Author Topic: What's Happening at Bigelow? (Read 429277 times)

Jason1701 · « **Reply #460 on:** 02/05/2011 11:19 am »

I've been seeing a model of an "aluminum can" module. It's behind Garver's head here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/5417047410/sizes/o/in/set-72157625851963211/

Is that an ISS module for comparison? I can't believe it's something Bigelow will produce.

EDIT: In the video, I can see some price lists. Here's what I can make out:
-Leasing a Sundancer for 4 years costs $7X million
-Leasing a BA 330 for 4 years costs $8X or $9X million
-It looks like Total Transportation Cost is about $345 million for four years for the (presumably 6) inhabitants of a BA 330

They also show a hotfire test of a proprietary thruster. The reporter got to press the red button!

Lampyridae · « **Reply #461 on:** 02/05/2011 12:38 pm »

Quote from: arnezami on 02/04/2011 02:45 am

Interestingly, a Dragon is now attached to the station aswell...

Hires:
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DSC_7295.jpg

Bigelow's inflatables use some solid plates in their construction. Interesting. I realised such a thing was possible when I was reading the document on NASA's transhab. The way the material is folded, you could quite easily include a solid plate as one of your folds; I was thinking of fitting a large sunlight window in a super-Bigelow sized module on a space colony.

robertross · « **Reply #462 on:** 02/05/2011 02:31 pm »

Quote from: Space Junkie on 02/05/2011 01:24 am

This article from yesterday has a fairly long video.
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13967660/i-team-bigelow-aerospace-begins-big-expansion

From the press conference today. Nasa rep Garver says a deal could be reached in 3 months.
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13974465/nasa-rep-visits-bigelow-aerospace

Cool. I loved the Canadian comment about funding; It's very true.

rklaehn · « **Reply #463 on:** 02/05/2011 02:46 pm »

Quote from: Jason1701 on 02/05/2011 11:19 am

I've been seeing a model of an "aluminum can" module. It's behind Garver's head here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/5417047410/sizes/o/in/set-72157625851963211/

Is that an ISS module for comparison? I can't believe it's something Bigelow will produce.

I think it's a part of the NTO/MMH attitude and orbit control system that sits on the rigid core of a module. The crew access tunnel goes through the 8-sided opening in the middle.

You mean this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/5417047410/lightbox/? That's a standard ISS module for size comparison.

Quote

They also show a hotfire test of a proprietary thruster. The reporter got to press the red button!

That could be a gaseous H2/O2 thruster they are going to use as the second attitude control system. The one that was developed by orion propulsion.

mmeijeri · « **Reply #464 on:** 02/05/2011 02:49 pm »

Quote from: rklaehn on 02/05/2011 02:46 pm

I think it's a part of the NTO/MMH attitude and orbit control system that sits on the rigid core of a module.

They have said they intend to use hydrazine monopropellant.

rklaehn · « **Reply #465 on:** 02/05/2011 02:58 pm »

Quote from: mmeijeri on 02/05/2011 02:49 pm

Quote from: rklaehn on 02/05/2011 02:46 pm
I think it's a part of the NTO/MMH attitude and orbit control system that sits on the rigid core of a module.

They have said they intend to use hydrazine monopropellant.

Then maybe the two different colored tanks are for something different. Gaseous H2/O2 for the other attitude control system?

HMXHMX · « **Reply #466 on:** 02/05/2011 04:12 pm »

Quote from: rklaehn on 02/05/2011 02:46 pm

Quote from: Jason1701 on 02/05/2011 11:19 am
I've been seeing a model of an "aluminum can" module. It's behind Garver's head here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/5417047410/sizes/o/in/set-72157625851963211/

Is that an ISS module for comparison? I can't believe it's something Bigelow will produce.

I think it's a part of the NTO/MMH attitude and orbit control system that sits on the rigid core of a module. The crew access tunnel goes through the 8-sided opening in the middle.

You mean this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/5417047410/lightbox/? That's a standard ISS module for size comparison.

Quote
They also show a hotfire test of a proprietary thruster. The reporter got to press the red button!

That could be a gaseous H2/O2 thruster they are going to use as the second attitude control system. The one that was developed by orion propulsion.

I have not seen the video, but if it was fired by the reporter, it is the Orion (now Dynetics) thruster.

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #467 on:** 02/05/2011 05:58 pm »

One thing that those scale models have impressed on me is how big the inflated modules are. The diameter of the Sundancer and Nautilus look like they're in the 10m/33ft range, based on the size of the little EVA guy. Suddenly, the fact that the internal equipment of the modules will be laid out horizontally is no longer so ridiculous-sounding, even taking into consideration the large central structural spine.

Lars_J · « **Reply #468 on:** 02/05/2011 08:24 pm »

I still prefer the 'vertical' layout that Transhab used. It seems more space efficient.

clongton · « **Reply #469 on:** 02/05/2011 08:55 pm »

Quote from: Lars_J on 02/05/2011 08:24 pm

I still prefer the 'vertical' layout that Transhab used. It seems more space efficient.

Agreed

jabe · « **Reply #470 on:** 02/05/2011 09:27 pm »

Quote from: Lars_J on 02/05/2011 08:24 pm

I still prefer the 'vertical' layout that Transhab used. It seems more space efficient.

I'm not sure which is better.... but I'm curious to see what layout will eventually be the best. The vertical layout looks more "normal" to us but lots of wasted space in corners between walls and floors/ceilings.
With not many floors that won't be an issue..Evolution of living space use in Zero-g will be interesting to follow now that the shuttle won't be used to ship the living spaces..somewhat limiting by the payload bay size... and that inflatables may be the way to go...
I wonder if space sickness will be an issue with the new design..since change of orientation seems to bring on the "sickness" and the up down in this design isn't as clear..

jb

Jason1701 · « **Reply #471 on:** 02/05/2011 09:29 pm »

Quote from: clongton on 02/05/2011 08:55 pm

Quote from: Lars_J on 02/05/2011 08:24 pm
I still prefer the 'vertical' layout that Transhab used. It seems more space efficient.

Agreed

They could transform the interior volume into different rooms with fabric barriers. That would let them experiment to see what arrangements are best for different activities. For example, astronauts could deploy the walls during the sleep period and then roll them up at its conclusion.

docmordrid · « **Reply #472 on:** 02/05/2011 10:17 pm »

Also consider the impracticality of a vertical orientation on what is basically a display model; the horizontal layout doesn't require ladders/stairs/platforms to see most of it. Then again, horizontal gives you longer contiguous stowage along the core structure.

majormajor42 · « **Reply #473 on:** 02/06/2011 12:18 am »

Well, considering how much time they seem to be spending talking about the possibility of Bigelow Moon (premature? I think so) bases, perhaps it is easy for them to just focus on one type of orientation, considering that Moon modules would most likely be horizontal.

So, with the idea of a Bigelow module on ISS getting a lot of attention, is there a consensus here on whether an additional node would be required? Is it possible that that node could also be supplied by Bigelow? For all the attention that their inflatable modules, such as Sundancer are getting, I'd like to see more on those Bigelow node modules that are supposed to eventually hold their stations together.

tigerade · « **Reply #474 on:** 02/06/2011 01:19 am »

Quote from: majormajor42 on 02/06/2011 12:18 am

Well, considering how much time they seem to be spending talking about the possibility of Bigelow Moon (premature? I think so)

Yeah, probably. I think that's something we'll be talking about in 10 years, but not now. Although the moon models did look very similar to the orbital modules, so maybe they will be structurally the same for the most part.

docmordrid · « **Reply #475 on:** 02/06/2011 03:31 am »

After reviewing all the graphics I have (LOTS) the main visual differences are the propulsion bus (downward facing main thrusters & landing gear) and the hub (air locks & steps)

Jason1701 · « **Reply #476 on:** 02/06/2011 11:27 am »

The models show the moon base modules draped with long tubes that look like oil spill booms. For radiation, maybe?

Jason1701 · « **Reply #477 on:** 02/06/2011 11:53 am »

Quote from: e of pi on 02/05/2011 04:36 am

Perhaps the third is their node/propulsion buses? As their models show, you can do a lot with just those three elements, and all fit on current rockets.

You're probably right. The center assembly line, with its higher roof, is probably for the BA 330, with Sundancer and node on either side.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #478 on:** 02/06/2011 06:46 pm »

Quote from: Jason1701 on 02/06/2011 11:27 am

The models show the moon base modules draped with long tubes that look like oil spill booms. For radiation, maybe?

Basically long sand (or regolith) bags. You could do a lot more radiation shielding with a certain mass of sand bags (filled with lunar regolith) than with a certain mass of radiation shielding brought to the surface from Earth.

Lars_J · « **Reply #479 on:** 02/07/2011 04:28 am »

I have one question about the Bigelow station(s) that has been bugging me - What method of orbital resupply will be used? By what craft?

Will they license or use Progress?

Or will they use replaceable propulsion modules, where new modules are launched whenever the current one on the station has used up its fuel? And in that case, will the Sundancer/BA-330(?) node modules support fuel transfer to leave them some maneuvering ability?