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 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?
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...
Quote from: oiorionsbelt on 01/20/2013 07:05 pmI 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).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/20/2013 07:40 pmQuote from: oiorionsbelt on 01/20/2013 07:05 pmI 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/
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/21/2013 12:41 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 01/20/2013 07:40 pmQuote from: oiorionsbelt on 01/20/2013 07:05 pmI 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/
Is that BA-330?
Quote from: JSz on 01/21/2013 05:39 pmIs 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
Quote from: SpacexULA on 01/21/2013 06:18 pmQuote from: JSz on 01/21/2013 05:39 pmIs 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_2100I highly doubt that Bigelow has designed any modules that require the SLS to put it into orbit.
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.
Quote from: baldusi on 01/22/2013 04:08 amMr. 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.
Quote from: catdlr on 01/16/2013 10:55 pmNASA 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?
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.