Sierra Space LEO Space station

[clongton]

Interesting that both Bigelow and now Sierra both lay out their floors longitudinally rather than radially.

It's always been that way.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53484.msg2215037#msg2215037

NASA's original layout for TransHab was radial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransHab
Then Bigelow purchased the rights from NASA to develop it. But the longitudinal layout was adopted early on when habitat planners couldn't make the radial layout work in an inflatable that size. It was just too restrictive.

[Lee Jay]

Interesting that both Bigelow and now Sierra both lay out their floors longitudinally rather than radially.

It's always been that way.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53484.msg2215037#msg2215037

NASA's original layout for TransHab was radial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransHab
Then Bigelow purchased the rights from NASA to develop it. But the longitudinal layout was adopted early on when habitat planners couldn't make the radial layout work in an inflatable that size. It was just too restrictive.

I meant since the first version from Sierra.

[edzieba]

Interesting that both Bigelow and now Sierra both lay out their floors longitudinally rather than radially.

It's always been that way.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53484.msg2215037#msg2215037

NASA's original layout for TransHab was radial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransHab
Then Bigelow purchased the rights from NASA to develop it. But the longitudinal layout was adopted early on when habitat planners couldn't make the radial layout work in an inflatable that size. It was just too restrictive.

I meant since the first version from Sierra.

Nobody has claimed otherwise, Sierra/SNC have always made their layouts public since their inflatables programme was announced.
The question is why longitudinal rather than radial, not when.

[clongton]

Nobody has claimed otherwise, Sierra/SNC have always made their layouts public since their inflatables programme was announced.
The question is why longitudinal rather than radial, not when.

Returning to the original question, there are many reasons why a longitudinal interior layout is preferred over a radial one. To reduce the risk of veering off topic, I’ll offer just 2 of the many considerations, from a designer’s point of view, and some sources for you to check out if you wish to investigate further.

Structural Efficiency
Longitudinal modules are structurally simpler to design and manufacture, as cylindrical shapes lend themselves naturally to withstand internal pressure and launch stresses when oriented along the rocket's longitudinal axis. Radial layouts, as seen in Skylab or concepts like TransHab, introduce complexities in structural integration and load distribution, particularly during launch and deployment.

Interior Space Utilization
Longitudinal layouts allow for efficient partitioning of internal spaces. Work, living, and storage areas can be arranged in a linear fashion, optimizing the use of the pressurized volume. In radial layouts, the arrangement of usable space can be less intuitive, potentially leading to inefficiencies.

There are many others I could offer but won’t. This is a complex subject, and if you want to explore it further. I would offer, for your study/enjoyment these sources to check out:

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS): This database includes research on topics such as structural analysis, composite materials, and their applications in aerospace. Studies on finite element analysis (FEA) and composite testing provide insights into practical applications and theoretical modeling. For instance, reports discuss material properties like ply-drop modeling, core-to-facesheet interface stresses, and buckling analysis. This is an excellent resource for exploring detailed engineering analyses and methodologies. Visit NTRS for specific reports.

MIT OpenCourseWare: Offers free access to a wide range of engineering courses, including those on advanced mechanics of materials and structures. These resources are beneficial for building a foundational understanding and applying complex mathematical modeling to structural problems.

Engineering Journals and Databases: Platforms such as SpringerLink and ScienceDirect host peer-reviewed articles on topics like nonlinear transient buckling, core crushing in composites, and the effects of geometric imperfections in aerospace materials.

Textbooks and Educational Resources: Books such as "Mechanics of Composite Materials" by Robert M. Jones or "Introduction to Finite Element Analysis" by J.N. Reddy provide a robust foundation in structural and material analysis principles.

Professional Engineering Organizations: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) or the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) often publish relevant research articles and case studies.

If you’re looking for detailed engineering analyses or studies comparing these 2 different layouts, I recommend exploring NASA's technical archives and papers published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). These sources often evaluate the trade-offs in structural integrity, crew ergonomics, and life-support system efficiency for different human habitat layouts.

[JSz]

So that there is something to eat in orbit:

https://twitter.com/SierraSpaceCo/status/1914692240024252855

For over 20 years, we have been at the forefront of researching how to grow plants in space.

Our Astro Garden system is a large-scale vegetable production system that uses hydroponics to grow plants without soil and offers a sustainable means of producing fresh food fresh food for crew while also augmenting life support functions such as water purification, carbon dioxide removal and oxygen production.

We are committed to pushing the boundaries of technology to create solutions that benefit both long-duration space missions and our planet.

Link: https://sierraspace.com/space-technology/microgravity-environmental-systems/space-station-payloads/

[StraumliBlight]

https://twitter.com/SierraSpaceCo/status/1915376376695161155

Sierra Space Advances Space Station Technology With Hypervelocity Impact Testing at NASA White Sands [Apr 24]

Sierra Space announced today that it recently conducted successful hypervelocity impact trials at NASA’s White Sands Test Facility in Las Cruces, New Mexico, to optimize the structural integrity of Sierra Space’s Large Integrated Flexible Environment (LIFE®) habitat. The goal of this NASA-supported testing was to refine a shield for the company’s expandable, flexible space station structure to make it capable of withstanding impacts from hazards on orbit.

The LIFE habitat’s shield, constructed from innovative, high-strength, flexible “softgoods” – a chemically-woven fabric material called Vectran® – provides a lightweight yet durable alternative to traditional rigid structures. The Sierra Space and NASA test teams used a two-stage light gas gun to simulate micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) impacts to LIFE’s outer shield. The testing aimed to select materials and configurations that enhance the habitat’s shielding performance while achieving significant mass savings – critical for space missions.

[...]

The impact testing, conducted under an unfunded Space Act Agreement called Collaborations for Commercial Space Capabilities (CCSC-2), used NASA’s .50 caliber two-stage light gas gun to replicate MMOD traveling at speeds around seven kilometers per second. Housed in the Remote Hypervelocity Test Laboratory, the gun uses gunpowder (the first stage) and highly compressed hydrogen (the second stage) to accelerate projectiles at high velocities to simulate orbital debris impacts on spacecraft and satellite materials and components. Testing is conducted in a near vacuum chamber to simulate space conditions.

Material Selection and Testing Process

The impact trials were conducted in two phases. The first grouping of shots varied the softgoods materials while keeping gun parameters constant, simulating MMOD impacts to directly compare how each material performed. After identifying the most promising materials, the team adjusted gun parameters to develop an equation characterizing the efficacy and performance of the selected shield stack. During the tests, 40 experimental shots were fired toward the materials to confirm the configuration selection. Once the team had established a strong but mass-efficient shield configuration, 19 additional shots were discharged at the material. These efforts were critical to mitigate future risks posed by MMOD—tiny, high-speed particles that can cause significant damage to spacecraft and habitats in orbit.

Sierra Space team members traveled to White Sands to observe the shots firsthand and collaborate on real-time adjustments to the follow-on tests based on immediate results. This hands-on approach allowed for rapid, data-driven decisions to refine the shield design.

Higher Res photos

[Tywin]

Any updates when they go to launch the LIFE module prototype?