Author Topic: Bigelow and ULA Announce Agreement to Place a B330 Hab in Low Lunar Orbit  (Read 26917 times)

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1130
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 716
^^^ Essentially an ISS node module, right?  Just with 4 ports instead of 6? And maybe with the docking adaptors built in, instead of being detachable modules.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8462
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 342
  • Likes Given: 146
^^^ Essentially an ISS node module, right?  Just with 4 ports instead of 6? And maybe with the docking adaptors built in, instead of being detachable modules.

An ISS node module sounds like a good starting point for a docking module. The NASA Docking System ports, which form part of the docking adaptors, would be built in.

Both 4 or 6 ports would work. However if 6 ports are provided making at least 2 Common Berthing Modules would allow wider items, such as science racks, to be delivered. B330 to docking module would also have to be a Common Berthing Module. This is a system level decision that needs making early.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 903
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 113
Again I want to put forward one of my idea's.
IDS is to small in my opinion for a permanent connection between different segments of a large space station or vehicle. The CBM is the perfect size for this. Nasa should request the development of integration of the IDA soft docking mechanism onto the CBM. They sould do this ASAP, because it releaves ISS crew time from capturing the VV's with the robot arm.
I'm sorry, but I've not seen a usefull module layout from Bigellow jet. A lot of volume is nice, but it's utility that counts. In my opinion Bigellow should be awarded a contract to develop a US LAB replacement for ISS 2 (live extension from 2025-2035). This module should only inflate radial (diameter) from ~4.5 to ~7m. I think the rack-frame structure of the ISS modules should be reused. In launch configuration it's exactly the same. On orbit after inflation of the module, the ISPR racks are moved to the back of the frames. Random Acces Frames are mounted in front of the ISPR's. Crew Quarters and the Lavatory could occupy both the space of both a ISPR & RAF. During the day the crew quarters could be folded so the RAF space is available to move the RAF frames around.
During launch the RAF's could be used to mount payloads in the center volume.
In space the volume in the corners between the ISPR & RAF's could be used to to stow stuff. with nets and 0G racks this can be organised. The crew quarters are also useful to reach this stowage area.
Edit: I've changed the image to indicate were all ducts and cables are located. This reduces the stowage area.
« Last Edit: 11/08/2017 02:31 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4388
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 326
^^^ Essentially an ISS node module, right?  Just with 4 ports instead of 6? And maybe with the docking adaptors built in, instead of being detachable modules.

An ISS node module sounds like a good starting point for a docking module. The NASA Docking System ports, which form part of the docking adaptors, would be built in.

Both 4 or 6 ports would work. However if 6 ports are provided making at least 2 Common Berthing Modules would allow wider items, such as science racks, to be delivered. B330 to docking module would also have to be a Common Berthing Module. This is a system level decision that needs making early.

Agreed a CBM would definitely be high up on the nice to have list.
« Last Edit: 11/08/2017 04:44 PM by Patchouli »

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3459
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1864
  • Likes Given: 223
^^^ Essentially an ISS node module, right?  Just with 4 ports instead of 6? And maybe with the docking adaptors built in, instead of being detachable modules.

An ISS node module sounds like a good starting point for a docking module. The NASA Docking System ports, which form part of the docking adaptors, would be built in.

Both 4 or 6 ports would work. However if 6 ports are provided making at least 2 Common Berthing Modules would allow wider items, such as science racks, to be delivered. B330 to docking module would also have to be a Common Berthing Module. This is a system level decision that needs making early.

Agreed a CBM would definitely be high up on the nice to have list.
This discussion on CBM vs IDS was discussed in detail on Bigelow threads several years ago.
The key was that there is a adapter design in existence that goes from CBM to IDS.

Bigelow decision was to use IDS so the modules could dock without help.

On a larger station CBM would be better. The real question becomes is there a CBM like interface underneath the IDS device (pure speculation unless someone out there has real data on one way or the other). Such that leaving off the IDS reveals a CBM like interface.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 0
In the video B330 had dissimilar adapters. CBM aft and IDS in the front.
I guess we'll have wait to find out what the real one will use and if there will be different versions. :)

Adding a node definitely makes sense. OTOH you can't stick too much on the sides and then drive the whole thing to the moon.

Online nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2320
  • Liked: 493
  • Likes Given: 217
Rewatching the video I don't think there is a CMB on the rear, at least not one that can be used as a way to transfer racks. It looks like a thrust structure surrounding an IDS, with another IDS up front.

Tags: