Off-the-wall ideas for things to do with Bigelow modules (and inflatable walls)

[Patchouli]

I still think I must have explained something wrong because there is no reason whatsoever for anything to counter-rotate in the configuration I modeled and described.

You were using thrusters that throw hot gas off, the gas forms an arc.  I was using electric motors, something that may be used in a car.

Thrusters probably would work any arcing could be avoided with a cold gas thrusters or just designing things in such a way any high voltage lines will not be exposed to the exhaust plume.

If you wish to avoid thrusters you could use a fly wheel to store the angular momentum and then use that same momentum when it comes time to despin the spinning section of the ship or space station.

[A_M_Swallow]

If you wish to avoid thrusters you could use a fly wheel to store the angular momentum and then use that same momentum when it comes time to despin the spinning section of the ship or space station.

The solar panels are acting as a large fly wheel.

[spacester]

If you wish to avoid thrusters you could use a fly wheel to store the angular momentum and then use that same momentum when it comes time to despin the spinning section of the ship or space station.

The solar panels are acting as a large fly wheel.

Aha, I see now. As much as my beast is a luxury liner, one of the advantages to what I've worked out so far is following the dictate to have NO rotating joints. I should have listed it as a main criteria, but the 50-year lifetime spec also covers that design choice.

I'll have to work out the propellant mass for cold gas thrusters for spin control because to be honest IIRC when I did the calcs before I think I was figuring hot thrusters with much higher Isp. Still, proper engineering should allow e.g. SpaceX Draco engines as an option, I would think.

So maybe the prop mass is more of an issue than I thought. When I was just farting around I figured that perhaps excess methane might serve that purpose.

The solar PV would need to be large and it is totally not shown. I'm anticipating that the spin axis will remain pointed away from the sun, so I anticipate finding plenty of room within the plane of the tubes. Perhaps integrated into the structure, but certainly not rotating independently.

I don't have my mass numbers anymore so such calculations are problematic. It was really only done to illustrate this configuration.

[Patchouli]

Aha, I see now. As much as my beast is a luxury liner, one of the advantages to what I've worked out so far is following the dictate to have NO rotating joints. I should have listed it as a main criteria, but the 50-year lifetime spec also covers that design choice.

A 50 year life timespec is probably overkill 15 to 20 years would be good enough as the vehicle will likely become outdated or at the very least require a complete refit to stay competitive by then.

It's best to look at early airlines as a model.

The Lockheed Constellation for example was state of the art in 1943 but was outdated by the late 1950s.

[spacester]

Well, this whole internet fan-boy proposal of mine is about looking at this whole Man on Mars thing quite differently. The idea is to build this thing in LEO as a tourist destination, and that construction phase would take years. Only then do you take it to Mars, so if you're going to refurbish it would be at that time.

The ship's role as a safe haven in Mars orbit pretty much precludes refurbishment, and there does not seem to be a good reason to bring it back to Earth. Further, there would not be any commercial competition in Mars orbit. As long as it still serves its function it isn't obsolete.

The goal would be to keep this safe haven there to support a settlement for as many decades as possible. In fact, one major difficulty is how exactly to de-commission it, as letting it naturally decay seems unacceptable.

[spacester]

Moving on, here's a whole new off-the-wall idea.

I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned it yet, I cannot imagine I'm the first to think of it:

A Hollywood Studio for filming actors in a weightless environment.

Just have Bigelow build it with a green screen color for the innermost fabric layer.

The public would LOVE it!

[gospacex]

Moving on, here's a whole new off-the-wall idea.

I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned it yet, I cannot imagine I'm the first to think of it:

A Hollywood Studio for filming actors in a weightless environment.

Was already proposed; several people also guessed that porn industry will be interested. IMHO, if porn industry can be used to finance space development, I have nothing against it.

[spacester]

Moving on, here's a whole new off-the-wall idea.

I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned it yet, I cannot imagine I'm the first to think of it:

A Hollywood Studio for filming actors in a weightless environment.

Was already proposed; several people also guessed that porn industry will be interested. IMHO, if porn industry can be used to finance space development, I have nothing against it.

We Internet Fan-Boys have an annoying habit of saying "Hey, it's easy, just do (X) and we'll all have (Y)!" Yet nothing is easy in spaceflight.

I try to not fall into that trap, but seriously, this one really does seem that easy. Given the capability of a Bigelow module and the other systems needed to make it a full-fledged space station, along with getting people and equipment there and back, I don't see much more needed than a green screen interior. I wonder what I am missing?

As far as porn goes, it seems clear that it will happen "a few minutes after it becomes profitable". That's a different market than Hollywood blockbuster territory, however. And Mr. Bigelow strikes me as a guy who would not want his brand cheapened in that way. (Totally guessing here.)

But I'm with you, go for it fellas! Just expect that you will need to keep it under the radar as much as possible to prevent a backlash from the moralists among us.

[A_M_Swallow]

I try to not fall into that trap, but seriously, this one really does seem that easy. Given the capability of a Bigelow module and the other systems needed to make it a full-fledged space station, along with getting people and equipment there and back, I don't see much more needed than a green screen interior. I wonder what I am missing?

Cost.  Not many films can afford $200 million to get the actors and crew into space just to film 1 scene.

[spacester]

Well of course the idea would be to spread the cost over several movies and other uses of the same module. And where do you get the idea it would only be one scene?

$200M seems a bit exaggerated, and 1/10th of that would seem to be within the budget of a Hollywood blockbuster. The production company would not be buying the thing, just leasing it for the duration of the filming.

What's our best estimate of the cost to transport a crew of six to the station and back on, say Dragon or CST-100?

[Pedantic Twit]

Which is cheaper?

Filming on Earth and hanging everything from wires.

Filming on a parabolic flight and dealing with the small sets.

CGI.

Sending a film crew and actors into space.

Inception had several microgravity scenes (as well as several with wonky gravity and impossible geometry) and yet they managed to do it all on Earth with real sets, a reasonable budget and excellent results.

[Patchouli]

Which is cheaper?

Filming on Earth and hanging everything from wires.

Filming on a parabolic flight and dealing with the small sets.

CGI.

Sending a film crew and actors into space.

Inception had several microgravity scenes (as well as several with wonky gravity and impossible geometry) and yet they managed to do it all on Earth with real sets, a reasonable budget and excellent results.

[A_M_Swallow]

$200M seems a bit exaggerated, and 1/10th of that would seem to be within the budget of a Hollywood blockbuster. The production company would not be buying the thing, just leasing it for the duration of the filming.

What's our best estimate of the cost to transport a crew of six to the station and back on, say Dragon or CST-100?

NASA is paying SpaceX $1.6 billion for 12 flights to the ISS.
http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php

$1,600M / 12 = $133.33M + cost of stay in spacestation

[spacester]

Which is cheaper?

Filming on Earth and hanging everything from wires.

Filming on a parabolic flight and dealing with the small sets.

CGI.

Sending a film crew and actors into space.

Inception had several microgravity scenes (as well as several with wonky gravity and impossible geometry) and yet they managed to do it all on Earth with real sets, a reasonable budget and excellent results.

[Nathan]

$200M seems a bit exaggerated, and 1/10th of that would seem to be within the budget of a Hollywood blockbuster. The production company would not be buying the thing, just leasing it for the duration of the filming.

What's our best estimate of the cost to transport a crew of six to the station and back on, say Dragon or CST-100?

NASA is paying SpaceX $1.6 billion for 12 flights to the ISS.
http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php

$1,600M / 12 = $133.33M + cost of stay in spacestation

NASA is also paying for data sets. Removing this will reduce the cost. Also, reflying each capsule will reduce costs since one is not purchasing a fresh capsule each time.
Flight per person would be below $20m.

[JulesVerneATV]

Not exactly Bigelow name and an old topic, but


a research team, Institute of Mechanics ,Chinese Science Academy, recently completed the ground test of the core module of the "Reconfigurable Flexible On-Orbit Manufacturing Platform"

https://x.com/AJ_FI/status/1985588570854195551#m