Author Topic: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)  (Read 661256 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #100 on: 01/20/2013 07:40 pm »
There isn't a difference.  Just one end of the station has a service module

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #101 on: 01/20/2013 07:47 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)
I don't think there is a difference.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #102 on: 01/20/2013 08:30 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?

The Bigelow expandable airlock patent application seems to show a telescoping structure between the bulkheads, and Bigelow has hinted that such a module could be based on BEAM, so I guess the answer is quite possibly.

http://www.google.com/patents/US20120318926
« Last Edit: 01/20/2013 08:38 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #103 on: 01/20/2013 08:31 pm »

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...
Oh yes, stupid me... It is my memory that failed me there. That and the fact that I am constantly doing 10 things at the same time. Gotta stop doing that. Sorry. Yes, anyway you had previously called out people on these things. That was the point I was trying to make anyway.
Not that it really mattered, but Jim had to give me a hard time for some reason.
« Last Edit: 01/20/2013 09:07 pm by Elmar Moelzer »

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11187
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8822
  • Likes Given: 7826
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #104 on: 01/20/2013 11:52 pm »
[ISS] Inflatable Bigelow Module for Station Announced

Published on Jan 20, 2013

NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver announced Wednesday a newly planned addition to the International Space Station that will use the orbiting laboratory to test expandable space habitat technology.

NASA has awarded a $17.8 million contract to Bigelow Aerospace to provide a Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM), which is scheduled to arrive at the space station in 2015 for a two-year technology demonstration.

The BEAM is scheduled to launch aboard the eighth SpaceX cargo resupply mission to the station contracted by NASA, currently planned for 2015. 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.

Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #105 on: 01/21/2013 12:41 am »
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).
On second thought, there may be a core, but I'm still leaning on the side of no core for this.
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

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1953
  • Likes Given: 1144
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #106 on: 01/21/2013 12:50 am »
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).
On second thought, there may be a core, but I'm still leaning on the side of no core for this.
Does this model help?

http://english.pravda.ru/photo/album/7094/2/

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #107 on: 01/21/2013 01:01 am »
Does this model help?

http://english.pravda.ru/photo/album/7094/2/
None of the pix in that link show the inside of BEAM. I've seen animations that show a partial core in BEAM.
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #108 on: 01/21/2013 01:27 am »
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).
On second thought, there may be a core, but I'm still leaning on the side of no core for this.
Does this model help?

http://english.pravda.ru/photo/album/7094/2/
No, that's not BEAM.
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

Offline JSz

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #109 on: 01/21/2013 05:39 pm »
Is that BA-330?

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #110 on: 01/21/2013 06:18 pm »
Is that BA-330?

Nope that's the BA-2100, it was designed with SLS in mind. It's 2-3 times the internal volume of the ISS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100

« Last Edit: 01/21/2013 06:20 pm by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #111 on: 01/21/2013 06:40 pm »
Is that BA-330?

Nope that's the BA-2100, it was designed with SLS in mind. It's 2-3 times the internal volume of the ISS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100


The first picture was of a BA-330. Here is a comparison shot.


330 on the left 2100 on the right.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #112 on: 01/21/2013 07:10 pm »
Is that BA-330?

Nope that's the BA-2100, it was designed with SLS in mind. It's 2-3 times the internal volume of the ISS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100



I highly doubt that Bigelow has designed any modules that require the SLS to put it into orbit.

There was picture of the "BEAM" ball on stage with Bigelow and Lori Garver. It reminded me a little of the ball that came out of the water in the "Prisoner", only smaller. If that ball was actual size, there is no way 3 astronauts would fit in that space, unless they were VERY friendly (and that's thinking in 3D)

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #113 on: 01/21/2013 07:13 pm »
Is that BA-330?

Nope that's the BA-2100, it was designed with SLS in mind. It's 2-3 times the internal volume of the ISS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100



I highly doubt that Bigelow has designed any modules that require the SLS to put it into orbit.

Did you not read the above about the BA-2100? Unless you are getting nit picky about the word "designed", the proposed BA-2100 would indeed require an SLS-class launcher to put it in orbit. It would mass 70-100 tons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #114 on: 01/22/2013 04:08 am »
Mr. Bigelow stated on an interview that he went to ULA and asked what could they build for 800M (or a Billion, can't remember). ULA said 65tonnes to LEO and an 8.4m fairing (I guess some wide body Delta IV derivative). That's what he used for the BA-2100. Then came SLS (which seems to be closer to 90 tonnes, than 70tonnes with 8.4m and 10m fairings) and Falcon Heavy (with, may be, 53 tonnes and 5m fairing).
Since BA-2100 is nothing more than a concept (everything save BEAM, actually), I would treat it as notional.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #115 on: 01/22/2013 04:14 am »
Mr. Bigelow stated on an interview that he went to ULA and asked what could they build for 800M (or a Billion, can't remember). ULA said 65tonnes to LEO and an 8.4m fairing (I guess some wide body Delta IV derivative). That's what he used for the BA-2100. Then came SLS (which seems to be closer to 90 tonnes, than 70tonnes with 8.4m and 10m fairings) and Falcon Heavy (with, may be, 53 tonnes and 5m fairing).
Since BA-2100 is nothing more than a concept (everything save BEAM, actually), I would treat it as notional.
You probably could fit a 7+m fairing on Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy if you really needed it. It'd cost more (more analysis, payload processing mods) and would eat into your payload (more drag and gravity losses, since you'd probably have to throttle-down while in the atmosphere near max-Q), but it's about proportionally what ULA's analysis says Atlas V can do.

I think BA-330 is significantly less notional than BA-2100, though. Even just ground transportation would be a significant issue with BA-2100.
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

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #116 on: 01/22/2013 04:33 am »
Mr. Bigelow stated on an interview that he went to ULA and asked what could they build for 800M (or a Billion, can't remember). ULA said 65tonnes to LEO and an 8.4m fairing (I guess some wide body Delta IV derivative). That's what he used for the BA-2100. Then came SLS (which seems to be closer to 90 tonnes, than 70tonnes with 8.4m and 10m fairings) and Falcon Heavy (with, may be, 53 tonnes and 5m fairing).
Since BA-2100 is nothing more than a concept (everything save BEAM, actually), I would treat it as notional.
You probably could fit a 7+m fairing on Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy if you really needed it. It'd cost more (more analysis, payload processing mods) and would eat into your payload (more drag and gravity losses, since you'd probably have to throttle-down while in the atmosphere near max-Q), but it's about proportionally what ULA's analysis says Atlas V can do.

I think BA-330 is significantly less notional than BA-2100, though. Even just ground transportation would be a significant issue with BA-2100.
Read the threads. BA-330 can't be transported out of the current Bigelow factory. Apparently there's a lot of armwaving within the company. That's why this BEAM is so important. It will be a clash of cultures.

Offline Orbital Debris

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Glad to be out of Vegas
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #117 on: 01/23/2013 01:25 am »
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?



Well, I've posted the info in a couple of places, but the questions keep coming up.  I'll put some the information here.

BEAM won't have an internal core. The somewhat spherical shape of the Bigelow cartoons indicate that.   If anything it will have a small amount of structure at one end to house the inflation system. 

In general, Bigelow modules take their shape by inflation of an internal air barrier, supported by a restraint layer to take the pressure load.  Therefore the rigidity is dependent on pressure of the occupied area.  It might not necessarily crumple, but would loose structure rigidity if it lost internal pressure.

Offline Orbital Debris

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Glad to be out of Vegas
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #118 on: 01/23/2013 01:48 am »
The models: at far left, the ISS destiny lab for scale, the upright module is a 2100 stowed in an 8m fairing.  The complex model at center is two sundancers and a BA-330 with a couple of early design Boeing CTS-100 transport vehicles docked, in the center of the complex is a docking node-bus combo.  At center in the far back is an inflated (to a few psi) full size Genesis restraint layer with the MMOD stripped off, and no end caps.  I call it 'the thumper', it is there so that people can touch it and feel the rigidity of an inflated restraint layer.  At right in the background is a mockup of the BEAM.
« Last Edit: 01/23/2013 01:51 am by Orbital Debris »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #119 on: 01/25/2013 02:04 pm »
Some decent pics from the local paper the Las Vegas Review journal.

Chris would need to contact them for copies of the pics.

http://www.lvrj.com/multimedia/Bigelow-Aerospace-land-NASA-contract-187211231.html

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1