Inflatable space station question

[mikejz]

I’ve been looking at the idea of inflatable space stations and had a thought: Why? It seems to me that you could get more volume with less complexity if you build it out of interlocking panels that would be assembled into a polygon shape. In other words the station would be launch as a set of flat panels and form the volume. Think about it as a solar array that forms a circle. I’m not sure yet how to cap it off, but I bet if could be figured out.

 

[mikejz]

I agree, but it seems more practical to make a non-cylinder safe as oppsed to the inflatible design.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...safe as oppsed to the inflatible design. "</font><br /><br />Have you read the Popular Science article on Bigelow's inflatables? The concept actually has numerous safety advantages over conventional 'hard' material space stations. Bigelow's modules may be inflatable, but they have little in common with a baloon. The walls are made of very substantial material. From the article:<br /><br /><i>"Composed of five layers of graphite-fiber composites separated by foam spacers, the MMOD is the outermost section of Nautilus’s hull. Schneider’s crew’s original TransHab design had more stopping power than did aluminum three inches thick. Ground-testing of Bigelow’s MMOD has shown that it can stop impacts by 5/8-inch-diameter aluminum pellets fired at it at 6.4 kilometers a second, several times as fast as a rifle bullet. No rigid spacecraft design can match this performance, and it’s one of the reasons Nautilus has an expected life span of at least 15 years."</i><br /><br />I've also read in other articles that NASA is particularly interested in it because it also offers more radiation protection than comparable ISS modules. One of their big challenges seems to be incorporating windows into the modules such that they remain integrity after inflation. Personally I think they should make the hab modules windowless, and have a secondary 'cupola' module similar to the one for ISS for sightseeing. This might not sit well with tourists who want a 'room with a view', though.

 

[grooble]

Just wrap cameras round the outside, with flexible flat panel display on the inside wall. You'd see an accurate depiction of the outside without needing glass. It could also filter out harsh sunlight, maybe even let people look at it directly and see the orange orb.

 

[larper]

The biggest advantage of the inflatable, and the biggest disadvantage of assembly out of flat panels is the time, cost and risk of in-space assembly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

One of the reasons for all the windows on the Russian modules is the the UV keeps down the microbes. I think that Zvezda has 13 windows! I'm sure they are not all there just for looking out of.

 

[holmec]

A module like that could use a Sharper Image ion air filter to keep the air clean. Low power use. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

It's always nice to have one bubble window on the station. Like on some other the submerged sea stations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[xojackso]

Pounds Per Launch.<br /><br />One can surely launch a <i>deflated</i> inflatable station with many fewer launches than a <i>disassembled</i> station, which would make the whole enterprise less expensive. This could make the entire difference between having space tourism and not having space tourism, or space tourism as the plaything of billionaires only.

 

[teije]

Question:<br /><br />What is the LDEF?<br />Thanx adv.<br />Teije

 

[vogon13]

Long Duration Exposure Facility<br /><br />Prior to Shuttle Challenger accident, a large satellite was constructred and covered with all kinds of materials. Structure was placed in orbit by a shuttle flight before accident. It was retreive from a very low orbit by a shuttle shortly after flights resumed. Materials were exposed to zero-G, solar radiation, temperature cycles, atomic oxygen, etc. while in orbit to evaluate their suitabilty for use in space. LDEF nearly re-entered without being picked up due to long halt to shuttle flights after Challenger accident. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[Astrosag]

Only Bigelow (sorry for misspelled if I did) came up with this idea? <br /><br />If not, are there reasons as to why NASA rejected something like this in the first spot- seems like an overwhelming winner when compared to rigid modules I suppose? <br /><br />Also wouldn't you have problems with labs or heavy machinary, electrical (actually all) systems...basically not be able to have what we currently have on the ISS? And even more importantly, can the inflattables survive impacts from debris as well as the ISS can?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...can the inflattables survive impacts from debris ..."</font><br /><br />The sixth post of this thread (by me) already addressed this question.

 

[liquidspace2k]

Hmmm, this really got me thinking what would use less electricity<br />The Camera on Outside of Station/ flexible flat screen TV<br />or a Window<br /><br />The Camera/Flexible flat screen TV needs electricity to run the equipment. But you can turn it off when no one wants to look outside. <br /><br />The Window needs electricity to keep the temperature inside more constant. Windows bleed lots of heat and let in lots of unwanted heat. Unless they use some type of windows on the station that stops this. <br /><br />Which would be safer for the Astronauts on the inside. The Camera/Flexible flat screen TV or a Window. <br /><br />The Window would let in more radiation then the Camera/Flat screen TV. The Window would have a higher chance of cracking and leaking. <br /><br />Which one would actually weight less.. The Camera/Flexible Flat Screen TV and all the wires to power it and to run the video, or a Window<br /><br />I think the Camera/ TV could have some benefits that a window can't have, the Camera could be on a small arm on the outside of station, and it could be used to inspect that side of the station, at least a certain area of that side. And the TV could be used for other applications such has watching Movies, and Video Conferences to the ground. <br /><br />What would be better for the Space Station, I don't have the expertise to say exactly but with my guessing would be the Camera/TV<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Only Bigelow (sorry for misspelled if I did) came up with this idea?<br /><br />If not, are there reasons as to why NASA rejected something like this in the first spot- seems like an overwhelming winner when compared to rigid modules I suppose?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No, Bigelow did not come up with the idea. It's been around for a while. In fact (and somebody correct me if I'm misremembering) I believe he actually bought the concept from TransHab.<br /><br />NASA was actually working with TransHab for a while, though nothing was ever made official in terms of an actual contract to build an actual ISS module. They courted NASA for a long time, then when the Hab was cancelled, TransHab tried again and almost won, but the budget cuts killed it. Basically, nothing past "core complete" is getting further funding right now, so there's zero chance of an inflatable ISS module at the moment.<br /><br />The main reason why it didn't get accepted immediately was because it hadn't yet been proven in space. Every new technology has that same hurdle to go over, and it can be a killer. It hasn't flown, so you haven't proven you can give a really reliable bid on the contract. Throw in the fact that TransHab was a relative unknown when they started out, and it's easy to see how they lost to more conventional concepts from the likes of Boeing. It's not neccesarily wise or correct, but it's how things tend to go in that business.<br /><br />That's why Bigelow's interest is so important to TransHab's future. He's willing to gamble more than the government is. This could pay off big-time for him. Unlike NASA, his primary concern is cost. Their primary concern is often schedule.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Also wouldn't you have problems with labs or heavy machinary, electrical (actually all) systems...basically not be able to have what we currently have on the ISS? And even more i</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Hmmm, this really got me thinking what would use less electricity. The Camera on Outside of Station/ flexible flat screen TV or a Window.</font><br /><br />How about a window with shutters?<br />

 

[grooble]

I'd prefer the camera option. Those windows are a weak link. Turn the whole side of the wall into one massive curved flatscreen and 100s of tiny cameras outside giving an accurate view. You won't get blinded if you looked at the sun, it could filter out the worst bits and you'd see the sun in spectacular detail.<br /><br />It could all be recorded and relayed back to earth, folks could watch on the internet.

 

[nacnud]

Great, but I can see a picture of the world from space with a couple of clicks of my mouse. I have seen endless films taken from planes but every time I fly I am glued to the window, even if it is cloudy. <br /><br />I would want a window, its just not the same on TV.

 

[grooble]

Isn't there supposed to be a big honeycomb shape one for the ISS?

 

[omacar]

I have been teased with infatables for years now and nothing has happened. i wish that congress had the cojones to let NASA build transhab a few years ago but it would not and it will not now. until Sir Richard and Bigelow do it with Virgin Galactic Nasa will sit there hopeless

 

[space_dreamer]

I totally agree nacnud, however a big screen as well as a few windows would be cool.

 

[Astrosag]

Thanks for the prompt and thorough reply CalliArcale.<br /><br />Thanks mrmorris as well.

 

[spacester]

The two main attractions to LEO tourism will be (IMO) microgravity (the "free-fall" sensation) and the awesome view.<br /><br />I see no reason why the initial facilities must combine the two at the same time.<br /><br />Thus, a windowless playground attached to a multi-windowed cupola makes the most sense.<br /><br />Later, the two features could be experienced at the same time. This would be a logical progression and help drive repeat and follow-on business. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tychotospace]

better option;<br /><br />inflatable module(for zeroG play) connect with normal very small module with small strong windows with 360 degree view. <br /><br />like this one there is already for ISS be launched soon, its made by Italy, called Capula I believe.

 

[mrmorris]

<br /><font color="yellow">"...inflatable module(for zeroG play) connect with normal very small module with small strong windows with 360 degree view ... called Capula I believe. "</font><br /><br />So how exactly is this different from what spacester proposed in the post you're replying to:<br /><br /><font color="orange">"...a windowless playground attached to a multi-windowed cupola makes the most sense....</font><br /><br />Or for that matter how is either different from what I posted on the first page of this thread:<br /><br /><i>"Personally I think they should make the hab modules windowless, and have a secondary 'cupola' module similar to the one for ISS for sightseeing."</i><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />