Robert,That mission called for a Transhab module essentially equivalent to the BA-330. At the maximum of 6 RPM, the module's diameter of 6.7 m would allow just 1/8 G at floor level, and at the level of the head 1.85 m or so above that, the gravity would be just 6% Earth gravity. Not really worth bothering.Now that sort of lo0gic is what ispried the toroidal ring design of the Nautilus-X centrifuge module, which also provides a couple hundred cubic meters but by creating a ring out of a mix of rigid and inflatable/deployable structures, gets a diameter of 60 feet: enough to generate some reasonable G without spinning beyond the rates humans can handle.
I was responding to OldAtlasEGuy when he was talking about launching 2 BA-330's stacked into a 5 x 34 meter, or so, long faring.Just the BA-330's would be 46 metric tons. Then there'd be all the stuff needed to keep them together in that configuration after they were in orbit. I'm not an engineer, but even I can say with certainty, that ain't gonna happen with an FH.
The capacity of FH is 53 tonnes, so 7 tonnes is more than enough margin for any spacecraft adapter/custom faring.
Quote from: ChefPat on 07/20/2011 12:05 amI was responding to OldAtlasEGuy when he was talking about launching 2 BA-330's stacked into a 5 x 34 meter, or so, long faring.Just the BA-330's would be 46 metric tons. Then there'd be all the stuff needed to keep them together in that configuration after they were in orbit. I'm not an engineer, but even I can say with certainty, that ain't gonna happen with an FH.I wouldn't be so sure; if you placed them side-by-side in a custom-designed faring, it should be feasible. The capacity of FH is 53 tonnes, so 7 tonnes is more than enough margin for any spacecraft adapter/custom faring. Once the upper stage reaches orbit, the two modules would independently leave the spacecraft adapter, and then dock with each other (which all the BA-330s have the ability to do).Two launches like that (one with 2x 330s and one with 1x 330 and a propulsion module/docking node) would produce a quite sizable space station. Indeed, assuming the launch cost is ~$300 million (for 2x FH), and the usual rule-of-thumb that spacecraft cost twice the LV, that puts the total cost about $1 billion for 3x330 station. In other words, a space station larger than the ISS for about the cost of a single recent Shuttle mission....
A BA-330 has no propusion nor even RCS. If 2 are launched in the configuration you suggest they can't dock.
Propulsion: BA 330 utilizes two propulsion systems on the fore and aft of the spacecraft. The aft propulsion system can be refueled and reused.
It amuses me when people take that 53 tonne figure as though it's set in stone. What's wrong with just rounding it to a nice 50 tonnes given all other uncertainties involved? I'm still not convinced we're likely to see such long F9 cores required for that capacity any time soon, let alone on the first vehicles.
SpaceX is currently selling FH with a capacity of 53 tonnes. Presumably, that's the minimum performance that they'll guarantee for a legal contract, and their actual expected performance is a bit better. Also, they've given zero indication that they have any plans on gradually ramping up to 53 tonnes, and in fact have quite explicitly said (on numerous occasions) that the first VAFB launch will be all-up full-performance.
The reason I'm on this track is for a mission to Mars. Even 1/4-1/3g should offset long duration flight and to be in shape for a landing.RegardsRoberthttp://atomicrockets.posterous.com/bimodal-ntr-mars-mission-2001
Water can easily be locked in place by simply lining the shielding water bags with one of any numbers of water absorbant beads, grains or powders - a product that's been available for ages. Low in mass some can lock up hundreds of times their volume of water.
I drafted out the conceptual Service and Node Module, estimated dimensions.
Quote from: ChefPat on 07/20/2011 06:27 pmA BA-330 has no propusion nor even RCS. If 2 are launched in the configuration you suggest they can't dock.That assertion appears to disagree with direct statements from Bigelow in their presentation:http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/bigelow.chrtz.isdc.pdf
Quote from: docmordrid on 07/20/2011 08:30 pmWater can easily be locked in place by simply lining the shielding water bags with one of any numbers of water absorbant beads, grains or powders - a product that's been available for ages. Low in mass some can lock up hundreds of times their volume of water.If there's a solar storm, detach the bags and pad them around a central storm shelter. Also, just having them in smaller bags rather blankets takes away the "pooling at the floor" problem.
Robert,That mission called for a Transhab module essentially equivalent to the BA-330. At the maximum of 6 RPM...
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/14916667/i-teamQuite interesting..
