This paper also is devoted to a possible
application of my constructions in space. Therefore, we can say that this is also
"SPACE", and also "My". Why did I decided to devote a separate section for the
architecture of space? Yes, because chapter "My SPACE" is devoted to matters of
bygone days. Article "My SPACE" bears the imprint of a depression... In this article,
I will let my soul "soar" and rush into the future.
When I spoke to Sagdeev, all my designs have a
tough undulating contours (let's assume that it was the "first phase"). When I worked
with NPO Energia, my designs have already had an X-shaped contour elements and were
able to self-disclosing in space (the "second phase").
Now I turn to the "third phase": I will demonstrate, how based on constructions of
"second phase" you can occupy great space by means of the "architectural masterpieces"
of very different destination.
I will not hide: constructive suggestions, which
I'm going to share, I have developed long ago (1989). But in that year me something
and somehow "did not work out" with NPO Energia (see "My SPACE"), so I, like Lord
Kelvin, "posted my developments into my table", and don't published them anywhere.
Once I began my research with "gipar" - cabling
network spanned by the two inclined arches. Then I realized that the sine wave-shaped
contour allows the network be more tougher. I made this "gipar" on a sinusoidal
wave-like contour and my assumptions were confirmed. Then I figured out how to do
the same "quasi-orthogonal" (ie "almost orthogonal") network on the three-humped
sinusoidal wave-like contour. I made it and called the network "Trojka".
Not much time had passed, I came up with the scheme netting for four, five, six and
seven sine waves on the contour. After creation the appropriate models,
I sent a statement about my inventions into the Patent Institute.
In Patent Institute (VNIIGPE) Head of Department
(at personal meeting with me), seeing that I am making the statements for new and
new networks ("like bake cakes"), asked: is it possible "to generalize them" and
describe all networks "in general". I did not know how to do it and reported him
about it. As a result, he "generalized" all my applications by force, and led my
materials into one patent, referred by me in the "My SPACE" chapter.
Later on, when I created my quasi-orthogonal
networks for eight and nine waves on contour, I've managed to compile my obtained
experience and formulated a general law to weave an infinite series of such networks.
However, during my conversation with patent
Institute, I didn't have my general network law yet. Well, apparently, expert didn't want
to recognize each of my networks as the invention. Thus, only the "Quartet" with his pattern
of network weaving came into the description of the invention and began to impersonate
the entire series of "Makarov's quasi-orthogonal networks". The result: if someone
wants, for example, to get "seven" or any other network of this series, it can't
do it: schemes of creation for all the networks, except the network "Quartet"
(which seems to me the most obvious and intuitive), were buried in the vaults of
the patent institution. Legally, this means that they were left without patent
protection. However, even scheme of the "Quartet", which is clearly shown in the
graphic part of its description, remained legally not protected with the
formulization, at which insisted Patent Institute.
Thus, the real benefit from the Patent Institute,
I have not seen. So when I created my general "the law of compatibility of quasi-orthogonal
tangentially-undulated cable-stayed networks", I didn't address to the patent
institution. I formulated my law with all the rules of patent examiners and made
the notarization the date of its submission.
Of course, I realize that this law has an
independent significance and it is a great discovery. In fact, it is a
"pioneering discovery" (nothing so universal did not exist before in this
area), and sets a new direction based on which, in the future, may be to develop
the whole architecture of space.
To date, the text and the formula of this law
are known only to "a limited number of persons". In 1989 at the personal request
one staff of NPO Energia, I has recorded the basic formula of the law on paper
and handed to him. In November of that year, I made in Sverdlovsk, report on
"Joint cable-stayed networks on wave-like contours" at the conference "State and
Prospects of the development and application of spatial constructions". In my
report, I quoted the text of my law and its basic formula, but as far as I know,
the further nothing followed behind it. In the open literature, this law is
published now for the first time.
By this law is necessary to make some
clarifications. As "The main zero line" I mean a imaginable line, which lies on
the surface of the network, passes through its center and intersects the support
contour in the "zero points".
Sinusoid, as it is known, is a graph which has
the same vertical scale as in the positive (upward) and in the negative (downward)
sides of the axis of ordinates. Zero point (the point where the sine is equal to zero)
is situated exactly at the average level of sinusoid height. So through these zero
points of the support contour always passes the "main zero line". In general, the
zero lines may be several. Main among them I consider such a line, that crosses
only one of two families of cables while it passes the network.
In this case, if you look at the model from outside and from left to right, then from
the point of intersection of the main zero line with a contour sine just starting
The second explanation is that this universal law
applies to networks with any possible number of "humps" on the contour, except for
numbers 1, 2 and 3.
Number 1 gives us the usual flat net (for example,
for sifting flour), such a network is completely flat and completely orthogonal.
For our architecture (as on the Earth, and in space), such a network has no practical
significance. Network of "Two" and "Trojka" also remained outside the scope of the law.
Network of "Two" is obvious enough (all the one family cables go at the bottom side
but all the second family cables - from the top). Net "Trojka" (which can be applied,
for example, for building a springboard for cross-country skiers) are no longer so
In short: I believe that in construction of space
architecture schemas networks of the "Trojka", "Quartet", "Five" and "Six" will be
particularly in demand, so I suggest to all in need "not to bother" with the law of
compatibility and get the mentioned schemes
in finished form:
Below I've put "group portrait",
which together shows the "Trojka", "Quartet", "Five" and "Six", while the "Six"
is presented with a triple sine growth in the vertical direction. More
below, I posted "portraits" of "Two" and "Trojka", because they, as I indicated
above, fall out of the scope of the "law of compatibility..."
An architectural expression of series of
constructs, which arises from the proposed by me the "law of compatibility...", every
engineer and architect will be able to evaluate, for example, by using the following
galleries of their images. Showing below "Constructions Makarov" with the number
of contour waves from three to nine inclusive. To improve the perception of
architectural forms, guyed network, which form the surface,
not shown conditionally.
All presented here pictures were created by
my own hands with the help of the program MATHEMATICA.
The number of contour waves
Forming the contour with the help of sine-function
Forming the contour with the help of cosine-function
I think it's time now to create a
long-term space settlements for humans. If we begin now to create in open space
special "platforms", on which then will be based a range of space modules, then,
constructively such space platforms might look like this:
I completely understand that delivery to the outer
space and then different structures building based on rigid curved parts may be very difficult.
So I have a long created my endless series of self-opening space platforms. More information
about this can be found in the chapter
Recently I started to apply program MATHEMATICA in
my research work. It turned out to be a very powerful tool for modeling structures of my class.
Below I show you some results of my working with this program. I want to note, that the given
below models are "mathematical charts", however, they quite exactly correspond to my actual
And so, for example, looks simplified math model of my
structure, which consist of eight joined crosses on support contour.
If we use in the support contour not eight, but 32 cross
elements, we can "grab" a much larger area. Variant of space platform of the 32 cross-type contour
elements is shown below:
I mean what the purpose of my space platforms is
creation in space long-living human settlements. The platform will become some "field for building
process". As building process I mean the placement on my field various residential and scientific
modules.The modules themselves are likely to be fully sealed, however, while living and working
in such modules people may want to move out themselves into outer space. Then they will
on my net field. This will allow people to not get lost in outer space, will allow to visit
neighbours in another block, allow to help them. On such platform, of course, will be
posted different kind of navigation and other equipment.There also
solar panels will be mounted. As it could look like built-up space platform,
you can see in the following screenshot :
It happens that the House in which we live, becomes
too small for us. It's right that people came up to the idea of multilevel buildings. Naturally, and
in space we too may need new square meters and new spaces for our living and for various
useful activities.The following picture shows the space structure, which is made up of three
mounted one above the other platforms. It is not difficult to see that inside such module it is
very easy to create fully enclosed volumes. For such cases you can use, for example,
self-harding company "Hughes" resin.
For some purposes, we will build a module based
on 32-cross support contour. And for any other purposes, it might be more convenient
multi-storey building with the support contour based on sixteen X-elements.
Note that, if necessary, my space platforms can
be blocked in a horizontal direction. As initial block can be used the whole multi-storey module...
Below is shown blocking of three two-stored modules
based on the contour of six X-shaped elements. You can see that these modules can be
blocked very densely one to other, without any space between them.
And this is the picture of the whole structure, when you
are looking to it from the side...
In recent times there are many publications that focus
on the upcoming tourist human space flights. Many private companies are offering to start the
mass space tourism. Not wanting to remain aloof from this interesting directions, I want to offer
my vision with respect to the creation of space hotels for mass tourists. Take a look at the
So, for example, may look a modern constantly
operated space hotel. The top floor is a playground for arrival and departure of the space
shuttle, which brings space tourists. Lower floor (or more than one floors) is a standing hotel
for space tourists.
I note: my project of space hotel is more reliable,
safe and ready for fixing in comparison with any of the projects that were offered before me.
My designs have a number of advantages in comparison with the known ones.
In particular, early known scheme of "bunch of grapes" type and other "hard" schemes of modules connection
are much more vulnerable in terms of survival rates of people after various accidents. In my
version "submarine" principle is applied, when one of the residential modules damage is not
dangerous for people, who live in other modules of the same space hotel. In the event of
failure of one or more cables of mesh field, each of the cables can be replaced by a new,
independently from other cables.
In the process of creation long-term space
the Moon and other planets, in addition to the shown above design solutions, we may
need and other constructive schemes. Below I have posted two more pictures.On these pictures
are shown variants of my space platforms for inclined zones of construction. The first picture
shows the version of space platform with sine wave
contour, the second one shows the version
of space platform with the broken support contour.
In 2013, about the "law of compatibility ..." I wrote
some articles. Russian readers better refer to the article
"Discovery in Statics" (in Russian), which is posted on the portal of "Agency of
technical and scientific information". For English-speaking readers would be more suitable
the article "Discovery in Statics" (in English), which was published in the journal "World Journal of
Mechanics" in November 2013. In both of these articles I noted, that in the "statics" area,
which belongs to theoretical physics, before me humanity did not made a single discovery
during the last 2000 years.
At this step my "master class" for familiarizing you
with "the law of compatibility..." and with the space Makarov's platforms creation let me consider
(These pictures are inserted with the kind permission of their author)
I want to note that not every (by number of "humps")
the model will be useful for space architecture. Certainly, high-rise structures can be
built from any of the same modules. At the same time they are put on each other "hump
to hump" in any quantity.
However, if we'll begin construct, for example, a giant "Dyson sphere" around the Earth
or around another planet, more interesting to us will certainly be the "Trojka", "Quartet"
"Five" and "Six". It immediately becomes clear if you look at the following Platonic solids
table (see images left).
Certainly development of space construction is
possible not only on the basis of Platonic solids, which are shown in the table above.
Using, for example, Archimedean solids (their examples cited above, under the table)
is also not forbidden. However, the Platonic solids using in many cases will be much
while building the construction with the identical elements is simplified as the
construction itself, and subsequent operation and maintenance.
If we build reflectors or antennas of various
types, more than others will be demanded "Six", I think.
I think the reader understands that as polygons
at a given on this page rotating Dyson spheres, I mean my "Trojka, "Quartet", "Five" and
For the reader not must struggle with his imagination, below I
present photos of ready real cells, which will be required in space for the construction of various domes,
shells, zones and the Dyson spheres around various space objects. The displayed cell-modules can be
used to create
space nanoarchitecture objects, as well as for the construction of space objects with
Platonic bodies schemas and Archimedean bodies schemas. In the fifth row of the table is shown the
variant of cells blocking. It is easy to see that all sides of cell-modules shown in the table are
implemented with the same drawing, i.e. they are absolutely identical each other. This enables you
to block all shown cell-modules in any needed configuration.
I was pleased to discover that the aesthetics of
cells-modules for space construction wasn't left unnoticed in the world community. The other
of the major institutes of biology (UK, Cambridge) has posted on his site
of these cells:
Southern Federal University (Russia, Rostov)
invited me to participate in the festival of science of the South of Russia, which was appointed
at the end of September - beginning of October, 2012. I had to do at the festival report about
my cable structures, as well as build and present one of my large-size models.
I gratefully accepted this invitation. In a published by
the University program of the festival I was presented as "the leading scientist from abroad".
The video of my report at the festival of science of the South of Russia in the Rostov city can
be found at the following link:
Below are eight pages with photos of my
designs. All of them are numbered, that allows me to conveniently refer to
The figure 1 shows a side view to the same
"five" which was shown in the group photo above. The figure 2 shows the "seven".
Note that it is a step forward compared to all the overlying models. The model
"seven" is "about to fly from the ground" in the sense that the whole the efforts
of the tension cables the network is fully treated with a thin closed contour.
In this case, absolutely do not need any anchors and any counter-force devices,
which are often needed on the Earth during the construction of many of the
cable-stayed cover nets. This is the direct transition to space designs without
Figures 3 and 4, I want to mark exclusively.
On these figures represented "Quartet", which is deformed by a shift in the vertical
direction. I want to make the following generalization: all my models on thin
supporting contours do not have the thrust. In this case, at all these designs
can be applied affine transformation (stretching, compression, shear).
After affine transformation design will also be without thrust. The unity of the
network not be violated, ie it will not have distorsions.
This can greatly simplify the construction of
such structures on the surface of other planets with vertical irregularities in
the terrain. Incidentally, namely this model (figures 3 and 4) especially liked
the Patent Institute, namely with her was made a drawing for a description of the invention in the
inventor's certificate SU ¹ 1280256 A1.
Figure 5 shows how in space will be blocked two
"sixes" in the construction of a large reflector or Dyson sphere.
Note that already two "six" modules after the lock by means of tilting its
contour's arches give to the general construction a bend, which, unlike
conventional honeycombs allows by means of merging of several "sixes" get in
the end the bulk closed in the space structure of a Dyson-sphere-type.
As an illustration of variants of space exploration with the help of "sixes," I
gave at the bottom the images of conventional honeycombs. Naturally, if necessary
lock "sixes" in one plane, the mentioned above bend at the final design is easy
to remove by means of changing the angle of inclination of contour arches.
The sixth figure illustrates an embodiment
block two "sixes" in the vertical direction. This can be useful both as in space
and on the surfaces of other planets. By means of repetition of the vertical
blocking structure with any number of floors can be obtained.
The figure 7 shows a variant installation of
a reflective surface on the cable network of the Six. Full reflector in this case
can be assembled from six separate petals.
The figure 8 shows a complete diagram of the
reflector in the form of six blocked petals.
The figure 9 shows the one-floor "Six", at
which has already mounted reflectors on the bottom, and top sides of the cabling
FIGS 10, 11 and 12 shows a dual-layer
self-extracting Space Hangar at the contour of the nine X-shaped elements.
This hangar has two cable-stayed networks, among which may be located labs or
The figure 13 shows in expanded form
self-extracting double-layer space platform, in which, by means of the
interpenetration were braided two identical cable-stayed networks, each of
which has his size to full height of the support contour. The contour of the
platform is composed of sixteen X-shaped elements. The two-layer network has
increased rigidity, it can be used while damaged individual wires by meteorites.
Such a platform can be used for landing on her spacecraft, as well as the "field"
to accommodate other modules and engineering structures. Approximately such a
platform, I made directly in the NPO Energia, when I was there on business.
Figures 14 and 15 show a volumetric spatial
module with an approximately spherical shape. Imagine the "Quartet" on four
X-shaped contour elements. If one X-shaped element is added on top of the "Quartet",
and such an element add to the bottom of the "Quartet", it turns out the structure
sphere-type. On such a structure you can make the network in three mutually
In this case, self-form closed volumes that can be used for different purposes.
Naturally, such a structure is not subject to curtailment, but, after making
three networks in the above three directions, the whole structure becomes
FIGS 16, 17, 18, as well as on the big picture
at the beginning of this chapter, we show a structure that seems may be called
"artificial planet". The basic framework of this structure is composed of two
families of long elements (12 elements in each family), having a certain rigidity
and flexibility simultaneously.
These two families of elements have a slope relative to each other on the basis
of the famous "Shukhov's Tower". In all locations of elements crossing they are
pivotally mounted to each other. If you use the analogy with the Globe, all the
upper ends of the elements converge to the north pole and the lower ends - to the
South Pole. On these poles we have two hard disks, to the edges of which are pivotally
mounted long-length items. On the hard disks in each point of anchorage is attached
one element of one family and one element from another family.
Through the centers of the mentioned above hard
drives was stretched a vertical cable, which is pulling the north and south poles
from one to other.
while the tension of cable is made all the contour elements are bent and receive
prestress like arcs of sporting bows.
When the "planet" takes the form similar to a
ball, inside it at different levels one can to make several cable-stayed networks.
It should be noted that as while the number of networks inside the ball increases,
bending stress in the elements of contour is reduced and it can be practically
reduced to zero. After graduating within the sphere of all the cable networks (in
all parts of all elements), each of parts of the contour elements will work only
FIGS 19, 20, 21 shows structure, in which there
are six contour X-shaped elements. These elements is pivotally connected to each
other at a height of approximately one-third from the bottom.
On the contour of the six X-shaped elements is spanned usual for the "six" cable
network. Due to the fact that the height of the flexible joints placement on this
circuit is lower in comparison to their normal placement (at mid-height), is
achieved the phenomenon "wide opening" of structure while it disclosures (it
is similar to a lily).
Such structures should be used as a basis for the deployment of receiving and
transmitting antennas. It is easy to see that such networks are placed in the
mentioned above the "artificial planet" near its poles.
The reader may have perfectly legitimate questions.
Why are so good structures of Makarov? Why namely at the base of them we must build the
entire settlement strategy in space and on the surfaces of other planets?
To answer these questions, I am not going to invent
anything new. I just shall give you a quote from my correspondence with an American professor
who in February 2011 was asked me the same questions as you.
1. I single-handedly invented the "quasi-orthogonal networks on undulating contours".
2. I got on such constructions the sole inventor's certificate, not even enjoying the no funding,
no official company, no public institution.
3. I have developed (invented) a series of quasi-orthogonal cable-stayed networks for circuits
with different number of contour waves (up to nine inclusive).
4. I decided to mathematically correct interior Dirichlet problem to an analytical description
of wavy surface that approximates the cable network for all its original parameters.
5. I found an analytical expression for the wavy support contour (for the vertical contour on
a circular cylinder) with any of its input parameters.
6. I have stated and written analytically "law compatibility of quasi-orthogonal tangentially-undulated
cable-stayed networks", which allows you to make a cable-stayed network on the contours with any
preassigned number of waves on the contour.
7. I replaced the wavy contour with the contour of the straight elements and with the experiment
convinced that the joint network is preserved.
8. I suggested that, if necessary, to apply to my constructions affine transformations of compression,
tension and shear.
9. I have developed a series of designs based on cable-stayed their networks with the contours
of the linear elements, which may themselves be disclosed in the space (full factory readiness, then - the
disclosure of them in space).
10. I suggested to build from identical modules multi-storey buildings in the open space and on the
surfaces of other planets.
11. I offered to create on the basis of my platforms spatial volumes with the help of the additional
networks, which are made also along the second and third directions of three-dimensional space.
12. I suggested on the basis of my networks to create the closed volumes, followed by blowing
inside these volumes film self-hardening resin to create a sealed volume.
13. I offered to create on the basis of my networks large size platforms that can serve as a basis
for posting on them multi-modular self-contained space colonies of the modules of "conventional hermetic
14. I offered to use my constructions (including the self-opening ones) as a framework for space
reflectors, solar sails, space antennas, fields of solar panels.
15. I offered to use some my modular constructions to create a prefabricated ring-shaped or
sphere-type covering around the Earth or other planets (eg, Dyson Sphere).
16. I suggested that, if necessary, my large-scale platforms to build directly in the open space from
the individual elements. At the same time cables can be created directly in space, with the help of extraction
self-hardening resin from a special tank.
17. I offered to use my space platforms as sites to send and receive space ships, as well as a
18. Through vertical and horizontal lock my constructions, you can build large structures, for example,
on the surfaces of other planets, and then such facilities may be transformed into hermetically closed volume.
In the future these may no restrictions grow in any direction.
19. Separately, it should be said about sphere-type construction based on a series of long elements,
which intersect like in the "Shukhov's Tower". This is the foundation of artificial sphere-type planet, which gets
its initial stiffness due to a single cable-ties between the poles.
20. Inside this sphere-type planet you can build a system of multi-storey living rooms and laboratories
by making more and more new cable-stayed floors.
At this point I will allow myself to "slow down" because my
imagination is boundless, and my enthusiasm is still very high...
About the benefits of my designs in comparison with already
available to NASA and RSA, I want to say the following.
1. Firstly, I certainly can not know all their constructions, so I can only speak about the comparison
with those that are known to me.
2. I am talking about the "space architecture", ie, I want to suggest the "main direction of architecture
for cosmic construction". As far as I know, before me all space vehicles have been created only as a "unique
product" for a particular purpose, or for limited series of tasks. On the "architecture of the cosmos" theme,
as well as about long-term construction and life in space earlier usually spoke only fiction writers, and even
then without any major structural elaborations. My own architecture is based on specific engineering
3. I, unlike the mentioned above, do not seek to target my constructions to address any very narrow
technical problems. The main purpose of my constructions I see in the creation of "building fields" for the
residing men into space for many years. At these "fields" can be placed any skimpy specialized technical
modules. Thus, the question of navigation in space does not need to decide separately for each module.
The cable-stayed field will be considered , namely, as "Space Station", but placed on it modules are only
elements of such a space station.
4. If you compare my constructions with such as "umbrella-reflector CSRI PSC" or Japanese
cosmic sail, it is easy to see that my constructions are clearly more rigid and more suitable for
5. If you look at my cosmic architecture as a whole, it is not difficult to see that it focuses on the
capture of "cosmic flat areas" and "cosmic volumes". I think, modern space vehicles "afraid" of large
volumes and areas, because any damage to them, by such event, for example, as a meteorite blow,
will be for such "fully closed apparatus" a complete disaster.
6. Not hard to imagine the network-cable field, at which are placed, for example, 50 closed
modules to address specific problems. If these independent modules were flying in cosmic space
separate from each other, then apart from the problems of navigation, the problems of autonomous
motors, they certainly would represent a great danger in space for other vehicles and even for each
7. If a series of modules is placed on the same network field, even the organization of rescue
operations in such a community, if some of the modules are damaged, can be solved in the most
8. On my cable-stayed fields can be created long-term stations-warehouses for refueling
separate spacecraft by the various "consumables" (air, water, fuel, etc.).
9. I note that even while the capture of large areas and large volumes my constructions
have a low vulnerability. Cable-stayed fields (cable-stayed networks), for example, can without
losing their properties to pass through itself many meteorites. Even in the case of damage to one
or more shrouds, the stiffness of whole design fundamentally be unchanged. Then damaged
network hawsers can be quickly replaced at new ones. This should be done with the help of special
fitters who can move along the ropes of the cable-stayed field.
10. In conclusion I would say that my constructions in most cases does not oppose
themselves to the already known ones. My constructions just open up endless new perspectives,
about many of whom nobody had not thought. In this case, if we analyze the economy, such as
material consumption per unit of captured area (volume) or cost per unit of captured area (volume),
then the economical performance of my constructions simply nothing to oppose. My constructions,
by and large, are "pioneering constructions" in this area.»
I think that everyone is able to obtain the necessary
conclusions from I the wrote above, if he really needed them.
I made describing and illustrating the
possible path of development of all the space architecture and the nearest
planets architecture. Hopefully, I described the ideas and designs to
coerce someone to be creative. Perhaps someone, who has the financial
strength, will want and can to move the described structures into life.
I repeat: I am ready for serious cooperation with serious people.
I already have for it a couple of
serious arguments. This is a good article
"Tensegrity - a new direction in architecture" at St.Petersburg's
architectural portal "Form" and
44 tensegrity structures, which are registered by me
in English encyclopedy "Wikimedia Commons" during recent two years.
On my website in the
section inquisitive reader will find many my articles. Among these articles there is even
an article on My proposals in Lunar architecture.
How should look, in my view, a modern space station
you will be able to see, for example, in the above picture.
Thanks for your attention!
(This picture is inserted with the kind permission of its author)
For the cooperation with the "serious people"
it is need, I think, bring to these people some "serious arguments" and not just
a series of "funny pictures."
To improve the scientific significance of my
suggestions, I decided to show here the entire text of my report, with whom I
spoke in 1989 at a scientific conference in the city of Sverdlovsk. Below is shown
my Invitational ticket and the program of this conference.
My report called "Cable-stayed networks on
undulating support contours". In my report was demonstrated opened by me the
"law compatibility of quasi-orthogonal tangentially-undulated cable-stayed networks"
(which was already mentioned above). The report lists the advantages of networks
developed by me, there was shown the ability to create the contour with straight
elements, was justified the using of many-wave contours for the construction of
The report was correctly solved mathematically,
"the interior Dirichlet problem", the result of this solution was an analytical
expression for the function that describes all the network undulating surfaces
with any of its predetermined parameters, namely: R - radius of a straight
circular cylinder of contour, h - amplitude value of the contour's sine
wave, n - number of sine waves, which were applied in the supporting contour.
Was also obtained a formula for determining the length of the supporting contour.
In short: all the mathematical obstacles that
might impede the real creation of my nets and their contours have been completely
removed by me personally.
If anyone would need a full text of my report
in Sverdlovsk in the English language, let me know and I'll send you this report
translated into English.
I want to finish this article with the same
words, by which I completed in November 1989 my report in Sverdlovsk:
In conclusion, I want to give you
two quotes from the book, L.G. Dmitriev and A.V. Kasilov"Cable-stayed cover nets" (Kiev. Budivelnik. 1974). On page 32 we can read:
"However, a rational orthogonal cable-stayed networks at supporting contour of three or
more inclined to the horizontal arches, using only two strands directions on all the surface
is not possible to create.
On page 31 we read: "... there are justified
the searches for new rational solutions of cable-stayed networks, which would
possess the advantages of networks of a hyperbolic paraboloid, and do not contain
any rigid elements, except the support contour.
I hope that in light of my report's
information, these targets, which were set in 1974 by leading experts in this
field can now be considered as resolved.
Thank you for your attention!
Below is shown the "Makarov's Five," which was
created by me with the help of the program MATHEMATICA as the solution to the inner Dirichlet
problem in the cylindrical coordinate system for a five-wave support contour.
And here is represented the "Makarov's Five",
which also was created by the program MATHEMATICA as the solution of the inner problem
in the Cartesian coordinate system. Black lines on this surface can be
considered as cables of the cable network.
You may laugh, but the author's certificate issued
to me in 1986, I don't have now. It disappeared somewhere already about 15 years ago,
maybe it was stolen by someone. I have repeatedly appealed to the Patent Institute to
ask for his recovery, but I didn't receive any response. Perhaps the reason for this
- the Soviet collapse and the ensuing mess.
Of course, space architecture of this loss does
not hurt, but if anyone doubts that I am "exactly the same Makarov", which have been
issued mentioned above an inventor's certificate SU ¹ 1280256 A1, then please pay
attention to the lying below documents. I cite here, in chronological order photocopies
of all of my references VNIIGPE about the admission of my applications for
consideration (in Russian). Each certificate has a number that was assigned to this
certificate for its registration. Description of the above inventions SU ¹ 1280256 A1
directly refers to the numbers assigned to my requests of 07/11/1983 (¹ 3617586) and
08/21/1983 (¹ 3625175).
A description of my invention SU ¹ 1280256 A1 is in
the patent collections of many countries of the world. Everybody can see this for a
In May 2010 the Internet has opened the first site,
whose address is typed in Russian letters. This is the site of the President of the Russian
The site is designed for the possibility of any citizen of the Russian Federation over the
Internet to apply personally to the president and to get an answer personally from him.
It is not difficult to imagine a range of issues with which an ordinary citizen can appeal
to the president. I think that in most cases these will be complaints about the various
cases not fair and just treatment of officials of different levels to the needs of workers.
I do not like to complain. However, for some reason I
suddenly wanted very much to appeal to the President of Russia. It is interesting also to see
how this channel of "direct appeal to the president" works. Especially because, as it turned
out, when posing the question out there you must clarify whether you want appeal "namely to
the President," or rather "to the President's administration".
I wanted to ask, , because
the theme of my address was quite serious. This theme was related to the space program in
Russia, while in the interrogative part of the question itself sounded something like this:
"What is your personal opinion, Mr President, in the Russian space program have any needs
in my constructions, projects and proposals in the field of space architecture?" This
question I asked the President Rosii May 24, 2010. In this case, I very specifically directed
him to my achieve: http://hammer.bas.lv/, the section "Space Architecture".
For those who are interested in it, I say: channel direct
appeal to the President of Russia has been working very well. Shortly after my letter I
received by e-mail the notification that my statement the president's administration received
and forwarded for consideration by the Federal Space Agency.
Less than two months I received a registered letter answer to my question. However, this
answer for some reason was signed not by the President, to whom I appealed, but it was signed
by the Chief Scientific Secretary of the NTS Space Agency. Photocopies of the text
notification letter and the text of reply letter I show below.
I will not deny that I was shocked by the answer. I
immediately thought of the Bible, namely, the Gospel of Matthew: "But let your communication
be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil".(Matthew 5:37)
So I got "from evil ..." I began to analyze the situation
and the more I analyze it, the more amazed. Firstly, why it was necessary to clarify: "to
the President personally" or "to the President's administration", if in fact my answer does not
matter? Secondly: whether the president saw my question? If seen, the information, which I have,
more evidence to the contrary. Third: my aim was: to know the opinion of the President of
Russia on the issues raised. I learned it? Of course not. That is, the problem, which I
posed, is not solved. Why, then, all these "games" with the "personal appeal to the President"?
But this is only "one side of the coin." But the other side is even more interesting.
I am in great detail described all the nuances of my
structures, added many of clear photos, each photo was separately described. And now I think:
am I really such a "stupid" that in my description of "nothing is impossible to understand"
(like this was written in the official response).
Verbatim response from the Russian Space Agency has been
reduced to the following:
"Information contained in the materials on the topic "Space Architecture" does not allow
experts to draw a conclusion about the usefulness and applicability of your constructions".
Consideration of my proposals "as if it was", but the result of this consideration, "like as do not
Maybe, of course, I "stupid", but on-site office of the
President of Russia, I'll don't solve questions regarding the space program of the country
without a President (I'll be afraid). Now, as I understand it, the basic concept, the basic
strategy is born for which will go into the next decade the whole process of population of
space by mankind. In the history of humanity it's a "node point". Error in the assessment of
"key moments" of the space strategy in the future can be very expensive.
I appealed to the President. The President could attract
anyone to analyze the facts. Specialists could formulate their proposals for the intended
response. But these experts are in any case should not have to send their reply to me
personally. The answer I had to get namely from the President. Otherwise the whole idea
of "personal appeal ..." is just a "futile step", which also undermined the prestige of the
incumbent President of Russia.
«At that time we had the motivation, the state order and the Korolev's identity.
The Korolev became dead -
and the space program became dead with him».
(see: «Kapitza. This is a great policy. And besides,
we have no policy on science» site: http://badnews.org.ru/)
I am often reminded of my teacher of physics and
mathematics of the boarding school ¹ 45 Kobushkin Victor
Kirillovich. At his lessons, in addition to the curriculum, we often could hear a variety of
very useful wise thoughts. One of these wise thoughts was: "If a man stumbled once - it happens
to everyone and if tripped a second time - (?!); if he stumbled a third time - for sure, he is a fool".
My cable-stayed structures, I began to develop in
1982. In 1986, I got for them an inventor's certificate. Already in my correspondence with
the Patent Institute, I indicated that my structures, because of their lack of thrust, may be
used for construction in space and on the surfaces of other planets. Naturally, at that time
on it no one paid attention.
In 1988 through the center of STCY "Nadezda"
("Hope") I had sent materials on my designs to Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the
USSR N.I. Ryzhkov. As a result, my stuff got in the NPO Energia, the cooperation with which
ended for me with anything.
In 1989 I with the help of an intermediary delivered
a package with materials on my project to the advisor Soviet President on Science, Space
Research Institute Director R.Z. Sagdeev. He's on my call did not answer, although the
witness said that my materials Sagdeev was very interested in.
In May 2010 I sent information about my designs
in address of the current president of Russia D.A. Medvedev. I have asked the Russian
president to tell me his opinion on the applicability of my designs in the Russian space
program. My message to the president was not delivered, but Roskosmos (state customer
of the Space projects) sent me such an unintelligible answer, that it would be better that
there was no answer at all.
I could not understand a reason why all of my
spase appeals did not lead to any intelligible results. This a reason I opened a few days ago.
You can read it as the epigraph to this article. S.P. Kapitsa, in the mentioned above article
wrote directly: «The Korolev became dead - and the space program became dead with him».
If you translate this into everyday language, you get something like this. In the space
industry of Russia there are too many administrators, many technology managers, a lot of
technical engineers, but there is NO ONE STRATEG Korolev's level. Great constructors
Sergei Korolev and Wernher von Braun revealed to the world the way into space, but after
their departure from life, in space department was no one significant event.
About the scale of the S.P. Korolev's personality
can be judged, for example, by one story, which I will tell below. I heared about it a long
time ago, I can not tell the details, so expounding on the memory without reference to the
At one meeting, chaired by himself General
Designer Sergei Korolev, considered the question of why so slowly flows the development
of the lander to fly to the moon. Engineers told the Korolev that currently there are no data
on lunar soil. Perhaps the moon is covered with a thick layer of dust, in which the module
will be drowned, possibly, the Moon is hard, and perhaps it is covered with a thick paste
with consistency of sour cream.
Different variants of the surface need various technical landing facilities. Without the serious
intelligence there is no way to design the necessary equipment for the lander.
Korolev asked to give him a blank sheet of paper.
On this sheet, he wrote: "The Moon is hard. S. Korolev." Then he asked to insert this sheet
into the project as "baseline data" and more to this issue has not come back. Tell me who
of contemporary leaders would have acted similarly? Any one of them is likely to say
verbally: "Let's consider, that the Moon is hard". But Korolev knew perfectly, what financial
and human resources he manages. He knew the value of his words, aware the consequences
of his actions and never hid himself from responsibility. Many modern leaders have their
distance to the Korolev - "as till the Moon."
For the development of new directions in space,
one must possess a strong will, a freedom of thinking and extraordinary imagination. Need
to constantly generate new ideas and not be afraid to defend them in the higher echelons of
power. By "ideas" I do not mean partial improvement of a structure, but namely the "new
directions". I think I have to believe in the opinion of my esteemed S.P. Kapitza, and with
regret constate: there are no one strateg among the planners of the Russian space
program.. The most great achievment of the Russian imagination in space is the
creation of satellite navigation, but the idea of creating such a system belongs not
I can "to the grave" knocking my forehead into
the closed doors "the Russian space program" and clear answer to my proposals, in principle,
I can not get. The thing is that I'm not trying to give "a push" to some particular improvement
of a particular mechanism. I'm trying to achieve the acceptance of a long-term new concept
and opening new scientific and technical direction, which is called "space architecture".
Apparently, in this my desire, I represent from myself some sort of fossil unusual eccentrics,
such as the schoolteacher Tsiolkovsky.
Ask ourselves the question: "To whom could have
to offer his ideas on space exploration schoolteacher Tsiolkovsky?" Answer: "No one". Was
not then either the terms or interested organizations or spaceports, or even understanding
what it offers and why. Apparently, the only one "worthy consumer of information" from the
Tsiolkovsky became S.P. Korolev in the very beginning of his "space activities". He personally
met with Tsiolkovsky and "absorbed" from him all, what he was needed for his further
Some readers will exclaim: What about the American
space program, why did not fit into their researches, if my native Russia "can not do anything
and wants nothing?" I answer. To the American organizations concerned with space
exploration, I too have repeatedly offered my designs. All "descended on the brakes". The
reason for this, I learned not long ago from the U.S. space agency (NASA). This reason lies
in the fact that under U.S. law, no foreigner has the right to participate in American public
space program. Thus, I have the "right" to send him my suggestions, designs, ideas, etc.,
but everything else will happen without me. All that seem them interesting, they'll "suck"
from me and apply, without even informing me about it.
Compassionate reader will say: Well, you "got";
deadlock in which you are, no weaker than the impasse into which was once Tsiolkovski.
To this I reply: No, my deadlock a little bit weaker.
Guided by the rule of "hope dies last", I will try to achieve some more recognition for me
during my life…
From the newswire: "In the U.S., 8 December
2010 was successfully launched the first ever spacecraft, built by a private company.
Starting apparatus "Dragon" production company "SpaceX" ("Space Exploration
Technologies") was held at the spaceport at Cape Canaveral (Florida) at 15:43
Help from the "Wikipedia": "Virgin Galactic" - a
company in "Virgin Group", and plans to organize tourist suborbital space flights (from
2011) and launch small satellites. In the future the company plans to offer its customers
and orbital flights.
Group of companies "Virgin Group" led the
British billionaire Richard Branson, who is also its private owner and a financial investor.
This is the first in the history of astronautics, "private man", which moved into space
exploration. Let's see, to what will this lead.
My proposals on space policy in July 2010 I
sent the head of "Virgin Galactic". I have no any answer.
Into the company "Space Exploration
Technologies" I also decided to send my proposals. Today, 21 January 2011 such a
letter was sent.
We can consider, that the Russian president "blessed" me to this steps
It's been two years... the Head of the "Space
Exploration Technologies" Elon Musk is also not answered me anything.
P.S. About the current state of space branch of Russia I recommend
the reader to read a very good article by Yury Karash
"Russian space: pride and lack of self-esteem" ,
that recently appeared on the Russian language website "Voice of America".
Many architects is known concept of «Tensegrity».
Coined this word famous American architect Buckminster Fuller. However, many engineers
and architects understand the term is not quite true, as the author intended it.
For example, in English edition of Wikipedia one of the proofreaders is absolutely sure,
that «Tensegrity - this is non-contiguous compressed elements joined by a continuous net of
tensioned members on the boundary of the structure». He believes that tensegrity-design
shall consist solely of non-contiguous linear elements, which work only in compression.
It is this understanding is shown on the page «Tensegrity» English edition of «Wikipedia».
Do the right English Wikipedia? Let us turn to the author term - Buckminster Fuller. The
author defined this term as follows:
"The word 'tensegrity' is an invention: a contraction of 'tensional integrity.'
Tensegrity describes a structural-relationship principle in which structural shape is
guarenteed by the finitely closed, comprehensively continuous, tensional behaviors of
the system and not by the discontinuous and exclusively local compressional member
behaviors. Tensegrity provides the ability to yield increasingly without ultimately
breaking or coming asunder" [Look: Richard Buckminster Fuller (exerpt from Synergetics,
Since the book itself I do not have, I took this quote
with English-language site.
Meticulous reader can go to this site and make sure I'm right. And if so, the concept of
"Tensegrity" we must classify as "tense laconic unity" rather than "set of non-contiguous
rods strapped together by threads." If someone does not agree with me, I'll bet.
In 1986, I received the sole inventor's certificate
hanging on "suspension roof". Since I was the only author and I have not had any co-authors,
from filing to a positive decision on my request, passed a few years. My suspension roofs are
the cable-stayed networks on undulating support contours. I am a long time to develop such
designs and, finally, grasped "the secret of their formation". After that, I have formulated (legally:
"opened") significant law. It said this: "the law of compatibility of quasi-orthogonal
tangentially-undulated cable-stayed networks." Because over experience debilitating "war"
with the patent, I just went to a notary and registered the date of the wording of the law. Of
course, I realized, that this discovery has a great future, but I just do not have the forces
to once again appeal to the Patent Institute.
Feature of this law is that it is pioneering discovery
in this area. Before its appearance all the cable-stayed designs invented “as one piece”.
With the advent of this law it was possible to make "quasiorthogonal (ie, "almost orthogonal"
and consisting of only two families of cables) cabling network on the support contour with
ANY arbitrary preassigned number of waves. This opened up tremendous prospects that, as
has often happened in Russia, nobody needed.
Recently (in February), I contacted an American
professor Mason Peck (Mason A. Peck, Associate Professor
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering 212 Upson Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY).
He was really professional in this field and indifferent man. Through him I learned that virtually
all of my cabling structure (and all they have force thrust closed within themselves) is precisely
"tensegrity-structures". It turned out that it is my engineer aspiration to a "closed laconic structures"
spiritually kinship me with famous by Buckminster Fuller.
What has been done in this area before
me, you can see, for example, visiting «Tensegrity» English encyclopedia «Wikimedia Commons». What I suggest,
can be seen, for example, in the accompanying photo.
The rest of my designs inquisitive reader can find on my
personal website in the section "Space Architecture". Interest to the site already expressed by the
representatives of some 20 countries across the globe, because the information in it is presented
in Russian and English.
I am not afraid to say it bluntly: My
designs are a completely new direction in architecture and engineering. The novelty is in the form,
and in the methodology for their creation. It's true, I suggest "an infinite series of designs". Such
suggestion in this area has never happened before. There are no My innovations only in
the "principle", which yet earlier was formulated by the genius Buckminster Fuller.
It turned out that namely this principle all the time led me through my inventive path, although
this principle I learned only recently.
It is possible that a "Makarov's networks" soon be in
demand and to create "artificial planets" when moving humanity into space, as on television likes
to talk us American Professor Michio Kaku.
To those people, who understand as a tensegrity structures
only of the "pencils and ropes", I want to remind, that as the most genious tensegrity-structure,
created by nature, Fuller believed the ordinary spreading tree.
Photography of Buckminster Fuller was copied from the website: http://www.hippox.com/.
Picture of "tree" - from the website: http://www.landscape.ru/.