Could a spacecraft use organic materials, like wood or bone or shell or other tissues, as an interface to the vacuum and radiation of space? Would wood outgas and crack up in space? I wonder if life on Earth has evolved materials, without human technology such as metallurgy, that could work for spaceflight. Something which might have evolved somewhere out there.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
12
-
1$\begingroup$ I added the tag "aliens". I'm surprised it wasn't already established here. $\endgroup$– LocalFluffApr 9, 2017 at 21:39
-
3$\begingroup$ One way of looking at wood is that it is an advanced fibre composite. Some hardwoods, having good dimensional stability with temperature, have been used as the structure underneath a return capsule heatshield (unmanned). No references I'm afraid for that, something that was passed onto me by word of mouth from an old hand working in the 60's and 70's. $\endgroup$– PuffinApr 9, 2017 at 23:11
-
3$\begingroup$ Related: space.stackexchange.com/questions/18856/… $\endgroup$– Organic MarbleApr 10, 2017 at 0:46
-
2$\begingroup$ @LocalFluff I replaced the "aliens" tag with our existing "astrobiology" tag which has "extraterrestrial-life" as a synonym. Perhaps we could discuss adding "aliens" as a synonym as well. $\endgroup$– called2voyage ♦Apr 10, 2017 at 20:56
-
1$\begingroup$ Obligatory Deep Space Nine reference: vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/5/5f/… $\endgroup$– Organic MarbleJul 2, 2017 at 14:34
|
Show 7 more comments
3 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
Yes, and it has been used in the past (See: NASA - balsawood). It was not a significant portion of the spacecraft but it has occurred. You can, in theory, use any material to build a space vehicle, however, mechanical constraints will arise. A mechanical designer would have to evaluate the cost-benefit of utilizing wood and determine the risks of using a non-traditional material.
Space is a brutal environment with extreme temperatures, significant radiation exposure, and vacuum environment. All of these are factors analyzed in FEA simulations by engineers prior to making such a design decision. Since you mentioned 'spacecraft' I'm assuming you're referring to some kind of orbiter, satellite etc. Aside from the space environments, there are significant stress loads (i.e. vibrations, g-forces) that are experienced by the vehicle during launch. Lastly, there may be cases where manufacturing wooden parts prove to be more difficult than more widely used metals such as aluminum.
Like you mentioned, outgassing can be in issue in porous materials because a vacuum environment can cause the expansion of gas pockets. This can lead to material failure where the structural integrity of entire spacecraft is destroyed. As far as evolved materials are concerned, I'd find it difficult for it to naturally occur because the space environment is not immediately present during the evolution process of plants and mammals due to our atmosphere and gravitational pull.
-
$\begingroup$ I am not sure your example is valid "The basic vehicle was 3.1 m high and consisted of a lunar capsule covered with a balsawood impact-limiter, " - It looks like the wood was there to absorb impacts so does not speak to most of the concerns raised by the question. $\endgroup$ Jul 3, 2017 at 15:53
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
Wood could not be used alone. You need a very good glue for making plywood with crossed fibers and for the assembling of several parts. Wood and glue would outgas any remaining water and would get brittle. A protection against the very intensive UV radiation as well as against micro meteorites would be necessary.
But every kind of wood, glue and varnish used should be space rated. The whole production process from drying of wood to cutting, preheating, pressing, resting should be controlled. Even the humidity of air during production has its influence.
The wooden parts should be tested just like other parts, a vibration test, a sun simulation in a vacuum chamber. You could not rely on experiences made with metal parts. If a different material is used, all tests should be repeated.
Many decades ago, military aircraft were built from wood, but nowadays metals and composite materials are used.
-
2$\begingroup$ Might be worth mentioning that all these materials tend to be flammable. Not an issue in a vacuum, but a significant hazard in a human life supporting environment. $\endgroup$ Feb 12, 2019 at 18:40
-
$\begingroup$ @AnthonyX: I agree, flammability should be taken very serious in a human life supporting environment. $\endgroup$– UweFeb 12, 2019 at 21:20
-
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
Apparently some people in Japan think so!
From today's BBC's Japan developing wooden satellites to cut space junk:
Sumitomo Forestry said it has started research on tree growth and the use of wood materials in space.
The partnership will begin experimenting with different types of wood in extreme environments on Earth.
and later
"We are very concerned with the fact that all the satellites which re-enter the Earth's atmosphere burn and create tiny alumina particles which will float in the upper atmosphere for many years," Takao Doi, a professor at Kyoto University and Japanese astronaut, told the BBC.
"Eventually it will affect the environment of the Earth."
"The next stage will be developing the engineering model of the satellite, then we will manufacture the flight model," Professor Doi added.
As an astronaut he visited the International Space Station in March 2008.
During this mission, he became the first person to throw a boomerang in space that had been specifically designed for use in microgravity.
See also World's first wooden satellite to be launched by Japan in 2023
-
$\begingroup$ A commentary on the idea of wooden satellites: Coverage of “wooden satellites” misses the point - Even if it works, the wood will remain in orbit, too $\endgroup$– FredJan 1, 2021 at 0:41
-
$\begingroup$ @Fred biologists can be a contentious lot. These days cubesats and smallsats in LEO all have a deorbit plan and they often include mechanisms to deorbit themselves, or are deployed at low enough altitudes and with sufficient area/mass ratio such that they'll naturally burn up in several years, so the point of the article is moot. In the future some may even start deploying large area thin surfaces at end of mission for even faster deorbit. It's a cheap shot. Watch the comments section, my guess is that sooner or later someone will call them out on this point. $\endgroup$– uhohJan 1, 2021 at 0:46
-
$\begingroup$ @Fred one of the points mentioned in the BBC article (first sentence above) is the alumina particle created during reentry. I think that a much better criticism might be that converting a spacecraft into charcoal may create far more dangerous PM2.5-like particles with PAH on their surfaces which are carcinogenic. These small particles enter the bloodstream as well, maybe alumina goes to the brain and cause neurological damage though, dunno. $\endgroup$– uhohJan 1, 2021 at 0:55
-
$\begingroup$ @Fred Characterization and health risk assessment of PM2.5-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in 5 urban cities of Zhejiang Province, China and What impact will the deorbiting of thousands of satellites have on the atmosphere? and What fraction of Terminator Tape™'s drag comes from interaction with Earth's magnetic field as a function of altitude? Is it ever important? $\endgroup$– uhohJan 1, 2021 at 0:57