Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (2)

[Space Pete]

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.

PMA-3 will eventually move to Node 3 Nadir, which means the Cupola will move to Node 1 Nadir, which means the PMM will move to Node 3 Aft. This however probably won't occur for a few years yet, which means that in the mean time, Node 3 Aft is open for the BEAM.

This is the last I heard about BEAM (per L2): BEAM will be a very small module that is attached to Node 3 Aft (see attached image). It is merely a demo module, and while it may be used for stowage, the plan will be to leave the hatches between the ISS and BEAM closed most of the time (for unknown safety reasons), only to be opened if/when stowage needs to be retrieved from there. It will also be a temporary module, since it will need to be removed from ISS when the aforementioned module relocations take place.

[Robotbeat]

Orbital Debris said it's likely to be similar in size to the Galaxy Bigelow module. That's 16 m^3 of volume, greater than Dragon's 10 m^3. Kind of like a smaller MPLM (and can fit in Dragon's trunk).

[manboy]

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.

Well there's really only two free CBMs you could use and if I remember correctly they both have clearance issues, so even if you want to put a full-sized module on them you wouldn't be able to. Plus I have haven't heard any other proposals to use those two CBMs.

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.

PMA-3 will eventually move to Node 3 Nadir, which means the Cupola will move to Node 1 Nadir, which means the PMM will move to Node 3 Aft. This however probably won't occur for a few years yet, which means that in the mean time, Node 3 Aft is open for the BEAM.

This is the last I heard about BEAM (per L2): BEAM will be a very small module that is attached to Node 3 Aft (see attached image). It is merely a demo module, and while it may be used for stowage, the plan will be to leave the hatches between the ISS and BEAM closed most of the time (for unknown safety reasons), only to be opened if/when stowage needs to be retrieved from there. It will also be a temporary module, since it will need to be removed from ISS when the aforementioned module relocations take place.

Thanks for clearing that up but that leaves Node 3 forward and Node 3 port open so why not use those locations for BEAM? The image you posted is actually from the May 2010 presentation.

[Jason1701]

Orbital Debris said it's likely to be similar in size to the Galaxy Bigelow module. That's 16 m^3 of volume, greater than Dragon's 10 m^3. Kind of like a smaller MPLM (and can fit in Dragon's trunk).

Sounds like it might make a good mission module for a DragonRider standalone flight.

[Space Pete]

Thanks for clearing that up but that leaves Node 3 forward and Node 3 port open so why not use those locations for BEAM?

Node 3 Port is a no-go due to really tight clearances with the rotating radiators (PMAs are pretty much the only things that can go there, and even they're very tight).

It's a similar story for Node 3 Forward - remember, the Truss would be located right above any module berthed there. The Truss has various stanchions protruding down from it (for cameras and lights, etc.), plus there's issues for access to ORUs stored on ESP-1 near to Node 3 Forward.

So Node 3 Aft is really the only place that doesn't have clearance issues.

[Robotbeat]

Could be attached to Node 4. If the exploration gateway is really as popular as it seems to be (and if Shannon's report calls for it), then it could be that BEAM will be attached there. There's supposed to be some big announcement, when Shannon's report is released, isn't there? I kind of doubt that BEAM will be happening in a vacuum (heh).

[A_M_Swallow]

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

OD also said that the BEAM contract was still being negotiated, so at the cost of slip things can still change.

The BA330 and Sundancer have ports at both ends, so it may be possible to make the BEAM into a tunnel.

Is there any NASA Docking System hardware that can be made ready for fitting within say 6 to 9 months?

[manboy]

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

OD also said that the BEAM contract was still being negotiated, so at the cost of slip things can still change.

The BA330 and Sundancer have ports at both ends, so it may be possible to make the BEAM into a tunnel.

Is there any NASA Docking System hardware that can be made ready for fitting within say 6 to 9 months?

It would be a very short tunnel. Not sure what NDS has to do with this (unless you want to install it directly onto BEAM which would cause clearance issues with DreamChaser) but NDS is planned for qualification in late 2013. The first adapter plans to be launched in late 2014 and the second in the either 2015 or 2016.

In this hypothetical situation why not place BEAM on Tranquility nadir and place PMA-3 at the end of it?

[Jim]

Sounds like it might make a good mission module for a DragonRider standalone flight.

Huh, it is a tech demo for the ISS and not an outfitted module.

[go4mars]

Sounds like it might make a good mission module for a DragonRider standalone flight.

Huh, it is a tech demo for the ISS and not an outfitted module.

I think he means as a follow-up system.  If a dragon arm could pull a double-ended module out of its own trunk (or extended trunk) and affix it both to its nose and to a separate module or station that are already up there, that would be a way to efficiently create and expand a Bigelow station.  If each crew launch to a "bigelow station" added a module from the trunk (or more module outfitting gear), that would seem advantageous to me.  Perhaps the FH could even eventually have a "fat trunk" option, allowing larger launch diameters (bigger diameter modules). 

[mmeijeri]

Wouldn't a Cygnus-derived tug make more sense for a follow-on?

[go4mars]

Wouldn't a Cygnus-derived tug make more sense for a follow-on?

Dragon + trunk allows 7 paying passengers (round-trip) plus 1 new module to a station in just one launch.        Not sure "Cygnus-derived" would be able to do that...

[mmeijeri]

Dragon + trunk allows 7 paying passengers plus 1 new module in one launch.        Not sure cygnus would be able to do that...

It would allow a much larger module, constrained only by the launch vehicle fairing, not the Dragon's trunk.

[go4mars]

It would allow a much larger module, constrained only by the launch vehicle fairing, not the Dragon's trunk.

Which is why I mentioned a larger diameter trunk option for FH.  It could potentially handle more weight, plus paying passengers.  I somehow have the impression that mass is the limitation rather than fairing size, but could be wrong. 

Also, the extended trunk allows 34 cubic meters.  Enhanced Cygnus only allows 27 cubic meters.  (And no people).

I still don't get why Mr. Bigelow chose Las Vegas instead of near a coast or bargeable river-way for a production facility. 

[Jim]

Perhaps the FH could even eventually have a "fat trunk" option, allowing larger launch diameters (bigger diameter modules). 

Why?  Trunk is only applicable to cargo Dragon.  A non ISS crew Dragon is not going to have a trunk.  It will have a service module equivalent.

Also, no Dragon in a fairing.

Again, rockets are not Legos.  There will be more pieces than just Dragon and its trunk.  The future will not be limited to F9 and Dragon paradigm.   The future is not going to be like Taco Bell on "Demolition Man" and all spacecraft are going to look like Dragon.

[Jim]

I still don't get why Mr. Bigelow chose Las Vegas instead of near a coast or bargeable river-way for a production facility. 

Because there is no money in large spacecraft

[Jim]

Which is why I mentioned a larger diameter trunk option for FH.  It could potentially handle more weight, plus paying passengers.

For what passengers?  the current dragon isn't going to be utilized enough beyond NASA.

[A_M_Swallow]

It would allow a much larger module, constrained only by the launch vehicle fairing, not the Dragon's trunk.

Which is why I mentioned a larger diameter trunk option for FH.  It could potentially handle more weight, plus paying passengers.  I somehow have the impression that mass is the limitation rather than fairing size, but could be wrong. 

{snip}

In the DIRECT threads there was talk of a cargo section that went in a fairing below the Orion.  Something similar could be designed for the Falcon Heavy.  The Dragon could be used as a tug to push the BEAM to the ISS.

[SpacexULA]

I still don't get why Mr. Bigelow chose Las Vegas instead of near a coast or bargeable river-way for a production facility. 

He builds in Las Vegas because he already owned the land, and it was near his current world headquarters.

Sundancer and BA330 are both transferable by truck.

BA2100 of course would not be, but considering even it the most successful future scenarios it's seriously doubtable that they will ship more than 1-2 a year, and the margin on them would be huge, using a cargo helicopter to transport to the nearest port is not out of the question.

[mmeijeri]

Also, the extended trunk allows 34 cubic meters.  Enhanced Cygnus only allows 27 cubic meters.  (And no people).

Well, the only reason you would want to launch the module together with Dragon or Cygnus is because it can handle the last mile. A separate tug could also do that, and it wouldn't have the same constraints as the Dragon's trunk.