After reading the Bigelow & Lockheed interviews....

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

docm

Guest
on MSNBC's Cosmic Log and elsewhere I started digging through my image & pdf files and found the following Lockheed document from mid-2006;<br /><br />Lockheed Atlas/CTV PDF....<br /><br />In hindsight it certainly applies to the Lockheed statements of this last week. 8 passengers etc. look to be right down Bigelows alley.<br /><br />I'm in the process of trying to visualize what Bigelow was saying about inflatable lunar bases that could be assembled at L1 and landed intact on irregular terrain. In his interview he stated that their regolith cover technique was going to be tried on a full sized BA-330 mockup, which makes one wonder if that's also the core for the base.<br /><br />Might have a 3D mockup once I get my head wraped around it a bit better.<br /><br />In the meantime the image below is of the Atlas/CTV launch stack enlarged a bit from the PDF. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
Got started on the 3D Mesh for the Bigelow module <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"In the meantime the image below is of the Atlas/CTV launch stack enlarged a bit from the PDF. "<br /><br />I got to thinking and realized the Lockheed-Martin 4m diameter capsule for the Atlas V 401 booster bears a striking resemblence to the Ratheon proposal for the CEV!<br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cevtheon.htm<br /><br />Crew Size: 3. Length: 6.50 m (21.30 ft). Basic Diameter: 4.00 m (13.10 ft). Habitable Volume: 15.00 m3. Mass: 7,132 kg (15,723 lb). Main Engine Propellants: N2O4/MMH. Main Engine Propellants: 2,850 kg (6,280 lb). Main Engine Isp: 320 sec. Spacecraft delta v: 1,600 m/s (5,200 ft/sec). Electric System: 2.50 kWh.<br /><br />I suspect that astronautix made an editing error because the numbers for the Raytheon capsule look too optimistic. I bet the capsule all by itself masses 6,000 kg. Even at that weight it's pretty good compared to the Apollo CM capsule which weighed just as much but had only half the habitable volume.
 
S

skyone

Guest
I've always wanted to see a visual size comparison of a bigelow module to the ISS! You should do that.<br />
 
D

docm

Guest
gunsandrockets: <br /><br />Difference is that ther Raytheon is a 3 passenger and the Lockheed is an 8 passenger.<br /><br />SkyOne:<br /><br />ISS + Bigelow visual is on the way. Thankfully that mesh only took a few minutes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"Difference is that ther Raytheon is a 3 passenger and the Lockheed is an 8 passenger."<br /><br />Ah, but that Raytheon crew size was based upon the intended lunar mission. The size of the two capsule are almost exactly the same. They both have the same semi-conical almost cylindrical shape, and both capsules have the same 4 meter maximum diameter. <br />
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I've always wanted to see a visual size comparison of a bigelow module to the ISS! You should do that. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />IIRC, The Bigelow modules take their design from the aborted Transhab module that was originally going to be used as a hab module for the ISS. Below is a link that has a few pictures that might help you visualize the size differences:<br /><br />Spaceflight.NASA.gov: Transhab <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
Docm, the link for the PDF is bad. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
Very nice.<br /><br />Waiting to see details on that capsule though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
Still working on the ISS/Bigelow size comparison, but FWIW here's a thought I put together for a Bigelow based lunar lander/hab. <br /><br />It's nowhere near complete (no stairs, hatch textures etc.) and I'm sure the NASA guys can find problems with it (engine placement, too many nozzles, whatever) but it's a start. Took about 20 minutes. <br /><br />In this the corner spars mounts attach to the habs central structural elements. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
It needs an engine to slow from Lunar orbital velocity before it can land.<br /> From the interview, Bigelow hints that several will be landed at the same time already connected. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
Landing a big odd shaped thing like that would be very risky. I expect they'll find it to be much safer to fly some sort of transport device to move things around on the ground. <br /><br />Perhaps a segway-like 'truck' with a pair of huge inflatable tires could suspend payloads below it's axle and drive them around. That'd keep the mechanical parts up away from the regolith for the most part and keep things simple.
 
D

docm

Guest
No more "odd" than Lockheed's 1999 Eagle style lander which used similar landing thrusters with an RL-10 descent engine. <br /><br />Coming from L1, not orbit, would the RL-10 even be necessary? I would think a semi-straight drop wouldn't need a big deorbit burn.<br /><br />As for stability; I would think the thruster controls used on DCX and New Shepard shows these days you can stabilize a wingless duck <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />If you read Bigelows iterview with MSNBC completely you'll see that he doesn't have much use for construction vehicles on the moon. As he said; they break down too often on Earth and the lunar conditions would make matters that much worse. As a result he developed his L1 assembly concept. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

spacester

Guest
<font color="yellow">Landing a big odd shaped thing like that would be very risky. I expect they'll find it to be much safer to fly some sort of transport device to move things around on the ground.</font><br /><br />I think forces are at work to have both. Carmack's technology is going to be very versatile when it gets mature. I can totally envision a large assembly with engines all over the place and centers of gravity in non typical places and having the algorithms to land it no probs.<br /><br />But I think a wheeled crane of some sort is mandatory as well. I really like your design concept, something that rolls over the top of a top-mounted payload of a 2-stage lunar cargo lander, freeing the shuttle stage below to go fetch another load from L1 / lunar orbit. Roll over, hook up to the payload, winch it up and off, drive to location and deliver. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nyarlathotep

Guest
<font color="yellow">Coming from L1, not orbit, would the RL-10 even be necessary? I would think a semi-straight drop wouldn't need a big deorbit burn. </font><br /><br />You need at a minimum, 2.3km/s. You could probably do that with hypergolics, but you'd need to haul a heck of a lot more mass to L1. Ofcourse, if NASA flight hardware costs an order of magnitude more than the launch cost of fuel, who knows?
 
D

docm

Guest
<font color="yellow">You need at a minimum, 2.3km/s.</font><br /><br />Ahhhhh.....<br /><br />Wife sez I could probably generate that from a bowl of habanero chili <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Latest posts