Bigelow Cycler habitats

[edawg]

Since Bigelow is going to market their inflatiable modules on the commercail market.I wonder if it would be possible to set up a earth-mars cycler system just using bigelow habitats?<br /> Any thoughts??

 

[mlorrey]

Well, you'd need more power, an electric propulsion system to put it in a cycler orbit.<br /><br />I'd like to comment that the small Schwartsmann comet passing near Earth the month of May was originally (several orbits ago) only about 1000 meters in diameter, and has since broken into as many as five pieces. Maneuvering to move one of these pieces into a cycler orbit would be an excellent opportunity to put together a refuelling station in that orbit on the cheap. The comet is currently in a 5.5 year orbit..

 

[scottb50]

I would think it would be much easier to simply put a supply station in a specific orbit rather than landing on a rock in the same orbit you are in. If it was to study or mine the rock thats one thing, but to turn it into filling station totally different. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[edawg]

i was thinking about the idea of using a NERVA tug,but i do not know how many .gs of acceleration the inflatiable modules could take.Bigelows habs are gonna open the soler system,hell i could see the russians using them..

 

[ve7rkt]

The inflatable modules would probably take whatever acceleration you design them to take. My best guess would be that the worrying part would be the joints between modules, especially if you lay the station out as anything but a long stick.

 

[mlorrey]

Well, a rock a few hundred meters across exerts so little gravity that there is virtually no risk to "landing" on it (more like rendevousing). Deploy a big reflective mylar bag around it and you eliminate natural outgassing of volatiles, residual outgassing can be captured and bottled into fuel tanks.<br /><br />Turning it into a filling station is the point, and the amount of fuel you can get out of it is of immense importance in making Mars trips easier and much cheaper, since comet fuel doesn't cost anything to get there.<br /><br />Your criticism of this idea is as absurd as saying it would be easier to pack Evian into a remote mountaineering shack at the foot of a glacier, than to just bottle the glacial runoff. Give me a break.

 

[ve7rkt]

You don't have to move a mountain in order to bottle the runoff. <br /><br />Aside from that, would a refuelling station in a cycler orbit really be of any use? If you can match your craft's path to it, you're already on your way, you don't need much more fuel, do you?

 

[mlorrey]

"Aside from that, would a refuelling station in a cycler orbit really be of any use? If you can match your craft's path to it, you're already on your way, you don't need much more fuel, do you? "<br /><br />A cycler orbit is a transfer orbit. You still need fuel to insert into Mars orbit, and you need fuel to get out of Mars orbit, and you need fuel to land on Mars (you can refuel your lander from Martian water, of course). You also will need fuel to back into Earth orbit (return velocity will be about 45,000 mph, which is a bit high for the CEV.)<br /><br />Carrying all this fuel with you from Earth will itself require carrying even more fuel to propel it as well as yourself. If you can pick it up for free once you've attained transfer orbit, then your Earth-originated fuel requirements are about 1/4-1/3 of what you need getting there and back again.<br /><br />I've already done this calculation before in another thread, which dealt with the same concept for a cycler orbit between Mars and Jupiter using Comet Tempel 2 as a fuelling station.

 

[scottb50]

It whizzes by every 5.5 years and if you happen to be near it you might be able to refuel from it. As far as exploiting the water in a comet, that's another story. <br /><br />What I'm saying is we are a long way from even being sure the glacier exists. Until then the only possible source of propellant is here on Earth. Maybe having a fuel station on a comet would be a good idea, once we can get to the comet.<br /><br />With luck we might find exploitable water on the moon and it looks more and more like usable quantities exist on Mars and comets. We still have to get there build the extraction equipment, storage equipment and transportation systems before we can think of using it.<br /><br />I don't think we know enough to jump headlong into something with so many unknowns. We will be taking Evian to LEO and everywhere else, for a long time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

"What I'm saying is we are a long way from even being sure the glacier exists."<br /><br />On what absurd basis do you make that crazy claim? The Schwarzmann comet is in a known orbit, and has regularly exhibited large amounts of water and other volatile emissions. It is also a relatively young comet, first observed in 1930, so its pieces should remain rather full of useful fuel.<br /><br />Well, we don't need transportation systems for it. We do need storage systems. They are called tanks, see, a technology invented long ago. You get water out of the ground with wells, once again, something invented long ago.<br /><br />The cometary fragments are in a 5.5 year orbit, but they are small enough (a few hundred meters across) that they can be nudged into a more useful orbit with electric propulsion using the same comets material as fuel.

 

[scottb50]

But you have to get there to nudge them into a more useful orbit or fill up you r butt simple tanks. Maybe we should worry more about getting there than what we're going to do there. Everything we have done manned and robotically makes it clear we can use the same basic technology anywhere. Drilling a hole in a comet is done the same way it is done on Earth, Mars or the moon.<br /><br />The fact Schwarzmann was observed in 1930 has no bearing on it's age. Most, if not all comets were formed at pretty much the same time. Their orbit determines their makeup. I would think Schwarzmann's breaking up would be from losing water as it orbited fairly close to the Sun. Gravity only works so much, like a self cleaning oven. I would think Schwarzmann would be a bunch of rocks, the core components of the comet come apart. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

A 'new' comet is one that has entered the inner solar system recently. While all cometary bodies were formed about the same time in our solar systems history, none orbiting the inner system today were in their present orbits more than several thousand years. So calling it "new" is in regards to its orbit, not its age. An ice ball in the Kuiper Belt isn't a comet, it is a KBO.<br /><br />In fact, Schwarzmann broke up due to close passes near Earth, and if you cared at all to research the topic, it has show increased emissions in its last few passes versus its pre-1990's life, when it was sometimes not observed at all. But as usual, you seem to just blat out your opinions without doing any actual research on a topic.

 

[edawg]

the Schwarzmann comet,all it would take is an extreamly small chunk of rock 200ft across with the right delta-v...