Bigelow BEAM as Dragonrider Orbital module

[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)?