What's Happening at Bigelow?

[A_M_Swallow]

I'd like to hear more about those sovereign clients. Apparently the Netherlands is one of those, but we're in the middle of deep budget cuts and I haven't heard anything about it in the Dutch press.

The LEO Bigelow spacestation is not due to open for 5 years so hopefully the deep budget cuts will be over by then.  This also means that the university, research institute or military organisation has 5 years to lobby the Dutch government for the money.

[subzero788]

I was pretty suprised to hear that Australia was one of the countries which had signed a "memorandum of understanding" with Bigelow. Our goverment (unfortunately) has never had any interest in human spaceflight. Does anyone have anymore info on this?

[Spacenuts]

The plan seems to be for their modules to  go up unmanned. 

Seems to be?
It's that or go with inflatable astronauts. ;-)

I am sure you ment to say "expandable astronauts" Lol

[Sparky]

I found the interior cutaways most interesting.  [snip]   with that rigid core as an axle, would it be possible to put a centrifuge into the super-heavy model-2100?

I'd like to know how big the door is? If it requires an 8 meter fairing does it have a 5 meter entryway?

I was just thinking, Orion and CST-100 about 5 meters across. If the door/airlock was made just a bit bigger, say, 5.5 or 6 meters, the entire module could be a hangar for repairing vehicles in a shirtsleeve atmosphere.

No, not feasible.  The center of a Bigelow station is its spine, can't remove it.. 

But that spine is a hollow tunnel, is it not? A BA-2100 designed as a hangar could have that tunnel as a corridor for moving vehicles (such as landers) along a rail system to be moored in their servicing bays, somewhere inside the module.

Anyways, what is the infatuation with "pressurized" hangars for spacecraft.  There is no need for an atmosphere.  Most spacecraft will have hazardous materials around them, which would be safer to work on in a vacuum or would require a hazmat suit anyways.

Because one of the biggest drawback's to a reusable lunar lander architecture is refurbishment. I can hardly imagine rebuilding my car's engine if I were wearing pressurized gloves. What's more, one could attempt techniques for spacecraft repair that would be avoided in space, such as welding or cutting, since the debris created could filtered out of the air or caught with magnets, rather than polluting the local space environment.

It would also reduce the amount of long term exposure that the lander's materials get to radiation, as well as stresses from repetitive heating and cooling from direct sunlight.

[Patchouli]

Because one of the biggest drawback's to a reusable lunar lander architecture is refurbishment. I can hardly imagine rebuilding my car's engine if I were wearing pressurized gloves. What's more, one could attempt techniques for spacecraft repair that would be avoided in space, such as welding or cutting, since the debris created could filtered out of the air or caught with magnets, rather than polluting the local space environment.

It would also reduce the amount of long term exposure that the lander's materials get to radiation, as well as stresses from repetitive heating and cooling from direct sunlight.

Reaction engines is has a orbital hanger concept that would be better suited for servicing spacecraft then using a BA 2100 and risk contaminating the entire space station with hydrazine.
Besides a completed MTV likely would even be too big to fit inside the BA 2100.

[Lars_J]

At this point a pressurized "drydock" for spacecraft makes little (or no) sense. The cost and complexity of such a facility does not make sense at this point. Once we have a massive infrastructure in space - then perhaps it could find some reasonable use.

In addition, their suggested use of maintaining in-space reusable spacecraft (that are designed to only operate in vacuum) seems very odd. There's many things that could break by repeatedly pressurizing and de-pressurizing the entire spacecraft.

More effort should be expended towards easing maintenance of spacecraft in vacuum. That kind of effort will also help crews on BEO missions when crucial repairs will have to be done far from their base of operations.

[Patchouli]

At this point a pressurized "drydock" for spacecraft makes little (or no) sense. The cost and complexity of such a facility does not make sense at this point. Once we have a massive infrastructure in space - then perhaps it could find some reasonable use.

In addition, their suggested use of maintaining in-space reusable spacecraft (that are designed to only operate in vacuum) seems very odd. There's many things that could break by repeatedly pressurizing and de-pressurizing the entire spacecraft.

More effort should be expended towards easing maintenance of spacecraft in vacuum. That kind of effort will also help crews on BEO missions when crucial repairs will have to be done far from their base of operations.

The assembly dock I posted is not pressurized except for the small habitation modules for work crews.

A vacuum dock could be useful near term by providing a safer EVA environment but a pressurized dry dock seems silly esp when you consider how much air will get wasted between uses and the difficulties of decontaminating it if something leaks inside it.

Plus you don't get fires in a vacuum a lunar module leaking methane inside a pressurized dock would be very bad.

[Lars_J]

Patchouli, I know the image you posted was not a pressurized dock. I was responding to Sparky, although I should have made that clearer.

[Robotbeat]

I really like the idea of an unpressurized "vacuum dock." If you don't have to worry about excessive radiation (including just hard UV radiation degrading the space suit materials), extreme heating or cooling, floating away, and micrometeorites, it would probably be a lot easier to design and use a much more flexible space suit and gloves (maybe one of those spandex suits investigated in the 1970s or a hybrid?).

Because it wouldn't need to be pressurized, you might be able to design one big enough to service a lander but still able to be launched on a Falcon 1e (say, if its structure is inflatable). (Of course, you wouldn't want to launch it separately like that.)

Might be nice not to have to worry so much about latching onto rails and having to be really careful about losing tools. The suits themselves could operate using tethers instead of having to be big, bulky, and self-contained.

[Dappa]

But that spine is a hollow tunnel, is it not? A BA-2100 designed as a hangar could have that tunnel as a corridor for moving vehicles (such as landers) along a rail system to be moored in their servicing bays, somewhere inside the module.

I wouldn't bet on that. I believe that the spine holds many systems, like power distribution, oxygen and ventilation systems, the head, heating and cooling systems, possibly propellant tanks, and who-knows-what more.

[ChefPat]

Can a pressurized drydock be filled to 1 or 2 hundred millibars of an inert non corrosive gas & still be kept at 25c or so? Are 1 or 2 hundred millibars enough to work without gloves in?

[Comga]

Can a pressurized drydock be filled to 1 or 2 hundred millibars of an inert non corrosive gas & still be kept at 25c or so? Are 1 or 2 hundred millibars enough to work without gloves in?

FWIW I used to regularly carry moderate loads to an environment with ~120 mBar of Oxygen. (14,000 ft) Thousands do every year.  Once went to <100 mBar.  Some people live with ~130 mBar, and some can go to <70 (8000 m) unaided, albeit not many.

Perhaps that's not your question, but one should be able to breath pure O2 in a 100-200 mBar environment and do OK.

[Nathan]

I was pretty suprised to hear that Australia was one of the countries which had signed a "memorandum of understanding" with Bigelow. Our goverment (unfortunately) has never had any interest in human spaceflight. Does anyone have anymore info on this?

Same. The only reference I can find is the Bigelow reference itself. I wonder if it is actually a non-government entity?
Alternatively it could be the AU government but just looking for a spot for a small payload.

[ChefPat]

Can a pressurized drydock be filled to 1 or 2 hundred millibars of an inert non corrosive gas & still be kept at 25c or so? Are 1 or 2 hundred millibars enough to work without gloves in?

FWIW I used to regularly carry moderate loads to an environment with ~120 mBar of Oxygen. (14,000 ft) Thousands do every year.  Once went to <100 mBar.  Some people live with ~130 mBar, and some can go to <70 (8000 m) unaided, albeit not many.

Perhaps that's not your question, but one should be able to breath pure O2 in a 100-200 mBar environment and do OK.

In one respect it does answer my question, a person can work in 100 millibars without a pressure suit.

[mmeijeri]

An adaptation of the tools used for remote surgery could also help. The astronauts could be located in a shirt sleeve environment while the remotely controlled robot would be inside the unpressurised hangar.

[kkattula]

An adaptation of the tools used for remote surgery could also help. The astronauts could be located in a shirt sleeve environment while the remotely controlled robot would be inside the unpressurised hangar.

You guys are aware of the seventh crew member on Discovery (STS-133). Right?

[mmeijeri]

You mean Robonaut?

[clongton]

An adaptation of the tools used for remote surgery could also help. The astronauts could be located in a shirt sleeve environment while the remotely controlled robot would be inside the unpressurised hangar.

This is EXACTLY what we should be aiming for as a long term goal. We've already taken the first step with the robo assistants on ISS. Once we have their dexterity sufficiently honed, we need to combine them with the VR capability that the pilots of our UAV's use overseas. The goal should be for an astronaut-technician to enter the control room in a comfortable shirt-sleeve environment, don the VR headpiece and gloves, and suddenly he or she IS the robot, seeing right thru the robots eyes and working right thru the robots hands. Once we can do that then the hanger will never HAVE to be pressurized, although it could be if that's what the job needed.

[kkattula]

I suggest a bigger problem for maintenance & servicing than vacuum is micro-gravity.

What is needed is a rotating, unpressurized space-dock. 

[clongton]

I suggest a bigger problem for maintenance & servicing than vacuum is micro-gravity.

What is needed is a rotating, unpressurized space-dock. 

That would be nice but is definitely not a near-term possibility. Something to think about much, MUCH later.