Blowing up: Inflatable space habitats could be key to exploring the solar system

[Admin]

Private companies are making progress on expandable habitats, which could help humanity keep its foothold in Earth orbit and settle the moon and Mars.

Blowing up: Inflatable space habitats could be key to exploring the solar system : Read more

 

[Unclear Engineer]

This inflatable technology, plus the development of technologies to use local materials like lunar regolith and Martian soil to create overarching structures for radiation and meteorite impact shielding, seem to be the way forward for surface based structures off-Earth.

But, I am wondering about the discussion of designing flexible airlocks. Why do the airlocks need to be flexible? It seems like they could be rigid and still fit into normal fairings for launch vehicles. And, their structural stability is absolutely vital to their ability to perform their mission purpose.

 

[Craig505]

I was part of a UNM group that designed the ARMORHAB Design Reference Architecture back in 2016. See https://spacesettlementprogress.com/armorhab-mission-architecture-for-mars-colonization/ and https://www.academia.edu/29808331/A...ecture_DRA_for_human_habitation_in_deep_space
It does exactly as you suggest, using inflatables to define the space, then coatings to seal the space and provide rigid mounting points. There is so much more there, defense in depth for vacuum, radiation, and temperature. But as you point out, the doors are not flexible, and door standards will become a big point of contention. Even space ships and space stations can be built this way. Walls that breathe, multiple redundant power systems, life support, and segmented seperable designs - Svetlana's defense in depth philosophy made the designs very robust. Would you want to trust your life to anything less?

 

[ChrisA]

Why do the airlocks need to be flexible? It seems like they could be rigid and still fit into normal fairings for launch vehicles. And, their structural stability is absolutely vital to their ability to perform their mission purpose.

Clearly, they do not need to be flexible. But if they are, then more "stuff" can be launched in one rocket, The volume of payload fairing is fixed so reducing the size of one object means there is room for something else.

Or looking at it the other way, an inflatable airlock could be much larger. An airlock on the Moon is going to need some equipment inside for removing moon dust. Perhaps a liquid nitrogen "shower" and compressors and tanks and maybe enough room inside for up to four astronauts in bulky suits.

Also these structures are not very flexible if filled with one Bar of pressure.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Maybe I am misunderstanding what is meant by "airlock"?

I was thinking of the actual "door" mechanisms that need to be rigid and close tightly against seals. If those are rigid and a pair of them is connected with an inflatable "room" that is decompressed and compressed with gas, then that make sense to me.

For use on the Moon, I can understand airlocks that would need to accommodate some rather large rover vehicles, so would probably have large hatches/doors. But, I would think those would not be used very often to get vehicles "inside" the habitats. I would expect them to be parked "outside" and connect to the habitats with smaller airlocks that crew and supplies would pass through. That would conserve gas and pumping costs.

And, I hope the lunar dust problem can be solved with something electrostatic, rather than a gas blower. I am thinking that electricity is going to be easier to produce on the Moon than gas.

 

[ChrisA]

And, I hope the lunar dust problem can be solved with something electrostatic, rather than a gas blower. I am thinking that electricity is going to be easier to produce on the Moon than gas.

I think the gas can be recycled. Air is mostly nitrogen (78%, I think). So they use liquidifed air to remove the dust and then recompress it.

Realistically none of this will happen, NASA lacks budget for anything more than one mission every four or so years and by then congress and the public will lose interest.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Realistically, I think NASA is hoping that SpaceX and probably also Blue Origin will create LEO space stations and lunar surface bases that NASA can buy rides and space in. That makes sense, so long as there is some other source of funding for SpaceX besides NASA and probably the US Space Force. I can see NASA and other science entities creating a lunar base on the far side for astronomy research.

Regarding Mars exploration, clearly NASA is not going to send astronauts one-way. But, if Musk has some takers for one-way trips, I can see NASA and/or others paying for them to do specific science tasks when they are there.

But, at some point, there will probably be newer engine technology for the trip between Earth and Mars, so all of this focus on the limitations of the current StarShip design are not making much of an impression on me about long-term limitations.

And, even before anybody sends people to Mars, it seems that Musk will be sending something like the StarShip there. And, that seems to make some sense for NASA to buy a ride for some really big robotic payloads. I expect that to be a lot cheaper for NASA than its current SLS program. SpaceX is already launching payloads to Europa, so why not to Mars?

 

[Rob77]

My imagination is running wild here, I always would have thought Starship could be re-purposed as a base - rather than land vertically, it could land belly down. The engine and nose cone could "detach" and the ends be designed to join add more starships together? My 2c.