmic scale. The bottom three charts show the MOI values on a linear scale.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-dde83c23-b725-455d-9d06-9c8430c0ba2c.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-ae424c65-1ee8-44a2-8c65-b03f6a326fde.jpg)

Figure 7-15 -Cylinder Components Stability

Logarithmic Scale Comparisons

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-24cb9ad4-1307-438e-9e1a-96616a4feb15.jpg)

Linear Scale Comparisons

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-26b0f26b-87c7-4492-9660-c9becd9d981a.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-d977ae58-77cf-4ba6-b573-3f84c9b8ced7.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-19009648-cf3f-41f4-9b3f-a91641749e0e.jpg)

Figure 7-16 -Cylinder Radius and MOI Stability

The top column chart shows the Ix and Iz MOIs for the three radii and the six components. The cylinder radius dimensions are  shown  in  the  legend  with  different  colored  columns. These charts only show the top floor limited by air pressure. These charts help to understand the changing inertias. As expected, the components' moments of inertia (MOIs) vary differently with the changing radius. The charts include the cylinder components along the bottom axes. The y-axis shows the MOIs in kilogram meters squared on a logarithmic axis ranging from 1.0 to 1e27. The logarithmic y-axes support the comparison of the MOIs for all the components.

The bottom three column charts represent the MOIs for the three cylinder radii sizes. The y-axes of the charts vary on the linear scale and range to a maximum of 8e22 kilogram meters squared. The charts have different linear y-axes and show the absolute differences between the Ix and Iz MOIs are shown more clearly. Small MOIs appear near zero, while large MOIs appear near the maximum y-axes value.

Figure 7-16 shows an increase in the multiple-floors MOIs. There  are  few  floors  on  the  200-meter  radius  station  and many floors  on  the  20,000-meter  radius  station.  The  main floor, air, and multiple floors are all rotationally stable with Iz greater than Ix. The shell Iz and Ix ratio tends to be less than  1.2  and  does  not  improve  the  station  stability.  The spokes and air components tend to have the smallest MOIs. The MOI values of the shuttle bay tend to be reversed compared to the other components (Ix greater than Iz) and negatively affect the rotational stability. This tends to unbalance small stations; however, with larger stations, the shuttle bay MOIs are much smaller than the other component MOIs.

Figure 7-17 shows an additional chart to evaluate the stability of the rotating cylinder station. This chart considers the effect of varying the thickness of the cylinder shell. This also influences the thickness of the endcaps, the spokes, and the main floor. The graph shows data for cylinder station radii ranging from 300 meters to 10,000 meters. The x-axes on these charts show the shell thickness ranging from near 0 to 200 meters. The left y-axis shows the ratio of the cylinder length over the cylinder radius, and ranges from 0 to 2. The length  is determined  to provide  a stable system  with Iz/Ix=1.2.

The chart includes the thin shell L/R ratio of 1.3 for reference. A length L of the cylinder is found to provide passive balance  using  Iz=1.2  Ix.  For  the  cylinders,  the  length  L ranges from 0.7R to 1.9R over the range of thickness and cylinder radii. Figure 7-17 also shows the thick shell stability ratio for a 2000-meter radius station for reference. The stability increases from L=1.29R to L=1.40R as the shell thickness increases. This is consistent with earlier results; see Figure  6-2b.  The  results  differ  with  the  multiple  components compared to the thin and thick shell stabilities. Other station components bias the stability ratio.

With the thin shell dimensions, the station geometry ratio reflects only the effect of non-shell components. Small radius stations require a length-to-radius ratio of less than one to be rotationally balanced. Larger radius stations can be

Figure 7-17 -Cylinder Thickness and Stability

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-5448158f-b9c9-4111-ad5d-685405a1d149.jpg)

rotationally  balanced  with  larger  length-to-radius  ratios. With very thick shells, the geometry ratio begins to decrease. In large stations, the multiple floors are the dominant mass and are on the outer edge of the rotating station. This improves the stability inertia ratios. The shell covers the entire station (from the outer edge to the top poles) and counters that improvement with very large thicknesses. With thinner shells, other components have more influence on the stability and support larger L/R ratios.

## 7.3 Ellipsoid - Multiple Component Stability

This section considers multiple component stability for the oblate ellipsoid geometry. In the single floor section, the thin shells were stable (Iz=1.2 Ix) when a&gt;1.225c, where c is the length of the polar or axial axis, and a is the length of the radial axis. Thick shells were stable when ao≥1.29co over a wide range of radii and wall thicknesses. The length-to-radius ratio increased slightly with very thick shells. This increase implies the station can be proportionately larger yet remain stable with thicker shells. In this section, the stability analysis includes other station components. This provides a more realistic estimate of the ellipsoid station stability.

## 7.3.1 Ellipsoid Components

Figure 7-18 shows a cross-section of the elliptical station. This illustrates the station ellipsoid geometry with labels for components and densities. The view is on the x-axis (Front). The side view of the ellipsoid station is identical to the cylinder rendering in Figure 7-9b. The drawings show the major components of the ellipsoid, including the outer shell, main floor, multiple floors, center spokes, side spokes, and shuttle bay.

Figure 7-19 also shows a graph of the station cross-section. It is of a specific example ellipsoid station and shows more details, dimensions, and components. The graph shows the axial rotation axis on the z-axis, and this axis length is labeled c. The radial axes are on the x- and y-axis; their lengths are equal and labeled a and b. The vertical axis shows the vertical distance from the axis of rotation (z-axis) and ranges from  0  to  2200  meters.  The  horizontal  axis  shows  the

horizontal distance from the vertical axis (x- or y-axis) and ranges from 0 to 1800 meters. The drawing only shows onequarter of the complete ellipsoid. A full rendering of this example ellipsoid would extend from -2000 to 2000 meters on the vertical axis. It would extend from -1654 to 1654 meters on the horizontal axis.

## 7.3.2 Ellipsoid Mass and Inertia Equations

The  6  components  of  the  oblate  ellipsoid  and  their  mass equations  were  presented §5.1  Station  Component  Equations . These mass equations are used to develop the Moment of Inertia (MOI) equations for each of the major components of the ellipsoid. This analysis uses the material densities from Table 5-1. This section refines the common analysis from §7.1.3 Component Mass and Inertia Preview to apply to the components of the ellipsoid station. The following subsections update those mass and moments of inertia equations and provide specific examples for each of the major components of the ellipsoid.

## 7.3.2.1 Ellipsoid Shell

Thick shell moment of inertia used equations from Table 5-2 in the single-floor stability analysis. That analysis reviewed the ellipsoid shell and its thickness scaled with the axes using a shell with a uniform thickness. The ellipsoid multiple components were evaluated using those equations, and the inertia analysis was validated using the multiple-piece approach.

The outer shell is represented by a series of hollow disks, and it is divided into 1000 disks. Figure 7-19 shows a cross-section of one disk at z=110 and y=2005. Figure 7-19 includes a magnified view of this disk cross-section in the upper right corner. This disk has a width of about 20 meters and a thickness of co/1000 meters. The mass of one hollow disk would be 𝑚𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑘 = ρ𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 π 𝑡 𝑑  (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) .  For  this  example,  the  disk's volume would be π 1.67 (2015 2 -1995 2 ), and with the shell density  of  1721,  the  disk's  mass  would  be  7.28e14  kilograms. The approach sums 1000 of these 20-meter-wide by

Figure 7-18 -Detailed Ellipsoid Cross Sections

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-71f7e768-98a4-481d-8fd1-934d1a056cda.jpg)

1.7-meter-thick hollow disks. Their inner radii ranges from 0 to 2000 meters. The summed mass of the shell was 7.73e11 kilograms and  matches  the  mass  value  using  a  thick  shell equation.

The station and the disks rotate about the z-axis. The moment of  inertia  for  the  disks  about  the  z-axis  would  be 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) where ri and ro are the inner and outer radii of the ellipsoid shell. The moment of inertia for the disks about the Ix (or Iy) axis would be 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝑡 2 ) where t is the thickness of each disk. The parallel axis theorem adds the mass times the distance from the x-axis squared. The 1000 disks were summed and compared the result to the MOIs for the thick ellipsoid shells (see  Table  5-2).  In this case, the sums match the MOI values using those thick shell equations.

## 7.3.2.2 Ellipsoid Spokes

This subsection uses the spoke models presented in §7.1.3 Component Mass and Inertia Preview. The spokes are modeled as thick cylinders. The ellipsoid shell binds the lengths of the spokes. At a distance, z, along the rotation axis, the length of the spoke would be 2𝑎√1 - 𝑧 2 /𝑐 2 . In Figure 7-19, the length of the center spoke is about 4000 meters. The side spokes  are  about  3490  meters.  The  radius  of  the  center spokes is 3% of the ellipsoid diameter on the axial axis. They have a maximum radius of 100 meters and a minimum radius of 10 meters. In this example, the center spoke has an outer radius of 99 meters and an inner radius of 94 meters. The side spokes are only 2% of the axial axis diameter and have an outer  radius  of  66  and  an  inner  radius  of  62  meters.  The spokes are filled with multiple floors that are 5 meters apart. The inner floor density is set to 32.2 kilograms per cubic meter, and the outer spoke wall has a density of 337.4 kilograms per cubic meter; see Table 5-1. The mass of each cylinder is computed using 𝑚𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 = ρ π 𝐿 (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) .

Figure 7-19 -Example Ellipsoid Station

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-d572e4e5-e303-4e41-9b0d-370be86b7920.jpg)

The ellipsoid station in Figure 7-18 shows the center spoke and one of the two side spokes. The ellipsoid uses 4 sets of these spokes at equal 45-degree spacing like the cylinder station  shown in  Figure  7-9b. The  MOIs  are  computed using equations developed in §7.1.3. For the four sets of spokes:

$$l _ { z 4 s p o k e s } = 4 \left [ \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m \left ( 3 r ^ { 2 } + L ^ { 2 } \right ) \right ] \\ l _ { x 4 s p o k e s } = l _ { y 4 s p o k e s } = 4 l _ { x 4 5 } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m ( 1 8 r ^ { 2 } + 2 \, L ^ { 2 } ) \\........................................................................................................................................................................................................$$

The parallel axis theorem is also used for the spoke MOIs. Side spokes are offset from the x-axis and the y-axis by a distance of one-half the z-axis length of c. The equations add the  spoke mass times the distance from their rotation axis squared. The mspoke times (c/2)  is added to the side spokes Ix 2 and Iy. The mass and MOI values for the 3 sets of spokes are added to find the total spoke mass and MOIs. Larger stations use more side spokes, and their mass and inertia add to the station appropriately.

## 7.3.2.3 Ellipsoid Shuttle Bay

The shuttle bay is comprised of two parts: bays on the outer edge of the station, and a connecting spoke between the two bays. A cylinder with endcaps represents the shuttle bay. The thickness of the outer shell of the shuttle bay is the same as the station's outer shell but no larger than  20 meters thick. The endcaps use the same thickness as the shuttle bay shell. For the Figure 7-18 example, each shuttle bay cylinder has a radius of 180 meters and a length of 200 meters. The connecting spoke is modeled like the station center spokes. The length  of  the  connecting  spoke  is  2948  meters  long.  Its interior is more like a spoke structure with additional walls. The connecting spoke has a filled outer cylinder that is 5 meters thick, and the interior cylinder is assumed to have multiple floors separated by 5 meters. Each of the shuttle bay cylinders would have a mass of 𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑦 = ρ𝑏𝑎𝑦  π 𝐿 (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) . The exterior cylinder has a density of 1721 kilograms per cubic meter, and the interior would have a density of 337.4 kilograms per cubic meter; see Table 5-1. The connecting spoke has the same inner and outer cylinder structures. Its radius is the same as the center spokes of the station. The spokes use an outer density of 337.4 and an inner density of 32.2. The mass  and  MOIs  of  the  cylinders  are  computed  using 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) for  the  z-axis  and 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝐿 2 ) for the x- and y-axis.

## 7.3.2.4 Ellipsoid Main Floor

The main floor is modeled as a cylinder inside the ellipsoid shell. The cylinder rotates about the  z-axis. The mass of a floor  would  be 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 = ρ𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑖 𝐿 (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) . For  the  Figure 7-19 example, it would have a floor radius, ri, of about 1810 meters. The floor-length would be computed using 2𝑐√1 - 𝑟 2 /𝑎 2 .  This  example  has  a  length  of  about  1369 meters and a thickness of 20 meters with 2 meters of soil. The volume of the main floor would be π 1459 (1832 -1810 ) 2 2 or 1.72e8 cubic meters. With a soil density of 1721 and floor density  of  64.4,  the  mass  computes  to  7.38e10  kilograms. The MOI equation about the z-axis for the cylinder would be 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) and Iz computes to 2.43e17 kg-m 2 . About the  x  (or  y)  axis,  the  MOI  equation  would  be 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝐿 ), 2 and Ix and Iy computes to 1.33e17 kgm 2 . The stability of the main floor would be 1.83.

## 7.3.2.5 Ellipsoid Multiple Floors

This component of the station is represented with a series of concentric cylinders. Each cylinder is analyzed like the main floor.  The  multiple  floors  are  5  meters  apart  between  the main floor and the outer rim. The radii range from the main floor to the outer rim. The lengths of the cylinders are bound by  the  ellipsoid  shell.  The  floor  length  is  again  computed using 2𝑐√1 - 𝑟 2 /𝑎 2 .  The  mass  and  MOIs  of  each  of  the series  of  concentric  cylinders  are  computed  like  the  main floor. The analysis uses many more cylinders than floors to improve  the  modeling  accuracy  with  the curved  shell lengths. The MOI equation about the z-axis for the cylinder would be 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ), and about the x (or y) axis the MOI equation would be 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝐿 ) 2 . The multiple floors are shown at the top of the example in  Figure 7-19The floor lengths range from zero to 1329 meters, and the radii range from 1831 to 2000 meters. The cylinder values are summed to determine this component's total mass and MOIs.

## 7.3.2.6 Ellipsoid Air

At the outer rim, the air density in the station is sea level. It decreases  to  lower  densities  with  increasing  height;  see §7.1.3.6. In extremely large ellipsoids, airtight layers are introduced to provide habitable air pressure on gravity-limited top floors; see §3.5 Top Floor Limits .

In the same fashion as the multiple floors, the analysis uses concentric cylinders of air. The cylinders start at the center of rotation and continue to the station's outer edge; see Figure 7-7.  Each  cylinder  of  air  would  have  a  mass  of 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝜌ℎ  π 𝐿 (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) .  The length of the cylinder is bound by the ellipsoid shell. Like the floor lengths, the air cylinder lengths are computed using 2𝑐√1 - 𝑟 2 /𝑎 2 . As before, a and c are the lengths of the ellipsoid axes, and r is the distance to the center.

The mass and MOIs are computed for the series of concentric cylinders. The MOI equation about the z-axis for the cylinder would be 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) and about the  x  (or  y) axis  the MOI equation would be 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝐿 ) 2 .  In the  Figure  7-18  example,  the  radius  of  these  air  cylinders range from 0 to 2000 meters and their half lengths range from 0 to 1654 meters. The air cylinder mass and MOI values are summed over the entire station to determine the air totals. The air densities are excluded from the multiple floors and the  bay  to  prevent  duplication  in  the  computations.  The densities of those components would only include the masses of the structures, fill, and panels.

## 7.3.2.7 Ellipsoid Preview

The summed masses and MOIs of the components characterize the ellipsoid station.  Figure 7-20 previews the distribution of the component masses in two ellipsoid stations. One

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-65665136-28b5-41a1-bbc9-eb3e99d79cfe.jpg)

of the stations has a rotation radius of 2000 meters, and the other has a radius of 20,000 meters. Both have the same six components. In these stations, the shell has a thickness of 20 meters. Multiple floors extend from the outer rim to the top floor. The top floor is at a height where the top floor gravity is 0.95g, and the top floor air pressure is at least Denver air pressure.

floor is 20 meters thick and also represents much of the station mass. An interesting change from the 2000-meter radius station to the 20,000-meter station is the increase in the mass of the multiple floors. The mass of the floors increases from 3% of the total to 23% of the total. The mass of the shell and the main floor both increase as a function of area; the mass of the multiple floors increases as a function of volume. The percentage of air increases from 1.8% to 8.6%. Like with the multiple floors, the size of the station interior is increasing as a function of volume. Other components are more fixed in size and represent a small percentage of the total volume. The mass of the spokes and shuttle bay increases with the station radius; however, the increase is linear or nearly fixed in size. Their masses become even a smaller percentage of the total with the larger station.

## 7.3.3 Ellipsoid Station Mass Results

Given these station limits, the charts in Figure 7-20 show the shell comprises more than half the station mass. The main

Figure 7-21 includes the same ellipsoid station constraints, characteristics, and densities as in Figure 7-20. It provides two sets of charts, one with the top floor limited by gravity and the other limited by air pressure. Both include data showing the same six components and the total mass. The graphed line  and  stacked  bar  charts  present  the  same  component masses. Each illustrates certain characteristics better than the other.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-c0a455d3-a014-48a2-ae6b-3d59e89b0ecb.jpg)

The line graphs show data as the mass of the ellipsoid components. The y-axes shows the mass from 1e7 to 1e16 kilograms on a logarithmic scale. The x-axes shows the radius of the ellipsoid station, and ranges from 100 meters to 50,000 meters. This view of the components clearly shows the slowchanging mass of the shuttle bay and the spokes. The graph also shows the mass of the multiple floors being constrained with the air pressure limit on large stations. With only the gravity limit on the top floor, the multiple floors almost become the total mass of the station. With the air pressure limit on the top floors, the multiple floors component scales at the same rate as the air, shell, and main floor.

## 7.3.4 Ellipsoid Station Balance Results

Figure 7-21 also includes stacked bar charts as another view of the ellipsoid station component mass. These charts show the mass of the ellipsoid components as a percentage of the total cylinder station mass. The y-axes show the percentages ranging from 0 to 100%. The x-axes show the radius of the ellipsoid station, and range from 200 meters to 50,000 meters. The station is designed to be rotationally balanced, and the MOI on the z-axis (rotation axis) is 1.2 times the MOI on the x-axis. The thickness of the shell is 20 meters. These bar charts again show the decreasing influence of the shuttle bay and spokes. The shell mass dominates smaller stations. With the gravity limit, the mass of the multiple floors dominates large stations, while with the air pressure limit, the shell mass continues to dominate the large stations.

Computing the total  moments  of  inertia  (MOIs)  along  the axes of the station is  needed  to evaluate  the  station's  rotational  balance.  The  equations  from  the  last  subsection  are used  to  evaluate  the  components.  Both  the  mass  and  moments of inertia of the components can be summed to create a total mass or inertia for the station. Mass is used to compute the MOIs. This section uses the MOIs to evaluate the rotational balance of the station. Stability (Iz≥1.2Ix) is found by varying the geometry dimensions. In the case of the ellipsoid, the ratio between the axial and radial axes is varied. The analysis evaluates the MOIs for various ratios to find the 1.2 stability criteria.

Figure 7-22 provides two sets of  graphs to investigate the moments of inertia (MOIs) for three ellipsoid stations. The descriptions of the Figure 7-22 ellipsoid charts are identical to the descriptions of the Figure 7-16 cylinder charts. Obviously,  the  data  is  different.  Again,  the  top  chart  in  Figure 7-22 shows the MOI values on a logarithmic scale. The bottom three charts show the MOI values on a linear scale.

The bottom three column charts represent the MOIs for the three ellipsoid radii sizes. The charts have different linear yaxes and show the absolute differences between the Ix and Iz MOIs are shown more clearly. Small MOIs appear near zero, while large MOIs appear near the maximum y-axis value.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-8f460490-5bf2-4ce6-be36-f2f4ad8ebc7a.jpg)

As with the cylinder station, the moments of inertia (MOIs) of the ellipsoid components vary differently with the changing radius.  Figure  7-22  shows an  increase  in the  multiplefloors MOIs. There are few floors on the 200-meter radius station and many floors on the 20,000-meter radius station.

The main floor, air, spokes, and multiple floors are all rotationally stable with Iz greater than Ix. Only the small station has a rotationally stable shell. The larger shells are not rotationally stable (Iz&lt;1.2Ix); however, the stability of the floors compensates for the shell instability.

The  spokes and air  components tend  to  have the  smallest MOIs. The shuttle bay tends to have Ix greater than Iz, which negatively affects the station's rotational stability. This component unbalances small stations and reduces the stability ratio; however, with larger stations, the shuttle bay's MOIs are much smaller than the other component MOIs and do not influence stability.

Figure 7-23 shows the stability of the rotating ellipsoid station. The linear y-axis in Figure 7-23 shows the ratio of two ellipsoid axes lengths and ranges from 0 to 2.25. This geometry ratio changes with the radius to create a stable station. The logarithmic x-axis of the chart shows the ellipsoid radius a,  and  ranges  from 100 meters  to  500,000 meters.  For  the multiple component ellipsoid using the air pressure limit, the ratio c/a varies from 0.75 to 1.1 as the radius increases from R=200 to 500K meters. With the gravity top floor limit, the stability ratio varies from 0.75 to more than 2.25. Additional floors and mass on the outer rim improve the stability. The graph  includes  the  thin  and  thick  shell  stability  ratios  for comparison  to  the  entire  station  with  components.  Earlier analysis  found  the  thin  ellipsoid  shell  stability  ratio  was c/a=0.8165, and the thick shell stability was approximately 0.775.  Figure  7-23  shows  the  stability  ratio  with  multiple components is smaller for small-radius ellipsoids and larger for large-radius ellipsoids. To maintain the passive rotational stability  when  including  the  multiple  station  components, smaller stations must reduce their axes length ratio (ci/ai) below the thin or thick shell guidelines. Larger stations can increase the ratio of their axial axis (c) length to the radial axis (a) length above the thick or thin shell guidelines. It is intriguing that a spherical station can be rotationally stable with

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-57330139-72c4-4999-b105-566763f6b440.jpg)

its internal components. Figure 7-23 shows that the ellipsoid can become a rotationally stable sphere at about a radius of 20,000 meters. Beyond that radius, a spherical station would have a stability ratio (Iz/Ix) greater than 1.2 and be rotationally  stable.  The  large  ratios  imply  proportionately  greater surface area and population.

Figure 7-24 shows an additional chart to better understand the stability of the rotating ellipsoid station. This case considers  the  effect  of  varying  the  thickness  of  the  ellipsoid shell. The station thickness also influences the thickness of the  spokes,  the  main  floor,  and the  shuttle  bay. The  graph shows  data  from  a  2000-meter  radius  station.  The  x-axis shows the shell thickness ranging from near 0 to 200 meters. The left y-axis shows the ratio of the axial axis length  (ci) over the radial axis length (ai) and ranges from 0 to 2. The polar  axis  length  c  is  set  to  provide  a  stable  system  with Iz/Ix=1.2. The chart includes the thin and thick shell c/a ratios thin thick of 0.8165 and 0.775 for reference. The shell mass dominates the stability as the shell thickness increases. The chart includes the shell percentage of the total mass for reference. With thinner shells, other components have more influence on the stability. With our typical thickness of 20 meters, the a/c ratio is 0.827, and the 2000-meter radius station has a polar axis length of 1654 meters.

Thinner shells increase this ratio and the length of the polar axis. Thinner shells improve the stability of the shell and allow spherical stations with c=a and Iz/Ix&gt;1.2. With a shell thickness of 1 meter, the c/a is 1.23, and the 2000-meter radius station has a polar axis of length 2,455 meters. This increases the volume and population. The population would increase  from  2.5  million  to  4.3  million.  The  thinner  shell would use less  material,  decreasing  the  station  mass  from 1.77e12 to 3.85e11 kilograms. The thicker shells reduce this ratio and the length of the polar axis. This would have the opposite effect,  decreasing  the  population  and  using  more material.

## 7.4 Torus - Multiple Component Stability

The multiple-component stability analysis continues by considering the elliptical torus. The single-floor analysis found elliptical tori were stable when R&gt;=6.33a and c=2a or c=3a. That  analysis  considered  only  the  torus  shell,  and  other

Figure 7-24 -Ellipsoid Shell Thickness Stability

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-7240d747-35fb-490b-9e23-046faaba18db.jpg)

components were not included. This subsection defines and analyzes the seven major components of the rotating torus space station. This section covers equations used to model the components' mass and inertia. Those equations are used to compute the station mass, the MOIs, and the station stability.  This  subsection  concludes  by  presenting  the  station mass and stability balance results.

## 7.4.1 Torus Station Components

Figure 7-25 includes a rendering using a cross-section of the elliptical  station. This illustrates  the  station elliptical torus geometry with labels for components and densities. The view is  along  the  y-axis.  The  drawing  includes  the  outer  shell, main floor, lower multiple floors, center spoke, side spokes, and shuttle bay. The torus station also includes eight elliptical-shaped cross-section dividers aligned with the spokes of the torus. These dividers would limit severe impact and air loss damage to 1/8 of the station. The drawing does not illustrate nor label the divider walls that separate the torus tube into multiple sections. They are omitted because they would obscure several components.

Figure 7-26 shows a cross-section drawing of a specific elliptical torus station example. The vertical axis (the station x- or y-axis) shows the distance from the axis of rotation (zaxis) and ranges from 0 to 2600 meters. The horizontal axis shows the distance from the vertical axis and ranges from 0 to 1000 meters. The drawing only shows one-quarter of the complete torus. A full rendering of this example torus would extend  from  -2300 to  2300  meters  on  the  vertical  axis.  It would extend from -900 to 900 meters on the horizontal axis. The drawing labels the major components of the torus.

## 7.4.2 Torus Station Mass and Inertia Equations

The 7 components of the torus and their mass equations were presented in §5.1 Station Component Equations . These mass equations were used to develop the Moment of Inertia (MOI) equations for each of the major components of the elliptical

Figure 7-25 -Detailed Elliptic Torus Cross Section

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-e8117445-af5c-410e-beb3-7565bf18a8db.jpg)

torus. These components include the masses and volumes of the air, structures, fill, and panels. This analysis uses the material  densities  from  Table  5-1.  Summing  the  results  from these individual components produces the total station mass and rotational moments of inertia. A ratio of the MOIs serves as the stability of the station. The following subsections update and refine the common analysis from §7.1.3 Component Mass and Inertia Preview for the components of the elliptical torus station.

## 7.4.2.1 Elliptical Torus Shell

The station shell uses a uniform thickness. We could use torus volume, mass, and inertia equations to model the shell. As previous geometry subsections showed, the outer shell is modeled with a series of hollow disks. These disks are circular about the torus axis of rotation. The torus shell is divided into thousands of slices along that axis of rotation. Each slice has a thickness of t  equal to co/1000. Because this is a torus, d two disks are used: one disk is above the major axis distance R, and one is below. The mass of the outer disk would be 𝑚𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑘 = ρ𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑖 𝑡 𝑑  ((𝑅 + 𝑟 ) 𝑜 2 -(𝑅 + 𝑟 𝑖 ) 2 ), where R is the major radius of the torus and ro and ri are the inner and outer edges  of  the  disk.  The  mass  of  the  inner  disk  would  be 𝑚𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑘 = ρ𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑖 𝑡 𝑑  ((𝑅 - 𝑟 ) 𝑖 2 -(𝑅 - 𝑟 𝑜 ) 2 ) .  The summed mass of the two sets of disks was within 0.1% of the thick elliptical torus shell mass equation value.

The same hollow disks are used to determine the elliptical torus station inertia. The station and the disks rotate about the z-axis. Table 5-2 provides the MOIs for thick shell disks. The moment of inertia about the z-axis for the disks beyond the major radius R would be 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚((𝑅 + 𝑟 𝑜 ) 2 +(𝑅 + 𝑟 𝑖 ) 2 ) . The moment of inertia for the disks about the Ix (or Iy) axis would be 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3((𝑅 + 𝑟 𝑜 ) 2 +(𝑅 + 𝑟 𝑖 ) 2 ) + 𝑡 𝑑 2 ) plus the mass times  the  distance 𝑅 + (𝑟 𝑜 +𝑟𝑖 )/2 from  the  x-axis  squared (the parallel axis theorem). The second set of disks inside the major radius would be 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚((𝑅 - 𝑟 𝑜 ) 2 +(𝑅-𝑟𝑖) 2 ) . Similarly, the MOI about the Ix (or Iy) axis would be 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3((𝑅 - 𝑟 𝑜 ) 2 +(𝑅 - 𝑟 𝑖 ) 2 ) + 𝑡 𝑑 2 ) plus  the  mass  times  the distance 𝑅 - (𝑟 𝑜 +𝑟𝑖 )/2 from the x-axis squared (the parallel axis theorem). The MOIs from the thousands of pairs of hollow disks were summed. The sum was compared to the result of the MOI equations for the thick elliptical torus shells. The two results nearly exactly matched (within 0.1%).

## 7.4.2.2 Elliptical Torus Spokes

The spokes are modeled as thick cylinders that extend from one outer edge of the torus tube, through the center of rotation,  and  to  the  other  outer  edge  of  the  torus  tube.  For example, in Figure 7-26, the length of the center  spoke is 4600 meters. Only half the spoke is shown in the drawing. The lengths of the spokes are bound by the elliptical torus shell. At a distance, z, along the rotation axis, the length of the side spoke would be 2(𝑅 + 𝑎√1 - 𝑧 2 /𝑐 2 ) . The side spoke is  located at 460 meters and is 4516 meters in length. The spokes are designed with an outer radius proportional (2%) to  the  station  radius.  For  large  stations,  the  spokes  have  a

Figure 7-26 -Example Elliptical Torus Station

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-6536b97c-30fb-4be5-8874-2449a1817631.jpg)

maximum outer radius of 100 meters. Smaller stations have spokes  with  a  minimum  radius  of  10  meters.  The  spoke thickness  is  5%  of  the  spoke  radius.  The  thickness  has  a maximum thickness of 50 meters.

The spokes are modeled using two concentric cylinders. The spokes are filled with multiple floors that are 5 meters apart. The inner cylinder has a dense structure density of 64.4 kilograms per cubic meter, and the outer cylinder has a density of  337.4  kilograms  per  cubic  meter;  see  Table  5-1.  The spokes  are  not  inhabited  and  do  not  require  a  thick-filled shell. The spokes provide structural strength and use a space truss  that  doubles  the  floor  density.  Each  spoke  cylinder would have a mass of 𝑚𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 = 𝜋 𝐿 (ρ𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) + ρ 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑟 𝑖 2 ) .

The elliptical torus station in Figure 7-25 shows the center spoke and two side spokes. Like the cylinder, it uses 4 sets of spokes at equal 45-degree spacing, as shown in Figure 7-1. The MOIs are computed from equations developed in §7.1.3 for the four sets of spokes:

$$I _ { z 4 s p o k e s } = 4 \left [ \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m \left ( 3 r ^ { 2 } + L ^ { 2 } \right ) \right ] \\ I _ { x 4 s p o k e s } = I _ { y 4 s p o k e s } = 4 I _ { x 4 5 } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m ( 1 8 r ^ { 2 } + 2 \, L ^ { 2 } )$$

$$1 2$$

The spokes also require the parallel axis theorem for their MOI. Side spokes are offset from the x-axis and the y-axis by a distance of one-half the z-axis semi-major axis length c. The spoke mass times the distance from their rotation axis squared is added to the MOIs. The mass mspoke times (c/2)  is 2 added to the side spokes inertias. The mass and MOI values are  summed  for  the  3  sets  of  spokes  to  compute  the  total spoke mass and MOIs.

The masses of the spokes in the Figure 7-26 example sum to 7.0e9 kilograms. The Iz MOI sums to 1.23e16, and the Ix MOI sums to 6.17e15. The spokes stability balance metric of this example is 1.76 and much better than the minimum 1.2 stability metric.

## 7.4.2.3 Elliptical Torus Shuttle Bay

As with all our geometries, the torus station includes a shuttle bay along its axis of rotation. We considered extending the entire shuttle bay along the rotation axis to the width of the torus (2c in Figure 7-25). This low-gravity region is not suitable  for  long-term  habitation.  The  extended  shuttle  bay would not increase the population and would not increase the accessibility for shuttles. Such long bays require significant amounts of material, and that mass is better used to increase the torus radii and population. Instead of a full radius size bay across the entire torus, the design uses a spoke to connect two shuttle bays at opposite sides of the torus; see Figure 7-3 or Figure 7-25.

Each of the shuttle bays has a diameter of 360 meters and a length of 200 meters; see Figure 7-26. The distance between the two bays increases with large stations. As an example, our  example  has  a  593-meter-long  connecting  spoke.  The mass and inertia equations are from §7.1.3.3. The masses of the  shuttle  bay  and  connecting  spoke  in  the  Figure  7-26 example sum to 3.46e10 kilograms. Their Iz MOI sums to 5.52e14, and Ix MOI sums to 5.99e15. The stability balance metric is 0.1 and is worse than our minimum of 1.2 stability metric. This geometry and inertia of the shuttle bay decrease the  desired  station  stability; however,  in most  stations,  the other  components more  than  compensate  for  that  negative impact.

## 7.4.2.4 Elliptical Torus Main Floor

The main floor is modeled as a cylinder inside the elliptical torus  shell.  The  torus  is  designed  to  provide  a  habitable gravity range between the torus major radius and the outer rim; see §3.1 Gravity Limits. The main floor is located at the major radius, at the center of the torus tube.

The main floor is again a cylinder. The main floor mass in the elliptical torus station would be 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 = ρ𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑖 2𝑐 ((𝑅 + 𝑡) 2 -𝑅 2 ) . For  the  Figure  7-26  example,  it  would  have  a radius of 2000 meters, a length of 1800 meters, and a floor thickness of 5 meters. The volume of the main floors would be π 1800 (2005 2 -2000 2 ) or 5.66e7 cubic meters. With a floor

density of 64.4 and a soil density of 1791, the mass would be 8.23e10 kilograms.

The MOI equation about the z-axis for the cylinder representing the floor would be 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) and the MOI Iz would be 3.30e17 kg-m 2 . About the x (or y) axis the MOI equation would be 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 4𝑐 2 ) , and the MOIs Ix and Iy would be 1.57e17 kg-m 2 . Considering only the floor, the stability metric would be Iz/Ix or 1.993. The floor by itself is rotationally stable given the 1.2 metric from [Brown 2002] and [Globus et al. 2007].

## 7.4.2.5 Elliptical Torus Multiple Floors

Like the previous geometries, the floors are modeled with a series of concentric cylinders about the rotation z-axis. The multiple floors are 5 meters apart between the main floor and the  outer  rim.  Unlike  the  cylinder  geometry  example,  the lengths of the cylinders in the torus vary with their radius. They are analyzed more like the multiple floors in the ellipsoid station. The cylinder lengths are bound by the elliptic torus shell, and the radii range from the top floor to the outer rim. The floor length is again computed using 2𝑐√1 - ℎ 2 /𝑎 2 , where c is the axial axis length, a is  the radial semi-minor axis length, and h is the height below the semi-major radial axis R. In the Figure 7-26 example, the lengths range from zero to about 1800 meters, the radii range from 2000 to 2300 meters, and the heights range from 0 to 300 meters.

The mass and MOIs are computed for the series of concentric cylinders.  Each  cylinder  would  have  a  mass  of 𝑚𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5 = ρ𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5 𝑝𝑖 𝐿 (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) .  The  density  of  the  multiple  floors  is from Table 5-1. The mass from the height-varying air density is excluded from the floor density because it is included in the air component analysis. The MOI equation about the zaxis for each of the cylinders would be 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) and about the x (or y) axis the MOI equation would be 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝐿 ) 2 .  The  r   and  r   are  varying  from  R  to o i R+a. Those values are summed to determine the total mass and MOIs of the multiple-floors component. The total mass of the concentric cylinders is within 0.1% of the mass using a closed  outer half elliptic torus formula  ( 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑓 = 𝜋 2 𝑅𝑎𝑐 + 4 3 π𝑎 2 𝑐) . In  the  example  Figure  7-26  torus,  the multiple cylinders' MOIs about the x-axis sum to 7.9e17 kgm 2 ,  and  about  the  z-axis  they  sum  to  7.77e17  kg-m .  The 2 stability of the multiple-floors Iz/Ix would be equal to 1.84 and greater than the minimum stability limit of 1.2.

## 7.4.2.6 Elliptical Torus Air

The density of the air is pressurized to sea level at the outer rim. It decreases to lower densities with increasing height. The air pressure equations were described in §3.2 Air Pressure Limits. The outer rim typically has a sea-level air density of 1.225 kg/m3 and a maximum gravity of 1.05g. In extremely large toruses, airtight layers are introduced to provide habitable air pressure on gravity-limited top floors; see §3.5 Top Floor Limits .

The mass and MOIs are computed for the series of concentric cylinders of air inside the torus tube. Each air cylinder would have  a  mass  of 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑟 = ρℎ  𝑝𝑖 𝐿 (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟𝑖 2 ) .  The  length  of  the cylinder  is  bound  by the  elliptical  torus  shell.  In the  same fashion as the multiple floors, the  analysis uses  concentric cylinders of air. The cylinders of air start at the outer edge and continue to the inner edge of the torus shell; see Figure 7-26. Their radii range from R-a to R+a. The masses of the concentric cylinders of air sum to 1.26e10 kilograms in the example torus in Figure 7-26. This is less than 1/100 the mass of the outer shell with 20 meter thickness.

The  MOI  equation  about  the  z-axis  for  the  air  cylinders would be 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) and about the  x  (or  y) axis  the MOI equation would be 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝐿 ) 2 .  In the Figure 7-26 example, the half lengths range from 0 to 900 meters, and the radii range from 1700 to 2300 meters. Those mass and MOI values are summed to determine the air totals. For our example station in Figure 7-26, the Iz MOI sums to 5.15e16 kg-m 2  for the air in the torus. The Ix MOI sums to 2.83e16. The Iz/Ix stability ratio is 1.82 and more stable than our minimum of 1.2 metric.

## 7.4.2.7 Elliptical Torus Divider

Figure  7-8  shows  a  diagram  of  torus  dividers.  One  of  the eight dividers would be across the elliptical torus tube in Figure 7-25. The divider is not shown because it would obscure the other details. The dividers rotate about the z-axis at a distance of R. The divider provides an airtight seal between sections of the torus. The dividers enclose the spokes; as such, their thickness is about the diameter of the spokes.

A divider in the torus is modeled as two filled elliptical disks with  a  structure  of  trusses  between  them.  It  also  includes multiple floors on the dividers overlooking the open space of the torus; see Figure 2-2. These divider structures are represented as disks with different densities and thicknesses. The mass of the interior divider structure, mdiv, would be the area of the divider ellipse times the structure thickness, tdiv (twice the radius of the spoke ri-spoke ). Conceptually, the mass mdiv = ρ  div t π ai ci .

The divider MOI equations were developed in §7.1.3.7 . The MOIs of each divider are:

$$\cdots \quad & \text{$m$ on can unwraes are.} \\ \text{$kg$} - & I _ { x \alpha } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { d i v } ( 3 a _ { l } ^ { 2 } s i n ^ { 2 } \, \infty + 3 c _ { l } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } \cos ^ { 2 } \, \infty ) + m _ { d i v } R ^ { 2 } \sin ^ { 2 } ( \infty ) \\ 1. 8 4 & I _ { y \alpha } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { d i v } ( 3 a _ { l } ^ { 2 } \cos ^ { 2 } \, \infty + 3 c _ { l } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } \sin ^ { 2 } \, \infty ) + m _ { d i v } R ^ { 2 } \cos ^ { 2 } ( \infty ) \\ & I _ { z d i v } = \frac { 1 } { 1 2 } m _ { d i v } ( 3 a _ { l } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } ) + m _ { d i v } R ^ { 2 } \\ & \text{$the$ no$ action of the $9$ divide each $the$ each $to$} \, \text{$the$no$}$$

The position of the 8 dividers match the spokes in the torus. To match their positions, the angle α varies from 0 to 315 degrees at increments of 45 degrees. The MOI equations for the eight dividers are:

$$\lambda _ { x d i v 8 } = I _ { y d i v 8 } = \frac { 1 } { 3 } m _ { d i v } [ 3 a _ { i } ^ { 2 } + 6 c _ { i } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } + 1 2 \, R ^ { 2 } ] \\ I _ { z d i v 8 } = \frac { 2 } { 3 } m _ { d i v } [ 3 a _ { i } ^ { 2 } + t _ { d i v } ^ { 2 } + 1 2 R ^ { 2 } ] \\ \psi \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

In the example torus of Figure 7-26, the mass of the eight dividers is 5.86e10 kilograms. The Iz MOI sums to 2.36e17

kg-m 2 , and the Ix MOI sums to 1.30e17 kg-m 2 . The divider stability balance metric is 1.8. This is more stable than our minimum of 1.2 stability metric.

## 7.4.2.8 Elliptical Torus Preview

The masses and the MOIs of the components are summed to characterize the elliptical torus station. As a preview, Figure 7-27 shows three pie charts illustrating the distribution of the component masses in three elliptical torus stations. The stations have radii of 200, 2000, and 20000 meters. All three have the same seven components. The torus station includes the divider component unlike the other geometries. In these stations,  the  shell  has  a  thickness  of  20  meters.  Multiple floors extend from the outer rim to the top floor. The floor on the outer rim has a gravity of 1.05g and sea-level air pressure. The top floor is at a height where the top floor gravity is  at  least  0.95g,  and  the air  pressure is  higher  or  equal  to Denver air pressure.

Given these station limits, the charts in Figure 7-27 show the shell comprises more than half of those station masses. An interesting change from the 2000-meter radius station to the 20,000-meter station is the increase in the mass of the multiple floors. With the increasing radius, the mass of the multiple  floors  increases  faster  than  the  shell.  The  mass  of  the floors increases from 5.4% of the total to 28% of the total. The mass of the shell and the main floor both increase as a function of area; the mass of the multiple floors increases as a function of volume. The percentage of air increases from 0.4% to 2.4%. Like with the multiple floors, the size of the station  interior  is  increasing  as  a  function  of  volume.  The masses of the air, spokes, and dividers are much smaller than the shell. Those components have less effect on the construction mass and the overall station stability. In the smallest station, the bay represents nearly ¼ of the station mass. In the

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-bbe62e48-0806-4ac7-99f1-daed10d67bac.jpg)

Air

Floor5

Spokes

Bay

Dividers larger  stations,  the  bay  mass  becomes  insignificant.  The spokes and shuttle bay masses increase with the station diameter;  however,  their  dimensions  change  linearly  or  are fixed in size. Their masses become a smaller percentage of the total with the larger station. The following subsections delve into more detail and explanation.

## 7.4.3 Torus Station Mass Results

Figure 7-28 is included to better illustrate the change in the component masses. The radius increases by a factor of 10 for the  2000  and  20000  meter  radius  stations.  Obviously,  the larger torus station has larger and heavier components. The x-axis of the chart shows the major components of the elliptical torus, and the two chart columns represent the 2,000meter radius station and the 20,000-meter radius station. The left  y-axis  shows  the mass  of the  components,  and  ranges from 1 to 1e18 kilograms on a logarithmic scale. The right yaxis  shows  the  ratio  of  the  component  masses  and  ranges from 1e-4 to 1e5.

Figure 7-28 also presents the ratio of the station masses using the components  from  the  2,000-meter  station  over  the 20,000-meter station. The shuttle bays in both stations are the same size and mass, but the 20,000-meter station has a much longer connecting spoke; as such, the ratio is 1.2. The shell and main floor both increase in size by about 100. Their mass is  a  quadratic (area) relationship to the radius. The air and multiple floors (floor5) increase by factors of 811 and 700. Their masses have a cubic relationship (volume) with the radius.  The  spoke's  length  and  radius  both  increase  linearly with the station radius. Their scaling is quadratic, and their ratio  is  242.  The  mass of  the  total  station  with the  gravity limit is 134.7 times the mass with the air pressure top floor limit.

Figure 7-29 reviews the component mass changes for a wider range of station radii. Figure 7-29a has a stacked bar chart showing  the  torus  station  component  masses.  The  same seven components are included. This chart shows the mass of the torus components as a percentage of the total torus station mass. The y-axis shows the percentages ranging from 0 to  100%.  The  x-axis  shows  the  major  radius  of  the  torus

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-1cbbb96d-21c7-4af9-87a6-4c115d113b6f.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-5a801fb8-a8eb-464b-9342-ac5454a9b23d.jpg)

Figure 7-29 -Torus Components Mass Details

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-21bc3afe-0650-4b12-bffc-c0ff658542c4.jpg)

station, and ranges from 300 meters to 100 thousand meters. The station is designed to be rotationally balanced, and the MOI on the z-axis (rotation axis) is 1.2 times the MOI on the x-axis.  The  thickness  of  the  shell  is  20  meters.  This  chart shows that for small stations, the fixed size of the shuttle bay is  a  large  percentage  of  the  total  mass.  As  the  radius  increases, the  shell and  main  floor  both  increase  in  size and mass to become much more of the station mass. The interior of the torus becomes larger with the larger radius. The volume available for the multiple floors increases, and the chart shows those floors become much more of the station mass. The mass of the spokes becomes negligible with the increasing station radius. The small density of the air and its centripetal  gathering along the  outer rim  reduces  the  air mass growth. The air mass is barely shown on the bar chart in Figure 7-29a.

An alternative view of the same mass data is shown in Figure 7-29b. This figure contains two graphs showing the mass of the components as a function of the torus radius. The y-axes of the charts show mass ranging from 1e6 to 1e16 kilograms on a logarithmic scale. The x-axes of the charts show the elliptical torus major radius ranging from 100 to 100 thousand meters on a logarithmic scale. Both graphs show data from tori with multiple floors, and the main floor height is limited by gravity or air pressure. The graphs have lines representing the total mass and the individual masses of the seven major components of the elliptical torus. Again, this is the same data as presented in Figure 7-29a. The lower graph uses the air pressure top floor limit constraint. The total mass of the largest station is about 3 times greater with the top floor at the gravity limit (9.8e15kg over 3.0e15kg). The shell mass remains the same between the two charts. On larger stations, the top floor drops from the center of the torus tube to a lower height where the air pressure is habitable. On the largest station with a radius of 100,000 meters, the center of the tube has an air density of 0.35 kg/m3, and the inner rim of the tube has only 0.115 kg/m3. This highlights the need for airtight layers. The top floor is at a height of 1543 meters and has the Denver air pressure (83,728 Pascals) and air density (1.01 kg/m3). The top floor height (and the number of floors) is almost 7 times greater without the air pressure constraint. Similarly, the multiple-floors mass on the largest station is 14.5 times greater without the air pressure constraint. With the air pressure limit, the top main floor has a greater radius and a larger circumference, but the top floor width is smaller in the elliptical  cross-section.  Overall,  the  main  floor  area  (and mass) is about 1.8 times greater without the air pressure limit. There are many interesting observations from these charts. Overall, it shows that the air pressure limit has minimal effect on the design and mass until the station radius is greater

than  15,000  meters.  With  larger  stations,  the  air  pressure limit significantly reduces the number of multiple floors and the station mass.

Figure 7-30 is included for completeness and shows the effect of the shell thickness on the station's mass. It shows the stacked bar chart with the torus station's percentage of component masses. It also includes a line chart with the component masses. The same seven torus components are included.

The stacked bar chart shows the mass of the torus components as a percentage of the total torus station mass. The torus has a major radius of R=20,000 meters, and the minor axes are a=2105 meters and c=4211 meters (a=R/9.5 and c=2a). The y-axis shows the percentages ranging from 0 to 100%. The x-axis shows the station shell thickness, and ranges from 0.01 meters to 500 meters. The mass values are included in the right chart of Figure 7-30. That graph shows the mass in kilograms ranging from 1e9 to 1e16 on the logarithmic yaxis. The x-axis shows the shell thickness on a logarithmic scale ranging from 0.01 to 1000 meters.

As one would expect, the mass of the shell increases with the thicker shell. For very thin shells, the multiple floors dominate the station's mass. The volume and mass of the air (torus interior),  the  multiple  floors,  and  the  shuttle  bay  do  not change with the changing shell thickness. Their percent contribution to the total mass decreases with the increasing shell thickness. The thickness of the main floor, the dividers, and the spokes increase with the shell thickness (between a defined  minimum  and maximum thickness)  to  provide  more structural support. The spokes and dividers percentages are much less than the other components and are barely visible in Figure 7-30We advocate a fairly thick shell to protect the station  from  space  debris.  For  thicknesses  greater  than  10 meters, the shell mass dominates the total station mass.

and scaling estimates on earlier work [O'Neill et al. 1979] and engineering estimates.

## 7.4.4 Torus Station Balance Results

The results from the mass and inertia equations are combined to evaluate the elliptical torus's rotational stability. Multiple station parameters could affect the stability, including the radius, the minor axes ratio, and the shell thickness. The moments of inertia were evaluated to determine the station's rotational stability.

The single-floor analysis showed the elliptic torus was rotationally  stable  for  a  broad  range  of  torus axes  lengths and ratios; see Figure 6-8. The radius length has much less effect on  the  stability  than  the  ratio  of  the  elliptic  cross-section axes. The perpendicular axis (c) can be more than 7 times the length of the rotation axis (a); see Table 6-1. The single-floor stability results were found with a straightforward equation analysis. The multiple-floors stability results were found by combining the moments of inertia of the station components.

Figure 7-31 shows four sets of data in bar charts. They show results  for  elliptical torus  stations  with  radii of  200,  2000, 20K, and 200K meters. These charts show the rotational moments of inertia (MOIs) for the seven major components of the station. The seven components are along the x-axis. The logarithmic y-axis shows  the  MOI  in  kilograms-meter squared ranging from 1 to 1e27.

The right chart in Figure 7-30 shows the component masses for  the  same  range  of  station  shell  thicknesses.  This  chart provides details on the scaling of the main floor, spokes, and dividers  with the changing shell thickness. This scaling of the structural design needs additional material strength analysis and finite element analysis. We base our current strength

Above each pair of MOIs (Iz and Ix) is the stability metric (Iz/Ix). All the stability metrics in  Figure 7-31 are close to 1.9, except  for  the  shuttle  bay component.  All the  components are rotationally stable with Iz/Ix greater than 1.2. Torus stations are very stable with Iz/Ix much greater than 1.2. The MOIs of the  shell and multiple-floors  components are  the greatest of all the components and provide much stability to the station.

The  spokes and air  components tend  to  have the  smallest MOIs. The shuttle bay has Ix greater than Iz and negatively affects the station's rotational stability. This component unbalances small stations and slightly reduces their stability ratio; however, with larger stations, the shuttle bay MOIs are

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-37a4778b-8a14-44a2-a030-13e034e39138.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-ec74a70f-5736-4ea2-b32d-7242169c1b4c.jpg)

much smaller than the other component MOIs and do not influence the stability.

Figure 7-32 provides the elliptical torus multiple-floors stability for a broad range of station radii. This graph shows the ratio of the MOIs Iz/Ix as a stability metric. The station is considered rotationally stable with a ratio metric of 1.2, as described in [Brown 2002] and [Globus et al. 2007]. The yaxis  of  the  graph  shows  the  stability  (Iz/Ix)  ratio  ranging from  1.8  to  2.0.  The  x-axis  shows  the  torus  major  radius ranging from 100 to 800 thousand meters on a logarithmic scale. The small range on the y-axis overemphasizes the variation with radius size. This torus has a gravity range of 0.95g to 1.05g, resulting in a scale of 9.5. The radial minor axis a has a length of the major radius R over 9.5, which provides the habitable gravity range from the center of the tube (at radius R) to the outer rim (at radius R+a). The perpendicular minor axis  (c)  has  a  length  of  twice  the  radial  minor  axis (c=2a). The shell is a regolith-filled structure that is 20 meters thick.

Figure 7-32 shows the stability of the station with the gravity limit using multiple floors from the outer rim to the center of the torus tube. It also shows the stability of the station with the air pressure limit, where the top floor has an air pressure of at least Denver's air pressure. The stabilities range from 1.86  to  1.96.  The  gravity  and  air  pressure  stabilities  are

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-90df4553-64a0-48e0-ae56-23e47d8509fa.jpg)

nearly identical for most of the graph. A small difference in the  stability  appears  with  very  large  torus  radii. The  small difference is accentuated with the small range on the y-axis. The  elliptical  torus  stabilities  shown  in  Figure  7-32  are greater (more stable) than our minimum stability ratio metric of 1.2. For reference, the graph also includes the stability ratio of 1.92 for the thin shell single-floor elliptical torus using the same major and minor radii.

Figure 7-33 is included to better understand the component stabilities in the system. The x-axes of the charts in Figure 7-33a show the rotation radius on a logarithmic scale ranging from 100 to 400,000 meters. The left y-axis in Figure 7-33a show  the  components'  stability  ratios  (Iz/Ix),  and  ranges from 1.75 to 2.00. The right y-axis shows the ratios for the total stability and for the bay component and ranges from 0.0 to 3.5 The two scales of the y-axes provide more detail for the different components.

Each component has a different mass, so the total station stability ratio is not simply the sum of these individual component stabilities. The shuttle bay component stability quickly drops as the two 200-meter length bays are separated with a connecting spoke. Their combined length matches the distance to the outer edge of the torus spokes. The bay spoke is approximately the minor axis length, c. The spoke dimensions increase with increasing station radius to provide more structural strength. The number of spokes increases at station radii of 8500 and 85,000 meters. The increase in the number of spokes causes the step functions in the spoke stability. The station stability for the air pressure limit remains fairly constant at about 1.95 beyond the 1,000-meter radius. The main floor, the air, and the multiple floors all have a stability Iz/Ix of about 1.95 until radii greater than 10,000 meters. The stability  of  the  multiple-floors  component  increases  past  the 10,000-meter radius. With the larger stations and the air pressure top floor limit, the stability of the floors is larger. The mass increases slower with the top floor constrained. Even with the less mass, the greater distance from the rotation center increases the stability. The air component has a similar increase as more air is centripetally pushed to the outer edge.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-c402eb17-7d43-4edc-8c1b-d521c577582b.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-9e077c09-8e94-459d-a7df-3cd3c443ab22.jpg)

For completeness,  we include  the  same  stability  results  in Figure 7-33b except we normalize each stability using the component mass (Mcomp) and the total station mass (Mstation). The y-axis values represent a form of stability and would be equal to Iz/Ix times Mcomp/Mstation. These results clearly show the minimal effect that most of the components have on the station stability. The shell stability dominates all the station stabilities. The shuttle bay stability, the main floor stability, and the multiple-floors stability assert some effect on the station stability, but much less than the shell effect. The following paragraphs further investigate these component stability masses and their MOIs.

The effect of the station geometry is used to further investigate  the  stability  of the elliptical  torus.  Figure  7-34  shows more  details  on  this  stability  with  the  two  charts.  Those charts vary the station elliptical cross-section ratio (c/a) and the gravity range ratio (R/a).

The  station  is  stable  (Iz/Ix=1.2)  for  all  the  data  in  Figure 7-34a. The elliptical torus is designed with the minor axis a set to  the radius over  6.33  or  9.5. This  produces  a  gravity range from 0.95g on the center main floor to 1.1g or 1.05g on the outer rim. The x-axis of the chart shows the station radius and is logarithmic from 100 to 40,000 meters. The yaxis shows the ratio of the two minor elliptic axes (c/a). The single-floor example found the station stable across a broad range of major radii. With R=6.33a, the station is stable with the axes ratio (c/a) from 6.0 to 8.0 as the radius R ranges from 200 to 400,000 meters. With R=9.5a, the torus would remain stable even with the torus tube cross-section being very elongated, with c/a ranging between 9 to 12. The station is typically  designed  using  c=2a  or  c=3a,  and  the  chart  includes those ratios for reference. With these design ratios, the station would be stable with a significant margin for safety. The chart also shows the increase in elliptic ratio for large stations using the top floor air pressure constraint. This increase is from the increase in stability  with  the  smaller  floor  height limit. The thinner cylinder of multiple floors is more stable than the thicker cylinder of multiple floors.

Figure 7-34b shows the chart with an alternative view of this stability data. Again, the x-axis shows the radius. The y-axis shows  the  stability  ratio  of  the  station  (Iz/Ix).  The  chart shows the minimum stability ratio of Iz=1.2Ix for reference.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-4e4f3466-910d-412c-aa75-b74e7a4b9af5.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-5b5d6071-cdf1-4c15-930b-3fc5797def03.jpg)

The three sets of ratios show the effect of varying the axes ratio (c/a). Consistent with the previous chart in Figure 7-32, most of the ratio data is greater than the minimum stability value. This shows the station is stable for c=2a and c=6a. The station is not rotationally stable when c=10a and R=6.33a. There are limits on the torus geometry ratio.

For completeness, Figure 7-35 is included to illustrate the effect of the shell thickness on the stability of the multiple component elliptical torus. The x-axis provides the same range of thicknesses as in our earlier thickness chart. The y-axis only presents a narrow range of stability (Iz/Ix) from 1.9 to 2.0. The increasing thickness reduces the stability. Recall that a ratio of 1.2 provides passive stability, and all thicknesses are stable for the 20,000-meter radius elliptical torus station.

## 7.5 Dumbbell - Multiple Component Stability

This study continues with the multiple component stability analysis for dumbbells. The dumbbell is unique compared to the earlier three geometries. In particular, the dumbbell rotational axis MOI is nearly identical to one of the other axes' MOIs. This implies that the station would not be stable based on our previous three stability rules; see §6The dumbbell single-floor stability subsection covered this instability. The station is expected to settle into a limit cycle, causing a wobble on its rotational axis [Fitzpatrick 2023]. For the most part, this paper ignores this wobbling and continues the analysis of the multiple-floors dumbbell station.

This section defines and analyzes the six major components of  the  rotating  dumbbell  space  station.  It covers  equations used to represent the components' mass and inertia. It presents the location and limits on the top floor of the multiple floors  of  the  dumbbell  station.  It  presents  the  station mass and stability balance results. This section concludes by introducing a double dumbbell design. This design can address the  single  dumbbell  wobbling.  That  subsection  includes  a brief analysis of its mass and balance.

## 7.5.1 Dumbbell Station Components

Figure 7-36 shows a cross-section rendering of a full dumbbell station. It illustrates the station dumbbell geometry with labels for components and densities. This view is on the yaxis. It also includes a three-dimensional line drawing of the

Figure 7-35 -Torus Shell Thickness and Stability

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-503419f8-2aa8-4ae7-aac0-1b56555eb731.jpg)

geometry. The drawings include the outer shell, main floor, multiple floors, center spoke, side spokes, and shuttle bay.

Figure 7-37 shows another drawing of an example dumbbell station with ellipsoid nodes. The vertical axis shows the vertical  distance  from  the  axis  of  rotation  (z-axis) and  ranges from 0 to 2400 meters. The horizontal axis shows the horizontal  distance  from  the  vertical  axis  (x-  or  y-axis)  and ranges from 0 to 1000 meters. The drawing only shows onequarter of the complete dumbbell. A full drawing of this example dumbbell would extend from -2300 to 2300 meters on the vertical axis. It would extend from 900 to -900 meters on the horizontal axis. The drawing labels the dumbbell's major components including the outer shell, main floor, multiple floors, center spoke, side spoke, and shuttle bay.

## 7.5.2 Dumbbell Mass and Inertia Equations

The 6 components of the dumbbell and their mass equations were presented in §5.1 Station Component Equations . These mass equations are extended to provide the Moment of Inertia (MOI) equations for each of the major components of the dumbbell. These components include the masses and volumes of the structures, fill, and panels. Summing the results  from  these  individual  components  produces  the  total station  mass  and  rotational  moments  of  inertia.  The  mass equations use the material densities in Table 5-1. The rotational  moments  of  inertia  (MOIs)  equations  use  the  mass. The stability of the station is measured by using the ratio of the MOIs. The dumbbell rotational axis MOI (Iz) is nearly identical to  one of its  other axes'  MOIs  (Iy)  and creates  a rotationally unbalanced system.

## 7.5.2.1 Dumbbell Shell

The dumbbells of this paper use ellipsoid nodes. The singlefloor stability analysis used the thick shell moment of inertia equations from Table 5-2. The ellipsoid equation characteristics were presented in §5.2 Ellipsoid Analysis. This station node  design  uses  the  uniform  shell  thickness  model.  As shown in  previous  subsections, the  outer  shell  is  modeled with a series of hollow disks. The mass and inertias of the rings are summed to produce the ellipsoid node values. The ellipsoid node inertia is computed, and then the parallel axis theorem is applied to calculate the inertia of the two rotating dumbbell  nodes. These  disks are  circular  about  the  center node axis. The dumbbell node shell is divided into thousands of slices along that axis of rotation. Each slice has a thickness of t d equal to co/1000. Because this is a prolate ellipsoid node, hollow-cylinder disks can be used to compute the mass and MOIs. The disks are stacked along the z-axis, ranging from co to co. The mass of a disk would be 𝑚𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑘 = ρ𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝜋 𝑡 𝑑  (𝑟 𝑜 2 -𝑟 2 𝑖 ) where ro and ri are the inner and outer edges of each disk. These  radii  are  computed  using  the  ellipse  cross-section along the z and y axis. The summed mass of the disks was within 0.1% of the thick ellipsoid shell mass equation value.

A similar approach is used for the dumbbell node inertias. The moments of inertia are computed using the same hollow disks, but the Iz and Iy MOIs for the nodes require the parallel axis theorem. This adds the node mass times the distance

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-65fcf1d6-9353-4bfe-a33b-3cfd33265ac0.jpg)

to  the  node  center  of  gravity  from the z-axis  squared.  The station and the disks rotate about the z-axis. We use the MOIs for thick shell disks from Table 5-2. The moment of inertia about the z-axis for the disks would be 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 2 𝑚𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑘 (𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ), where ro and ri are the disk radii along the node ellipse. The moment of inertia for the disks about the Ix (or Iy) axis would be 𝐼 𝑥 = 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3(𝑟 𝑜 2 +𝑟𝑖 2 ) + 𝑡 𝑑 2 ) + 𝑚𝑑𝑥 2 where dx is the distance from the x-axis. The thousands of disks are summed and compared to the result of the MOIs for the thick ellipsoid shells in the dumbbell. The summed MOIs of the disks are within 0.1% of the thick shell inertia equation results.

There are two nodes, and we double the mass of the dumbbell shell components. We double the node x-axis MOI to compute the Ix for the dumbbell shell component I xshell = 2 Ix . The node y-axis and z-axis use the parallel axis theorem with their MOIs at a distance of R. Those MOIs are doubled because of the two nodes in the dumbbell and results in I zshell =2 (I +m R 2 z ) and I yshell =2 (Iy+ m R 2 ).

## 7.5.2.2 Dumbbell Spokes

The spokes are again modeled as thick shell cylinders. The dumbbell  only  has  one  set  of  spokes  instead  of  the  four shown  with  the  other  geometries.  These  spokes  must  be strong enough to support the entire rotating node mass. The stress on the spokes can be estimated using the mass of the node and the area of the spokes. The effective radius of the spokes is set to be 3% of the dumbbell's major radius. Multiple  spokes are used and are designed to provide the same combined area as a spoke with the effective area. The wall

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-1aec6a02-22c1-4965-939c-fd36b0efaa4b.jpg)

thickness of the spokes is 10% of the radius and a maximum shell thickness of 50 meters. The length of the center spoke is the dumbbell's major radius plus the minor elliptical node radius. The offset side spoke is shorter than the center spoke and is constrained by the curve of the elliptical node. In Figure 7-36 the side spokes are positioned halfway across the minor axis c. The spokes extend from the outer rim of one dumbbell node to the outer rim of the other dumbbell node. The mass and MOIs of the spokes are computed using the same approach as used in the previous cylinder geometry.

## 7.5.2.3 Dumbbell Shuttle Bay

The shuttle bay is along the rotation axis of the dumbbell station. The geometry and analysis are nearly identical to the other geometry shuttle bays. The shuttle bay has a maximum radius of 180 meters and a maximum length of 400 meters. For larger stations, the bay is split in half. The halves are positioned at the outer edges of the two side spokes; see Figure 7-37. A shuttle bay spoke connects the two bays to provide structural integrity. The shuttle bay mass and MOIs are computed using the equations shown with previous geometries.

## 7.5.2.4 Dumbbell Main Floor

The mass and MOIs of the main floor are computed using a flat elliptical disk. It may be more appropriate to curve the

floor in the rotation direction. Centripetal gravity would be directed perpendicular to the curved plate. One would experience a lean when walking on the rotating flat disk; see §5.3 Dumbbell Modeling Details. For an engineering estimate, the volumes and areas of flat and curved disks are close to equal for large-radius stations. The main floor is built and modeled as an ellipse disk, and the elliptical disk equations from Table 5-2 are used to compute the main floor MOIs. That ellipse disk is in Figure 7-36 on the node axis b-c plane and rotates about the z-center axis at a distance R in the x direction. The mass of the floor is m and is equal to 𝑚𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 = ρ𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑡 𝑓 𝜋 𝑎 𝑐 . The variables a and c are the elliptical node axes length. The variable tf is the thickness of the main floor or the soil on top of the floor. The floor density is twice the 5-meter floor density (64.4 kg/m3), and the soil density is ρfill (1791 kg/m3). The elliptical disk equations in Table 5-2 are rotated to match the  orientation  of the  dumbbell's main  floor. The analysis uses the node inertias 𝐼 𝑥 = 1 4 𝑚(𝑎 2 +𝑐 2 ) for the x-axis, 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 12 𝑚(3𝑎 2 +𝑡𝑓 ) 2 for the z-axis, and 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚(3𝑐 2 +𝑡𝑓 ) 2 for the y-axis. The elliptical disk rotates about the z-axis and is offset to the major radius. The same would be true if rotating about the y-axis. The I z and I y MOIs for the main floor in the dumbbell require the parallel axis theorem and add the floor mass times the distance R from the z-axis squared.

## 7.5.2.5 Dumbbell Multiple Floors

This component of the station is represented with a series of ellipse disks. These are analyzed like the main floor. In this analysis, the multiple floors are 5 meters apart, and their radii range between the main floor and the outer rim. The minor length of the floor at height h uses the ellipse equation 𝑎ℎ =

a𝑖 √1 - 𝑑 2 /𝑎 𝑖 2 where a  is the node minor axis and d is the i depth below the center main floor (d=a -h). The minor axes' i lengths are typically scaled by 2 or 3 to compute the major lengths, ci and ch. The density of the multiple floors is from Table  5-1;  however,  the  air  density  is  excluded  from  the floors and included in the air analysis. The curved elliptical node shell binds the size of the ellipse floor layer. The multiple  floors  analysis  uses  a layer  thickness  tf much smaller than 5 meters. The thin layer improves the accuracy of the analysis  within  the  curved  shell.  The  mass  and  MOIs  are computed  for  the  series  of  floor  layers.  Each  layer  would have a mass of 𝑚𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 = ρ𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟5 𝑡 𝑙 𝜋 𝑎 ℎ  𝑐 ℎ , where t  is the layer l thickness and a  and c  are the dimensions of the ellipse layer h h floor at height h. The layer MOIs are computed on the three axes. The elliptical disk equations in Table 5-2 are rotated to match the orientation of the dumbbell floors. They become 𝐼 𝑥 = 1 4 𝑚𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 (𝑎 ℎ 2 +𝑐ℎ ) 2 for the x-axis, 𝐼 𝑧 = 1 12 𝑚𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 (3𝑎 ℎ 2 +𝑡𝑙 2 ) for the z-axis and 𝐼 𝑦 = 1 12 𝑚𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 (3𝑐 ℎ 2 +𝑡𝑙 2 ) for the y-axis. The I z and I y MOIs for the floors in the dumbbell require the parallel axis theorem and the location of the multiple-floors center of gravity (CoG) from the z-axis. The MOIs add the floor mass times the CoG distance squared.

In the Figure 7-37 example, the floor lengths range from zero to about 1800 meters as the radii range from 2300 to 2000 meters. The multiple-layer values are summed to determine the total mass and MOIs of the multiple-floors component. The total mass of the layers is less than 1% different than the mass using an ellipsoid volume formula: V = 4 3 π𝑎 2 𝑐 . In the Figure 7-26 torus example, the MOIs of the multiple floors about the x-axis sum to 6.20e14 kg-m , about the y-axis sum 2 to 6.21e16, and about the z-axis sum to 6.17e16 kg-m . The 2 stability Iz/Ix of the multiple floors equals 99.7 and is much greater than the minimum stability limit of 1.2 [Brown 2002] [Globus et al. 2007]. The other stability would be Iz/Iy, and equals 0.99 and is less than the minimum stability ratio. This corroborates the unstable wobble issue discussed earlier in this section.

## 7.5.2.6 Dumbbell Air

The air mass and inertia analysis is very similar to the analysis shown for the elliptical torus. The air density in the station is sea level at the outer rim. It decreases to lower densities with increasing height. The formulae and examples were introduced in §3.2 Air Pressure Limits. It is assumed the air behaves like a low-density solid. The masses of each layer of air would be analyzed like those in the multiple floors except with  varying  densities.  Each  layer  would  have  a  mass  of 𝑚𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 = ρ𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑡  𝜋 𝑎  𝑐 𝑙 𝑖 𝑖 . The layers of air start at the outer node shell and continue to the inner node shell; see Figure 7-36. The MOIs of the layers of air use the same approach as the multiple-floors layers. In the Figure 7-37 example, the half lengths range from 0 to approximately 900 meters, and the radii  range from  about  1700  to  2300 meters. The analysis uses 2000 layers; the thickness tl equals ai/2000 or 0.3 meters. The volume of those summed layers matches the result using  an  ellipsoid  volume  equation.  The  mass  and  MOI values are summed to determine the air totals. The Iz and Iy use the parallel axis theorem and the center of gravity (CoG) of the ellipsoid air.

## 7.5.2.7 Dumbbell Preview

The masses and the MOIs of the components characterize the dumbbell station. As a preview, Figure 7-38 shows pie charts illustrating the distribution of the component masses in three dumbbell stations. One of the stations has a radius of 200 meters, another  has  2000 meters, and the  third  has  20,000 meters. All have the same six components. In these stations, the shell has a thickness of 20 meters. Multiple floors extend from the outer rim to the top floor. The top floor is at a height where the top floor gravity is 0.95g, and the air pressure is higher or equal to the Denver air pressure.

Given these station limits, the mass distributions change between the different size stations and are quite different than those  of  previous  geometries.  In  the  other  geometries,  the spokes  are  typically  insignificant  compared  to  their  other components. The shells of the cylinder, ellipsoid, and torus extend around the rotation axis at the major radius R. The dumbbell node does not extend around the rotation axis and has a much smaller radius equal to R/m. The spokes in all four designs have a length nearly the twice the radius R. With the smallest dumbbell in Figure 7-38 the shuttle bay dominates the system mass. The shuttle bay is fairly fixed in size and becomes a smaller percentage of the total mass as the

station  size  increases.  With the  increasing  station  size,  the outer  shell  remains  a  significant  contribution  to  the  total mass. With increasing radius size and the increase in the node size, the mass of the multiple floors begins to increase faster than the shell. The mass of the floors increases from 0.1% to 2% and to 11% of the total with the three example dumbbells in  Figure  7-38   With  increasing  floor  and  node  mass,  the . spokes increase in radius and mass to support the increasing stress. The mass of the spokes increases from near 0.5% to 5% and to 40% of the total. As with the other geometries, the mass of the shell and the main floor both increase as a function of area; the mass of the multiple floors  increases as a function  of  volume.  The  following  subsections  delve  into more details and explanations for the dumbbell.

## 7.5.3 Dumbbells - Small and Large Comparison

Figure 7-39 illustrates design changes between a small and large dumbbell. The left graph shows a dumbbell with a radius of 2000 meters, and the right shows a dumbbell with a radius of 200 meters. The axes and scales of the charts are different to better illustrate details in the stations. Both use a shell with a thickness of 20 meters. The shell appears quite thin in the 2000-meter radius station and excessively thick in the  200-meter  radius  station.  The  internal  space  appears much more constrained in the small station. The small station would only hold 4 floors spaced 5 meters apart, and the large station would hold 40 floors. Both stations provide 0.95g on the main floor and 1.05g at the outer rim of the station. The small  station  would  rotate  at  2  rpm,  and  the  large  station would  rotate  at  0.65  rpm.  For  most  people,  neither  would cause  nausea  from  rotation  effects  on  the  inner  ear.  Both

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-475babea-533e-4108-b92b-bd0a79bad53c.jpg)

Spokes

Bay stations would be rotationally unstable (Iz/Iy&lt;1.2) and would have wobble that may cause problems for the inhabitants and equipment. Table 7-1 compares and summarizes a set of metrics for the two stations.

## 7.5.4 Dumbbell Station Mass Results

Figure 7-40 provide a view of the dumbbell station component  masses.  It  includes  the  same  six  components  as  reviewed  with  other  geometries.  The  thickness  of  the  outer shell  is  20  meters.  The  station  has  stability  metrics  of Iz/Ix&gt;1.2 and Iz/Iy&lt;1.2, and would be rotationally unstable. This instability would manifest as a periodic wobble  [Fitzpatrick 2023].

Figure 7-40a contains two stacked bar charts as one view of the dumbbell station component mass. The stacked bar chart shows the masses of the dumbbell components as percentages of the total dumbbell station mass. The y-axes show the

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-17e40c82-2a3c-4379-8ccb-65ec4c0d306e.jpg)

## Table 7-1 -Dumbbell Size Comparison

| Size            | Large Dumbbell    | Small Dumbbell    |
|-----------------|-------------------|-------------------|
| Radius          | 2000 meters       | 200 meters        |
| Minor A         | 210.5 meters      | 21.1 meters       |
| Minor C         | 421.1 meters      | 42.1 meters       |
| Shell Thickness | 20 meters         | 20 meters         |
| Spokes          | 3                 | 1                 |
| Spoke Thickness | 3.5 meters        | 1.0 meters        |
| Population      | 107,605 people    | 101 people        |
| Mass            | 1.2e11 kilograms  | 2.6e9 kilograms   |
| Half Bay        | 90R x 200L meters | 62R x 124L meters |
| Rotation        | 0.65 rpm          | 2.06 rpm          |

percentages ranging from 0 to 100%. The x-axes show the major radius of the dumbbell station, and range from 200 meters to 40 thousand meters.

Figure  7-40b  shows  an  alternative  view  of  the  same  mass data. This figure contains two line graphs showing the mass of the components as a function of the torus radius. The yaxes of the charts show mass ranging from 1e6 to 1e16 kilograms on a logarithmic scale. The x-axes of the charts show the elliptical torus major radius ranging from 100 to 40 thousand meters on a logarithmic scale. Both graphs show data from  dumbbells  with  multiple  components  and  a  gravity range of 0.95g to 1.05g from the node center to the outer rim. The graphs have lines representing the total mass and the individual masses of the six major components of the elliptical dumbbell.  The  lower  graph  includes  the  air  pressure  limit constraint.

Both charts  show that the shuttle  bays in  small-radius  stations dominate the total station mass. They are fixed in size to accommodate arriving supplies and personnel. The shuttle bay size is scaled smaller for the smallest stations. The shuttle bay reaches its maximum size at a station radius of about 1000  meters.  There  is  small  growth  with  larger  stations because of the connecting spoke between two halves of the large shuttle bay cylinders.

The largest station of the charts in Figure 7-40 has a radius of 40 kilometers, a semi-minor radius of 4211 meters, and a semi-major radius of 8421 meters. The total mass of the largest station is about 30% greater with top-floor gravity limit. Much of that increase is from the multiple-floors component. The shell mass remains the same between the two charts. The air pressure is habitable from the outer rim to 1560 meters above the outer rim. The top floor is at this height of 1560 meters and has the Denver air pressure (83,728 Pascals) and air density (1.01 kg/m3). The top floor with the gravity limit would be at 4211 meters above the outer rim. The air pressure at this height would be 0.74 kg/m3 and not habitable. This is a case where airtight layers would be introduced to provide habitable air pressure on gravity-limited top floors; see §3.5 Top Floor Limits .

With a radius of 40K meters, the top floor height (and the number of floors) is 2.7 times greater with the gravity limit. Similarly, with more floors, the mass of the multiple-floors on the largest station is 5.6 times greater without the air pressure constraint. The top main floor at 4211 meters is a larger

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-e5ed319a-8510-4573-bcad-a760ca8a79ed.jpg)

elliptic disk and is about 3.5 times greater than the disk at 1560 meters.

There are many interesting observations from these charts. Overall, the charts show that the air pressure limit has minimal effect on the design and mass until the station radius is greater  than  15,000  meters.  Placing  the top  floor in larger stations  at  the  air  pressure  limit  significantly  reduces  the number of multiple floors and the station mass. Fortunately, airtight layers can overcome this air pressure limit and support extremely large populations.

Figure 7-41 provides charts with another view of the dumbbell station component mass. It includes the same six components. Those charts study a dumbbell station with a 2,000meter radius. The dumbbell shell thickness is varied to see the effect on the station components. The left chart shows the mass of the dumbbell components as a percentage of the total dumbbell  station  mass.  The  y-axis  shows  the  percentages ranging from 0 to 100%. The right chart shows the component masses in kilograms on the y-axis. The y-axis is logarithmic and ranges from 10 million to 100 billion kilograms. In both charts, the x-axis shows the thickness of the dumbbell station shell, and ranges from 0.01 meters to 500 meters to 1000 meters.

component masses for the same range of station shell thickness. This chart provides details on the scaling of the main floor, spokes, and dividers with the changing shell thickness. This scaling analysis needs additional material strength analysis (perhaps using finite element analysis). The current scaling estimates are based on earlier work [O'Neill et al. 1979] and engineering spoke stress estimates.

Figure 7-42 illustrates the effect of the gravity range ratios on the mass of the dumbbell station. The x-axis of the chart shows  the  dumbbell  radius  on  a  logarithmic  scale  ranging from 100 to 40,000 meters. The left y-axis shows the station mass on a logarithmic scale ranging from 1e9 to 1e16 kilograms.  The  right  y-axis  shows  the  height  of  the  top  floor above the outer side of the dumbbell node. The data is shown for two gravity range ratios using the major radius R over the node radius equal to 6.33 and 9.5. These two values produce gravity ranges from 0.95g on the center floor to 1.05g or 1.1g on the outer edge of the node.

As one would expect, the mass of the shell increases with the thicker  shell.  With  large  shell  thicknesses,  the  shell  mass dominates the station's mass. For very thin shells, the multiple floors dominate the station's mass. The volume and mass of  the  air  (torus  interior)  and  the  multiple  floors  do  not change  with  the  shell  thickness.  The  shuttle  bay  and  the spokes barely increase with large shell thicknesses. Only the shell, multiple floors, and shuttle bay represent a significant percentage of the total mass. The thickness of the main floor increases with the shell thickness but is limited to a minimum and a maximum. In general, we advocate a fairly thick shell to  provide  protection  from  space  debris.  For  thicknesses greater than 10 meters, the shell mass dominates the total station  mass.  The  second  chart  in  Figure  7-41  shows  the

The chart shows that the smaller gravity range (m=9.5) has a smaller station mass than the larger gravity range (m=6.33). For a given radius, the node dimensions are smaller with the larger  scaling  factor  m=9.5.  With  smaller  dumbbell  radii, there are more floors with the larger gravity range (m=6.33) and  larger  node  dimensions.  The  top  floor  is  at  a  greater height with the larger node dimensions (m=6.33) until the air pressure effects begin to limit the floor height. The longer radius to the outer rim and slower rotation affect the air pressure and increase the top floor height. Even with the lower mass, an additional 14 floors are available in very large stations with the smaller gravity range (m=9.5).

## 7.5.5 Dumbbell Spoke Stress Consideration

The stress distribution in cylinders, ellipsoids, and tori dominates as hoop stress. The dumbbell stress must be modeled differently. The stress in the dumbbell spokes is modeled as force over area. The spoke cross-section area varies with the rotation  radius.  The  spokes  are  modeled  with  concentric outer and inner cylinders. The spoke cross-section area uses

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-f3529c7e-181b-4250-b661-7eeecd80f575.jpg)

Figure 7-42 -Dumbbell Mass and Gravity Range

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-0cb41a5f-2a0c-49a4-be49-1b5c2d5da1e5.jpg)

the cross-section area of the outer cylinder plus a fraction of the inner cylinder cross-section area. The force is the mass rotating about the center of the station. The mass is the summation of the masses of the entire shell, main floor, air, and multiple floors. This force includes the 1g acceleration from centripetal rotation. The total force also includes the mass of the spoke accelerating at an average of one-half of 1g.

Figure 7-43 shows the effect of this simple stress analysis on the dumbbell tether or spoke. The x-axis shows the rotation radius on a logarithmic scale ranging from 100 to 100,000 meters. The y-axis shows the stress in megapascals (MPa). Material strengths from [Jensen 2023] are used; specifically, Anhydrous Glass (max) is 13,800 MPa, Anhydrous Glass is 3,000 MPa, and Steel is 1,240 MPa. The data shows the computed spoke stress for the dumbbell geometry. The spoke radius increases with the station radius. To support the stress, no maximum radius size is defined for the dumbbell spoke. There are reasonable limits on the spoke radius, such as exceeding the size of the nodes or using all the available construction mass. Figure 7-43 uses the results for stations where the top floor is limited by the gravity range and limited by the  habitable  air  pressure.  The  node  has  more  floors  and mass, with the top floor being limited by the gravity range. The graph shows greater stress from that increased mass in the  large  stations.  With  the  small  station  sizes,  the  graph shows  reduced  stress  from  the  scaling  of  components  and their reduced mass.

The chart and simple analysis show that even steel structures could  support  the  dumbbell  spoke  stress  in  large  stations. With  structures  made  from  the  ideal  laminated  anhydrous glass,  the  stations  could  be  greater  than  100,000  meters. Tests on the strength of laminated anhydrous glass and structural analysis using finite element analysis tools are still required to fully validate such results. The results of this simple analysis provide confidence to continue with large space station design examples.

## 7.5.6 Dumbbell Station Balance Results

The results from the mass and inertia equations are combined to further evaluate the dumbbell's rotational stability. Multiple station parameters could affect stability. These

Figure 7-43 -Dumbbell Spoke Stress

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-936947e4-a2ac-42a3-bf4a-39b37b3f8921.jpg)

parameters include the radius, the minor axes ratio, and the shell thickness. The moments of inertia are evaluated to determine the station's rotational stability. As previously covered, the single dumbbell station does not meet the standard criteria for stability [Brown 2002] [Fitzpatrick 2023].

The single-floor analysis showed that the dumbbell was not rotationally  stable.  The  single-floor  stability  results  were found with straightforward equation analysis. The multiplefloors stability results were found using the moment of inertia of the components. We had hoped that the additional components might improve the stability.

Figure 7-44 introduces the dumbbell's multiple-floors stability. The top graph shows the moments of inertia for an elliptic node dumbbell as a function of the dumbbell radius. This represents the summation of the inertia of the 6 components. The bottom graph shows the MOIs as a function of the station shell thickness. The inertia about the z-axis and the yaxis are almost identical. The MOI about the x-axis is almost 100 times less than the MOIs about the other two axes. As a reminder, these axes were shown in the bottom half of Figure 7-36. Section §6.5.1 Are dumbbell stations rotationally stable? determined that single dumbbells are rotationally unstable. The ratio Iz/Iy is approximately 1.0 and represents an unstable rotation. The ratio Iz/Ix is much greater than the 1.2 ratio and would represent a stable system.

Figure 7-45 further investigates the elliptical dumbbell stability. This graph shows the ratio of the MOIs Iz/Ix and Iz/Iy as stability ratio metrics. Typically, the station is considered rotationally stable with a stability metric of 1.2, as described in [Brown 2002] and [Globus et al. 2007]. In the case of the dumbbell, the MOIs of the rotation axis and another principal axis are nearly equal. The y-axis of the graph shows the stability  ratio  ranging from  0.1  to  200.  The  x-axis  shows  the dumbbell's major radius ranging from 100 to 40,000 meters on a logarithmic scale. This dumbbell has a gravity range of 0.95g to 1.05g, resulting in a design scale of 9.5. The radial node a-axis length is the major axis length R over 9.5. This provides the habitable gravity range from the center of the tube  (at  radius  R)  to  the  outer  rim  (at  radius  R+a).  The

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-96ce3312-d504-4856-8520-11e1def62297.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-d458b01e-4089-47be-b2d5-bb17e4059573.jpg)

perpendicular minor c-axis length is a multiple of the radial minor axis. The shell is a regolith-filled 20-meter-thick structure. As previously described, the Iz/Iy stability ratio is close to 1.0 for these elliptical dumbbells. The other stability ratio, Iz/Ix, is much greater than the minimum stability ratio of 1.2. The ellipsoid node axes are varied for this analysis. The node radial axis, a, remains at R/9.5 to provide habitable gravity over the floors. The perpendicular axis, c, is varied from 1x, 2x, and 3x the radial axis length. The more prolate ellipsoid tends to reduce the stability Iz/Ix ratio; however, the design ratio c/a appears to have minimal effect on the Iz/Iy stability ratio.

The analysis  of  both  the  single-floor  and  multiple-component stability found the dumbbell was not rotationally stable. The  rotation  axis  and  one  of  the  other  principal  axes  are nearly equal. This breaks one of the stability rules presented earlier [Fitzpatrick 2011] [Globus et al. 2007] [Brown 2002]. Fortunately, the instability grows algebraically and not exponentially. The station would not flip between the two equal principal  axes;  instead,  a  periodic  wobble  would  be  introduced [Fitzpatrick 2023]. For this paper, the wobble and its effect on the station will remain an open issue for the single dumbbell system.

## 7.5.7 Double Dumbbell Alternative

Alternative dumbbell architectures can resolve the stability issues of previous dumbbell subsections. Multiple variations of  the  dumbbell  are  discussed  in  [Johnson  and  Holbrow 1977] and  [NSF  2014]. This  subsection introduces one  of those alternatives and  includes a  brief  overview  of the design, mass, stability, and population.

Design: Figure  7-46  shows  a  line  drawing  of  the  double dumbbell concept. This design is essentially two dumbbells oriented perpendicular about a common rotation center. The double dumbbell architecture has the same components described in the previous subsections on the single dumbbell station  geometry.  Figure  7-46  shows  the  prolate  ellipsoid nodes,  the  spokes,  and  the  central  shuttle  bay.  The  main floor, the multiple floors, and the air are internal to the nodes. These components can be used to compute the station's mass, required building material, construction schedules, and moments of inertia (MOI).

Mass: Figure  7-47  shows a  comparison  of the  single  and double dumbbell masses as a function of their radius. The chart includes data from two gravity ranges where the top floor is at 0.95g, and the outer rim floor is at 1.05g or 1.1g. The node radial axis, a, is set to R/9.5 or R/6.33 to provide these  habitable  gravity  ranges  over  the  floors. The  air pressure and top floor analysis remain the same for both the single  and  double  dumbbell  geometries.  As  expected,  the mass  of  the  double  dumbbell  is  approximately  double  the

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-6963c666-fa2d-4bcc-ab27-a14fad8bd0e6.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-1796f36f-a7e7-4aee-a6a7-895b19d14b11.jpg)

single dumbbell. The mass of the nodes and spokes double while only one shuttle bay is needed at the center.

The Figure 7-47 x-axis ranges from 100 to 40,000 meters on a logarithmic scale. The left y-axis ranges from 1e9 to 1e15 kilograms on a logarithmic scale. The right y-axis shows the ratio of the double dumbbell mass over the single dumbbell mass. That ratio axis ranges from 0 to 2.4 on a linear scale. The  chart  includes  data  from  single  and  double  dumbbell geometries with two gravity ranges.

The masses of the stations increase with their radius. Earlier subsections showed  that the mass of the shuttle bay dominates the small station mass. This explains the  slower rate  of  increase  in  the  small  stations.  At  sizes  larger  than 1000 meters  in  radius  the  rate  of  increase  is  nearly  linear between the radius and the mass.  The ratio data in  Figure 7-47 shows that the mass of a large double dumbbell station is  twice  that of  a  single  dumbbell  station.  The  shuttle  bay does  not  get  doubled  in  the  double  dumbbell  station.  Its dimensions are reduced for small radii. These two reductions reduce the  ratio  data  in  smaller  stations.  Figure  7-47  also shows the masses of the stations with larger gravity ranges (R/a=6.33) are larger than the smaller gravity ranges (R/a= 9.5). The associated smaller nodes explain this difference.

Figure  7-48  shows  a  comparison  of  the  single  and  double dumbbell radii as a function of their construction mass. The chart shows data from a gravity range where the top floor is at 0.95g, and the outer rim floor is at 1.05g. The node radial axis, a, is set to R/9.5 to provide this habitable gravity range. The air pressure top floor limit is used for both of the geometries.

The x-axis ranges from 1e10 to 1e14 kilograms. The left yaxis  ranges  from  100  to  100,000  meters  on  a  logarithmic scale. A right y-axis shows the ratio of the double dumbbell station radius over the single dumbbell radius. The masses of 5 asteroids are marked along the x-axis for reference. It is assumed that 1/3 of the bulk material of these asteroids is used to create the station [Jensen 2023].

The radius ratio data in Figure 7-48 shows that a given mass asteroid can consistently be converted to a double dumbbell

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-13e4a7c9-e5f9-4b70-af82-fbdff49ed5f4.jpg)

station  with  about  0.75  the  radius  of  the  single  dumbbell station  radius.  The  smaller radius  produces a  smaller  node and  a  smaller  total  population  for  the  double  dumbbell.  It may be a smaller population, but we will find that the double dumbbell is rotationally stable while the single dumbbell has a rotational wobble.

Stability: The single dumbbell stability is unique from the other geometries used in this paper. In particular, this section identified  that  the  dumbbell  rotational  axis  MOI  is  nearly identical to the MOI of one of the other principle axes. This resulted in an unstable design with a wobble in the rotation.

An analytic thin shell analysis is used to overview the MOIs of the double dumbbell. The MOIs for the double dumbbell nodes are as follows:

$$\Lambda \infty \infty \infty. \\ I x d d = 2 \, I x + 2 ( I y + m _ { n o d e } \, R ^ { 2 } ) \\ I y d d = 2 \, I y + 2 ( I x + m _ { n o d e } \, R ^ { 2 } ) \\ I z d d = 4 ( I z + m _ { n o d e } \, R ^ { 2 } ) \\ \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots.$$

Where Ixdd, Iydd, and Izdd are the MOIs for the nodes on the three double dumbbell axes. Ix, Iy, and Iz are MOIs for the prolate ellipsoid nodes. The variable mnode is the mass of the node, and R is the radius from the station center to the node center. To simplify this introduction, the focus is only on spherical nodes in the double dumbbell. The spoke masses are assumed to be significantly less than the nodes and are ignored.  A  thin  shell  MOI  is  considered  for  the  spherical nodes. The system MOIs become:

$$\text{$me system views\,\cos\,\text{e}$.} \\ I x d d = I y d d = 2 m _ { n o d e } \left ( \frac { 4 } { 3 } a ^ { 2 } + R ^ { 2 } \right ) \\ I z d d = 4 m _ { n o d e } \left ( \frac { 2 } { 3 } a ^ { 2 } + R ^ { 2 } \right ) \\ \text{comment of inertia about the rotation axis $2$} \text{$1$}$$

The  moment  of  inertia  about  the  rotation  axis  z  (Izdd)  is almost  double  that  of  the  other  principal  axes  (Ixdd  and Iydd).  The  Iz/Ix  and  the  Iz/Iy  would  be  identical  for  the simple model and equal to:

$$\begin{array} { c } \underset { \text{P} \text{P}$$

When a=R/9.5,  the  stabilities  Izdd/Ixdd  and  Izdd/Iydd  are 1.9855. When a=R/6.33, both are 1.9678. In both cases, the stability ratio of the simple model is much greater than our minimum  of  1.2.  Unlike  the  single  dumbbell  station,  this station is quite stable!

Thick shell spherical nodes can also be used to evaluate the MOIs. The MOIs for the system simplify to:

$$\text{$\text{$line in $iso$ or use system simply $\upsilon$}$$

The  Iz/Ix  and  the  Iz/Iy  would  be  identical  for  the  simple model and equal to:

$$\text{model and equal to:} \\ \frac { I z d d } { I x d$$

For a shell thickness of t, 𝑟 𝑜 = 𝑟 𝑖 +𝑡 , the equation becomes:

$$\begin{array} {$$

For a small t compared to ri, this equation approaches 5𝑟 𝑖 2 /3, and the thick shell stability approaches the thin shell stability Iz/Ix:

$$\begin{array} { c c c } \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow$$

When ri=R/9.5 and for a range of thicknesses t and major radii R, the stabilities Izdd/Ixdd and Izdd/Iydd are an average of  1.982.  When  a=R/6.33,  both  ratios  are  an  average  of 1.963. In both cases, the stability ratio of the simple model is much greater than our minimum of 1.2. Again, the thick shell analysis shows this double dumbbell station is quite stable!

Elliptical nodes and all the station components can also be used  to evaluate  the rotational stability of the double dumbbell  station.  Again,  the  shell,  multiple  floors,  main floor, air, spokes, and shuttle bay components are included. The single dumbbell cross-section in Figure 7-36 can also represents one arm of the double dumbbell.

Figure  7-49  is  included  to  help  understand  the  elliptical dumbbell station stability. This figure includes a chart for the single dumbbell and the double dumbbell stability ratios. The y-axes of  the  graphs  show  the  stability  ratio  (Iz/Ix).  Both include the minimum stability ratio of 1.2 for reference. The x-axes show the dumbbell radius (R), and ranges from 100 meters to 100 thousand meters on a logarithmic scale. The dumbbell  nodes  in  this  analysis  have  a  minor  axis  with  a length of R/9.5 and R/6.33. These provide the gravity range of  0.95g  at  the  center  floor.  The  9.5  gravity  scaling  uses 1.05g  on  the  outer  edge  of  the  node,  and  the  6.33  gravity scaling uses 1.1g on the outer edge. The stability ratios were generated using the same six components.

The single dumbbell results are on the top chart in  Figure 7-49. The stability ratio Iz/Ix is much greater than 1.2 (on the logarithmic y-axis). The stability ratio Iz/Iy is about 1.0, and the station would not be stable and would have a wobble.

The double dumbbell results are on the lower chart in Figure 7-49. The stability ratios Iz/Ix and Iz/Iy range from 1.62 to 1.95 with these designs. The ratios of the MOI about the Iz axis over the MOIs about the Ix and Iy axes are both more than 1.2; as such, the double dumbbell is rotationally stable.

These  results  were  for  dumbbells  with  minor  axes  c=2a. Their stability ratios averaged 1.86 and were better than the 1.2  stability  metric.  For  comparison,  with  spherical  nodes (c=a), the stability ratios were better and averaged 1.91. For c=3a,  the  stability  ratios  averaged  1.79.  For  c=10a,  the stability ratios were even smaller and averaged 1.24, barely above the 1.2 stability metric. The double dumbbell stations with  multiple  components  are  rotationally  stable  for  the designs being considered.

Population: Converting an asteroid into a torus was introduced in [Jensen 2023]. Another paper covering limits on  large  stations  shows  charts  and  data  from  single  and double dumbbell geometries with two gravity ranges [Jensen 2024d]. The population increases with radius. The node sizes for a specific radius and gravity range are identical for the single and double dumbbell geometries. There are twice the number of nodes in the double dumbbell design; as such, the double dumbbell design supports twice the population at a specific  radius.  At  a  specific  mass,  the  double  dumbbell population  is consistently about 0.75  times  the single

Figure 7-49 -Double and Single Dumbbell Stability

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-d763646e-0be8-427f-bc6b-7c5d3599598f.jpg)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00155v1-figure-ae02626e-40de-4d65-b2f0-2c306207e7d6.jpg)

dumbbell population. This is consistent with the 0.75 ratio found for the previous radius analysis shown in Figure 7-48. Population impacts the dumbbell or double dumbbell geometry selection. For a given mass, the double dumbbell population may  be  smaller than the single dumbbell; however, the double dumbbell does not have the instability wobble.  To  avoid  active  stability  control  techniques,  the double dumbbell appears to be the better choice.

This subsection introduced an alternative dumbbell design. This double dumbbell would be stable and avoid the wobble expected with the single dumbbell. Other dumbbell designs with 3 or more arms would be rotationally stable and could be considered in the future.

## 8 Station Stability Summary

This section summarizes the station details and limitations identified in this paper. It  reviews the space station limitations including gravity and air pressure. The paper's analysis included single floors and multiple component designs.

## 8.1 Limitations and Constraints

Limitations and constraints were not the focus of this paper. They define the station geometry and, as such, the station's stability. This  subsection  summarizes  the  multiple  constraints limiting the size and geometry of a rotating space station. This includes single-floor and multiple-component stations. It also includes limits from gravity, air pressure, materials, top-floor limits, multiple floors, and population.

This paper reviewed geometry limits for the station design. It  provided details on the station mass and air pressure for those geometries.  Rotating the space station provides centripetal gravity. It would be best to provide one Earth gravity (1g), and the station rotation radius should be greater than 200 meters to avoid issues with rapid rotation.  Larger stations support multiple floors and increase the available floor space. The centripetal gravity pushes the station atmosphere towards  the  outer  rotating  rim.  This  produces  varying  air density and pressure somewhat similar to Earth. The air pressure at the outer rim is sea level. The air density on a rotating station becomes similar to Denver at a height of about 1600 meters.  This  limits  the  top  floor  height  and  the  maximum number of floors in large stations. To overcome that air pressure limit, airtight layers can provide habitable air pressure on the gravity-limited top floors in large stations.

This paper reviewed the limitations of the materials used in the space station. It covered the availability, strength, and desired characteristics. A simple analysis of the strength of materials  showed  that  large  stations  can  be  built.  Anhydrous glass from asteroid oxide is one choice for constructing large stations [Jensen  2023]. The strength of this material  could support a station of 10 to 20 kilometers in radius.

This  paper  provided  details  on  passive  rotational  stability concepts. There is a risk for rotation instabilities with asymmetric geometries. This instability can cause abrupt changes in  orientation  between  two  rotational  states.  This  abrupt change would not be desirable in a space station. One must design  the  geometry  of  the  space  station  to  avoid  this behavior.  Four  space  station  geometries  were  considered. Experience with spin-stabilized spacecraft suggests that the desired axis of rotation should have an angular moment of inertia at least 1.2 times greater than any other axis [Brown 2002]. Globus and his co-authors designed a cylinder station that would not have this risk [Globus et al. 2007]. This paper extended that single-floor analysis to all four geometries and to multiple-component stations.

Given these limitations and constraints, the space station geometries were refined. Spherical stations became ellipsoidal stations; long cylindrical stations became short hatbox stations; circular cross-section torus stations became elliptical cross-section torus stations; and dumbbells were doubled.

## 8.2 Stability Limitations

This paper focuses on the rotational stability of space stations. Moments of inertia were used to compute the stability, which requires knowing the station's mass and major components. This paper documented the geometries and densities of the major components. The following two subsections review this paper's single-floor and multiple-component stability results.

## 8.2.1 Single Floors Stability Summary

These  results  match  and  extend  the  cylinder  results  from [Globus et al. 2007]. Table 6-2 contains a summary of our current  stability  equations  for  the  four  station  geometry types. These equations represent moments of inertia for thinshell hollow geometries. This table was adapted from [Jensen 2023] with minor description changes. The analysis includes thick-shell geometries. The thick shell results are typically  close  to  the  thin  shell  results  when  the  thickness  is much less than the rotation radius. Spherical stations are not stable with single-floor analysis; however, ellipsoid geometry stations can be rotationally stable. Torus designs would be rotationally stable for typical (and desired) station dimensions. This analysis also found that dumbbell stations would not  be  rotationally  stable. They  would  have a  wobble  that might impact the station residents. The analysis also found that a double dumbbell station is rotationally stable.

## 8.2.2 Multiple Component Stability Summary

This paper covered the multiple-component station rotational stability for the station geometries. Each geometry had a geometry design ratio that could be modified to produce a station with passive rotational stability. This summary describes each of those ratios and the desired range to create stable stations. Table 8-1 summarizes those stability ratios.

Cylinder: The stability of the cylinder is varied by changing the cylinder length (L) and the cylinder radius (R). For the thin shell cylinder, the analysis duplicated the Globus ratio L&lt;1.29R [Globus et al. 2007]. For thick shells, the ratio increases from L&lt;1.29R to L&lt;1.35R as the shell thickness increases. Shells with thicknesses up to 1% of the radius require a length-to-radius ratio (L/R) of 1.29, like the thin shell stability ratio. Shells with thicknesses greater than 1% of the radius  permit  longer-length  cylinder  sides.  A  shell  with  a thickness of 10% of the radius permits a ratio of L/R up to

## Table 8-1 -Typical Stability Ratios

| Geometry Analysis        | Cylinder Iz/Ix=1.2   | Ellipsoid Iz/Ix=1.2   | Elliptical Torus R/a=9.5   | Double Dumbbell R/a=9.5   |
|--------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------------|---------------------------|
| Single Floor Thin Shell  | L/R=1.29             | a/c=1.225             | Iz/Ix=1.92 c=2a            | Iz/Ix=1.95 c=a            |
| Single Floor Thick Shell | L/R=1.29 to 1.35     | a/c=1.29              | Iz/Ix=1.93 c=2a            | Iz/Ix=1.98 c=a            |
| Multiple Components      | L/R=1.2 to 1.9       | a/c=0.75 to 2.25      | Iz/Ix= 1.86 to 1.96 c=2a   | Iz/Ix=1.7 to 1.95 c=2a    |

1.35. With the multiple components, the length-to-radius ratio can vary between 1.2 and 1.9 compared to the 1.3 ratio for  thin  or  thick  shells.  Smaller  stations  (R&lt;1000  meters) must reduce their length-to-radius ratio below the thin and thick shell guidelines of 1.3. With larger stations (R&gt;4000 meters), the length can be 1.9 times the radius. Figure 7-14 illustrates  these  ratios.  In  cylinder  stations  with  thinner shells, other components have more influence on the stability and support larger L/R ratios.

Ellipsoid: The oblate ellipsoid has two major axes. Two are the rotation radius with lengths (a=b), and the third is the polar minor axis with a length (c). The stability is controlled by changing the length of the polar axis (c) or the rotation radius length (a). The thin shell analysis found when c&lt;0.8165a, the station would be stable with Iz&gt;1.2 Ix. The thick shell analysis found when co&lt;0.775ao, the station would be stable with Iz&gt;1.2 Ix. With the multiple components and multiple floors, varying the c/a ratio can still control the station's rotational stability. Depending on the rotation radius, the ratio can vary between 0.75 to 2.25; see Figure 7-23. Smaller stations require smaller polar axes for a stable station. Larger stations can have larger polar axes. In fact, our multiple component analysis found radii where the ellipsoid station can be spherical (a=c) and rotationally stable.

Elliptical Torus: The torus has a major radius of R and an elliptical cross-section with a minor radial axis a=R/m and a perpendicular  minor axis c=2a or 3a. The m scaling value defines the gravity range in the torus tube, and typically, 9.5 or 6.33 is used; see §3.1 Gravity Limits. The stability is controlled by changing the length of the radial minor axis or the gravity scaling ratio. The analysis found that the torus is always rotationally stable (Iz/Ix&gt;1.2) in our design space. The thin  shell  elliptical  torus  has  Iz/Ix=1.916  for  R=9.5a  and c=2a.  The  thick  shell  elliptical  torus  has  Iz/Ix=1.931  for R=9.5a and c=2a. With R=6.33a and c=2a, the stability Iz/Ix equals 1.852. All have a stability ratio greater than the minimum of 1.2. For the multiple component torus, analysis finds the station can be stable with Iz/Ix&gt;1.2 as long as ci/ai is less than 8.0 for nearly any station radius.

Dumbbell: Dumbbell  stations  are  not  rotationally  stable. The analysis found that Iz/Iy will be approximately 1.0 and produce an unstable rotation. The analysis found that Iz/Ix is much greater than 1.2 and, by itself, would represent a stable system. The Iz/Ix stability ratio ranges from 1.83 to 1.88 as the gravity range scaling is a=R/6.33 and a =R/9.5.

Fortunately,  an  expert  states  that 'the  instability  with  two equal moments of inertia is algebraic rather than exponential' and that this unstable rotation 'will settle into a limit cycle in which the rotational axis wobbles slightly [Fitzpatrick 2023]'. For our analysis, a wobble will remain an open issue for the single dumbbell system.

Double Dumbbell: The double dumbbell is rotationally stable. This paper analyzed the stability of thin-shell spherical nodes in a double dumbbell  station. The stability ratios of Iz/Ix and Iz/Iy were identical, and both were greater than 1.8. This is significantly greater than the recommended stability limit of 1.2 [Brown 2002]. For this thin shell model, when a=R/9.5, the stability was 1.88, and when a=R/6.33, it was 1.83. The multiple component double dumbbell is always rotationally stable with Iz/Ix and Iz/Iy both greater than 1.7 for our design space.

## 8.3 Stability Evaluation Conclusion

Stations can be made rotationally stable by varying their geometry. Spherical stations become ellipsoidal stations; long cylindrical stations become short hatbox stations; and dumbbells are  doubled.  Nearly all torus  stations are  rotationally stable. Different geometry ratio design results are found with the  thin,  thick,  and  multiple  components  modeling.  Each model produces a more realistic result.

For  the  most  accurate  model  in  this  paper,  the  station geometries were decomposed into components including the outer shell, end caps, air, floors, main floor, dividers, spokes, and shuttle bay. Each component was modeled and included in the stability analysis. This was a refinement of the thin and thick shell stability analysis.

This study provided insights and new limitations for future space station designs. The results of this analysis suggest that large, passive  rotationally stable stations can  be  built. Obviously, refinement of these multiple-component models would be appropriate in the future. We note that additional research  on  material  strengths  and  station  stress  models would be valuable.

## 9 References

- [Baker and Haynes 2024] Engineering Statics: Open and Interactive, Daniel W. Baker and William Haynes, 28 March 2024, Libretext Engineering, Colorado State University and Massachusetts Maritime Academy, https://engineeringstatics.org/parallel-axis-theorem-section.html, https://batch.libretexts.org/print/Letter/Finished/eng-70197/Full.pdf
- [Barr 2018] The High Life? On the Psychological Impacts of Highrise Living, Jason M. Barr, 31 January 2018, https://buildingtheskyline.org/highrise-living/
- [Bell and Hines 2012] Space Structures and Support Systems, Larry Bell and Gerald D. Hines, 2012, MS-Space Architecture, SICSA Space Architecture Seminar Lecture Series, Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA), Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston, http://sicsa.egr.uh.edu/sites/sicsa/files/files/lectures/spacestructures-and-support-systems.pdf
- [Birse 2000] 4.8 Stability of free rotation, Mike Birse, 17 May 2000, PC1672 Advanced Dynamics, Rigid-body motion, University of Manchester, https://www.theory.physics.manchester.ac.uk/~mikeb/lecture/pc167/rigidbody/stability.html
- [Birse 2000p] 4.7 The symmetric top, Mike Birse, 17 May 2000, PC1672 Advanced Dynamics, Rigid-body motion, University of Manchester, https://www.theory.physics.manchester.ac.uk/~mikeb/lecture/pc167/rigidbody/top.html
- [Bock, Lambrou, and Simon 1979] Effect of Environmental Parameters on Habitat Structural Weight and Cost, Edward Bock, Fred Lambrou, Jr., and Michael Simon, 1979, NASA SP-428 Space Resources and Space Settlements, pp. 33-60, [O'Neill et al. 1979],
- https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19790024054/downloads/19790024054.pdf
- [Brody 2013] Not 'Elysium,' But Better 'Ringworld' Settlements Could Return Our Future to Its Past (Commentary), David Sky Brody, 10 August 2013, https://www.space.com/22326-elysium-movie-space-colonies-future.html
- [Brown 2002] Elements of Spacecraft Design, Charles D. Brown, AIAA Education Series, Reston, VA, 2002. https://www.worldcat.org/title/elements-of-spacecraft-design/oclc/850628450&amp;referer=brief\_results
- [Diaz, Herrera, and Martinez 2005] Using symmetries and generating functions to calculate and minimize moments of inertia, Rodolfo A. Diaz, William J. Herrera, R. Martinez, 27 Jul 2005, Version 2 submission to arXiv, https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0404005.pdf
- [Dunbar 2019] Why Space Radiation Matters, NASA Official: Brian Dunbar, 8 October 2019, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Analog Missions, https://www.nasa.gov/analogs/nsrl/why-space-radiation-matters
- [Fitzpatrick 2011] Newtonian Dynamics, Richard Fitzpatrick, 2011 March 31, Rigid Body Rotation, Rotational Stability, The University of Texas at Austin, https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newton/node71.html
- [Fitzpatrick 2023] Dumbbell Space Stability, Richard Fitzpatrick, 2023 June 28, Personal Correspondence with Professor University of Texas
- [Garrett 2019] A cinema, a pool, a bar: inside the post-apocalyptic underground future, Bradley L Garrett, 16 December 2019, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/dec/16/a-cinema-a-pool-abar-inside-the-post-apocalyptic-underground-future
- [Globus et al. 2007] The Kalpana One Orbital Space Settlement Revised, Al Globus, Nitin Arora, Ankur Bajoria, and Joe Strout,2007, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/2007KalpanaOne.pdf
- [Graem 2006] Visions 2200 - A Perspective on the Future Space Habitat, H Graem, 2006, http://visions2200.com/SpaceHabitat.html, Wayback Machine Access: https://web.archive.org/web/20080209111914/http://visions2200.com/SpaceHabitat.html
- [Hall 1991] The Architecture of Artificial Gravity: Mathematical Musings on Designing for Life and Motion in a Centripetally Accelerated Environment, Theodore W. Hall, November 1991, Space Manufacturing 8 Energy and Materials from Space, Proceedings of the Tenth Princeton/AIAA/SSI Conference, 15-18 May 1991, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/down-
- load?doi=10.1.1.551.3694&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf
- [Hall 1999] Inhabiting artificial gravity, Theodore Hall, September 1999, AIAA Space Technology Conference, 28-30 September 1999, Albuquerque, New Mexico 10.2514/6.1999-4524, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269226838\_Inhabiting\_artificial\_gravity
- [Hand and Finch 1998] Analytical Mechanics, Louis N. Hand and Janet D. Finch, 1998, Cambridge University Press. p. 267. ISBN 978-0-52157572-0,
- https://www.iaa.csic.es/~dani/ebooks/Mechanics/Analytical%20mechan ics%20-%20Hand,%20Finch.pdf
- [Holloway 2011] The Effect of Footway Crossfall Gradient on Wheelchair Accessibility, Catherine Holloway, April 2011, University College London, Department of Civil, Environmental &amp; Geomatic Engineering, https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1310252/1/1310252.pdf
- [Jensen 2023] Autonomous Restructuring of Asteroids into Rotating Space Stations, David W. Jensen, 23 February 2023, https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.12353
- [Jensen 2024d] Design Limits on Large Space Stations, David W. Jensen, 22 July 2024, Submitted to arXiv.org
- [Johnson and Holbrow 1977] NASA SP-413: Space Settlements: A Design Study, Eds: Richard D. Johnson and Charles Holbrow, 1977, Scientific and Technical Information Office, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19770014162
- [Keeter 2020] Long-Term Challenges to Human Space Exploration, Bill Keeter, 4 September 2020, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://www.nasa.gov/centers/hq/library/find/bibliographies/Long-Term\_Challenges\_to\_Human\_Space\_Exploration
- [Lente and Ősz 2020] Barometric formulas: various derivations and comparisons to environmentally relevant observations, Gábor Lente and Katalin Ősz, 4 April 2020, ChemTexts 6, 13 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-020-0111-6,
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40828-020-0111-6
- [Lipsett 2005] Edward Lipsett's 2303AD - Japan's Battle for the Stars, Edward Lip-sett, Retrieved 14 September 2020 from web.archive.org, 22 December 2005, https://web.ar-
- chive.org/web/20051222104439/http://www.kurotokage.org/2300AD/Shintenchi/outline.html
- [McGraw-Hill 2023] Rotational Stability, Accessed: 27 December 2023, McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific &amp; Technical Terms, 6E, Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/rotational+stability
- [McKendree 1995] Implications of Molecular Nanotechnology Technical Performance Parameters on Previously Defined Space System Architectures, Thomas Lawrence McKendree, 9-11 November 1995, The Fourth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, Palo Alto, California, http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/nano4/mckendreePaper.html
- [Misra 2010] The "Tesla" Orbital Space Settlement, Gaurav Misra, 2010, Barcelona, Spain, 40th International Conference on Environmental Systems, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc, AIAA 2010-6133, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-6133, http://spacearchitect.org/pubs/AIAA-2010-6133.pdf
- [Myers 1962] Handbook of Equations for Mass and Area Properties of Various Geometrical Shapes; Compiled by: Jack A. Myers; Weapons Development Department; Ad274936. NAVWEPS Report 7827, NOTS TP 2838, Copy 313, U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station, China Lake, California, April 1962, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0274936.pdf
- [NSF 2014] Topic: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station, Member: Roy\_H, 16 February 2014, NASA Space Flight Forum, Discussion 2014 through 2019, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34036.0
- [O'Neill 1974] The Colonization of Space, Gerard K. O'Neill, September 1974, Physics Today. 27 (9): 32-40. Bibcode:1974PhT....27i..32O. doi:10.1063/1.3128863, https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.3128863
- [O'Neill 1976] The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space, Gerard K. O'Neill, Morrow New York 1976, ISBN-13:978-1896522678; https://archive.org/details/highfrontierhuma0000onei\_y9i8/mode/1up
- [O'Neill 2008] Building a Moon Base: Part 1 - Challenges and Hazards, Ian O'Neill, 7 February 2008, Universe Today, Space and Astronomy News, https://www.universetoday.com/12726/building-a-base-on-themoon-challenges-and-hazards/ [CC BY-4.0]
- [O'Neill et al. 1979] NASA SP-428, Space Resources and Space Settlements, Gerard O'Neill, Eds: John Billingham, William Gilbreath, and

Brian O'Leary, 1 January 1979, NASA, Technical papers derived from the 1977 Summer Study at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19790024054/downloads/19790024054.pdf

- [O'Reilly et al. 2021] Rotations: A tumbling T-handle in space: the Dzhanibekov effect, Daniel T. Kawano, Alyssa Novelia, and Oliver M. O'Reilly, Retrieved: 10 March 2022, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Berkeley University of California, https://rotations.berkeley.edu/atumbling-t-handle-in-space/
- [Queijo et al. 1988] Some Operational Aspects of a Rotating AdvancedTechnology Space Station for the Year 2025, M.J. Queijo, A.J. Butterfield, W.F. Cuddihy, C.B. King, R.W. Stone, J.R. Wrobel, and P.A. Garn, June 1988, The Bionetics Corporation, NASA Contractor Report 181617, Report 19880017013, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19880017013/downloads/19880017013.pdf
- [Routh 1877] An elementary treatise on the dynamics of a system of rigid bodies; Edward John Routh; 1877; Macmillan and Company, London; https://archive.org/details/elementarytreati00rout/page/20/mode/2up
- [Tatum 2017] 2.20: Ellipses and Ellipsoids, Jeremy Tatum, 17 September 2017, Classical Mechanics, LibreTexts, Physics, University of Victoria, https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical\_Mechanics/Classi-cal\_Mechanics\_(Tatum)/02%3A\_Moments\_of\_Inertia/2.20%3A\_Ellip-ses\_and\_Ellipsoids
- [Temples 2015] Solution Set Six, Dylan J. Temples, 11 November 2015, Classical Mechanics, Classical Mechanics, http://www.dylanjtemples.com:82/solutions/GoldsteinSolution6.pdf
- [Tessmer 2014] Making 'Impossible' ADA Slopes Possible: Predictable concrete flatness techniques, Jean Tessmer, 28 April 2014, The Construction Specifier, Construction Specifications Institute (CSI), https://www.constructionspecifier.com/making-impossible-ada-slopespossible-predictable-concrete-flatness-techniques/
- [Turner and Kunkel 2017] Radiation Environment inside a Lunar Lava Tube, Ronald E. Turner and Robert Kunkel, 47th International Conference on Environmental Systems, 16-20 July 2017, Charleston, South Carolina, https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/72863/ICES\_2017\_15.pdf
- [Young and Budynas 2001] Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain, Warren C. Young and Richard G. Budynas, January 2001, Seventh Edition, McGraw-Hill Professional, http://mate-
- riales.azc.uam.mx/gjl/Clases/MA10\_I/Roark's%20formulas%20for%20stress%20and%20strain.pdf

## 10 License Types

This document is Copyright © 2024 to David W. Jensen. All self-produced material is licensed under a Creative Common License CC BY-SA 4.0 [CC BY-SA 4.0]. Licensing for materials from other sources is referenced in the text and is described in this section.

- [CC BY-4.0] Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0), Creative Commons, You are free to share and adapt for any purpose, even commercially. You can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. You can remix, transform, and build upon the material. You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
- [CC BY-NC 4.0] Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BYNC 4.0), Creative Commons, You are free to copy and redistribute the material. You may remix, transform, and build on the material. You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may not use for commercial purposes; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
- [CC BY-SA 4.0] Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0), Creative Commons, Free to Share and Adapt; You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made; You may adapt the material for any purpose, even commercially; ShareAlike: You must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/bysa/4.0/
- [Facts] Facts and data are generally not eligible for copyright. "Charts, graphs, and tables are not subject to copyright protection because they do not meet the first requirement for copyright protection, that is, they are not "original works of authorship," under the definitions of 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). Essentially, that means that a graph, chart, or table that expresses data is treated the same as the underlying data. Facts, data, and the representations of those facts and data are excellent examples of things that require much "sweat of the brow" to create, but yet still do not receive copyright protection." https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/83329/copyrightability\_of\_ta-bles\_charts\_and\_graphs.pdf
- [NASA Image Public Domain] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Accessed 21 November 2021, NASA content is generally not subject to copyright in the United States. You may use this material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations, and Internet Web pages, https://images.nasa.gov/, https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html .

11

Contents - Space Station Stability

| 1                    | Introduction_____________________________________________________________                                                                                                                             | 1                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2                    | Space Stations ___________________________________________________________                                                                                                                            | 2                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| 2.1                  | Geometries                                                                                                                                                                                            | 2                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| 2.2                  | ________________________________________________________________________ Station Assessments                                                                                                          | 2                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| 2.3                  | _________________________________________________________________ Refined Space Station Geometries                                                                                                    | ______________________________________________________ 2                                                                                                                                                     |
| 2.4                  | Station Details                                                                                                                                                                                       | ______________________________________________________________________ 2                                                                                                                                     |
| 2.5                  | Multiple Floors______________________________________________________________________                                                                                                                 | 2                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| 3                    | Space Station Limitations                                                                                                                                                                             | __________________________________________________ 3                                                                                                                                                         |
| 3.1                  | Gravity Limits_______________________________________________________________________                                                                                                                 | 3                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| 3.2                  | Air Pressure Limits___________________________________________________________________                                                                                                                | 4                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| 3.3                  | Station Material Limits _______________________________________________________________                                                                                                               | 5                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| 3.4                  | Multiple Floors Limits                                                                                                                                                                                | ________________________________________________________________ 5                                                                                                                                           |
| 3.5                  | Top Floor Limits                                                                                                                                                                                      | _____________________________________________________________________ 6                                                                                                                                      |
| 3.6                  | Population Limits____________________________________________________________________                                                                                                                 | 6                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| 3.6.1                | Floor Allocation Usage ______________________________________________________________                                                                                                                 | 6                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| 3.6.2                | Single and Multiple Floors Examples                                                                                                                                                                   | ___________________________________________________ 7                                                                                                                                                        |
| 3.6.3                | Population Summary                                                                                                                                                                                    | _______________________________________________________________ 7                                                                                                                                            |
| 3.7                  | Radiation __________________________________________________________________________                                                                                                                  | 7                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| 4                    | Rotational Stability                                                                                                                                                                                  | _______________________________________________________ 8                                                                                                                                                    |
| 4.1                  | Rotational Stability Background                                                                                                                                                                       | ________________________________________________________ 8                                                                                                                                                   |
| 4.2                  | Spin Stabilized System________________________________________________________________                                                                                                                | 8                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| 4.3                  | Rotational Stability Alternatives                                                                                                                                                                     | ________________________________________________________ 8                                                                                                                                                   |
| 4.4                  |                                                                                                                                                                                                       | 9                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| 5 Station            | Rotational Stability Preview ___________________________________________________________ Component                                                                                                    | Analysis________________________________________________ 9                                                                                                                                                   |
| 5.1                  | Station Component Equations                                                                                                                                                                           | _________________________________________________________ 9 11                                                                                                                                               |
| 5.2                  | Ellipsoid Analysis ___________________________________________________________________ Details___________________________________________________________                                             | 11                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 5.3                  | Dumbbell Modeling Flat Floors_______________________________________________________________________                                                                                                  | 12                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 5.3.1                | Curved Floors                                                                                                                                                                                         | 13                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 5.3.2 5.3.3          | ____________________________________________________________________ Multiple Curved Floors_____________________________________________________________                                              | 13                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 5.4                  | Stability and MOI Equations                                                                                                                                                                           | __________________________________________________________ 14                                                                                                                                                |
| 6 Single 6.1         | Floor Rotational Stability Assumptions ______________________________________________________________________ Stability of Cylinder _________________________________________________________________ | ____________________________________________ 15 15 15                                                                                                                                                        |
| 6.2 6.3              |                                                                                                                                                                                                       |                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|                      | Stability of Sphere and Ellipsoid Torus____________________________________________________________                                                                                                   | _______________________________________________________ 17                                                                                                                                                   |
| 6.4                  | Stability of Elliptical _______________________________________________________________________                                                                                                       | 18                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 6.4.1 6.4.2          | Thin Shell Thick Shell_______________________________________________________________________                                                                                                         | 18 19                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| 6.4.3                | Stability Equation                                                                                                                                                                                    | _________________________________________________________________ 20                                                                                                                                         |
|                      | _______________________________________________________________________                                                                                                                               |                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| 6.4.4                | Thickness                                                                                                                                                                                             | 20                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 6.4.5 6.5            | Stability Overview_________________________________________________________________ Stability of Dumbbell________________________________________________________________                             | 20 21                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| 6.5.1                | Are dumbbell stations rotationally stable?                                                                                                                                                            | _____________________________________________ 21                                                                                                                                                             |
| 6.5.2                | Two Spherical Thin Shell Nodes                                                                                                                                                                        | ______________________________________________________ 22                                                                                                                                                    |
| 6.5.3                | Two Spherical Thick Shell Nodes                                                                                                                                                                       | _____________________________________________________ 22                                                                                                                                                     |
| 6.5.4                | Other Thick Shell Ellipsoid Nodes_____________________________________________________                                                                                                                | 23                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 6.6                  |                                                                                                                                                                                                       |                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|                      |                                                                                                                                                                                                       | 23                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 7 Multiple 7.1 7.1.1 | Single Floor Stability Summary ________________________________________________________ Component Rotational Stability Common Analysis Details Multiple Components Analysis Approach                  | ____________________________________ 23 ____________________________________________________________ 24 ______________________________________________ 24 _______________________________________________ 24 |
| 7.1.2 7.1.3          | Density and Moment of Inertia Analysis Component Mass and Inertia Preview_________________________________________________ Stability                                                                  | 24                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 7.2                  | Cylinder - Multiple Component                                                                                                                                                                         | ________________________________________________ 29                                                                                                                                                          |
|                      | Cylinder Components______________________________________________________________                                                                                                                     | 29                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 7.2.1                |                                                                                                                                                                                                       | __________________________________________________                                                                                                                                                           |
| 7.2.2                | Cylinder Mass and Inertia                                                                                                                                                                             | 29                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 7.2.3                | Equations Cylinder Station Mass Results                                                                                                                                                               | _______________________________________________________ 32                                                                                                                                                   |
|                      | Cylinder Station Balance Results                                                                                                                                                                      | _____________________________________________________ 32                                                                                                                                                     |
| 7.2.4                | - Multiple Component Stability                                                                                                                                                                        | 35                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 7.3                  | Ellipsoid                                                                                                                                                                                             |                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|                      | Components______________________________________________________________                                                                                                                              | ________________________________________________ 35                                                                                                                                                          |
| 7.3.1                | Ellipsoid                                                                                                                                                                                             |                                                                                                                                                                                                              |

| 7.3.2                                                                                       |                                                                                             | Ellipsoid Mass and Inertia Equations __________________________________________________     |   36 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|
|                                                                                             | 7.3.3                                                                                       | Ellipsoid Station Mass Results _______________________________________________________      |   38 |
|                                                                                             | 7.3.4                                                                                       | Ellipsoid Station Balance Results _____________________________________________________     |   39 |
| 7.4                                                                                         | Torus - Multiple Component Stability___________________________________________________     | Torus - Multiple Component Stability___________________________________________________     |   40 |
| 7.4.1                                                                                       | Torus Station Components__________________________________________________________          | Torus Station Components__________________________________________________________          |   41 |
| 7.4.2                                                                                       | Torus Station Mass and Inertia Equations ______________________________________________     | Torus Station Mass and Inertia Equations ______________________________________________     |   41 |
| 7.4.3                                                                                       | Torus Station Mass Results__________________________________________________________        | Torus Station Mass Results__________________________________________________________        |   44 |
| 7.4.4                                                                                       | Torus Station Balance Results _______________________________________________________       | Torus Station Balance Results _______________________________________________________       |   46 |
| 7.5                                                                                         | Dumbbell - Multiple Component Stability _________________________________________________   | Dumbbell - Multiple Component Stability _________________________________________________   |   49 |
| 7.5.1                                                                                       | Dumbbell Station Components ______________________________________________________          | Dumbbell Station Components ______________________________________________________          |   49 |
| 7.5.2                                                                                       | Dumbbell Mass and Inertia Equations _________________________________________________       | Dumbbell Mass and Inertia Equations _________________________________________________       |   49 |
| 7.5.3                                                                                       | Dumbbells - Small and Large Comparison ______________________________________________       | Dumbbells - Small and Large Comparison ______________________________________________       |   52 |
| 7.5.4                                                                                       | Dumbbell Station Mass Results ______________________________________________________        | Dumbbell Station Mass Results ______________________________________________________        |   52 |
| 7.5.5                                                                                       | Dumbbell Spoke Stress Consideration _________________________________________________       | Dumbbell Spoke Stress Consideration _________________________________________________       |   54 |
| 7.5.6                                                                                       | Dumbbell Station Balance Results ____________________________________________________       | Dumbbell Station Balance Results ____________________________________________________       |   55 |
| 7.5.7                                                                                       | Double Dumbbell Alternative________________________________________________________         | Double Dumbbell Alternative________________________________________________________         |   56 |
| 8                                                                                           | Station Stability Summary ________________________________________________                  | Station Stability Summary ________________________________________________                  |   59 |
| 8.1                                                                                         | Limitations and Constraints___________________________________________________________      | Limitations and Constraints___________________________________________________________      |   59 |
| 8.2                                                                                         | Stability Limitations_________________________________________________________________      | Stability Limitations_________________________________________________________________      |   59 |
| 8.2.1 Single Floors Stability Summary______________________________________________________ | 8.2.1 Single Floors Stability Summary______________________________________________________ | 8.2.1 Single Floors Stability Summary______________________________________________________ |   59 |
| 8.2.2 Multiple Component Stability Summary _______________________________________________  | 8.2.2 Multiple Component Stability Summary _______________________________________________  | 8.2.2 Multiple Component Stability Summary _______________________________________________  |   59 |
| 8.3                                                                                         | Stability Evaluation Conclusion________________________________________________________     | Stability Evaluation Conclusion________________________________________________________     |   60 |
| 9                                                                                           | References _____________________________________________________________                    | References _____________________________________________________________                    |   61 |
| 10                                                                                          | License Types___________________________________________________________                    | License Types___________________________________________________________                    |   62 |
| 11                                                                                          | Contents - Space Station Stability __________________________________________               | Contents - Space Station Stability __________________________________________               |   63 |
David W. Jensen
Space Station Rotational Stability
Designing for rotational stability can dramatically affect the geometry of a
space station. If improperly designed, the rotating station could end up
catastrophically tumbling end-over-end. Active stabilization can address this
problem; however, designing the station with passive rotation stability
provides a lower-cost solution. This paper presents passive rotational
stability guidelines for four space station geometries. Station stability is
first analyzed with thin-shell and thick-shell models. Stability is also
analyzed with models of the station's major constituent parts, including outer
shells, spokes, floors, air, and shuttle bays.