1. Desert RATS.
Quote from: docmordrid on 01/19/2013 01:56 amShould have known RTB wouldn't mention anything new he hadn't applied for patent on first - http://www.google.com/patents/US20120318926I think Bob is about fifty years too late.
Should have known RTB wouldn't mention anything new he hadn't applied for patent on first - http://www.google.com/patents/US20120318926
"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 walls—with 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
Bigelow airlocks are inflatable modules.
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.
What do you mean "Great find"? Gary was being sarcastic. It is common knowledge in these circles than Voshod 2 used an inflatable airlock.
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.
Quote from: Jim on 01/19/2013 03:12 pmWhat 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".
Quote from: docmordrid on 01/19/2013 06:06 pmAs 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
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.htmlBigelow Expandable Activity Module Installation Animation{snip}
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.
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?