Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (2)

[Comga]

I htink people are "missing the forrest for the trees."  One of my comments on the previous thread was that using an FH to launch the Bigelow station would allow it to be launched at a higher level of assembly and more fully stocked, as joek suggests.  This would avoid needing some of the technologies shown in Bigelow's brochure.  You don't need sticky booms to dock two elements that are launched bolted together.

Other than that, this stuff is interesting, and Bigelow will need it as some point.

[manboy]

Has anyone heard if Space Complex Alpha is still being planned?

[jongoff]

I htink people are "missing the forrest for the trees."  One of my comments on the previous thread was that using an FH to launch the Bigelow station would allow it to be launched at a higher level of assembly and more fully stocked, as joek suggests.  This would avoid needing some of the technologies shown in Bigelow's brochure.  You don't need sticky booms to dock two elements that are launched bolted together.

Other than that, this stuff is interesting, and Bigelow will need it as some point.

My point was just that making a station in such a way that it has critical components that can't be removed/replaced after it is launched seems like a bad idea.  And if you're going to design it so that any component can be installed after it is launched, then how it gets launched will be driven entirely by what is the most affordable option.  If FH pans out and costs as little as Elon says, great!  If other options come along that are better, you have that option too.

I just don't like the idea of building a house that has potentially unreliable major appliances that are too big to fit through the doors... :-)

~Jon

[happyflower]

Anybody know why the Bigelow space stations (Sapce Complex Alpha, CSS Skywalker, whatever) dont have a robot arm? From the ISS (solar array repairs) it appears having a robot arm is almost a must if you are going to be in space for the long term. Also with a robot arm, other space ships like the Dragon can also bring crews to Bigelow habitats.

[go4mars]

Anybody know why the Bigelow space stations (Sapce Complex Alpha, CSS Skywalker, whatever) dont have a robot arm? From the ISS (solar array repairs) it appears having a robot arm is almost a must if you are going to be in space for the long term. Also with a robot arm, other space ships like the Dragon can also bring crews to Bigelow habitats.

Guy in a suit with a rope?  Stickyboom?

[ChefPat]

Anybody know why the Bigelow space stations (Sapce Complex Alpha, CSS Skywalker, whatever) dont have a robot arm? From the ISS (solar array repairs) it appears having a robot arm is almost a must if you are going to be in space for the long term. Also with a robot arm, other space ships like the Dragon can also bring crews to Bigelow habitats.

Who says they're not going to have one?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Anybody know why the Bigelow space stations (Sapce Complex Alpha, CSS Skywalker, whatever) dont have a robot arm? From the ISS (solar array repairs) it appears having a robot arm is almost a must if you are going to be in space for the long term. Also with a robot arm, other space ships like the Dragon can also bring crews to Bigelow habitats.

Guy in a suit with a rope?  Stickyboom?

The habitat module is not the best placement for an RMS (RMS like) system. The propulsion module is the correct place to install this capability since several ports would all be accessable with one device.

I had some further thoughts about the CBM and that the habitat BA330 module would probably be better with PCBM and the propulsion module with ACBM. The habitats for Alpha would come with a ACBM to NDS or something else adapter added to one end for crew docking ease of access and just the PCBM expossed at the other where the propulsion module is to be attached. Since the propulsion module is launched with the capability to temporarily hold itself to a BA330 (basicly the BA330's are berthed to the propulsion module) the BA330's don't need that capability on the module to make CBM work. Subsequent to the initial manned checkout mission where the propulsion module is berthed then PCBM equiped cargo craft can be berthed to an empty port on the propulsion module. NDS or other equiped crew vehicles would dock at the ends of the BA330 not to the propulsion module keeping its ACBM ports clear for berthing cargo transports or other BA330's. It would be possible to have as many as 5 ACBM's on the propulsion module equivelent to a unity module.

To berth 2 BA330's together end to end would require a ACBM to ACBM adapter, or the equivelent unity portion of the propulsion module without the rest of the propulsion and tankage systems. It still may just easier and cheaper to use a complete prop module.

[Robotbeat]

...
I just don't like the idea of building a house that has potentially unreliable major appliances that are too big to fit through the doors... :-)

~Jon

Component-level repair is a real option. You can fix basically anything that way with only small parts needed. It's more convenient to just remove the whole rack, but that's not the only way to do it.

[Jose]

To berth 2 BA330's together end to end would require a ACBM to ACBM adapter...

Wouldn't such a gender-bender device be completely passive? Maybe not even any moving parts at all?

Edit: Duh, no. The passive ends are on the habitats.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

To berth 2 BA330's together end to end would require a ACBM to ACBM adapter...

Wouldn't such a gender-bender device be completely passive? Maybe not even any moving parts at all?

Edit: Duh, no. The passive ends are on the habitats.

You could do it either way but it would be more advatageous to have the ACBM on the prop module than the habitats.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

A common 6 port ACBM unity adaptor would mean that it could be used independently of the prop module or as part of the prop module where one port attaches the rest of the prop module giving pressurized access to avionics. This common unity adapter would also feature piping for gaseous and liquid commodities like fuel, water, LOX, gaseous oxygen, nitrogen etc. Also this use of a CBM port for the attachment of the porp module systems to the unity adapter allows for removal and replacement of a unusable prop module without disassembling the station.

[simonbp]

Yeah, and then you could attach a truss for solar panels to the "unity module".

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Yeah, and then you could attach a truss for solar panels to the "unity module".

The least number of parts you have to design/qualify that still offers a wide flexibility the better.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Just a thought I had:

ISS requires a CBM equiped Unity module for any expansion beyond it's current configuration. NASA currently has such a module in storage but there is no longer the capability to manufacture new ones. Bigalow could easily in the future sell NASA a few Unity modules for ISS expansion at probably less cost than any other source. All that would be required is that the CBM's on Bigelow's Unity module be compatible to those on the ISS, or at least one port that can mate to an existing ISS CBM port. Maybe just by adding a Bigalow CBM port to ISS CBM port adapter. Most likely the Bigalow CBM port will be compatible to the ISS CBM so that no changes or adapters would be required.

Added:
P.S. - Does anyone know what gender the CBM ports on the ISS Unity module are?

[Jose]

Added:
P.S. - Does anyone know what gender the CBM ports on the ISS Unity module are?

Finding an answer to this simple question was harder than I expected. Best I can do is this:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20543.msg551029#msg551029

Looks like all six are active.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Bigalow could easily in the future sell NASA a few Unity modules for ISS expansion at probably less cost than any other source.

The Node 1 design is a Boeing product, Bigelow could not just "make it"

All that would be required is that the CBM's on Bigelow's Unity module be compatible to those on the ISS, or at least one port that can mate to an existing ISS CBM port. Maybe just by adding a Bigalow CBM port to ISS CBM port adapter. Most likely the Bigalow CBM port will be compatible to the ISS CBM so that no changes or adapters would be required.

CBM ports require a robotic manipulator ala SSRMS to work.  That would add huge expense and complexity that a commercial station could not afford.  Furthermore, CBM is used for modules that have to be delivered, while the Bigelow modules will already have their own attitude control system, so more than likely the modules will use a docking system such as the NDS.

[Space Pete]

P.S. - Does anyone know what gender the CBM ports on the ISS Unity module are?

All the CBMs (two axial and four radial) on Node 1 are Active CBMs (ACBMs) - a feature unique to Node 1 only.

[docmordrid]

An arm has two ends; isn't it possible for a module etc. to approach and attach to an ISS geapple fixture using its own arm?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Bigalow could easily in the future sell NASA a few Unity modules for ISS expansion at probably less cost than any other source.

The Node 1 design is a Boeing product, Bigelow could not just "make it"

What rights if any does Boeing have regarding Node 1?

Usually on NASA cost plus contracts NASA holds all rights to the design, therefore the design is public domain and can be built by anyone, what is usually not public domain would be the processes Boeing used to manufacture Node 1. Bigelow would have to develop its own manufacturing processes and tooling to make a Node 1 like module or purchase the rights to use Boeing's processes. Another alternative is just use Boeing to make the module.

edit - spelling

[Namechange User]

Bigalow could easily in the future sell NASA a few Unity modules for ISS expansion at probably less cost than any other source.

The Node 1 design is a Boeing product, Bigelow could not just "make it"

What rights if any does Boeing have regarding Node 1?

Usually on NASA cost plus contracts NASA holds all rights to the design, therefore the design is public domain and can be built by anyone, what is usually not public domain would be the processes Boeing used to manufacture Node 1. Bigelow would have to develop its own manufacturing processes and tooling to make a Node 1 like module or purchase the rights to use Boeing's processes. Another alternative is just use Boeing to make the module.

edit - spelling

No, that's not true.  While NASA "owns" the final product, they do not have the intellectual rights. 

They can't just farm out component X or even the integrated product to someone else without clearing some significant hoops. 

For example, what if proprietary processes, etc were used?