Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (2)

[ChefPat]

This year old article has has some vauge info on BEAM.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

More massive, thus more expensive.

As in launch costs?  Or a big diffence in module price tag?

Both. But even more importantly, for the in-space propulsion system to push everything from LEO to EML1/2 and possibly to NEAs or Mars orbit and back. Mass isn't such a premium to LEO, but it is for those sorts of mission profiles.

Also, I think BEAM would require some sort of tug to dock/berth it to ISS. Perhaps a modified Cygnus or something.

How to get it in range to be berthed to the ISS?

Good question.

But Bigelow is supposedly developing Avionics and RCS propulsion for the modules that would enbale the BEAM to do the final approach  to ISS so that an US just needs to get it to within the module's delta V capability of the ISS.

[manboy]

This year old article has has some vauge info on BEAM.

I wonder if OD knows how similar the current BEAM design is to the one proposed in 2010.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458816main_FTD_InflatableModuleMission.pdf

[Orbital Debris]

This year old article has has some vauge info on BEAM.

I wonder if OD knows how similar the current BEAM design is to the one proposed in 2010.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458816main_FTD_InflatableModuleMission.pdf

Not very.  For a variety of reasons it has been simplified.  Size and shape is closer to Galaxy
There is not much internal structure, therefore there is not much to attach any systems.  It has been stripped down to minimize integration and ISS impacts.  It will be primarily the inflatable softgoods, a CBM, and a minimal sensor package to evaluate the performance of the flexible softgoods.  It would be berthed, not docked.

[Orbital Debris]

I wonder if the module would be a Sundancer or a BA330?

Why wouldn't they go for the bigger option?

And fly it on what?  No one wants to pay for this.  Bigelow wants to be paid to build it, Boeing wants to be paid for integration.  The current SAA is unfunded per NASA statements, finding the funds for this will be difficult in the current atmosphere.

The current plan for BEAM is to keep it small enough to fit in the trunk of the dragon.  If cargo Dragon works, then it has a better chance of getting manifested.

[manboy]

I wonder if the module would be a Sundancer or a BA330?

Why wouldn't they go for the bigger option?

And fly it on what?  No one wants to pay for this.  Bigelow wants to be paid to build it, Boeing wants to be paid for integration.  The current SAA is unfunded per NASA statements, finding the funds for this will be difficult in the current atmosphere.

The current plan for BEAM is to keep it small enough to fit in the trunk of the dragon.  If cargo Dragon works, then it has a better chance of getting manifested.

Very interesting, do you know where they plan to berth BEAM?

[Orbital Debris]

I don't know.  Location is something that is very much in flux, and another item that complicates convincing ISS integration.  It is dependent on the manifest.

[manboy]

Well Harmony doesn't have any mechanisms not in use (zenith and nadir is for CRS and forward is for CCP) so that leaves Tranquility as the only place they could berth. According to erioladastra, NASA plans to move PMA-3 to the earth-facing mechanism on Tranquility for CCP, which I would assume also means Cupola would be moved to the Kibo facing mechanism.  This leaves the mechanism facing opposite of Kibo and the mechanism facing away from station. The mechanism facing away from station has some clearance issues with the radiators so anything placed there has to be pretty short. I'm unsure if the RMS can reach the mech facing opposite of Kibo.

[Robotbeat]

You know, Dragon's (extended) trunk is just about as long as the Dnepr fairing volume and much wider, so it's possible that a Galaxy-sized BEAM could fit pretty well in the Dragon trunk, maybe even including a CBM adapter of some sort. Don't know the details to make a firm guess, but it is in the realm of possibility. And an unpressurized Cygnus would work, too, though that may be more expensive (have to order the unpressurized version of Cygnus, which NASA never actually asked for, versus just getting an extended trunk on one of the later Dragon CRS missions).

What would be the timeline for the BEAM module?

[JazzFan]

I am still trying to figure out what the benefit of BEAM is to ISS research and capability.  Are we just trying to prove a technical point at the expense of the tax payers since that will not go far.

[manboy]

You know, Dragon's (extended) trunk is just about as long as the Dnepr fairing volume and much wider, so it's possible that a Galaxy-sized BEAM could fit pretty well in the Dragon trunk, maybe even including a CBM adapter of some sort. Don't know the details to make a firm guess, but it is in the realm of possibility. And an unpressurized Cygnus would work, too, though that may be more expensive (have to order the unpressurized version of Cygnus, which NASA never actually asked for, versus just getting an extended trunk on one of the later Dragon CRS missions).

What would be the timeline for the BEAM module?

A CBM adapter? I thought the unpressurized variant of Cygnus was abandoned?

[Robotbeat]

You know, Dragon's (extended) trunk is just about as long as the Dnepr fairing volume and much wider, so it's possible that a Galaxy-sized BEAM could fit pretty well in the Dragon trunk, maybe even including a CBM adapter of some sort. Don't know the details to make a firm guess, but it is in the realm of possibility. And an unpressurized Cygnus would work, too, though that may be more expensive (have to order the unpressurized version of Cygnus, which NASA never actually asked for, versus just getting an extended trunk on one of the later Dragon CRS missions).

What would be the timeline for the BEAM module?

A CBM adapter? I thought the unpressurized variant of Cygnus was abandoned?

Yes, it was abandoned. That's why I suggested Dragon (with extended trunk).

[Robotbeat]

I am still trying to figure out what the benefit of BEAM is to ISS research and capability.  Are we just trying to prove a technical point at the expense of the tax payers since that will not go far.

Extra stowage space for ISS is always needed (helps the crew focus on research instead of playing musical chairs with stuff that needs to be stowed), and if they can fit it in the Dragon's trunk (it appears they might be able to) then the launch is already basically paid for as part of CRS (without cutting down on pressurized cargo, since they'll probably be volume-constrained on several flights instead of mass constrained).

And why the heck is a tech demo a waste of taxpayer dollars? The ability to have an inflatable module would come in pretty handy for a Deep Space Hab and pound-for-pound should offer more stowage volume than something like an MPLM-derived module would. For just keeping supplies, a couple of these would be a great addition to a Deep Space Hab to allow for the 500-day capability, with significantly less mass than an MPLM-derived module. And mass is at a very, very big premium for a Deep Space Hab, especially if you're going to asteroids or Mars orbit.

http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_II

[manboy]

Here's some more speculation on my part:
If the DragonLab fact sheet is still accurate, then I'm guessing this module is less then 4,700 kg (including CBM and PDGF) and is shorter then 3.1 m. Pre-expanded, it has a diameter of no more then 3.1 m.

I arrived at the 4,700 kg number because both CRS-1 and 2 only have about 1,300 kg of internal cargo and Dragon can reportedly carry up to 6,000 kg.

The poorly drawn drawing below makes the assumption that there's a hard core and its no smaller then a CBM.

[Robotbeat]

Here's some more speculation on my part:
If the DragonLab fact sheet is still accurate. then I'm guessing this module is less then 4,700 kg (including CBM and PDGF) and is shorter then 3.1 m. Pre-expanded, it has a diameter of no more then 3.1 m.

I arrived at the 4,700 kg number because both CRS-1 and 2 only have about 1,300 kg of internal cargo and Dragon carry reportedly carry up to 6,000 kg.

If you look at the figures for Genesis I and II (and the relatively tiny Dnepr payload fairing) and compare them to Galaxy (which Orbital Debris suggests that BEAM is in the same class as), then it looks like there should be enough room and payload capability.

Genesis I and II only weighed 1360 kg, and that included solar array and radiatior, things that might be able to be off-loaded to the rest of the ISS infrastructure, and Galaxy is only slightly bigger, so I think 2000kg at most for the module itself, then perhaps another 500kg (maybe less) for the CBM adapter.

[ChefPat]

I wonder if the module would be a Sundancer or a BA330?

Why wouldn't they go for the bigger option?

And fly it on what?  No one wants to pay for this.  Bigelow wants to be paid to build it, Boeing wants to be paid for integration.  The current SAA is unfunded per NASA statements, finding the funds for this will be difficult in the current atmosphere.

The current plan for BEAM is to keep it small enough to fit in the trunk of the dragon.  If cargo Dragon works, then it has a better chance of getting manifested.

Will BEAM have a Core?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Considerations for a new BEAM design:

1) A possibly segmented extending core so there is a hard attach point for the racks and containers as well as structural stiffening. The segmented length before extension must be such that the new BEAM would fit in the Dragon trunk (currently the largest generic external cargo carrier without designing/developing a special container on another vehicle).

2) A PCBM (passive CBM) on one end to allow berthing to the ISS. A possible ACBM (active CBM) on the other end would allow berthing to the BEAM by VV (visiting vehicles). The ACBM would allow the BEAM to be used as a storage and staging area for the cargo transport. This would be a big plus for loading and unloading activities. It would be a significant astronaut time saver and would simplify these activities greatly. An ACBM on the other end would need a structural stiffener mechanism to support berthing VV’s, hence the extending internal structure.

3) Total weight of the BEAM would need to be <3000kg, to fit in the Dragon Trunk. It could be marginally heavier and still work as long as total loaded vehicle weight is within limits trading pressurized cargo weight for unpressurized cargo weight.

4) Storage volume (total volume minus central access way which must be as large as the CBM) should be > the pressurized storage volume of the Dragon (this is not the total pressurized volume but the volume taken up by all the storage containers). It would be better if it was 2 times the Dragon storage volume which would be enough storage area to store the cargo onload and offload. The BEAM would support not only Dragon but Cygnus, ATV and HTV although ATV and HTV would not dock at the BEAM its storage space could still be used to stage some of the containers being offloaded and onloaded to these vehicles.

5) Pass-through plumbing and electrical to support berthing VV’s. While this adds complexity if the BEAM uses ISS power, cooling, and minimum ECLSS via the CBM then the BEAM total weight could be lessoned and its total complexity reduced. It’s a storage compartment and not a living compartment.

All of this asks the following questions:

What would the total volume of a BEAM need to be to accomplish this?
What would its weight be?
What would the dimensions be in its stowed form?

And the most important, what is Bigelow actually proposing for the module?

[manboy]

Considerations for a new BEAM design:

1) A possibly segmented extending core so there is a hard attach point for the racks and containers as well as structural stiffening. The segmented length before extension must be such that the new BEAM would fit in the Dragon trunk (currently the largest generic external cargo carrier without designing/developing a special container on another vehicle).

2) A PCBM (passive CBM) on one end to allow berthing to the ISS. A possible ACBM (active CBM) on the other end would allow berthing to the BEAM by VV (visiting vehicles). The ACBM would allow the BEAM to be used as a storage and staging area for the cargo transport. This would be a big plus for loading and unloading activities. It would be a significant astronaut time saver and would simplify these activities greatly. An ACBM on the other end would need a structural stiffener mechanism to support berthing VV’s, hence the extending internal structure.

3) Total weight of the BEAM would need to be <3000kg, to fit in the Dragon Trunk. It could be marginally heavier and still work as long as total loaded vehicle weight is within limits trading pressurized cargo weight for unpressurized cargo weight.

4) Storage volume (total volume minus central access way which must be as large as the CBM) should be > the pressurized storage volume of the Dragon (this is not the total pressurized volume but the volume taken up by all the storage containers). It would be better if it was 2 times the Dragon storage volume which would be enough storage area to store the cargo onload and offload. The BEAM would support not only Dragon but Cygnus, ATV and HTV although ATV and HTV would not dock at the BEAM its storage space could still be used to stage some of the containers being offloaded and onloaded to these vehicles.

5) Pass-through plumbing and electrical to support berthing VV’s. While this adds complexity if the BEAM uses ISS power, cooling, and minimum ECLSS via the CBM then the BEAM total weight could be lessoned and its total complexity reduced. It’s a storage compartment and not a living compartment.

All of this asks the following questions:

What would the total volume of a BEAM need to be to accomplish this?
What would its weight be?
What would the dimensions be in its stowed form?

And the most important, what is Bigelow actually proposing for the module?

BEAM seems to be more of a tech demo rather then a new module, plus OD confirmed it only has a single CBM.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

BEAM seems to be more of a tech demo rather then a new module, plus OD confirmed it only has a single CBM.

Too bad. Then it is nothing more than a simple storage cubby that uses up a vital resource (a CBM port) for only a small gain for ISS operations for a feel good demonstration to NASA that the technology that Bigelow modules are based on can be used for manrated habitats. Remeber not all of the systems (in fact most of them) that would exist on a BA330 or other smaller self sufficent module would be on the BEAM.

PR is good and changing internal NASA attitudes can be worth quite a lot for Bigelow in the long run, and even for NASA as well decreasing their need to spend lots of money to develop a non Bigelow DSH. Bigelow has already spent most of the necessary development costs and acomplished most the development need to produce a DSH.

[go4mars]

Too bad. Then it is nothing more than a simple storage cubby that uses up a vital resource (a CBM port) for only a small gain for ISS operations for a feel good demonstration to NASA that the technology that Bigelow modules are based on can be used for manrated habitats. Remeber not all of the systems (in fact most of them) that would exist on a BA330 or other smaller self sufficent module would be on the BEAM.

PR is good and changing internal NASA attitudes can be worth quite a lot for Bigelow in the long run, and even for NASA as well decreasing their need to spend lots of money to develop a non Bigelow DSH. Bigelow has already spent most of the necessary development costs and acomplished most the development need to produce a DSH.

If there is only enough space there for a little cubby, then it's no loss.  If some future segment needs to go there instead, then swap it out for a piece with more than 1 CBM.  The downside isn't obvious to me.  This would potentially prove out the extended trunk, and provide useful storage.  It can be detached in the future or moved or removed in the future. 

Not sure how invaluable the extra storage is on ISS, but I'm not sure how useful this would be as a bigelow tech demo:  Galaxy modules in orbit seem to demonstrate most of what this would demonstrate.  Correct?  Or is it just to prove hooking up to something and having people able to go inside?  I guess it would give some good experience to the current employees at Bigelow too on a mission where the bigelow work would be less critical than deep-space. 

Overall, if it's run up in a dragon trunk or extended trunk, then the bang for buck seems well worth it. 

Statement that not all will agree with:  There's even some value to taxpayers in having NASA lend more credibility to the private sector.