Quote from: Nomadd on 02/27/2018 09:19 pmQuote from: punder on 02/19/2018 06:11 pmQuote from: spacenut on 02/11/2018 01:37 pmOr Bigelow could develop expandable modules to fit the existing fairing sizes. Exactly. New fairings don't just appear out of nowhere. The payload decides how big they'll be. The 2100 could be a starting point for SpaceX, BO or whoever wants to make a huge cargo fairing or whatever delivers the payload. Talk to other potential customers, of course. In the case of Falcon 9, the rocket diameter also imposes some limit on the fairing diameter, which is important for Bigelow modules.
Quote from: punder on 02/19/2018 06:11 pmQuote from: spacenut on 02/11/2018 01:37 pmOr Bigelow could develop expandable modules to fit the existing fairing sizes. Exactly. New fairings don't just appear out of nowhere. The payload decides how big they'll be. The 2100 could be a starting point for SpaceX, BO or whoever wants to make a huge cargo fairing or whatever delivers the payload. Talk to other potential customers, of course.
Quote from: spacenut on 02/11/2018 01:37 pmOr Bigelow could develop expandable modules to fit the existing fairing sizes. Exactly.
Or Bigelow could develop expandable modules to fit the existing fairing sizes.
My notes show the B330 compressed diameter as 4.572m/180", which should fit in the now wider Fairing 2.0. The issue appears to be insufficient length because of an attached propulsion bus, which requires the EELV long fairing.
Under consideration. We’ve already stretched the upper stage once. Easiest part of the rocket to change. Fairing 2, flying soon, also has a slightly larger diameter. Could make fairing much longer if need be & will if BFR takes longer than expected.
You speak of the 330 as if it exists, or is anywhere close to being at a CDR. It is not. So they could scale it slightly and not throw away all their work. That's all I'm saying.
Quote from: Lars-J on 02/28/2018 06:49 pmYou speak of the 330 as if it exists, or is anywhere close to being at a CDR. It is not. So they could scale it slightly and not throw away all their work. That's all I'm saying.This fact seems to be lost in all of the conversation. And likewise, the 2100 is purely powerpoint. They can rename it any time to whatever volume they'd like. It doesn't actually exist.
The Moon Marius Hills features some underground lava tube that would be perfect for a lunar base. I wonder how hard it would be to inflate a BA-2100 inside... what would be the risks involved ?
Nice video. I would have had a segment (e.g. before and/or after) from a global POV with familiar things next to the module for scale. E.G. have it sat in between a supermarket and an average home (all three elements in cutaway for visibility's sake). You lose a bit of the scale of something when you are mazing through it with relatively narrow field of view.
If BFS costs $200M, that sets an obvious floor on a space station at $250K/m^3, which seems to be moderately close to prices that have been implied for the BA-330. And - well - if you want, you can deorbit it at any time. (in LEO at least).
Quote from: speedevil on 02/27/2018 12:40 pmIf BFS costs $200M, that sets an obvious floor on a space station at $250K/m^3, which seems to be moderately close to prices that have been implied for the BA-330. And - well - if you want, you can deorbit it at any time. (in LEO at least).Wouldn't the expanded habitat have better protection against micrometeorites?
Marginally, if you do not cover the BFS with anything.
Quote from: alexterrell on 02/22/2018 06:32 am(edit)BFS "pressurised volume" is given as 825m^3. Certainly more volume / mass than Falcon Heavy. It should be easy to put something like the BA-2100 into that, but it won't (or shouldn't) look exactly like the BA-2100. In both cases, would you keep the upper stage attached, so it can be used as a booster or perhaps a volatiles store? Or perhaps something similar to the old Space Shuttle ET reuse proposals?BFS raises the rather awkward issue of pricing.If BFS costs $200M, that sets an obvious floor on a space station at $250K/m^3, which seems to be moderately close to prices that have been implied for the BA-330. And - well - if you want, you can deorbit it at any time. (in LEO at least).But, if you don't care about mass, or inflatability, or anything fancy, you can get shielded 300m^3 or so 6m internal diameter modules up for not much more than 3* launch cost of BFS, even without any on-orbit assembly.Buy 6m aluminium inch thick tank, don't tell them it's for aerospace, pressurise to 150PSI a few times to test it, add 1m of plastic water tanks to the outside (empty), glue on aluminium foil, fill in orbit, and you've got a pressurised shielded volume that you can outfit at your leisure.This is obviously not suitable for BLEO, as it's quite high mass, but in LEO, you don't actually care about that.On other loads, you send up 10m*3m tubes, with various 'plumbing' type fittings, made from two inch thick aluminium to be on the safe side, and just attach the tanks using these.Of course, this rather depends on what BFS actually charges for launch - and what the market is.If SpaceX gets involved in orbital tourism, their only reason to not consider launches 'at cost' would be anticompetitive reasons.If they actually manage to convince people to pay $150M per launch, then you very much want bigelow type habs.
(edit)BFS "pressurised volume" is given as 825m^3. Certainly more volume / mass than Falcon Heavy. It should be easy to put something like the BA-2100 into that, but it won't (or shouldn't) look exactly like the BA-2100. In both cases, would you keep the upper stage attached, so it can be used as a booster or perhaps a volatiles store? Or perhaps something similar to the old Space Shuttle ET reuse proposals?
Quote from: speedevil on 05/17/2018 10:20 amMarginally, if you do not cover the BFS with anything.I would assume you would need to deploy the shield after it's in orbit. And in that case, aren't you just talking about half an expandable habitat covering the heat shield?
No.It doesn't need to hold pressure, or do any of the normal things that make an expandable habitat hard.
If BFS costs $200M, that sets an obvious floor on a space station at $250K/m^3, which seems to be moderately close to prices that have been implied for the BA-330. And - well - if you want, you can deorbit it at any time. (in LEO at least).But, if you don't care about mass, or inflatability, or anything fancy, you can get shielded 300m^3 or so 6m internal diameter modules up for not much more than 3* launch cost of BFS, even without any on-orbit assembly.Buy 6m aluminium inch thick tank, don't tell them it's for aerospace, pressurise to 150PSI a few times to test it, add 1m of plastic water tanks to the outside (empty), glue on aluminium foil, fill in orbit, and you've got a pressurised shielded volume that you can outfit at your leisure.
Inflatables still allow much larger volumes, though. And BFR only makes them cheaper.For example, a single BFR launch could lift a 140 tonne, 100 meter deflated Kevlar sphere with 3 mm thick walls (5x safety factor) and a 10 tonne docking port/service/propulsion module. It would take 5 BFR flights of liquid air tanks to pressurize it to 1 atmosphere, but then you have a volume equal to 635 BFSes or 1600 BA-330s. Figuring out how to manufacture that sounds like a Bigelow specialty. It would take some outfitting to make that volume useful though, unless all you wanted was an orbital bouncy castle