What's Happening at Bigelow?

[Sparky]

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.

While this might be a bit expensive (mass-wise), what about something like a recumbent bicycle on a track? The head and legs would be nearly equidistant from the center of the module, and the centrifugal load would be spread out a bit more, thus reducing the stress on the module slightly. (Install two side by side, and you've invented the first competitive sport in space: orbital bike racing!)

[A_M_Swallow]

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

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

Very nice base.

The landing and takeoff site needs to be in a different crater from the buildings.  The powerful engine exhausts will throw stones and dust for hundreds of miles.  The crater sides will protect the building's windows and doors.  A solid landing pad will also help.

[A_M_Swallow]

Unless Bigelow is planning on making it nuclear powered, where are the solar arrays and communication dishes?

[Alpha Control]

Unless Bigelow is planning on making it nuclear powered, where are the solar arrays and communication dishes?

The space.com article mentions a nearby field of solar arrays. I think it's the rectangular cluster towards the top of the photo (nearest to where Mr. Bigelow is standing).

[Patchouli]

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

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

Very nice base.

The landing and takeoff site needs to be in a different crater from the buildings.  The powerful engine exhausts will throw stones and dust for hundreds of miles.  The crater sides will protect the building's windows and doors.  A solid landing pad will also help.

They'll need something like the lunar electric rover for travelling between the landing site and base.

[A_M_Swallow]

They'll need something like the lunar electric rover for travelling between the landing site and base.

The tin can on the bottom right appears to have wheels, so that could be the rover.  The simplest way to get a lunar rover is for Bigelow to buy the Lunar Electric Rover being tested under RATS, although they would need more seats and cargo space.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/LER.html

[bodge]

They'll need something like the lunar electric rover for travelling between the landing site and base.

The tin can on the bottom right appears to have wheels, so that could be the rover.  The simplest way to get a lunar rover is for Bigelow to buy the Lunar Electric Rover being tested under RATS, although they would need more seats and cargo space.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/LER.html

[Downix]

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

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

What's with the LEKs?

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lek.htm

[SpacexULA]

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

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

What's with the LEKs?

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lek.htm

Wow, they do look like that lander don't they!

[Cinder]

They don't look exactly like it.  They don't exactly match any of the Soviet landers.
http://www.astronautix.com/hires/zlklek2.jpg
Whereas the LEK's a bulbous top on a squat bottom cylinder, the Bigelow diorama models are almost entirely regular cone and cylinder.

[Sparky]

They don't look exactly like it.  They don't exactly match any of the Soviet landers.
http://www.astronautix.com/hires/zlklek2.jpg
Whereas the LEK's a bulbous top on a squat bottom cylinder, the Bigelow diorama models are almost entirely regular cone and cylinder.

To my untrained eyes, those landers look like Orion CSMs with a decent stage strapped onto the back. Could this explain Bigelow's interest in development of Orion Lite?

[docmordrid]

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.

They call them a "propulsion bus" and come in two forms: on-orbit with a docking node and a lander.  See concept images below.

The top image is much newer, but in Bigelow's patent for the landable base the bottom one is still very close - it now has more and longer 'legs' with a new mechanism, an air lock + platform + steps, a slight attachment mod (prob. for a tunnel to the air lock), a more refined looking skeleton and what looks like more thrusters.

EDIT: enlargements of the Bigelow image with detail of both the base and the propulsion bus. 

Sorry for the quality, but they are jpg's and don't scale very well.

[docmordrid]

Now for the vehicles, or at least the lunar lander.  Looks a whole lot to me like a shortened, modded propulsion bus with an Orion Lite shell as the command module.

[Sparky]

Now for the vehicles, or at least the lunar lander.  Looks a whole lot to me like a shortened, modded propulsion bus with an Orion Lite shell as the command module.

If that is the case, are the Landers based on Orion Lite simply out of commonality, or will they actually double as return vehicles?

[docmordrid]

That's the mystery, but IMO if they have an airlock designed for the bus it would be easier/cheaper to enlarge it than put an Orion Lite on top.  That argues for the case of a 2-way vehicle, especially since the image appears to show a docking device at the top.  OTOH it could just be a hatch.

[Sparky]

Somewhat better view of the landers. There seem to be windows and a hatch where the Orion Lite SM would be. If I had to guess, these landers are just a fill in for a vehicle that will be developed at a later date. Bigelow is probably going to focus on figuring out how to build stations and bases, and let others (like SpaceX or Armadillo) work on capsules and landers.

[kraisee]

There is no way to land landers that close to the Hab.   The regolith pebbles and detritus which will be kicked up by the landing engines will have some seriously dangerous velocities (2,000 mph+) to them, and with little gravity and no drag forces, those materials travel at those high velocities for a very long distance too.

This is an extremely serious problem which CxP identified with all Altair operations near the Lunar base.

The only effective solution anyone has so-far come up with is to build (or locate natural equivalents nearby) some large barriers between the landing site(s) and any valuable equipment -- and to place the landing site a safe distance away from any habited zones.

The dust created by landings is another significant concern too, but they're going to have to deal with dust anyway, so that isn't really an "additional" concern.

Ross.

[docmordrid]

True enough; but if the model were built to the necessary 'true' scale it wouldn't have fit in the building, would it?

[Sparky]

There is no way to land landers that close to the Hab.   The regolith pebbles and detritus which will be kicked up by the landing engines will have some seriously dangerous velocities (2,000 mph+) to them, and with little gravity and no drag forces, those materials travel at those high velocities for a very long distance too.

This is an extremely serious problem which CxP identified with all Altair operations near the Lunar base.

The only effective solution anyone has so-far come up with is to build (or locate natural equivalents nearby) some large barriers between the landing site(s) and any valuable equipment -- and to place the landing site a safe distance away from any habited zones.

The dust created by landings is another significant concern too, but they're going to have to deal with dust anyway, so that isn't really an "additional" concern.

Ross.

Oh certainly. I'm sure that this was drawn this way more for PR than as a planned layout.

I suppose it might make sense if the landers were mobile though. Land in a ways off, pop on some wheels, and have that rover tow the lander up to the hab. It'll make accessing and/or refueling the landers that much easier. Nevertheless, these landers seem to have neither wheels nor skids that would be effective for mobility.

[clongton]

All the serious notational base plans that I've seen call for the landing pads to eventually be microwave sintered to a depth of at least 2 meters. Yes, that will take a while to accomplish but once in place, dust and debris will not be a problem for incoming landers. It will be like coming down on clean concrete.