What's Happening at Bigelow?

[Ben the Space Brit]

All very interesting, hypothetically speaking but utterly pointless so long as there isn't a crew transfer system to get people there.  Of course, that could sum up Bigelow's entire product line, really.

It's an interesting chicken-and-egg problem.

Agreed - You could argue that there's no point launching a crew-ready space module if you have no way of getting people to it.  However, it is going to be difficult getting capital to fund the crew transfer vehicle if you don't have a destination in mind.  I guess that is why commercial crew to the ISS is considered such an important first step.

Onto other related matters:

I read once (I forget where) that there were plans to attach a Bigelow module to the ISS for evaluation purposes and, possibly, to run a simulated Mars mission with a crew sealed into the module for the duration.  Has anything further been said about this, officially or unofficially?

[clongton]

All very interesting, hypothetically speaking but utterly pointless so long as there isn't a crew transfer system to get people there.  Of course, that could sum up Bigelow's entire product line, really.

It's an interesting chicken-and-egg problem.

Agreed - You could argue that there's no point launching a crew-ready space module if you have no way of getting people to it.  However, it is going to be difficult getting capital to fund the crew transfer vehicle if you don't have a destination in mind.  I guess that is why commercial crew to the ISS is considered such an important first step.

Onto other related matters:

I read once (I forget where) that there were plans to attach a Bigelow module to the ISS for evaluation purposes and, possibly, to run a simulated Mars mission with a crew sealed into the module for the duration.  Has anything further been said about this, officially or unofficially?

At the time it wasn't a Bigelow module, it was TransHab, owned by NASA. They were going to attach a habitation module for normal station crew as well as planning a trans Martian hab as part of ongoing medical/physological experimentation. That hab was dependent on future developments in EELSS.

NASA ultimately transferred the TransHab technology to Bigelow and divested itself of all the rights because they considered it not worth developing. Funny, now Bigelow is likely to eventually replace NASA's LEO facilities, one hab at a time - and make a handsome profit doing it.

[bad_astra]

As I recall there was some congressional grumbling over Transhab because it appeared that NASA was basically building a backdoor hab module for a Mars transit vehicle when it had no budget to do so. Ultimately the aluminum hab module was picked, but that, along with the US prop module, was nixed from the final design. I wonder what they did with the shell.

[mmeijeri]

NASA ultimately transferred the TransHab technology to Bigelow and divested itself of all the rights because they considered it not worth developing.

I believe NASA only licensed the technology to Bigelow and retains the right to use it for itself. Bigelow apparently has developed the technology further and NASA may not have a right to use Bigelow's improvements.

[daveklingler]

NASA ultimately transferred the TransHab technology to Bigelow and divested itself of all the rights because they considered it not worth developing.

I believe NASA only licensed the technology to Bigelow and retains the right to use it for itself. Bigelow apparently has developed the technology further and NASA may not have a right to use Bigelow's improvements.

From what I understand of the interviews I've read with Bob Bigelow, NASA Transhab folks were constantly underfunded and they were happy to see some progress being made.  The last time I saw a description of Bigelow's inflatable operations, it was to the effect that both parties happily share information.  Quoth a NASA employee, "We spend a lot of time over there."

[neilh]

I read once (I forget where) that there were plans to attach a Bigelow module to the ISS for evaluation purposes and, possibly, to run a simulated Mars mission with a crew sealed into the module for the duration.  Has anything further been said about this, officially or unofficially?

It's one of the three near-term Flagship Technology Demonstrator missions listed in FY2011:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main_Exploration.pdf

In FY 2011, NASA will initiate several Flagship Technology Demonstrators, each with an expected lifecycle cost in the $400 million to $1 billion range, over a lifetime of five years or less, with the first flying no later than 2014. In pursuit of these goals, international, commercial, and other government agency partners will be actively pursued as integrated team members where appropriate. NASA will not give responsibility for all demonstrations to any single NASA center but rather looks forward to engaging with the expertise of various centers to accomplish these objectives. Specific architecture and approach for missions to demonstrate key capabilities will be developed for initiation in FY2011. Technologies targeted for demonstration will likely include:

...
Lightweight/Inflatable Modules: Inflatable modules can be larger, lighter, and potentially less expensive for future use than the rigid modules currently used by the International Space Station (ISS). Working closely with industry and international partners who have already demonstrated a number of capabilities and interest in this arena, and building on previous ESMD investments, NASA will pursue a demonstration of lightweight/inflatable modules for eventual in-space habitation, transportation, or even surface habitation needs. The demonstration could involve tests of a variety of systems, including closed-loop life support, radiation shielding, thermal control, communications, and interfaces between the module and external systems. Use of the ISS as the testbed for this technology is an option being considered to potentially benefit both programs.
...

[Robotbeat]

I read once (I forget where) that there were plans to attach a Bigelow module to the ISS for evaluation purposes and, possibly, to run a simulated Mars mission with a crew sealed into the module for the duration.  Has anything further been said about this, officially or unofficially?

It's one of the three near-term Flagship Technology Demonstrator missions listed in FY2011:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main_Exploration.pdf

In FY 2011, NASA will initiate several Flagship Technology Demonstrators, each with an expected lifecycle cost in the $400 million to $1 billion range, over a lifetime of five years or less, with the first flying no later than 2014. In pursuit of these goals, international, commercial, and other government agency partners will be actively pursued as integrated team members where appropriate. NASA will not give responsibility for all demonstrations to any single NASA center but rather looks forward to engaging with the expertise of various centers to accomplish these objectives. Specific architecture and approach for missions to demonstrate key capabilities will be developed for initiation in FY2011. Technologies targeted for demonstration will likely include:

...
Lightweight/Inflatable Modules: Inflatable modules can be larger, lighter, and potentially less expensive for future use than the rigid modules currently used by the International Space Station (ISS). Working closely with industry and international partners who have already demonstrated a number of capabilities and interest in this arena, and building on previous ESMD investments, NASA will pursue a demonstration of lightweight/inflatable modules for eventual in-space habitation, transportation, or even surface habitation needs. The demonstration could involve tests of a variety of systems, including closed-loop life support, radiation shielding, thermal control, communications, and interfaces between the module and external systems. Use of the ISS as the testbed for this technology is an option being considered to potentially benefit both programs.
...

Looks promising. This is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing instead of arguing 'til Kingdom Come over what launch vehicle to use.

We need to gain at least as much experience in long-duration microgravity as the Russians have. And we need to figure out how to safely live in microgravity for longer and longer periods, up to what's needed for Conjunction-class missions, perhaps via a centrifugal ring inside the Bigelow capsule module to simulate Mars gravity, at least for sleeping. Also, there surely are some drugs that can be used to mitigate some of the detrimental effects of microgavity (and radiation, though I am sure that such long-term radiation risks are overblown compared to the other spaceflight risks).

[Aeroman]

Quick Question, pertaining to centrifuge gravity.

Can a Bigelow module or set of modules be spun for artificial gravity? even .5g?

[neilh]

Quick Question, pertaining to centrifuge gravity.

Can a Bigelow module or set of modules be spun for artificial gravity? even .5g?

From 2004:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/293/1

TSR: Can you spin these modules up for gravity? Tethered together?

Gold: It’s possible, however, since we’re interested in pursuing the benefits of microgravity we haven’t spent a great deal of time on this sort of thing.

[Aeroman]

Cool, thanks.

[Garrett]

Quick Question, pertaining to centrifuge gravity.

Can a Bigelow module or set of modules be spun for artificial gravity? even .5g?

I believe it's better to have them on the end of a long tether, with a counter weight on the other end. If it was just the module spinning, then the human body would be able to feel the difference in g-force between the head and the feet. A very dizzy experience apparently.

[Robotbeat]

Why not have just a ring inside the Bigelow module, only 1 meter or so in width (and as big of diameter as the module), where the crew can sleep and/or exercise? Like this:

Except with that ring rotating and providing some gravity by itself (fractional, most likely).
Feasible? With only 6 meters or so diameter, there will be some coriolis, but I bet it would be manageable, especially with fractional gravity. I mean, even microgravity itself can cause nausea, but astonauts adapt.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Why not have just a ring inside the Bigelow module, only 1 meter or so in width (and as big of diameter as the module), where the crew can sleep and/or exercise? Like this:

The Russians did look at this (in the 70s or 80s, IIRC).  They found that the difference in forces when the cosmonaut's height was a significant fraction of the diameter of the centrifuge caused serious disorientation and even some problems with the blood flow through the body.  A 5m-diameter one, like that which would fit inside a Skylab, would have a situation where the head was virtually in free-fall whilst the body was in partial gravity.  This would make the subject very prone to black-outs.  Not a good thing.

FWIW, I've always considered the Discovery-1's 10m-diameter centrifuge in 2001 about the minimum sensible size for even trained and conditioned crews.  It could be made to work with highly-trained astronauts who have been conditioned through years of training to handle it.  However, semi-trained space tourists (such as Bigelow's target market) probably wouldn't be able to handle it.

[Orbital Debris]

Quick Question, pertaining to centrifuge gravity.

Can a Bigelow module or set of modules be spun for artificial gravity? even .5g?

From 2004:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/293/1

TSR: Can you spin these modules up for gravity? Tethered together?

Gold: It’s possible, however, since we’re interested in pursuing the benefits of microgravity we haven’t spent a great deal of time on this sort of thing.

Please keep in mind that Mr. Gold is the corporate counsel.  To a lawyer, this answer could mean that it is possible because there is no law against it.  Not a great deal of time could mean that some engineer thought about it and dismissed it. 

When talking about a tethered system, how would you overcome an imbalance in the masses?   A constantly shifting c.g. is headache enough for the ACS, not to mention trying to maintain spin. 

[A_M_Swallow]

With a rotating module the sides become load bearing structures.  In addition to the air pressure the walls become a floor and need to take the weight of people, movement, furniture and stores.  The floor may need fastening to the centre beam.

Imbalance of masses can be handled by pumping liquids between tanks, particularly in the module on the opposite side of the spacestation.  Water could be pumped between tanks at a different radius, there by giving the same mass a different weight.  Electrically powered pumps can do this automatically.

[Garrett]

When talking about a tethered system, how would you overcome an imbalance in the masses?   A constantly shifting c.g. is headache enough for the ACS, not to mention trying to maintain spin. 

Sorry, but I don't know all the space related acronyms. What is ACS?
Also, why would it be difficult to maintain spin?
I also don't understand why the center of gravity would constantly shift. In an orbiting tethered system, won't the c.g. be that point that actually defines the orbit path? Each mass will be "orbiting" around the c.g.

EDIT: just saw that the NSF forum acronym tool had identified the term ACS (with a dotted line underneath). My bad. ACS = attitude control system

[Ben the Space Brit]

When talking about a tethered system, how would you overcome an imbalance in the masses?   A constantly shifting c.g. is headache enough for the ACS, not to mention trying to maintain spin. 

I think it is possible to over-state this problem.

In any reasonable-sized crewed spacecraft undergoing tethered spin (say with an expended upper stage as counter-weight) there is no significant levels of mass change likely to affect the spin stability.  The movement of the crew isn't enough and the slow decrease of propellent weight from RCS activity would be programmed into the manouevre.

In interplanetary flight, I imagine that the plane of the spin would be precisely perpendicular to the direction of flight.  So, in that case, it would simply require balanced RCS burns 'up' or 'down' for orbital manoeuvres.  Once again, this is something that the engineers would have calculated well in advance and would be pre-programmed into the ACS software.

[SpacexULA]

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/news/

I have not seen this update mentioned here.  God that's a pretty base.

[neilh]

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/news/

I have not seen this update mentioned here.  God that's a pretty base.

Woah, very interesting. I wonder what the modules at the end of the habitats are supposed to be -- lander propulsion?

[Sparky]

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/news/

I have not seen this update mentioned here.  God that's a pretty base.

Woah, very interesting. I wonder what the modules at the end of the habitats are supposed to be -- lander propulsion?

I believe that they're a combination of service module, descent stage and node.