Author Topic: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)  (Read 483589 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32006
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10632
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #80 on: 01/19/2013 05:43 PM »

1. Desert RATS.


They are simulation teams and not flight hardware development groups. And so where is the money coming from?  Or are you going to pull another wrong answer out of your arse?  Nobody is working detailed design for rovers and Moon base buildings.  There is no budget, money or direction for such.  Bring a little reality to the conversation and talk about the here and now.  Nobody is going to spend money on something that is not needed for decades, when the budget limited.  This thread is about Bigelow, which is inflatable modules.   They are finally going to fly only their 3rd module. Rovers and Moon base buildings are way outside the scope of their near term work.
« Last Edit: 01/19/2013 05:57 PM by Jim »

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4624
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1745
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #81 on: 01/19/2013 06:06 PM »
Institutional inertia is no excuse for not developing concepts in case funding appears, as it did with BEAM. This looks like a viable one with a relatively modest cost. As others have said, nothing stops one from flying as a secondary payload and Dragon (w/extended trunk?) or CST-100 from separating, turning about and docking with it as Apollo did with the LM.
DM

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8291
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 282
  • Likes Given: 122
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #82 on: 01/19/2013 06:13 PM »
Bigelow airlocks are inflatable modules.

Online MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1714
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 482
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #83 on: 01/19/2013 06:20 PM »
Should have known RTB wouldn't mention anything new he hadn't applied for patent on first -

http://www.google.com/patents/US20120318926

I think Bob is about fifty years too late.



It was used in Science Fiction even earlier, a quick Google found http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1104

Quote
"The net and the plastic sidewalls were, of course, the method by which a really large airlock was made practical. When this ship was about to take off again, pumps would not labor for hours to pump the air out. The sidewalls would inflate and closely enclose the ship's hull, and so force the air in the lock back into the ship. Then the pumps would work on the air behind the inflated wallsówith nets to help them draw the wall-stuff back to let the ship go free. The lock could be used with only fifteen minutes for pumping instead of four hours."
From Space Tug, by Murray Leinster 1953


Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1994
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #84 on: 01/19/2013 06:21 PM »
Jim is thankfully bringing a dose of reality to the conversation. What we can look forward to is Bigelow finally developing a module for ISS. This is a good test bed for future Bigelow work and provides the groundwork for a future LEO Bigelow station.   

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32006
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10632
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #85 on: 01/19/2013 06:26 PM »
Bigelow airlocks are inflatable modules.

See you don't even know how to have a discussion.  We were not talking about airlocks, we were talking about nonsensical idea of Bigelow developing a "docking system .... between rovers and Moon base buildings" at this juncture.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32006
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10632
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #86 on: 01/19/2013 06:27 PM »
Institutional inertia is no excuse for not developing concepts in case funding appears, as it did with BEAM. This looks like a viable one with a relatively modest cost. As others have said, nothing stops one from flying as a secondary payload and Dragon (w/extended trunk?) or CST-100 from separating, turning about and docking with it as Apollo did with the LM.

No, BEAM was works for quite awhile.  Anyways, there has to funding to develop concepts in the first place.

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1994
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #87 on: 01/19/2013 06:40 PM »
Unless the contracts and funding is there, Bigelow as well as SpaceX won't be developing anything. SpaceX and Bigelow do not have a space program. They are in the business of supplying parties with goods and services for those parties needs. So Bigelow and SpaceX won't be going out of their way to develop architecture for a program that does not exist.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3068
  • Liked: 536
  • Likes Given: 781
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #88 on: 01/19/2013 08:50 PM »

What do you mean "Great find"?  Gary was being sarcastic.  It is common knowledge in these circles than Voshod 2 used an inflatable airlock. 
Then tell that to Bob and not me! I am not the one who filed a frakking patent for this! It is not the first time that Gary has noted that Bigelow has filed a patent for things with prior art. I was simply thinking that he intended to do the same. I originally intended to comment on this more elaborately, but I decided not to. What was left then was the "good find".
« Last Edit: 01/19/2013 08:53 PM by Elmar Moelzer »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #89 on: 01/20/2013 02:52 AM »
As others have said, nothing stops one from flying as a secondary payload and Dragon (w/extended trunk?) or CST-100 from separating, turning about and docking with it as Apollo did with the LM.
How would BEAM be removed from Dragon's trunk?
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Online HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1427
  • Liked: 1031
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #90 on: 01/20/2013 03:00 AM »

What do you mean "Great find"?  Gary was being sarcastic.  It is common knowledge in these circles than Voshod 2 used an inflatable airlock. 
Then tell that to Bob and not me! I am not the one who filed a frakking patent for this! It is not the first time that Gary has noted that Bigelow has filed a patent for things with prior art. I was simply thinking that he intended to do the same. I originally intended to comment on this more elaborately, but I decided not to. What was left then was the "good find".


I think my previous criticisms of people filing obvious patents were directed at Blue Origin, not Bigelow, just to be clear.  Or at least, that's what I recall; these days memory fails...

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4624
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1745
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #91 on: 01/20/2013 03:34 AM »
As others have said, nothing stops one from flying as a secondary payload and Dragon (w/extended trunk?) or CST-100 from separating, turning about and docking with it as Apollo did with the LM.
How would BEAM be removed from Dragon's trunk?

Never said it was in the trunk, it would be a secondary payload - attached to the 2nd stage and extracted like the LM was, but I intended to imply it may need the extended trunk for clearance.
« Last Edit: 01/20/2013 03:35 AM by docmordrid »
DM

Offline 360-180

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #92 on: 01/20/2013 06:20 AM »
Never said it was in the trunk, it would be a secondary payload
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html
Bigelow Expandable Activity Module Installation Animation

Now for berthing Dragon and relocation modules use Canadarm. What equipment do you need to put on the launch vehicle for maneuvering as Apollo?


« Last Edit: 01/20/2013 06:41 AM by 360-180 »

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4624
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1745
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #93 on: 01/20/2013 07:13 AM »
IIRC, the LM was attached to S-IVB via the SLA at 4 points and charges released it for extraction, but today I would imagine an SLA type platform but with pushers & latches could do that job.
DM

Offline 360-180

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #94 on: 01/20/2013 03:50 PM »
Elon uses one-piece cylinders as spacers, without segments.
How unmanned Dragon will make a turn and dock?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8291
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 282
  • Likes Given: 122

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4097
  • Liked: 566
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #96 on: 01/20/2013 06:53 PM »
NASA to Test Expandable Habitat on ISS
...
After the module is berthed to the station's Tranquility node, the station crew will activate a pressurization system to expand the structure to its full size using air stored within the packed module. Astronauts periodically will enter the module to gather performance data and perform inspections. Following the test period, the module will be jettisoned from the station, burning up on re-entry.

So is structural integrity of the Bigelow modules dependent upon internal air pressure?
What if this thing is successfully punctured by a micrometeoroid or space debris - does it lose structural integrity and shape? Will it sort of crumple like a deflated beachball?

When they say it gets inflated, are we talking about inflating the interior cavity space, or about inflating the insides of the walls themselves?

If it's the walls being inflated, then why inflate with air? Why not inflate with some kind of UV-curable foam?


Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1277
  • Liked: 523
  • Likes Given: 1171
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #97 on: 01/20/2013 07:05 PM »
I was under the impression that Bigelow modules had a rigid metal core and expanded in circumference only, not length. The NASA video of BEAM installation seems to show an increase in length as well. How do they do this, through a telescoping inner core?

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1277
  • Liked: 523
  • Likes Given: 1171
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #98 on: 01/20/2013 07:30 PM »
Can any one explain the difference in the docking adapters from each end of Bigelow's tation Alpha

(not an update but couldn't find a Bigelow discussion thread. There must be one somewhere)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27773
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7662
  • Likes Given: 5104
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #99 on: 01/20/2013 07:40 PM »
I was under the impression that Bigelow modules had a rigid metal core and expanded in circumference only, not length. The NASA video of BEAM installation seems to show an increase in length as well. How do they do this, through a telescoping inner core?
Not all modules are the same. This is the danger in taking assumptions too far.

There isn't a core for BEAM, from all the public information we've been given (and info from former Bigelow employees).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags: