Yeah, the main question would be why do an inflatable? There’s a lot of complication involved with the inflation process. It only makes sense if you can’t do a bigger fairing. Bigelow’s 330 module would’ve been 6.7m in diameter but launched on a vehicle with a 5 meter fairing. Not that impressive. A hammerhead fairing does the same thing!To me, the more interested approach is the “constructables” which could really expand volume dramatically. More risky tho.
Quote from: yoram on 10/09/2023 06:14 pmI was wondering on the trade offs between metal vs inflatable habitats. Gravitics didn't chose inflatable even though they supposed have many advantages. On the other hand they may have drawbacks too.- I suppose developing a metal habit is far better understood than inflatables, so it may be in easier reach for a startup.- Metal version may have the opportunity to have better shielding.- Metal version allows more flexibility what can be done to the interior on the ground before launch.- With upcoming large payload volume large launch vehicles some of the original motivation for inflatables (saving volume at launch) may be far less pressing.- Inflatables may have IP issues that makes them more expensive until the relevant patents expire.Anything I missed?Dimensional issue; some of the big fairing launchers have more squat payload spaces, while an inflatable really shines with a long skinny hard core to work from.
I was wondering on the trade offs between metal vs inflatable habitats. Gravitics didn't chose inflatable even though they supposed have many advantages. On the other hand they may have drawbacks too.- I suppose developing a metal habit is far better understood than inflatables, so it may be in easier reach for a startup.- Metal version may have the opportunity to have better shielding.- Metal version allows more flexibility what can be done to the interior on the ground before launch.- With upcoming large payload volume large launch vehicles some of the original motivation for inflatables (saving volume at launch) may be far less pressing.- Inflatables may have IP issues that makes them more expensive until the relevant patents expire.Anything I missed?
For those of you not following me on LinkedIn, I wanted to announce that after a two month stint doing some freelance work, I'm back full-time at Gravitics as their new Director of Advanced Concepts.
I'll be running a project I helped land, and will also be leading the development of enhancements, derivatives, and advanced applications of Gravitics line of commercial space facility modules.
From demolishing walls to building dreams: Gravitics soared in 2023, fueled by an incredible team and audacious vision. Here's to the space station enabled future we're creating, module by module, milestone by milestone! #buildthesky
Quote from: BrightLight on 07/07/2023 04:10 pmUpdated Starmax free-flyer with improved RCS and stringers (stronger?).During a July 5th Aerospace Summit at Blue Origins headquarters in Kent WA the VP of business development said "When explaining Gravitics’ business model to the public, Jiral Shah, stated “Think of how Boeing builds airplanes but then sells them to Delta or United who are the operators, and they fly them. We are building space station modules and providing them to commercial space station operators like Blue Origin, or Axiom Space, or Northrop Grumman.”Will Gravitics build modules for Blue Origin?Our goal is to build modules for any station operator who wants to work with us. We've started conversations with pretty much everyone in the game, not just the three mentioned above. We really want to do our part to help the commercial LEO destination market take flight.
Updated Starmax free-flyer with improved RCS and stringers (stronger?).During a July 5th Aerospace Summit at Blue Origins headquarters in Kent WA the VP of business development said "When explaining Gravitics’ business model to the public, Jiral Shah, stated “Think of how Boeing builds airplanes but then sells them to Delta or United who are the operators, and they fly them. We are building space station modules and providing them to commercial space station operators like Blue Origin, or Axiom Space, or Northrop Grumman.”Will Gravitics build modules for Blue Origin?
https://twitter.com/GraviticsInc/status/1750319218674024636
Some new renders, and details of 4m, 6m and 8m module designs:https://twitter.com/GraviticsInc/status/1768273375812870281https://twitter.com/GraviticsInc/status/1768275493122695367The 4m has a CBM at one end and a hollow cavity at the other. The 6m and 8m have CBMs at both ends, and the 6m is shown with IDSS adapters on the CBMs (square opening visible inside).
The way I understand this offer is that Gravitics is not planning to put its own station in LEO, but is offering other companies to use the modules it builds to assemble their own stations. Meanwhile, we know that all the companies entering this competition either build their own modules or order them from others, such as Airbus. So what is Gravitics' business plan? Where does it plan to get customers from?
We still have to prove that we can close the sale (and more importantly deliver on it), and while there are elements of our business plan that aren't public info, our main focus is exactly what we've said it is -- developing modules to sell or lease to LEO destination developers.
Thanks for this clarification! I understand that you first have to prove that your products are good and functionally suitable for potential customers. I just wonder if you will find such a first customer, because Axiom, Blue Origin, Sierra, Starlab or Vast have either already ordered such modules somewhere or are constructing them. The closest to your concept is Starlab, which is being built by Airbus for Starlab Space. I wish you luck, but I have a concern about whether this is the time for near mass production of unified orbital modules.
