Author Topic: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy  (Read 16753 times)

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« on: 04/10/2011 10:12 pm »
So the BA-330 was aimed at the EELV launch market, with a mass of some 25 tons.

There is model of a BA-2100 aimed at the SLS market, with a mass of some 100 tons.

What would a Bigelow for Falcon Heavy look like? Broadly speaking, double all dimensions and you quadruple the mass and increase the volume 8 fold (less a little to account for stronger walls.

So that implies a Bigelow 900 for Falcon Heavy. This could support 12 to 18 crew. It would need to fit inside the FH fairing - which might go up to 6m?

A second flight could take a segmented heat shield solar panels and other external gear. Could it be suitable for Mars Aerocapture?


Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #1 on: 04/10/2011 10:25 pm »
A 6m fairing on the 3.66m core might pose stability problems. Does anyone know the fairing-to-core ratio on the hammerhead ELVs?

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #2 on: 04/10/2011 10:26 pm »
So the BA-330 was aimed at the EELV launch market, with a mass of some 25 tons.

There is model of a BA-2100 aimed at the SLS market, with a mass of some 100 tons.

What would a Bigelow for Falcon Heavy look like? Broadly speaking, double all dimensions and you quadruple the mass and increase the volume 8 fold (less a little to account for stronger walls.

So that implies a Bigelow 900 for Falcon Heavy. This could support 12 to 18 crew. It would need to fit inside the FH fairing - which might go up to 6m?

A second flight could take a segmented heat shield solar panels and other external gear. Could it be suitable for Mars Aerocapture?



FH puts a 25 ton Bigelow module in lunar or Mars orbit, not just injection trajectory. Can you say Phobos Base and L1 solar sat construction shack??
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #3 on: 04/10/2011 10:28 pm »
A 6m fairing on the 3.66m core might pose stability problems. Does anyone know the fairing-to-core ratio on the hammerhead ELVs?
Or in indeed the inflated diameter to fairing ratio for a Bigelow module?

The relatively small payload fairing of the Falcon Heavy does seem to be it's major drawback compared to Shuttle derived launchers (or any LH2 based rocket). But that's an argument for inflatables. 

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #4 on: 04/10/2011 10:30 pm »
FH puts a 25 ton Bigelow module in lunar or Mars orbit, not just injection trajectory.

No.

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #5 on: 04/10/2011 10:44 pm »


FH puts a 25 ton Bigelow module in lunar or Mars orbit, not just injection trajectory. Can you say Phobos Base and L1 solar sat construction shack??
Not quite.

I was thinking a VASIMR would lift the Base and fuel to L1. Then chemical propulsion and aerocapture to Mars and Phobos.

Haven't done the numbers, but I think 3 FH launches would put a BA-900 plus service module on the surface of Phobos.


Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #6 on: 04/10/2011 11:41 pm »
The Engineer in Progress blog has some interesting speculations  about the kg/m3 of Bigelow modules, basically 45-60 kg/m3. For 50 mT to LEO that gives -

45: 1,110 m3
50: 1,000 m3
55: 909 m3
60: 833 m3

Give it a read....
« Last Edit: 04/10/2011 11:42 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #7 on: 04/11/2011 12:21 am »
Wall mass is proportional to volume.

Offline MP99

Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #8 on: 04/11/2011 12:27 am »
FH puts a 25 ton Bigelow module in lunar or Mars orbit, not just injection trajectory.

No.

Agreed, won't even put that much through TLI.

cheers, Martin

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #9 on: 04/11/2011 12:29 am »
FH puts a 25 ton Bigelow module in lunar or Mars orbit, not just injection trajectory.

No.

Falcon Heavy sends 35 tons to TLI and 30 tons to Mars trajectory.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #10 on: 04/11/2011 12:29 am »
FH puts a 25 ton Bigelow module in lunar or Mars orbit, not just injection trajectory.

No.

Agreed, won't even put that much through TLI.

cheers, Martin

You havent watched the video then. Elon stated: Falcon Heavy puts 35 tons in TLI.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60431
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #11 on: 04/11/2011 12:34 am »
Wall mass is proportional to volume.

 Why would it be? Wall thickness and composition is partially determined by penetration resistance, which wouldn't change with volume.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline MP99

Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #12 on: 04/11/2011 01:08 am »
FH puts a 25 ton Bigelow module in lunar or Mars orbit, not just injection trajectory.

No.

Agreed, won't even put that much through TLI.

cheers, Martin

You havent watched the video then. Elon stated: Falcon Heavy puts 35 tons in TLI.

You're wrong and he didn't.

YOU need to watch it again.

cheers, Martin

Offline e of pi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 406
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #13 on: 04/11/2011 01:12 am »
The Engineer in Progress blog has some interesting speculations  about the kg/m3 of Bigelow modules, basically 45-60 kg/m3. For 50 mT to LEO that gives -

45: 1,110 m3
50: 1,000 m3
55: 909 m3
60: 833 m3

Give it a read....

Heheheh. Nice to see I didn't even have to flaunt my model--someone else did it for me. The full model also does some diameter and length guessing, though my dataset is small and rough. I should mention that expansion from fairing size to inflated diameter is something the model currently does not predict at all, and I that tend to consider 60 kg/m^3 a better estimate for equivalent density than 45. This is especially true in my mind with the fairing constraints on the Falcon Heavy's current fairing, since they may load the module up a bit more than my estimates are based on with extra supplies, the proverbial water, T-shirts, and such--they did something similar with the Genesis units (with experiments and stuff), and those were more like 112 kg/cubic meter. Basically, they designed the largest module that would fit the fairing, then loaded it until it massed out at the same time it bulked out.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2011 01:42 am by e of pi »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #14 on: 04/11/2011 01:25 am »
The Engineer in Progress numbers look about right based on other data...

The last NASA Inflatable Module Mission presentation* contains a good breakdown of some of the numbers.  It shows 40-50kg/m3 (core, shell, avionics, ECLSS, power fluids/air, etc.). Also gives an idea of ratios for packed/inflated size.

However, it's fairly small at 200 m3 and doesn't have some of the capabilities of Bigelow's version (solar, radiators, etc.) so 40-50 kg/m3 may be at the low end for an independent unit (not docked to the ISS).

Some older NASA studies on long duration HSF looked included inflatables and IIRC they used 50-55kg/m3 (sorry, can't find a link at the  moment).  Never mind; not comparable, was looking at:
http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/CR-2004-208941.pdf

* http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458816main_FTD_InflatableModuleMission.pdf
« Last Edit: 04/11/2011 02:05 am by joek »

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #15 on: 04/11/2011 07:05 am »
Wall mass is proportional to volume.

 Why would it be? Wall thickness and composition is partially determined by penetration resistance, which wouldn't change with volume.
Predominantly determined by penetration resistance.

A small part of the wall thickness is determined by pressure, so thickness of this scales with diameter, and hence mass scales with volume.

However, this is a few mm only. It will only dominate where D > 100m.

For Bigelow modules, wall mass should be mostly a square function, not a cube function.

Offline rklaehn

  • interplanetary telemetry plumber
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1259
  • germany
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #16 on: 04/11/2011 07:28 am »
If your target is not LEO but something like EML1, then falcon heavy is just the right size to send either a fully outfitted and provisioned sundancer module, or an empty BA330 module on a belbruno trajectory. See this http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15878.msg718931#msg718931 as an example of what you can do with that.

If you really want to go just to LEO, just send two BA330 and maybe a node in a very long fairing.

We have to get away from the notiion that you have to adapt the payload exactly to the launcher if we want to use the low cost provided by falcon heavy and maybe others. What if falcon heavy does not meet it's performance goals? With a smaller module you just put in less provisions to compensate. With a module using exactly the performance you're screwed.

Offline blasphemer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Slovakia
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 1081
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #17 on: 04/11/2011 08:57 am »
Quote
What if falcon heavy does not meet it's performance goals? With a smaller module you just put in less provisions to compensate. With a module using exactly the performance you're screwed.

Thats a big if. I am sure that if Falcon Heavy sized Bigelow module is to be developed, actually fitting into its mass budget is essential. Not to mention that the performance numbers would probably be validated by test flights before.

Do we know how costly it is to develop rescaled Bigelow modules? There are plenty of heavier than BA 330 module concepts around. This seems to indicate that Falcon Heavy sized one will be probably developed, too.

If FH suceeds, it will be with us for a long time, so adapting a Bigelow module to make the most of it is the most optimal choice.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #18 on: 04/11/2011 11:10 am »
To me, at least, the obvious payload is the first section of CSS Alpha: a Sundancer with the propulsion node already attached.  Use the rest of the spare payload capacity to launch with as much as the materials needed for outfitting as possible.  The advantage is that you have decreased the lead time to get the station to IOC by two or three launches at least.

If Raptor ever happens, a similar payload could be launched to LEO with the Raptor acting as the EDS for a LEO-to-LLO/EML transfer vehicle.

FH is also pretty much perfectly proportioned for a cargo delivery or crew transfer mission to an EML space station.  In fact, I would suspect that cargo to EML and other cis-lunar orbital and surface destinations was the market that the LV was designed to encourage.

Think of FH being the CaLV for the F9 as CLV.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: Bigelow for Falcon Heavy
« Reply #19 on: 04/12/2011 08:17 am »
Wall mass is proportional to volume.

 Why would it be? Wall thickness and composition is partially determined by penetration resistance, which wouldn't change with volume.
Predominantly determined by penetration resistance.

A small part of the wall thickness is determined by pressure, so thickness of this scales with diameter, and hence mass scales with volume.

However, this is a few mm only. It will only dominate where D > 100m.

For Bigelow modules, wall mass should be mostly a square function, not a cube function.

The original Transhab development indicated the wall mass was about 12kg/m^2.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0