Author Topic: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)  (Read 661228 times)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #460 on: 05/03/2014 08:33 pm »
In space the astronauts may not need a ladder to change floors but a rope or poll would allow them to control the changes in direction.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #461 on: 05/04/2014 08:52 am »
One use I thought about recently for Bigelow Olympus was for scrapping space junk eg satellites and upper stages.
These could be brought inside and cut up into scrap metal which could transported to moon surface for use in build lunar bases. The Olympus could be based L1 or L2 in low DV range of GEO satellites. One of biggest issues with scrapping space junk is littles bits of metal and other materials that invariably escape and float around. If the hanger of Olympus was slightly pressurised an air circulation system could filter this debris out.

All operations could be done with robot arms which would be operated remotely from personnel inside the station or from moon or earth.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/affordable-habitats-more-buck-rogers-less-money-bigelow/

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #462 on: 05/04/2014 10:49 am »
One use I thought about recently for Bigelow Olympus was for scrapping space junk eg satellites and upper stages. These could be brought inside and cut up into scrap metal which could transported to moon surface for use in build lunar bases.
Economic nonsense.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #463 on: 05/04/2014 01:15 pm »
@TrevorMonty there are plenty of raw materials on the Moon, so that is the Moon base does not need.  Next calculate an approximate cost of moving things from LEO to the lunar surface.

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Israel
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #464 on: 05/05/2014 09:19 pm »
It becomes rather silly,
The Ba330 is launched within a faring that is as big as the module in it's expanded form. There is no advantage to expandable over hard shell modules.

The claim from Bigelow is that they get more volume per unit mass.
Volume per mass depands on wall thickness or wall mass and could be achieved with hard composites rather than streached kevler.
Quote
Also, your hard-shell module would also have a fairing,
Not sure. Isn't dragon a hard shell module in a way? DC? CST100? Can they be extended? Why cant a module be built in the same way as any of those and exactly the same size of a fairing?
Space is hard immensely complex and high risk !

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Israel
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #465 on: 05/05/2014 09:23 pm »
It becomes rather silly.
When expanded the BA-330 has a diameter of 6.7 meters, the fairing has a diameter of 5.2 meters.
But the extanded fairing gets about 18 meters long so it's total volume is bigger than the BA330's.
Space is hard immensely complex and high risk !

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Israel
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #466 on: 05/05/2014 09:34 pm »

It becomes rather silly...
When expanded the BA-330 has a diameter of 6.7 meters, the fairing has a diameter of 5.2 meters.
Actually, a 5.2fairing has an internal 4.6m. And modules also need some clearance for handles and such. That's why ISS modules are 4.1m to 4.4m.
Thats good to know.
But the BA330 will have no handles so the Biglow station can handle a flat module. If any, a hard shell could support aditions more easily.
I really want to see a private space station but I dont understand why they are so keen on these baloons.
Space is hard immensely complex and high risk !

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #467 on: 05/05/2014 10:00 pm »
It becomes rather silly,
The Ba330 is launched within a faring that is as big as the module in it's expanded form. There is no advantage to expandable over hard shell modules.

The claim from Bigelow is that they get more volume per unit mass.
Volume per mass depands on wall thickness or wall mass and could be achieved with hard composites rather than streached kevler.

Bigelow's web site lists numbers for ISS station nodes versus their modules that show higher volume per unit mass.  That seems more persuasive to me than your vague claim that the same "could be achieved with hard composites".  Where's your evidence for that claim?

Quote
Also, your hard-shell module would also have a fairing,
Not sure. Isn't dragon a hard shell module in a way? DC? CST100? Can they be extended? Why cant a module be built in the same way as any of those and exactly the same size of a fairing?

Yes, and Dragon, Dream Chaser, and CST-100 all have much higher mass per unit pressurized volume in part because they have aeroshells.  Those vehicles need the aeroshells anyway since they need to survive re-entry.  Station nodes don't normally need to survive re-entry, so they normally don't need the aeroshells.


Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #468 on: 05/06/2014 12:44 am »
I really want to see a private space station but I don't understand why they are so keen on these balloons.

These "balloons" as you call them provide larger interior volume for equal mass than aluminum cylinders, better mmod protection than aluminum cylinders and better GCR protection than aluminum cylinders.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Israel
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #469 on: 05/06/2014 01:41 pm »
I really want to see a private space station but I don't understand why they are so keen on these balloons.

These "balloons" as you call them provide larger interior volume for equal mass than aluminum cylinders, better mmod protection than aluminum cylinders and better GCR protection than aluminum cylinders.
Than obviously aluminium cylinders are not the way to go.
Space is hard immensely complex and high risk !

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Israel
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #470 on: 05/06/2014 02:22 pm »
"
Bigelow's web site lists numbers for ISS station nodes versus their modules that show higher volume per unit mass.  That seems more persuasive to me than your vague claim that the same "could be achieved with hard composites".  Where's your evidence for that claim?
"
Bigelow's BEAM:
Mass = 1.36 ton
Volume = 16m3
Volume/mass =11.8 m3/ton
(Wiki)

Cygnus CPM:
Mass = 1.5 ton
Volume = 18.9m3
Volume/mass =12.6 m3/ton

Cygnus enhenced CPM:
Mass = 1.8 ton
Volume = 27m3
Volume/mass =15 m3/ton

Shows that higher V/M ratios can be achieved with hard modules on the same volume range.

I dont know the radiation shielding of either, but I know astronauts are allowed to enter the CPM. Also, ThalesAlania have stated that the CPM can be made into a permanent module with the adition of only some plumbing. Sorry, I dont have the link for that.
Space is hard immensely complex and high risk !

Offline Borklund

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #471 on: 05/06/2014 02:27 pm »
I really want to see a private space station but I don't understand why they are so keen on these balloons.

These "balloons" as you call them provide larger interior volume for equal mass than aluminum cylinders, better mmod protection than aluminum cylinders and better GCR protection than aluminum cylinders.
Than obviously aluminium cylinders are not the way to go.
They're *a* way to go. Inflatable habitats hadn't ever been tried in space before Genesis I and II. Pressurised metallic cylinders were all there was before then (not counting space suits or Echo satellite balloons).

I dont know the radiation shielding of either, but I know astronauts are allowed to enter the CPM. Also, ThalesAlania have stated that the CPM can be made into a permanent module with the adition of only some plumbing. Sorry, I dont have the link for that.
It hasn't been proven yet, but Bigelow claim that their inflatable modules will offer the same or better radiation shielding compared to ISS modules. BEAM will help provide data on this.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #472 on: 05/06/2014 03:48 pm »
"
Bigelow's web site lists numbers for ISS station nodes versus their modules that show higher volume per unit mass.  That seems more persuasive to me than your vague claim that the same "could be achieved with hard composites".  Where's your evidence for that claim?
"
Bigelow's BEAM:
Mass = 1.36 ton
Volume = 16m3
Volume/mass =11.8 m3/ton
(Wiki)

Cygnus CPM:
Mass = 1.5 ton
Volume = 18.9m3
Volume/mass =12.6 m3/ton

Cygnus enhenced CPM:
Mass = 1.8 ton
Volume = 27m3
Volume/mass =15 m3/ton

Shows that higher V/M ratios can be achieved with hard modules on the same volume range.

I dont know the radiation shielding of either, but I know astronauts are allowed to enter the CPM. Also, ThalesAlania have stated that the CPM can be made into a permanent module with the addition of only some plumbing. Sorry, I dont have the link for that.
Beam is not a fair comparison. For obvious reasons, the weight to volume ratio of expandable habitats grows with the size of the habitat. Beam is only a very small test module.
BA330 already has a 1:15 mass to volume ratio and that is for a fully outfit module, with environmental control and life support systems, as well as solar panels, thrusters and avionics, etc.
And the even larger BA 2100 has a mass to volume ratio of 1:35.
All that while providing superior protection compared to the hard modules of the ISS.


Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Israel
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #473 on: 05/06/2014 05:39 pm »

Bigelow's BEAM:
Mass = 1.36 ton
Volume = 16m3
Volume/mass =11.8 m3/ton
(Wiki)

Cygnus CPM:
Mass = 1.5 ton
Volume = 18.9m3
Volume/mass =12.6 m3/ton

Cygnus enhenced CPM:
Mass = 1.8 ton
Volume = 27m3
Volume/mass =15 m3/ton

Shows that higher V/M ratios can be achieved with hard modules on the same volume range.

Beam is not a fair comparison. For obvious reasons, the weight to volume ratio of expandable habitats grows with the size of the habitat. Beam is only a very small test module.
BA330 already has a 1:15 mass to volume ratio and that is for a fully outfit module, with environmental control and life support systems, as well as solar panels, thrusters and avionics, etc.
And the even larger BA 2100 has a mass to volume ratio of 1:35.
All that while providing superior protection compared to the hard modules of the ISS.
BEAM IS a fair comparison to a module of the same volume like the CPM. It is not a fair comparison to a module of a bigger volume like BA330.
the weight to volume ratio of any habitat grows with the size of the habitat.
Claimed superior protection yet to be proven and it is not depended on the wall material's flexability.
Space is hard immensely complex and high risk !

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Liked: 728
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #474 on: 05/06/2014 05:49 pm »
They're *a* way to go. Inflatable habitats hadn't ever been tried in space before Genesis I and II. Pressurised metallic cylinders were all there was before then (not counting space suits or Echo satellite balloons).



Voskhod 2 Airlock.
« Last Edit: 05/06/2014 05:52 pm by Bob Shaw »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #475 on: 05/07/2014 02:55 am »

Bigelow's BEAM:
Mass = 1.36 ton
Volume = 16m3
Volume/mass =11.8 m3/ton
(Wiki)

Cygnus CPM:
Mass = 1.5 ton
Volume = 18.9m3
Volume/mass =12.6 m3/ton

Cygnus enhenced CPM:
Mass = 1.8 ton
Volume = 27m3
Volume/mass =15 m3/ton

Shows that higher V/M ratios can be achieved with hard modules on the same volume range.

Beam is not a fair comparison. For obvious reasons, the weight to volume ratio of expandable habitats grows with the size of the habitat. Beam is only a very small test module.
BA330 already has a 1:15 mass to volume ratio and that is for a fully outfit module, with environmental control and life support systems, as well as solar panels, thrusters and avionics, etc.
And the even larger BA 2100 has a mass to volume ratio of 1:35.
All that while providing superior protection compared to the hard modules of the ISS.
BEAM IS a fair comparison to a module of the same volume like the CPM. It is not a fair comparison to a module of a bigger volume like BA330.
the weight to volume ratio of any habitat grows with the size of the habitat.
Claimed superior protection yet to be proven and it is not depended on the wall material's flexability.

Bigelow likes to compare BA-330 to the ISS Destiny module.  They claim BA-330 has only 33% more mass but 210% more habitable volume.  That seems close enough in size for a reasonably fair comparison.

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Israel
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #476 on: 05/07/2014 11:26 am »
Than obviously Destiny is not a better module by mass/volume.
But CPM is.
The only theoretical advantage to inflatables is the ability to lunch a bigger diameter or a more complex structure in one piece, and that becomes minor when the difference in diameter between the fairing to the module is 1.5 meter and the volume is more or less the same.
Space is hard immensely complex and high risk !

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #477 on: 05/07/2014 12:14 pm »
I'm not sure the CPM is a valid comparison.  It's primary function is a cargo carrier and as such it's design is maximized for that; maximum interior volume. 
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #478 on: 05/07/2014 12:57 pm »
Than obviously Destiny is not a better module by mass/volume.
But CPM is.
The only theoretical advantage to inflatables is the ability to lunch a bigger diameter or a more complex structure in one piece, and that becomes minor when the difference in diameter between the fairing to the module is 1.5 meter and the volume is more or less the same.
First, the rigid pressure vessels are bounded by the fairing inner dynamic diameter (4.6m for commercial), inflatables can do at least +50% that diameter. Second, I agree that CPM and BEAM are sort of similar. But it's at the bigger scales that you have better relationships. While it's true that all benefit from scaling laws, inflatables have minimum gauge measured in feet. It has to do with MMOD protection, insulation and leak resistance. In particular, the inflatables work a bit like fiber wrapped air tanks. Thus, the pressure carrying layer (I believe they use kevlar), is the only part that you have to scale to increase the diameter. Thus, while BEAM is very heavy, it's walls are sized for at least BA330 width. CPM is optimized for weight and has as little material as possible.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #479 on: 05/07/2014 02:35 pm »
First, the rigid pressure vessels are bounded by the fairing inner dynamic diameter (4.6m for commercial), inflatables can do at least +50% that diameter. Second, I agree that CPM and BEAM are sort of similar. But it's at the bigger scales that you have better relationships. While it's true that all benefit from scaling laws, inflatables have minimum gauge measured in feet. It has to do with MMOD protection, insulation and leak resistance. In particular, the inflatables work a bit like fiber wrapped air tanks. Thus, the pressure carrying layer (I believe they use kevlar), is the only part that you have to scale to increase the diameter. Thus, while BEAM is very heavy, it's walls are sized for at least BA330 width. CPM is optimized for weight and has as little material as possible.
Yepp baldusi has it right!

Tags:
 

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