What's Happening at Bigelow?

[mmeijeri]

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.

Force feedback is another possibility. A friend of mine works for a company that has done experiments with this for medical training. A virtual scalpel is connected to a contraption that simulates the resistance of tissue. And then you could use hologram-like 3d TV too. In that way you wouldn't even need the headpiece, though it's not that much of an obstacle.

[Ben the Space Brit]

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.

Yes.  Consider the spine of the Bigelow module to be essentially the utility core.  Just about everything goes through there.

[Lampyridae]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/bigelow-aerospace-ba2100-hotel?click=pm_latest

But as large as the BA-330 is, it's dwarfed by the BA-2100, which is six times as large and has multiple decks. The BA-2100's docking ends are about 25 feet in diameter, and one source told PM that the module's dry mass could be as low as 70 tons. In other words, in its uninflated state, it could be placed into orbit by the heavy-lift launcher that the U.S. Senate recently approved for development. The massive structure could then be inflated and subsequently outfitted with materials carried aboard additional launches. With its radiation and micrometeoroid shielding, the BA-2100 could provide a trip for a large crew to the outer solar system.

Stretch the Discovery's (from 2001: A Space Odyssey) spherical hab into a cylinder about 20m long and that's the BA2100 - a little over twice the volume.

[Norm Hartnett]

http://satellite.tmcnet.com/topics/satellite/articles/114321-bigelow-aerospace-orbitech-testing-commercial-space-station-life.htm

Nice, separate ECLSS units in each module should provide some redundancy. The article does not make it completely clear whether the BA330 ECLSS unit would support six crew but if nothing else they could use two of the Sundancer ECLSS units.

It will also be interesting to compare and contrast the various ISS ECLSS devices to this evolving unit. Continued R&D in this field is going to pay huge dividends is such disparate fields as submarine life support, water recycling in disaster areas, closed environments for biological contamination, and etc.

When we get to the point where our space stations throw nothing away, when everything is reused, we will really be ready to go explore the universe.

[Cinder]

BA-2100, BA-3240, etc: I'm curious at what (if any) point it becomes better to partition the modules, air-tight.  E.G. for micrometeroid puncture on one end of a jumbo module, the whole module pays for it.

[Ben the Space Brit]

BA-2100, BA-3240, etc: I'm curious at what (if any) point it becomes better to partition the modules, air-tight.  E.G. for micrometeroid puncture on one end of a jumbo module, the whole module pays for it.

It wouldn't be that hard.  Have several air-tight flexible walls arranged longitudinally across the module and use the central core as the connecting corridor, with airlock doors into and out of every section.

[Robotbeat]

BA-2100, BA-3240, etc: I'm curious at what (if any) point it becomes better to partition the modules, air-tight.  E.G. for micrometeroid puncture on one end of a jumbo module, the whole module pays for it.

Because we're talking pressure-vessels, here, a larger module will be stronger and able to shield against micrometeoroids easier. And adding extra shielding is lighter/cheaper.

Partitioning is not incredibly practical. The partitions don't just have to be air-tight, they have to be able to withstand a large pressure differential over a huge surface area.

But having a large module does mean that you're less likely (proportional to your volume) to have a meteor strike. Not only that, but you have a lot more time to repair it or evacuate than you do with a smaller module.

[Cinder]

So what I should understand is that contrary to my previous post, the larger the module, the less worthwhile it is to partition?  As far as depressurisation goes.

[Robotbeat]

So what I should understand is that contrary to my previous post, the larger the module, the less worthwhile it is to partition?  As far as depressurisation goes.

Well... it kind of depends. Obviously your surface area (and thus probability of getting struck) increases, but your useful volume increases faster, so that you're less likely to get struck if all your volume is in one big module than spread out to many. And the thickness of the module will be greater, which means it will take bigger impact in order to puncture the module. And, because of the larger internal volume, it will take longer for the pressure to drop for a certain sized hole.

I would say that it probably favors the larger module, when all is said and done. (not counting launch, of course)

[Cinder]

Thanks, that is what I meant.

[clongton]

The multilayer fabric of the Bigelow modules are more resistant to impact than the ISS module shells. They can absorb and shake off a strike that would easily puncture an ISS module right thru.

[yg1968]

Bigelow interested in getting the Canadian government (the CSA) as a customer:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/bigelow-aerospace-hopes-canada-will-jump-on-board-commercial-space-station-110206714.html

[butters]

Bigelow interested in getting the Canadian government (the CSA) as a customer:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/bigelow-aerospace-hopes-canada-will-jump-on-board-commercial-space-station-110206714.html

Will it have a Candabigelarm?

[Sparky]

Bigelow interested in getting the Canadian government (the CSA) as a customer:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/bigelow-aerospace-hopes-canada-will-jump-on-board-commercial-space-station-110206714.html

Will it have a Candabigelarm?

Only if Bigelow's station get to arm wrestle ISS! 

[Ben the Space Brit]

FWIW, a RMS of some kind on the Bigelow station would be useful mainly to help berth cargo vehicles without needing them to have expensive rendezvous and docking hard and software.  You could also get a bit more flexibility in attaching new modules with such a tool.

[ChefPat]

Remember that silly "Build a Space Station" feature that Bigelow had on their site for a while? In that one of the things you could attach was a Remote Manuvering Arm. I doubt they'd include that in a game on their site if they didn't at least have a contigency plan to include one on their complete stations.

[clongton]

Remember that silly "Build a Space Station" feature that Bigelow had on their site for a while? In that one of the things you could attach was a Remote Maneuvering Arm. I doubt they'd include that in a game on their site if they didn't at least have a contingency plan to include one on their complete stations.

Nice. NASA continues to be in denial. They are no longer the only game in town.

[hop]

FWIW, a RMS of some kind on the Bigelow station would be useful mainly to help berth cargo vehicles without needing them to have expensive rendezvous and docking hard and software.

The assumption that RMS berthing is easier or cheaper than docking is dubious. The requirements to station keep in the capture box don't appear much less stringent than those required for docking.

Another factor is that all berthings to date have required a human controlling the arm, while fully autonomous dockings are well proven.

[Jorge]

FWIW, a RMS of some kind on the Bigelow station would be useful mainly to help berth cargo vehicles without needing them to have expensive rendezvous and docking hard and software.

The assumption that RMS berthing is easier or cheaper than docking is dubious. The requirements to station keep in the capture box don't appear much less stringent than those required for docking.

That's correct.

[ChefPat]

Another factor is that all berthings to date have required a human controlling the arm, while fully autonomous dockings are well proven.

Bigelow has stated in other areas that they'll go heavily automated, ie. docking. Personally I look to see both automated & manual capabilities.