What might ISS's succesor look like?

[willpittenger]

How do you attach things like the station RMS and truss system to an inflatable module? Would a conventional module be needed for those? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[docm]

Bigelows inflatables have a box core made of hollow beams that are attached to the docking port mounts at either end with openings for wiring, conduit etc. A propulsion bus attaches to the hub which is of conventional construction and in most images I've seen either 4 or 6 way.<br /><br />Seems to me this makes the system internally trussed and quite strong if the hub connections are what they should be. <br /><br />Pic of the cross section below, patent description here (United States Patent 20040250503);<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION<br /><br />The multi-purpose beam has a tubular like structural member with a cross section being generally oval, circular, box, triangular, or polygonal, or a combination thereof. There is a plurality of dividers inside the tubular like structural member that extend the length of the tubular like structural member and divide the inside into a number of cavities.<br /><br />2. The multi-purpose beam according to claim 1 wherein at least one cavity adapted to receive a conduit contains a conduit and the conduit conducts electricity.<br /><br />(other numbers describing use for liquid, gas & air)<br /> /><br />BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION<br /><br />[0001] 1. Field of the Invention<br /><br />[0002] This invention relates to a multi-purpose beam for use in a space environment to support a human habitat module or other space structure. The multi-purpose beam functions to provide structural support, facilitate airflow, and provide a housing to protect conduits while at the same time allowing access to the conduits.<br /> /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

You can see them in use in the below image. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

How about an image showing something attached other than another module from the outside. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[docm]

All I have is a rendering of the hub & power bus attached to a BA-330. <br /><br />Just a thought; the ISS module chain is long and the modules narrow, making external stiffening necessary. BA's are short & fat so for a given volume less external stiffening would be required. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

In essence, what you are showing, is that conventional modules (here nodes) are required. The truss connects up like it is a module. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[docm]

That section on the left is a multi-directional propulsion bus (MDPB) for maneuvering, not a truss. The truss is internal by way of the framework.<br /><br />There is another version with a vertical engine & legs for landing, the idea being that modules could be landed & linked to form a lunar base. The below pic is the closest I've seen to what Bigelow has described. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Internal trusses provide only structure for that module. They provide nothing attach something like a RMS to. That has to go on the OUTSIDE. Ditto for the trusses to which you attach solar panels and radiators. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[docm]

We'll see, won't we? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

Bigelow modules have a solid docking port connected to the internal frame. Nodes can be docked to the port to allow trusses, other modules and propulsion busses attached. The outer skin of the craft isn't designed to have a robotic arm stressing against it - and an RMS would get in the way of the "arching" solar panels. Bigelow seems to be in process of creating the "PC" of space station components - several pieces that plug together in all sorts of interesting ways. <br /><br />Can I get a shout-out for commoditized hardware?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[dreada5]

I'll be more certain when he gets Sundancer or, better still, BA330 up <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> but I think Bigelow is really creating the future of <b>"crew accomodation"</b> here (minus the holodeck) and he has a monopoly on it!<br /><br />I wonder in 10-15 years time how, if successful, Bigelow's modules will influence the development of NASA's lunar outpost, a Mars-bound CEV or space tourism's stations/cislunar vehicles?

 

[docm]

I have no doubt there are people planning ships using Bigelow's tech. The advantages are just too numerous. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

They will certainly influence the design of <i>somebody's</i> lunar outpost, considering Bigelow has already got designs for exactly that on the drawing boards. Bigelow talks about lunar construction. And NASA has been talking to him, and others.

 

[dreada5]

Thanks for that. Very interesting! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[docm]

Also interesting is Bigelows 2 hour interview last August on The Space Show;<br /><br />http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/543-BWB-2006-08-24.mp3 <br /><br />This was before the "moonbase" article on Cosmic Log and business plan announcement, but still very, very interesting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> I have no doubt there are people planning ships using Bigelow's tech. The advantages are just too numerous.</i><br /><br />Yup. Here on the low end, I'm planning on buying a couple of used BA330s (once CNN recycles their first station) to hard-land a retirement home on Mars. <br /><br />8)<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[dreada5]

ThereIwas, someone said on your link:<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>big orbital and moon projects are very interesting... but... <br /><br />ready available rockets (Ariane, Atlas, Delta, ecc.) costs (around) $10M per mT launched to LEO <br /><br />the new Ares' family (including the shared R&D costs) may reach $20-30M per mT to LEO <br /><br />also IF a 20 mT manned capsule or module unit price will fall to $1M its "total price" will still be: <br /><br />20 mT x $10M (Ariane5 pric- per-mT to LEO) = $200M + $1M = $201M <br /><br />so (assuming this very low "$1M" price for a manned 4-seats private capsule) the "price-per-seat" is: <br /><br />$201M / 4 seats = $50.5M per seat... <br /><br />but, since (at least) one of them MUST be a professional pilot, the real price per-passenger is: <br /><br />$201M /3 = $67M per-passenger-seat <br /><br />same problem to launch a space module or an unmanned robot or EVERYTHING you want <br /><br />all space project will always face a "problem" our planet has from 4.5 billion years: "gravity" <br /><br />then, the step/effort #1 of ALL space projects/companies must be: "LOW PRICE PER mT TO LEO" <br /><br />IF companies like SpaceX will (REALLY) succeed in build cheap (but RELIABLE) rockets, all plans may happen <br /><br />while, if they don't succeed (or the price will remains in the EELV/Ares range) they will remain DREAMS <br /><br />so, my suggestion is: LESS time and money "payloads dreams" and MORE money and efforts on "rockets" <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />But I think those dreams are real possibilities and should be developed now. Because despite launch costs, ISS is being built and cheaper heavy-lift rockets <b>will come</b> that will allow cislunar stations/moonbases etc to also be built!

 

[j05h]

Those costs for capsule seats are 3-10x higher than real, current prices (soyuz) and projected prices (SpaceX Dragon). 10 days on the ISS now costs around $20m, not $67M. And the poster is assuming a 4-seat craft whereas Dragon is 7 seats, Soyuz 3 seats, etc. Using Ariane 5 costs is a non-starter, as there are no current proposals to fly people on one. <br /><br />The real challenge is to drive flight frequency up, and this does mean more, better payloads. Preferably with paying passengers on the other end. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

I am not sure that the $20M that Russia charges for a Soyuz seat is actually one third of the cost of a launch, so this may be comparing apples and oranges.

 

[j05h]

<i>> I am not sure that the $20M that Russia charges for a Soyuz seat is actually one third of the cost of a launch, so this may be comparing apples and oranges.</i><br /><br />Not from an end-user standpoint. It doesn't matter if it costs $200M to fly the thing, they charge about $20M per seat. If you want the whole capsule (w/ pilot), it's going to cost more. RKS or Energia charges NASA $44/6months for lift up and down and lifeboat. Since they are the only ones in the world offering LEO access as a commercial service, those are the going rates for LEO access. <br /><br />I'd challenge that any crew launch system has to meet or be lower than Soyuz to survive, whether it's for commercial or govenment use. Soyuz is simply the standard in 2007. If another crewed system comes on line, sooner or later the people writing the paychecks will hold Soyuz up for comparison.<br /><br />Dragon, if projections are anywhere close to reality, will be roughly competitive and eventually undercut Soyuz. CEV is looking to be an order of magnitude more expensive and not commercially available. DreamChaser has unknown costs but is intended for commercial launch. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Just $44 for six months? Why does that sound cheap? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[dreada5]

Check out the ISS interior 3D tour on the new <b>Interactive Reference Guide</b> feature at www.nasa.gov<br /><br />Makes you wonder what it'd be like to have a Bigelow BA-330 module attached to ISS as a crew hab module in the middle of next decade!<br /><br />If it did happen, the crew would have soooooooo much space for recreation as well as work, it'd seem like sci-fi.... only it be real! <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[dreada5]

Got the link:<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/ISSRG/index.html