Astronaut visitors to the module mockups "are flabbergasted by the volume...they are really taken aback by how large these are," Bigelow said. "We are actually looking for a couple of astronauts now to join our marketing program."
One key item on tap for Bigelow Aerospace this year is constructing the A-3 building, Bigelow noted, a structure that will offer 265,000 square feet and is destined to be an assembly-line facility for the company's spacecraft.
Those designs are all for Earth gravity. Under thrust the bottom will be at the back. Under rotation the bottom will be the outside with the centre column as the top.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 01/29/2010 05:57 amThose designs are all for Earth gravity. Under thrust the bottom will be at the back. Under rotation the bottom will be the outside with the centre column as the top.The radius of these modules is way too small for rotational gravity, and there is no evidence that Bigelow is considering that anyway.
Question: How the heck to they plan to outfit those modules? It seems to me that a Bigelow module would need at least one outfitting flight to move equipment from its launch racks to places along the outer and radial walls.
Why would this be a problem?
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/29/2010 10:56 amQuestion: How the heck to they plan to outfit those modules? It seems to me that a Bigelow module would need at least one outfitting flight to move equipment from its launch racks to places along the outer and radial walls. Why would this be a problem?
Question: How the heck to they plan to outfit those modules? I'm presuming here that they are launched in a collapsable form that inflates upon reaching orbit. Nothing could be attached to the outer walls in such a scenario. It strikes me that Chuck's 'axial core' concept is realistic as it is the only place you would be able to put such service lines. Radial dividing walls can be made of flexible plastic without too much trouble but, again, nothing too substantial could be attached to them at launch.It seems to me that a Bigelow module would need at least one outfitting flight to move equipment from its launch racks to places along the outer and radial walls. Not to do so would be effectively to abandon the majority of the module's usable wall area to any major mission-significant role.
Mike Gold is an enthusiastic character. It makes me wonder with all that extra volume if it wouldn't be possible to create resource recycling technology that is based on biological principles as opposed to physical mechanical systems that are on ISS. In other words could you recycle urine into water with micro-organisms and air with kelp beds and could CO2 be scrubbed with plant life. Remember biosphere 2? That kind of research would be interesting!
ESA has long been studying bioregenerative life support under its Melissa project. There are some nice pictures of a bioreactor, but I can't find them right now. Lots of room for plants could be good for astronaut/tourist well-being as well.
BTW, I am a strong supporter of these systems. But they won't fit on today's small spacecraft. We need bigger spacecraft for these to work.
With current launch capabilities (assuming that cryogenic propellent transfer isn't available) I can't see there being the capability to launch anything bigger than a Mars Direct hab/lander through TOI in the immediate future.
Quote from: clongton on 04/07/2010 02:24 pmBTW, I am a strong supporter of these systems. But they won't fit on today's small spacecraft. We need bigger spacecraft for these to work.What is the minimum size needed for these capabilities? I've seen a few sci-fi books where an entire seperate module in the crew vehicle is required for a BRLSS system but this could be exaggerated.
Sci-fi. Want a better idea of actual size? Look at Bio-Dome 2. That supported, what? Six people? Anyone know?