Bigelow BEAM as Dragonrider Orbital module

[Chalmer]

Right. The Bigelow update thread was kinda spilling over with non-updates about about the new Bigelow BEAM module, and it got me thinking. So not to add fuel to the fire I thought a new thread would be appropriate.

Now, the idea that was discussed a little that got me thinking was the use of BEAM, or a similar sized inflatable along side with the crew Dragon space craft for the Dragonrider role.

The BEAM module could be attached to the dragon dockingport deflated upon liftoff and then expand to provide crew space in orbit. A bit like the Orbital Module on the Soyuz. BEAM is a bit bigger inflated than the orbital module on Soyuz (4x3,3 vs. 2,2x2,6), but somewhat comparable in size.

I don't think there would need to be made that many modifications in order to make it work. If BEAM is light enough (1.300 kg) to fly along in the trunk it could fly along on the nose as well, weight wise anyway. The nosecone that is now used on dragon would have to be modified to allow the BEAM to sit under it and still be an aerodynamic front, but that should be fairly easy i think.

Using a module like BEAM in this way, I think would bring a lot more merit to the Dragonrider concept and allow for more ambitious missions.

Besides that, it would be a great opportunity for Bigelow to establish a market, before moving on to bigger modules.

What do you all think about this? Would it be as easy as I imagine or is there hidden difficulties?

-Tobias 

[apace]

Had the same idea, but it will be much easier if you start with BEAM in the trunk and after orbit insertion, you use some robotic to get it out of the trunk and put it on top of the docking adapter. I see no problem at all to add a multipurpose robotic arm to dragon. As we see with the outside attached solar panels, there's plenty of room.

[Ben the Space Brit]

For completeness, here is a copy of my thoughts on the subject:

Apparently, Bigelow plans to have two BEAM units ready by 2016.  One is the spare, of course, but that got me thinking.

Possible BEAM Application
HSF Mission Module

* Modified BEAM with Dragonrider- or CST-100-derived life support on the opposite side to the docking port;
* Base permanently attached to Falcon-9 upper stage, which will also provide RCS and, through Dragon-type solar arrays, electrical power;
* Dragon rides on top of BEAM or, if a Bigelow mission, the module will be enclosed with a SpaceX-standard 5.2m PLF.  Alternate launch vehicle is either EELV-M (Delta-IV (5,4) or Atlas-V-5x2);
* Central spine of module has five or six 'flower petal' work station mountings that fold out to the full width of the module from flush against the spine as the module inflates.

The module could fly underneath a Dragon when launched by Falcon Heavy for a single launch multi-week mission.  Application: Lower-cost space tourism or short-term science.  The module could also fly attached to a Golden Spike-style Centaur EDS as the hab module for a lunar fly-around or orbiter mission.

Reason for being: Possible Bigelow competitor to DragonLab.

[A_M_Swallow]

The BEAM can be compared with other inflatable modules from Bigelow such as the BA-330 and Sundancer.

The specifications of these include:
windows
full life support systems
hygiene systems
attitude control and orbital manoeuvring systems
solar panels
full radio communication

Where as the BEAM appears to be an empty box except for some telemetry hardware.  So the passengers would get more space but would have to cook in the Dragon.

[Chalmer]

Had the same idea, but it will be much easier if you start with BEAM in the trunk and after orbit insertion, you use some robotic to get it out of the trunk and put it on top of the docking adapter. I see no problem at all to add a multipurpose robotic arm to dragon. As we see with the outside attached solar panels, there's plenty of room.

Yes it could be done with a robot arm or something as well and the BEAM in the trunk. My unsubstantiated feeling is just the it would require more development, and therefor cost.

However a robot arm on dragon rider could also have other valuable uses and allow interaction with experiments being done in the trunk.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I think that everyone would agree that it is a no-brainer that it cannot be an unmodified BEAM module.  However, although complex, the modifications required do not strike me as being difficult enough to make it uneconomical to recycle the BEAM production processes to create a working and potentially revenue-generating product.

As I pointed out above, attach one of these (with transparent panels sown into the hull) to a Centaur, of the same type proposed by Golden Spike, then you have a trans-lunar flyby tourist module.  Potentially this could form the basis of a two-launch early revenue generating product for Golden Spike.

[Chalmer]

The BEAM can be compared with other inflatable modules from Bigelow such as the BA-330 and Sundancer.

The specifications of these include:
windows
full life support systems
hygiene systems
attitude control and orbital manoeuvring systems
solar panels
full radio communication

Where as the BEAM appears to be an empty box except for some telemetry hardware.  So the passengers would get more space but would have to cook in the Dragon.

I think you mean can't be compared 

Yes it is true that BEAM is probably an empty shell. However if you were to stay in space for let say two weeks, have that extra living space would be very useful even without the things you list. 

windows, full life support systems, attitude control and orbital manoeuvring systems, solar panels, and full radio communication would already be in the Dragon.

Hygiene systems would be required but since it would be even without the BEAM it should be in the Dragon as well when SpaceX is ready to introduce Dragonrider.

BEAMs main function would be crew quarters then. Sleeping, eating and so forth.

[guckyfan]

Had the same idea, but it will be much easier if you start with BEAM in the trunk and after orbit insertion, you use some robotic to get it out of the trunk and put it on top of the docking adapter. I see no problem at all to add a multipurpose robotic arm to dragon. As we see with the outside attached solar panels, there's plenty of room.

Yes it could be done with a robot arm or something as well and the BEAM in the trunk. My unsubstantiated feeling is just the it would require more development, and therefor cost.

However a robot arm on dragon rider could also have other valuable uses and allow interaction with experiments being done in the trunk.

It cannot be connected to the Dragon port. It would make abort impossible.

I wonder though if it could be done Apollo style. The module is separately in the upper stage. Dragon separates, turns and attaches to the module, then pulls it out. That could be possible without robotic arms.

[Chalmer]

It cannot be connected to the Dragon port. It would make abort impossible.

Yes that might true. I don't know if the superdraco's could handle the extra weight.
 

I wonder though if it could be done Apollo style. The module is separately in the upper stage. Dragon separates, turns and attaches to the module, then pulls it out. That could be possible without robotic arms.

That is also a possibility. It might even be the least complex.

I think that everyone would agree that it is a no-brainer that it cannot be an unmodified BEAM module. 

Yes of course it would have to be modified  to some degree

[Jim]

Not viable.
It can ride on the nose.  It can't get from the trunk to nose.
It needs more systems than the BEAM has.  Which when added would make it unable to fit in the trunk

BEAM doesn't have heat rejection system, ECS, crew systems (hand holds, crew restraints, substructure for other systems, etc), and then there are all the systems you are placing in module to make it a hab (hygiene, food, sleep, etc).  Also, there are the fluid and electrical electrical connections between the Dragon and module which don't exist.

Then there is the interference of Dracos and the module

[Chalmer]

Not viable.
It can ride on the nose.  It can't get from the trunk to nose.
It needs more systems than the BEAM has.  Which when added would make it unable to fit in the trunk

BEAM doesn't have heat rejection system, ECS, crew systems (hand holds, crew restraints, substructure for other systems, etc), and then there are all the systems you are placing in module to make it a hab (hygiene, food, sleep, etc).  Also, there are the fluid and electrical electrical connections between the Dragon and module which don't exist.

Then there is the interference of Dracos and the module

So it is more complex than meets the eye. However the modifications that you are talking about, could they be made and could they be done relatively painless ?

And if i understand you right, having it connected to the nose on launch is a possibility?

[A_M_Swallow]

The Falcon 9 will lift 13,150 kilograms (29,000 lb) to low Earth orbit.  The Falcon Heavy hopes to lift 53,000 kilograms (120,000 lb) to low Earth orbit (LEO), and 12,000 kilograms (26,000 lb) to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO).

Can a BEAM 2 contain sufficient food, water and air for a round trip to say EML-2?  The Dragon's life support may need augmenting to support the extra volume and mission time.

[Ben the Space Brit]

It can ride on the nose.  It can't get from the trunk to nose.

Jim, by that argument, the Grumman LEM was also 'non-viable'.

[Robotbeat]

It can ride on the nose.  It can't get from the trunk to nose.

Jim, by that argument, the Grumman LEM was also 'non-viable'.

The LEM wasn't in the trunk, but attached to the stage. A very different system. Also, NDS (some flavor of which Dragon will use) is only really capable of docking if the smallest spacecraft weighs at least 4 tons. BEAM is much less than that.

[jongoff]

Had the same idea, but it will be much easier if you start with BEAM in the trunk and after orbit insertion, you use some robotic to get it out of the trunk and put it on top of the docking adapter. I see no problem at all to add a multipurpose robotic arm to dragon. As we see with the outside attached solar panels, there's plenty of room.

Yes it could be done with a robot arm or something as well and the BEAM in the trunk. My unsubstantiated feeling is just the it would require more development, and therefor cost.

However a robot arm on dragon rider could also have other valuable uses and allow interaction with experiments being done in the trunk.

As an aside, Altius is independently working on a compactly stowable robot arm for applications like this on Dragon, Dreamchaser, Orion, etc. We're not directly working with SpaceX on this, but we're definitely interested in talking with them.

~Jon

[Robotbeat]

Had the same idea, but it will be much easier if you start with BEAM in the trunk and after orbit insertion, you use some robotic to get it out of the trunk and put it on top of the docking adapter. I see no problem at all to add a multipurpose robotic arm to dragon. As we see with the outside attached solar panels, there's plenty of room.

Yes it could be done with a robot arm or something as well and the BEAM in the trunk. My unsubstantiated feeling is just the it would require more development, and therefor cost.

However a robot arm on dragon rider could also have other valuable uses and allow interaction with experiments being done in the trunk.

As an aside, Altius is independently working on a compactly stowable robot arm for applications like this on Dragon, Dreamchaser, Orion, etc. We're not directly working with SpaceX on this, but we're definitely interested in talking with them.

~Jon

Don't forget the consummate V's.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Hey Jon!
That sounds great! Where do you think the Altius- arm would best fit on the Dragon?

[Nomadd]

Dragon's solar panels are on the trunk. After you extracted the module Apollo style, it would have to re-dock with the trunk and remake the connections.

[guckyfan]

It can ride on the nose.  It can't get from the trunk to nose.

Jim, by that argument, the Grumman LEM was also 'non-viable'.

The LEM wasn't in the trunk, but attached to the stage. A very different system. Also, NDS (some flavor of which Dragon will use) is only really capable of docking if the smallest spacecraft weighs at least 4 tons. BEAM is much less than that.

That is why I suggested to do it Apollo style, have the module, with all required modifications (a lot of them) in the stage. The docking mechanism would have to be able to be operated from Dragon, too. It is not like docking on the ISS.

Dragon's solar panels are on the trunk. After you extracted the module Apollo style, it would have to re-dock with the trunk and remake the connections.

Why would Dragon disconnect from the trunk for the maneuver?

[Comga]

Had the same idea, but it will be much easier if you start with BEAM in the trunk and after orbit insertion, you use some robotic to get it out of the trunk and put it on top of the docking adapter. I see no problem at all to add a multipurpose robotic arm to dragon. As we see with the outside attached solar panels, there's plenty of room.

Yes it could be done with a robot arm or something as well and the BEAM in the trunk. My unsubstantiated feeling is just the it would require more development, and therefor cost.

However a robot arm on dragon rider could also have other valuable uses and allow interaction with experiments being done in the trunk.

It cannot be connected to the Dragon port. It would make abort impossible.

I wonder though if it could be done Apollo style. The module is separately in the upper stage. Dragon separates, turns and attaches to the module, then pulls it out. That could be possible without robotic arms.

You have a good point that putting an inflatable on the front of Dragon would interfere with the Launch Abort System.  Beyond the added mass there would be a shift of the center of gravity, and the configuration would probably be aerodynamically unstable.

Much as disagreeing with Jim has it's perils, there are ways to get an inflatable from the trunk to the front.  Check out the Japanese manned spaceflight conceptual system. 

A prroblem with the Apollo method is that both vehicles need full attitude control.   The arms on the Japnese system keep the orbital module attached and under control with much lses spphistication. 

It might be possible to do this with cables and "centrfical force".  Spring eject the inflatable, with three retaining lines spread by spring loaded guides.  Rotate Dragon athrough a gap.  Back away and start the whole collection spinning so that the inflatable "hangs" at the ends of the lines in front of the Dragon.  Deploy the solar arrays.  Reel in the inflatable.  Berth the inflatable by puling on the lines.
[/armchair amature designing]

Or we coud use Jon's proposed system. 

Dragon's integral LAS.  Bigelow's inflatable orbital module. JAXA's attached but stowed configuration with Altius's arm.  Sounds good to me.

[Robotbeat]

Dragon would probably want a real service module for a BLEO mission, anyway.

[ChefPat]

While it's fascinating to speculate on what Bigelow product could be used for a DragonRider BLEO mission, one thing we can be absolutely certain of, it ain't gonna be a BEAM.

[Jim]

It can ride on the nose.  It can't get from the trunk to nose.

Jim, by that argument, the Grumman LEM was also 'non-viable'.

can't

[Ben the Space Brit]

It can ride on the nose.  It can't get from the trunk to nose.

Jim, by that argument, the Grumman LEM was also 'non-viable'.

can't

Yes you can; it's really quite simple.  Attach it to the upper stage (using the grapple fixtures) rather than the Dragon's trunk.  When the Dragon undocks from the upper stage, it exposes the BEAM-derivative (which also has a mini-SM to provide power and LSS) remains attached to the U/S.  The Dragon then does a completely normal transposition and docking, just like Apollo did with the LEM.

The U/S can hypothetically also be powered from the BEAM-2's solar arrays so it can also use its RCS as the module's propulsion section.  After docking, the module remotely inflates and stabilises.  Then the crew can ingress.

Yeah, I know, the only real commonality would probably be the module's hull envelope and end plates and even they would have some modifications.  Still, everything needs a starting point.  So why can't a tech demonstrator be adapted to serve as a mission module? All you need to do is provide a business case, which is no more or less realistic than Bigelow's larger (and far more expensive) modules and multi-module complexes.

Oh, the Dragon would need the extra-long trunk option but that's just a matter of stretching the trunk, a fairly simple production line modification.

[Jim]

It can ride on the nose.  It can't get from the trunk to nose.

Jim, by that argument, the Grumman LEM was also 'non-viable'.

can't

Yes you can; it's really quite simple.  Attach it to the upper stage (using the grapple fixtures) rather than the Dragon's trunk.  When the Dragon undocks from the upper stage, it exposes the BEAM-derivative (which also has a mini-SM to provide power and LSS) remains attached to the U/S.  The Dragon then does a completely normal transposition and docking, just like Apollo did with the LEM.

The U/S can hypothetically also be powered from the BEAM-2's solar arrays so it can also use its RCS as the module's propulsion section.  After docking, the module remotely inflates and stabilises.  Then the crew can ingress.

Yeah, I know, the only real commonality would probably be the module's hull envelope and end plates and even they would have some modifications.  Still, everything needs a starting point.  So why can't a tech demonstrator be adapted to serve as a mission module? All you need to do is provide a business case, which is no more or less realistic than Bigelow's larger (and far more expensive) modules and multi-module complexes.

Oh, the Dragon would need the extra-long trunk option but that's just a matter of stretching the trunk, a fairly simple production line modification.

The word "can't" was omitted from my first text and it was in the context of ascent.

[A_M_Swallow]

As an aside, Altius is independently working on a compactly stowable robot arm for applications like this on Dragon, Dreamchaser, Orion, etc. We're not directly working with SpaceX on this, but we're definitely interested in talking with them.

~Jon

If the arm is stored in the trunk can it reach the docking port on the top of the Dragon?
If the arm is attached to the BEAM 2 can it pull the module out of the trunk and up to the Dragon's docking port?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The Trunk can handle at least by the CRS spec to ISS of 3.5mt of unpressurized cargo. Stretching this to 4mt to a BEAM derived HAB in the Trunk that has 2 NDS, one at each end, some rails allowing for the ejection from the Trunk to make the HAB a free flyer that the Dragon with Trunk can then dock to (the HAB needs to be a total of 4mt for the NDS to work) will work for using a HAB docked to a DragonRider in LEO only.

The HAB will not be a BEAM but will be a BEAM sized fully provisioned long duration HAB module. An F9 can get this to LEO and an FH can possibly get this to a higher orbit. But in order to get this to EML-1/2 it would be easier to do a pair of launches of BLEO DragonRider with a Trunk with SM add-on on a F9 then a FH with a just a HAB with a US with a lot fuel still in it for use as a EDS that can then push the Dragon rider that then docks to one end of the HAB that is attached to the FH US. The US fires using up all of its propellant to get the BLEO DragonRider with SM in Trunk and the HAB docked on its nose into a transfer orbit to GTO or TLI to a LLO or EML-1/2 orbit. It may not make it to a final transfer to a Lunar transfer orbit requiring some additional prop usage from the Trunk SM to get it to the final transfer orbit. Also the SM is used to brake into the Lunar orbit as well as needed to do a Earth return burn. The HAB would not be attached for the Earth return.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Didnt we already establish that the Beam module allone would not have enough mass to allow for docking and therefore it would have to attached to something with more mass like the US?

[Jim]

Let just end this thread.  BEAM won't work as a hab.  But given a clean slate, it is a given that there are a multitude of possibilities where a Bigelow module can be used a hab module for Dragon.  Does the discussion need to continue beyond this? If so, why does there need to be yet another Spacex related thread?

[jongoff]

Hey Jon!
That sounds great! Where do you think the Altius- arm would best fit on the Dragon?

Since we aren't actively working with SpaceX on this yet, I'm not sure if there is any available space we could use on the actual Dragon capsule side, but if there was, that would be my preference. We're trying to make an arm that when extended could reach from the capsule to any point on the outside of the vehicle including all the way up into the trunk. But to be clear, we're still in the early systems engineering phase on this design, trying to open communications with various potential users (like SpaceX, SNC, etc) and figure out what high-level requirements they'd have for our arm (reach, dexterity, stowage volume, mass, tip forces, etc) so we can do the preliminary design and make sure we have a design that can close.

But if I had my druthers, I'd rather have this arm be on the reusable side of the spacecraft than on the part that gets thrown-out. But that depends on if there's some volume left to stow it somewhere on the capsule side.

Clear as mud?

~Jon

[Nathan]

Let just end this thread.  BEAM won't work as a hab.  But given a clean slate, it is a given that there are a multitude of possibilities where a Bigelow module can be used a hab module for Dragon.  Does the discussion need to continue beyond this? If so, why does there need to be yet another Spacex related thread?

Why not just end your participation in the discussion and allow those that wish to discuss it further to carry on? Seriously.


Implied in the above conversation is that we are talking about something derived from beam not exact copies. The concept is important.
It is obvious that life support etc would be in dragon.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Crossovers that equally involve 2 folder categories, in this case Commercial space Flight General and SpaceX General does not really fit in either.

It can be discussed in the General discussin SpaceX thread or as a specific SpaceX thread about an application that happens to use a purpose built Bigelow module.

The crossover is a neat idea but is not really a new one. It shows up in discussion on various other threads; GS discussion, SpaceX general, FH, In-Space Hardware discussion about Gateway elements and access, etc.

The thread really needs to be a general BEAM disscussion thread to stay in this folder. Where occasional excursions into future uses of a BEAM sized module would be part of the general discussion and not just about SpaceX using a BEAM sized module.

I agree with you Jim that this thread has a limited life and will just increase the likely more and more SpaceX centric postings with little about the BEAM module itself. Which would make it more appropriate for it to be in the SpaceX folder.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Since we aren't actively working with SpaceX on this yet, I'm not sure if there is any available space we could use on the actual Dragon capsule side, but if there was, that would be my preference. We're trying to make an arm that when extended could reach from the capsule to any point on the outside of the vehicle including all the way up into the trunk. But to be clear, we're still in the early systems engineering phase on this design, trying to open communications with various potential users (like SpaceX, SNC, etc) and figure out what high-level requirements they'd have for our arm (reach, dexterity, stowage volume, mass, tip forces, etc) so we can do the preliminary design and make sure we have a design that can close.

But if I had my druthers, I'd rather have this arm be on the reusable side of the spacecraft than on the part that gets thrown-out. But that depends on if there's some volume left to stow it somewhere on the capsule side.

Clear as mud?

~Jon

Cool, thanks for the reply! I have been watching you guys for a while. Great idea for a company! Best of luck with finding partners with spacecraft!
Sure would be cool to see an Altius arm on a Dragon or a DC.

[Robotbeat]

Look how much room there is under the nose cone.

Would it be possible to design the inflatable to fit under the nosecone?

You could eliminate the CBM and just have a man hatch.

Old drawing. New one would show less room, much taken up by NDS.

[jedsmd]

Look how much room there is under the nose cone.

Would it be possible to design the inflatable to fit under the nosecone?

You could eliminate the CBM and just have a man hatch.

Old drawing. New one would show less room, much taken up by NDS.

Okay, but if you have the inflatable you would  not be using the NDS

[Robotbeat]

Look how much room there is under the nose cone.

Would it be possible to design the inflatable to fit under the nosecone?

You could eliminate the CBM and just have a man hatch.

Old drawing. New one would show less room, much taken up by NDS.

Okay, but if you have the inflatable you would  not be using the NDS

So, you're saying SpaceX should manufacture a new kind of Dragon, a crewed variant with a different kind of CBM (active)?

And, of course, they'd also have to abort with that big mass on the top? They'd have to redo all the abort analysis, and it wouldn't be safer.

[Jim]

It is obvious that life support etc would be in dragon.

That is not obvious

[A_M_Swallow]

Look how much room there is under the nose cone.

Would it be possible to design the inflatable to fit under the nosecone?

You could eliminate the CBM and just have a man hatch.

Old drawing. New one would show less room, much taken up by NDS.

Okay, but if you have the inflatable you would  not be using the NDS

Unless the inflatable is tiny you need docking ports between the Dragon and the inflatable to perform a re-entry.  Also the consumables for a 2 or 3 week trip take up a fair amount of room.

Inventing a replacement for the NDS will be expensive.

For long trips Dragon's rivals the Dream Chaser, CST-100 and Blue origin may need inflatable modules.

[jedsmd]

Look how much room there is under the nose cone.

Would it be possible to design the inflatable to fit under the nosecone?

You could eliminate the CBM and just have a man hatch.

Old drawing. New one would show less room, much taken up by NDS.

Okay, but if you have the inflatable you would  not be using the NDS

Unless the inflatable is tiny you need docking ports between the Dragon and the inflatable to perform a re-entry.  Also the consumables for a 2 or 3 week trip take up a fair amount of room.

Inventing a replacement for the NDS will be expensive.

For long trips Dragon's rivals the Dream Chaser, CST-100 and Blue origin may need inflatable modules.

You just need to be able to close the hatch and let go of the inflatable - it is more of an undocking hatch.

[go4mars]

1300kg extra on the nose at 4 g's or more is a lot of force.  I'd be surprised if dragon could handle that without some new structure inside it or incorporated somewhere.  Also, the water? that inflates the thing would need to come from somewhere.  Presumably dragon.  I don't know what the mass would be.  Could be done lighter with gas but that's another system, and removes shielding.    Though there are good ideas on this thread, it's like the Red Dragon thread.  Probably not a stock dragon, and probably not a stock BEAM.  Which is fine.

Extended trunk or upper-stage mounted inflatable hab?  Altius Trogdor arm?  These are all fine ideas. 

Jon, do you have any sketches you could post here or on your thread of potential stickyboom arms or their stowage size per length at some assumed strength?  Would these be jointed?  Rolled?

Also, is Bigelow's stuff extremely rare or complex?  Does his patents cover anything inflatable?  What would stop a company like SpaceX from just making their own inflatable module(s)?  If they are unable to for patent reasons, when do the patents expire?  I imagine there is more than one way to build an inflatable module.

As to needing to be 4 tons to use the mechanism: Why not just approach with greater speed (equivalent to 4 tons at lower speed)?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

In general it would just be easier to use a Sundancer module (~9mt)launched on a prior F9 and cheaper since it is mostly designed already.

That is where concepts for using such modules have been disscussed before the only new item is stowing a much smaller module in the Trunk so that it would go up with the DragonRider instead of before it on a seperate launch. The small size of the module and how usefull just extra space without any other extras like long term ECLSS, supplies, power generation, and thermal control is in doubt. Which is where a true HAB/Space station module like Sundancer is more appropriate.

Sundancer is also capable of being a free flyer or providing all the services it needs so that once you reach a destination like Lunar orbit it can be docked permanantly with others to create a ever increasing hab space Deep Spacestation. Everything that is needed that BEAM does not have to make a usefull long term hab space. A BEAM or BEAM like module would be for extra space for a few week mission possibly 4. It would only double the space provided by just the Dragon.

This concept of using a BEAM sized module would have uses in a GS scenario where the crew goes up first and needs to wait on the EDS being launched after them in a dual launch EOR scenario where there is no depot's and the long term storage of cryo's is only partially succesful. Not good enough for an EDS to last a couple of weeks proir to use. So the crew goes first followed by the EDS. A BEAM sized extra space would make waiting in LEO a couple of weeks bearable and possibly enabling increase of crew size from 2 to 4 in such scenarios. Also launch slips of the EDS can be managed giving a higher mission succes capability. Such as being able to have a max on orbit stay time of 4 weeks where the nominal time would be 2 or less. The BEAM sized module would be a one mission only throw away item. BTW the EDS could carry a pressurized small container with the NDS so that additional consumables would be available for the rest of the mission plus once the EDS has finished its burns the "trash" (a 1 to 1 swap by weight of supplies for trash) would be loaded into this container then the container and EDS detached and discarded.

[go4mars]

The BEAM sized module would be a one mission only throw away item.

Which might still make sense in the near term for Zond-style missions if they are about $20M each.  If (modified) dragon has life support for a couple weeks, just toss a bunch of powerbars, juice boxes, and toilet baggies with baby wipes into the inflatable module.              In the near term, assuming F9 could do it, 2 launches is $120 million for rockets (plus dragon ($73 million) and a module (if sundancer, probably $50 million?).  There`s $243/7 = $35 million bucks each. 

By contrast, if done with a dumb trunk module, and an Altius arm, 1 launch is $60 million, $83? for dragon, $20M for the BEAMing  thing.  So $163M/7 might get to $23 million per ticket around the moon and back. 

That all assumes that crew dragon with multi-day life support costs the same as cargo dragons do now (probably unlikely) and that Goff's Trogdor arm is $10 million (I pulled that number out of my trunk; feel free to constrain that number Jon).   But the point in general, is that a luxury trip with a sundancer (which is a lot heavier) needs 2 launches, one of which will likely need to be a FH.  The minimalist dragon and trunk module trip might need a FH as well.  But the general idea stands that it would be cheaper if it can be done. 

Though Jim's point about draco plumes seems uncomfortably relevent, there might be a way to mitigate the concern (shielding or very careful thruster-use planning where worst-case = everyone is stuck in the dragon for a week because the inflatable module needed to get popped)...

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Questions about BEAM. Does the $17M include development costs as well as manufacturing?

If it does then how much recurring cost per unit? $10M? Less?

Would it be cheap enough that being a throw away would not cause much of a per seat cost increse? $140M +$10M for BEAM $150M with only 5 seats filled = $30M/seat vs $140M and only 4 seats filled = $35M. What the math says is that per seat costs could decrease using a BEAM add-on concept. BEAM would make lengthy missions more cost effective with a capability to add an additional person.

BEAM here is a BEAM size module not the exact same BEAM as NASA is buying.

[sdsds]

Does the $17M include development costs as well as manufacturing? [...] Would it be cheap enough that being a throw away would not cause much of a per seat cost increase?

That's an excellent line of questioning! Consider a short duration, seven person LEO tourist flight. Could the addition of a disposable BEAM-like inflatable (maybe with a viewing port on the surface where BEAM has grapple fixtures) put the overall experience at a price-to-value point that's easier to sell?

(This somewhat assumes tourists will want about 24 hours in space, not a week....)

[jongoff]

That all assumes that crew dragon with multi-day life support costs the same as cargo dragons do now (probably unlikely) and that Goff's Trogdor arm is $10 million (I pulled that number out of my trunk; feel free to constrain that number Jon).

We wouldn't mind getting paid $10M for an arm, though we don't have firm numbers yet (cause we're still in the early design phase).

BTW, I'm now going to have to have my interns come up with a backronym that works out to Trogdor, and it's all y'alls fault...

~Jon

[jongoff]

Had the same idea, but it will be much easier if you start with BEAM in the trunk and after orbit insertion, you use some robotic to get it out of the trunk and put it on top of the docking adapter. I see no problem at all to add a multipurpose robotic arm to dragon. As we see with the outside attached solar panels, there's plenty of room.

Yes it could be done with a robot arm or something as well and the BEAM in the trunk. My unsubstantiated feeling is just the it would require more development, and therefor cost.

However a robot arm on dragon rider could also have other valuable uses and allow interaction with experiments being done in the trunk.

As an aside, Altius is independently working on a compactly stowable robot arm for applications like this on Dragon, Dreamchaser, Orion, etc. We're not directly working with SpaceX on this, but we're definitely interested in talking with them.

~Jon

Don't forget the consummate V's.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't get how Trogdor fit into this until someone started calling the CSM an Altius Trogdor arm. I guess that's what I get for suggesting putting an arm on a Dragon. And yes, you'll be pleased to know that there will definitely be consummate V's.

~Jon

[jongoff]

Extended trunk or upper-stage mounted inflatable hab?  Altius Trogdor arm?  These are all fine ideas. 

Jon, do you have any sketches you could post here or on your thread of potential stickyboom arms or their stowage size per length at some assumed strength?  Would these be jointed?  Rolled?

To be honest, we're still in early design work, particularly focused on the joint design, and on gathering actual use modes from end-users to back out the required length/strength etc. Here's some concept-art we did for a recent SBIR proposal of a CSM on Orion doing backshell TPS inspection. It entirely glosses over the joint designs, which is where we're putting a lot of our limited internal R&D budget into right now, but gives the general idea. Basically we'd be building a series of 3-DOF elements consisting of 2-DOF articulated joints and a 1-DOF STEM-boom (or STEM Truss) extendable/retractable element, with the tip of one boom attaching to the base of the next 3-DOF element. Power and data would be built into the STEM boom layup, and each joint would have a local control node for distributed control to keep the wire-harness issues sane.

While they're not ready for prime-time yet (and we may want to patent them before we publish them) I think that with some of the 2-DOF joint design ideas we're developing in conjunction with NASA LaRC under our Space Act Agreement we can beat the pants off of the torque-to-weight ratio of joints used traditional RMS arms, and the stowability-to-length, overall dexterity, and definitely strength-to-weight of traditional RMS arms like CANDARM (at the cost of a little extra complexity and a lot of extra weirdness-looking).

Is this still on-topic for this thread, or should we take further discussion over to the Altius thread?

~Jon

[dcporter]

Triaxis Rotatable/Opposable Grip Device & Orbital Receiver

[go4mars]

Triaxis Rotatable/Opposable Grip Device & Orbital Receiver

Nice!     Then  hyphen,   Articulated Rollable Manipulator.

Thanks for the replies Jon,  I'll try to get some follow-up questions to you (on your thread), probably Tuesday. 

[Elmar Moelzer]

Extended trunk or upper-stage mounted inflatable hab?  Altius Trogdor arm?  These are all fine ideas. 

Jon, do you have any sketches you could post here or on your thread of potential stickyboom arms or their stowage size per length at some assumed strength?  Would these be jointed?  Rolled?

To be honest, we're still in early design work, particularly focused on the joint design, and on gathering actual use modes from end-users to back out the required length/strength etc. Here's some concept-art we did for a recent SBIR proposal of a CSM on Orion doing backshell TPS inspection. It entirely glosses over the joint designs, which is where we're putting a lot of our limited internal R&D budget into right now, but gives the general idea. Basically we'd be building a series of 3-DOF elements consisting of 2-DOF articulated joints and a 1-DOF STEM-boom (or STEM Truss) extendable/retractable element, with the tip of one boom attaching to the base of the next 3-DOF element. Power and data would be built into the STEM boom layup, and each joint would have a local control node for distributed control to keep the wire-harness issues sane.

While they're not ready for prime-time yet (and we may want to patent them before we publish them) I think that with some of the 2-DOF joint design ideas we're developing in conjunction with NASA LaRC under our Space Act Agreement we can beat the pants off of the torque-to-weight ratio of joints used traditional RMS arms, and the stowability-to-length, overall dexterity, and definitely strength-to-weight of traditional RMS arms like CANDARM (at the cost of a little extra complexity and a lot of extra weirdness-looking).

Is this still on-topic for this thread, or should we take further discussion over to the Altius thread?

~Jon

Very cool stuff, Jon!

[Robotbeat]

Had the same idea, but it will be much easier if you start with BEAM in the trunk and after orbit insertion, you use some robotic to get it out of the trunk and put it on top of the docking adapter. I see no problem at all to add a multipurpose robotic arm to dragon. As we see with the outside attached solar panels, there's plenty of room.

Yes it could be done with a robot arm or something as well and the BEAM in the trunk. My unsubstantiated feeling is just the it would require more development, and therefor cost.

However a robot arm on dragon rider could also have other valuable uses and allow interaction with experiments being done in the trunk.

As an aside, Altius is independently working on a compactly stowable robot arm for applications like this on Dragon, Dreamchaser, Orion, etc. We're not directly working with SpaceX on this, but we're definitely interested in talking with them.

~Jon

Don't forget the consummate V's.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't get how Trogdor fit into this until someone started calling the CSM an Altius Trogdor arm. I guess that's what I get for suggesting putting an arm on a Dragon. And yes, you'll be pleased to know that there will definitely be consummate V's.

~Jon

I am very pleased! It's looking pretty good sticking out of Dragon's neck there.

Seriously, this made my night!

[manboy]

Look how much room there is under the nose cone.

Would it be possible to design the inflatable to fit under the nosecone?

You could eliminate the CBM and just have a man hatch.

That's a very outdated image. Here's a current one.

[guckyfan]

Now for berthing Dragon and relocation modules use Canadarm. What equipment do you need to put on the launch vehicle for maneuvering as Apollo?

The second stage already has attitude control. Probably it needs additional batteries for a sufficiently long activity time.

If it is for a free return trajectory to the moon do it after lunar injection. After all if it fails it is not critical for crew survival.

But how has this discussion spilled back to the Bigelow Aerospace Update thread from the Dragon with Bigelow module thread? I put my reply where it seems to belong.

[MP99]

Questions about BEAM. Does the $17M include development costs as well as manufacturing?

If I'm reading this right, not even close:-

A geographic search of the NASA acquisition database yields this:
<snip>
Total Award Value $17,865,903
<snip>THIS EFFORT IS FOR PHASE 2 OF THE BEAM ISS DEMONSTRATION MODULE PROJECT, AND ESTABLISHES THE REQUIREMENTS, PERFORMANCE METRICS, COSTS, AND MANAGEMENT OF THE EFFORT THAT WILL BE USED TO DESIGN, DELIVER, AND OPERATE THE BEAM.

(My highlight)

cheers, Martin

[jongoff]

Triaxis Rotatable/Opposable Grip Device & Orbital Receiver

I think our newest engineer at Altius wins this one:

Tele-Robotic Operations Granting Dragons Outstanding Reach

~Jon

[Lurker Steve]

That all assumes that crew dragon with multi-day life support costs the same as cargo dragons do now (probably unlikely) and that Goff's Trogdor arm is $10 million (I pulled that number out of my trunk; feel free to constrain that number Jon).

We wouldn't mind getting paid $10M for an arm, though we don't have firm numbers yet (cause we're still in the early design phase).

BTW, I'm now going to have to have my interns come up with a backronym that works out to Trogdor, and it's all y'alls fault...

~Jon

Do you really think $10M will cover the development and manufacturing costs for an arm like this ? Self-powered, or do you envision a grapple-fixture that would provide power and control signals to the arm ?

[Robotbeat]

"An" arm, as in singular. But Altius is a pretty small company, and $10 million may actually be enough for development, given what they've already done so far. But I think Jon is just talking about per-unit price. And I don't think he's giving much information out. $10 million for an arm would be a substantial portion of the overall cost of a Dragon spacecraft, and I think Jon was implying $10 million would be really nice profit for his company for one arm.

[jongoff]

"An" arm, as in singular. But Altius is a pretty small company, and $10 million may actually be enough for development, given what they've already done so far. But I think Jon is just talking about per-unit price. And I don't think he's giving much information out. $10 million for an arm would be a substantial portion of the overall cost of a Dragon spacecraft, and I think Jon was implying $10 million would be really nice profit for his company for one arm.

Bingo. I have no intention of only making one of these arms. :-)

~Jon

[Lurker Steve]

I was thinking that the number of missions that required an arm was fairly small. Obviously, the ARM is exterior to the capsule, so there is no re-use like we had with the SSRMS. I just don't see more than 1 of these per year.

Of course, for a small company, that's decent revenue if you pay for development on the first one, and then can just build more copies.

[Robotbeat]

And Altius would be doing more than just TROGDOR.

[jongoff]

I was thinking that the number of missions that required an arm was fairly small. Obviously, the ARM is exterior to the capsule, so there is no re-use like we had with the SSRMS. I just don't see more than 1 of these per year.

You're making several assumptions there.

Of course, for a small company, that's decent revenue if you pay for development on the first one, and then can just build more copies.

Yeah, the business model that makes the most sense will depend somewhat on the answer to several assumptions. Not sure yet if we're looking more at selling discrete arms, leasing them for reusable applications, or selling systems that incorporate the arms into them as enabling technologies, or d) several of the above.

~Jon

[jongoff]

And Altius would be doing more than just TROGDOR.

Indeed. But this is probably veering far enough off-topic that we should probably move further conversation over to the Altius thread.

~Jon

[go4mars]

Jon;   Have there been further discussions this year about installing the Triaxis Rotatable/Opposable Grip Device & Orbital Receiver - Articulated Rollable Manipulator? 

If so, that might imply progress toward a module for the Burninator (dragon). 

Also, does anyone know if this idea emerged as part of the solution for Tito's Aspirational mission?   

[jongoff]

Jon;   Have there been further discussions this year about installing the Triaxis Rotatable/Opposable Grip Device & Orbital Receiver - Articulated Rollable Manipulator? 

If so, that might imply progress toward a module for the Burninator (dragon). 

Also, does anyone know if this idea emerged as part of the solution for Tito's Aspirational mission?

To be honest, we never got any traction with SpaceX. It's just too far past where they're focused right now. We are building a 3DOF Motorized STEM Arm (2-axis motorized gimbal + a motorized STEM) testbed right now, and that will help a lot with developing arms like TROGDOR down the road.

~Jon

[Danderman]

There is also the stuff taken up by the Dragons and the Soyuz that has been used and is not wanted back on Earth.

It is still not additive.  Dragon also returns with trash.  Also, Soyuz brings very little up.

Let me "enhance" Jim's statement here.

Soyuz does bring up several hundred kg of cargo per mission, it its orbital module. However, what I understand is that trash is loaded into the Soyuz orbital module at departure, and perhaps this is the bulky but light stuff like packing that otherwise would fill up the Progress orbital module.  Since upmass is denser than downmass, the station does have a problem with balancing out the accumulation of trash, and loading the Soyuz orbital module with trash may be one way to deal with the problem.

Jim's position is that there hasn't been a waste disposal problem lately, which is true, partly due to ATV flights, which can remove a lot of trash. This good fortune may not hold forever. 

However, in all cases, flying multiple BEAMs to fill with trash is not a good solution, since BEAM has no independent means of re-entry.

[Patchouli]

There is also the stuff taken up by the Dragons and the Soyuz that has been used and is not wanted back on Earth.

It is still not additive.  Dragon also returns with trash.  Also, Soyuz brings very little up.

Let me "enhance" Jim's statement here.

Soyuz does bring up several hundred kg of cargo per mission, it its orbital module. However, what I understand is that trash is loaded into the Soyuz orbital module at departure, and perhaps this is the bulky but light stuff like packing that otherwise would fill up the Progress orbital module.  Since upmass is denser than downmass, the station does have a problem with balancing out the accumulation of trash, and loading the Soyuz orbital module with trash may be one way to deal with the problem.

Jim's position is that there hasn't been a waste disposal problem lately, which is true, partly due to ATV flights, which can remove a lot of trash. This good fortune may not hold forever. 

However, in all cases, flying multiple BEAMs to fill with trash is not a good solution, since BEAM has no independent means of re-entry.

But how are the waste canisters from the toilet disposed of or do all those fit inside Progress?

[Danderman]

But how are the waste canisters from the toilet disposed of or do all those fit inside Progress?

Same as any other trash.