Neilh's off-the-wall idea was to build around an asteroid with inflatable module type material.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20044.msg580372#msg580372
Quote from: Garrett on 04/23/2010 01:00 pmNeilh's off-the-wall idea was to build around an asteroid with inflatable module type material.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20044.msg580372#msg580372Not really feasible with a Bigelow module. The backbone of the module is the center truss section.
Quote from: Jim on 04/23/2010 05:12 pmQuote from: Garrett on 04/23/2010 01:00 pmNeilh's off-the-wall idea was to build around an asteroid with inflatable module type material.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20044.msg580372#msg580372Not really feasible with a Bigelow module. The backbone of the module is the center truss section.Hmmm, that may create a slight problem Thank's for pointing that out!
Q: I’ll definitely return to that in a second, but I did want to ask you about your approach to the base and the regolith insulation. Someone coming in from the outside might say, “Well, you just take one of those inflatable modules and you plunk that down on the lunar surface and pile moon dirt around it. It doesn’t sound that complicated.” Is the devil in the details, or is there some radically different way in which Bigelow would approach that challenge?A: Yes, there’s a significant difference, because both of those are very significant challenges.The regolith is made up of very, very fine, talcum-powder-type of glass particles. As you probably know, these particles are a significant abrasive, and they are able to penetrate the smallest of joints in any moving system. So what you don’t want to have, if possible, is a reliance on any moving systems to deploy that material....So our solution is something entirely different, involving a method where no machinery actually is used. We’re going to be trying the method this year, using one of our steel simulators as a prototype, because it’s the size of vessel that mimics the full-scale module. We’re actually going to try in Las Vegas to apply our solution for covering up a full-scale module, involving only two people, with a depth of soil on the crown of at least 2 or 3 feet. We’ll give you more on this later as we progress with this experiment.Q: You don’t want to go into detail on the particular strategy involved?A: Well, part of it is because we would prefer to actually implement our approach first. The other part is that I don’t have a lot of time left right now to explain it. It would take me probably 15 minutes to describe the process to you. … Maybe another time.
Heck, if all else fails Sundancer would make one heck of a bounce house!
With Bigelow's inflatable technology and the large payload of SLS I'd want to launch one of these.The wheel section would be inflatable and maybe have an internal frame that can be assembled once it's in orbit while the core with be conventional.
Beautiful! Only one thing, might it not be possible to just replace the tunnels with nothing but BA330s end to end? Especially with all those cables adding support.
Quote from: Sparky on 10/22/2010 08:19 pmBeautiful! Only one thing, might it not be possible to just replace the tunnels with nothing but BA330s end to end? Especially with all those cables adding support.Thank you. As a conceptual design and not an engineering proposal, this was mostly about showing the a configuration you naturally end up with given a particular set of criteria:1. Use BA-330 modules and provide spin-gravity of one gee at 3 rpm for somewhat more than a dozen crew.2. Make it launch-able and assembly-friendly.3. Pioneer LEO fabrication and construction techniques from raw material.4. Be mass-efficient.5. 50+ year service life.The tubes are a compromise between tension cables (tethers) and providing large diameter multi-deck working space all the way to the axis. The former might be more mass efficient with a low safety factor but as such not good for 50 years. The latter is not at all mass efficient. Cool, but not needed and hugely more expensive.The idea is to put your expensive hab modules at maximum distance from the spin axis. The criteria do not call for providing habitat over a range of lower gee values.The tubes provide the ability to transit between modules at will; if using tethers any transits would be EVAs. The conceptual design shown is very primitive.Even more notional are the cables. For all I know you would only need from zero to 4 of them. Much dynamic modeling required. They are there as placekeepers to get the stiffness needed, and also as a potential latticework upon which to mount solar panels.Employed as a Mars Cruiser and safe haven in Martian orbit, the thing I like best is probably the ability to have 4 separate teams, with the ability to "go somewhere else" a bit. Interpersonal conflicts could be mitigated by separating the individuals.I was originally thinking 28 total crew but now I think 20 is better.
The purpose would be to create a safe haven for intrepid explorers and as such, the spin radius would need to be large enough to keep the rotation rate low enough to minimize coriolis effects. Specifically, a 100 meter radius at 3 rpm would provide a very nice 1 gee environment.
People talk about tethered spin ships and as an engineer I shudder. I want a more rigid body than that and as a safe haven a ship spinning at the end of a rope is not acceptable.
So I came up with this monstrosity: 4 BA-330s (blue) connected by rigid tubes to a central hub (white) and a stowage room (red). The central hub and stowage would be constructed robotically from raw materials (bar and sheet stock). The 4 radial attachment points for the tubes, along with the 2 axial docking ports, would be the most sophisticated elements. The central hub construction would be a new challenge, but the idea would be to minimize the requirements to keep it as close as possible to simply having to provide structure and a pressurized volume. It would also have to include a minimal environmental system for the air handling. Once you have a pressure vessel, you wrap it with Bigelow multi-layer stuff and you're good to go long term.
Of course once you can build spaceships like this, you find you're a space-faring species, which is kinda the whole point for me.The connecting tubes would be launched in segments and robotically assembled. They would of course not be transparent as shown. Maybe they are inflatable radially but need to support both compressive and tensile loading axially.
So then you add the 4 BA_330 modules and their mechanical modules to connect to the tubes. Then you rig it with cables to stiffen the whole thing up.Propulsion is not shown, it would go on the other side of the white hub as the red stowage module. Additional mission equipment could go on the forward face of the stowage module.I did this years ago ans at one point I had crude mass budgets and a launch vehicle breakdown, using Delta, Atlas and Falcon 9, all the while hoping that a heavy lifter is built sooner than later.If you think this is off the wall, well so be it. But if you want some truly off the wall but hey man I'm kinda serious here stuff, just ask me about my propulsion system for this beast.
Quote from: spacester on 10/22/2010 04:57 amThe purpose would be to create a safe haven for intrepid explorers and as such, the spin radius would need to be large enough to keep the rotation rate low enough to minimize coriolis effects. Specifically, a 100 meter radius at 3 rpm would provide a very nice 1 gee environment.You could reasonably get it down to the radius of the Bigelow habitat.<snip>Ha, if you liked that you're gonna loooove this:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070023306_2007019854.pdf
{snip}Really, the main reason I ruled out solar is to make this design harder, asking the question of whether that low power density power source can effectively support this whole off the wall abundance mentality concept. I am nowhere close to knowing that answer yet.Which means PV solar for primary ship power. Those panels and all the radiators required are not shown, conceptually they would be in the same plane as the connecting tubes, attached to the cables shown.
Quote from: spacester on 10/28/2010 11:23 pm{snip}Really, the main reason I ruled out solar is to make this design harder, asking the question of whether that low power density power source can effectively support this whole off the wall abundance mentality concept. I am nowhere close to knowing that answer yet.Which means PV solar for primary ship power. Those panels and all the radiators required are not shown, conceptually they would be in the same plane as the connecting tubes, attached to the cables shown.You can also put the solar panels on the back of the spacecraft and rotate them in the opposite direction. Ordinary electric motors as used on Earth can be used to power the rotations.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 10/28/2010 11:53 pmQuote from: spacester on 10/28/2010 11:23 pm{snip}Really, the main reason I ruled out solar is to make this design harder, asking the question of whether that low power density power source can effectively support this whole off the wall abundance mentality concept. I am nowhere close to knowing that answer yet.Which means PV solar for primary ship power. Those panels and all the radiators required are not shown, conceptually they would be in the same plane as the connecting tubes, attached to the cables shown.You can also put the solar panels on the back of the spacecraft and rotate them in the opposite direction. Ordinary electric motors as used on Earth can be used to power the rotations.Why would you need do that Mick.
. . . however conservation of angular momentum requires something to spin in the opposite direction.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 10/29/2010 09:15 pm. . . however conservation of angular momentum requires something to spin in the opposite direction.Um, no it doesn't. Am I missing something here? That's like saying that catching a ball requires that another ball is thrown at the same time.
If you have zero angular momentum and then apply torque with thrusters you now have angular momentum. Apply torque in the opposite direction to spin down and you remove the angular momentum. The applied impulse cancels the existing momentum and momentum is conserved.
The opposite momentum is applied to the exhaust gases and you have used some of your propellant to do this.
I still think I must have explained something wrong because there is no reason whatsoever for anything to counter-rotate in the configuration I modeled and described.
Quote from: spacester on 10/30/2010 07:23 amI still think I must have explained something wrong because there is no reason whatsoever for anything to counter-rotate in the configuration I modeled and described.You were using thrusters that throw hot gas off, the gas forms an arc. I was using electric motors, something that may be used in a car.
If you wish to avoid thrusters you could use a fly wheel to store the angular momentum and then use that same momentum when it comes time to despin the spinning section of the ship or space station.
Quote from: Patchouli on 10/30/2010 06:58 pmIf you wish to avoid thrusters you could use a fly wheel to store the angular momentum and then use that same momentum when it comes time to despin the spinning section of the ship or space station.The solar panels are acting as a large fly wheel.
Aha, I see now. As much as my beast is a luxury liner, one of the advantages to what I've worked out so far is following the dictate to have NO rotating joints. I should have listed it as a main criteria, but the 50-year lifetime spec also covers that design choice.
Moving on, here's a whole new off-the-wall idea.I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned it yet, I cannot imagine I'm the first to think of it:A Hollywood Studio for filming actors in a weightless environment.
Quote from: spacester on 11/13/2010 07:56 amMoving on, here's a whole new off-the-wall idea.I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned it yet, I cannot imagine I'm the first to think of it:A Hollywood Studio for filming actors in a weightless environment.Was already proposed; several people also guessed that porn industry will be interested. IMHO, if porn industry can be used to finance space development, I have nothing against it.
I try to not fall into that trap, but seriously, this one really does seem that easy. Given the capability of a Bigelow module and the other systems needed to make it a full-fledged space station, along with getting people and equipment there and back, I don't see much more needed than a green screen interior. I wonder what I am missing?
Which is cheaper?Filming on Earth and hanging everything from wires.Filming on a parabolic flight and dealing with the small sets.CGI.Sending a film crew and actors into space.Inception had several microgravity scenes (as well as several with wonky gravity and impossible geometry) and yet they managed to do it all on Earth with real sets, a reasonable budget and excellent results.
$200M seems a bit exaggerated, and 1/10th of that would seem to be within the budget of a Hollywood blockbuster. The production company would not be buying the thing, just leasing it for the duration of the filming.What's our best estimate of the cost to transport a crew of six to the station and back on, say Dragon or CST-100?
Quote from: Pedantic Twit on 11/14/2010 02:53 amWhich is cheaper?Filming on Earth and hanging everything from wires.Filming on a parabolic flight and dealing with the small sets.CGI.Sending a film crew and actors into space.Inception had several microgravity scenes (as well as several with wonky gravity and impossible geometry) and yet they managed to do it all on Earth with real sets, a reasonable budget and excellent results.Parabolic flight was used in some of the more realistic space movies such as Apollo 13.I can see them also filming on sub orbital vehicles once some large enough enter service.Sub orbital flight also would be a near term option that likely would be well within the budget of a block buster type production.
Quote from: spacester on 11/14/2010 01:52 am$200M seems a bit exaggerated, and 1/10th of that would seem to be within the budget of a Hollywood blockbuster. The production company would not be buying the thing, just leasing it for the duration of the filming.What's our best estimate of the cost to transport a crew of six to the station and back on, say Dragon or CST-100?NASA is paying SpaceX $1.6 billion for 12 flights to the ISS.http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php$1,600M / 12 = $133.33M + cost of stay in spacestation