Inflatable module for ISS

[peadar1987]

Space stations clearly need to have some volume. At the moment, that's created using rigid pressure vessels. If you can create the same volume with less mass of structural elements, as inflatable habitats seem to have the potential to do, then you've achieved the same job with less mass, which is kind of what optimising spaceflight is all about.

We're not talking about making the ISS, only 6x bigger so the crew have space to play tennis and do interpretive dancing, we're talking about a successor to the ISS which could continue its mission without so much cost associated with putting the necessary habitable volume into orbit.

[Teamwork]

It's designed to deflect debris hitting it at 30000kph and you're worried about someone kicking a hole in it? I think we're building things a bit differently these days, regardless.

I think you're off by a x10 here but yeah I definitely agree with you.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Teamwork

[Nibb31]

it's kind of interesting that NASA is deciding NOW to install a habitat module for the crew, given that that was in the original plans but was cut as it was found to be unnecessary (given you don't need a designated bed in orbit; just take your sleeping bag and stick it to a wall anywhere in the station and BOOM, instant sleeping berth!)

Where did you get that this is a habitat module? It's an experimental module without life support that is as big as a cupboard. Its purpose is to test long term exposure of the materials. It will likely be used as storage space, maybe even for trash, and will spend most of its time on orbit with the hatch closed. It most certainly will not be used on a regular basis.

[vger]

Where did you get that this is a habitat module? It's an experimental module without life support that is as big as a cupboard. Its purpose is to test long term exposure of the materials. It will likely be used as storage space, maybe even for trash, and will spend most of its time on orbit with the hatch closed. It most certainly will not be used on a regular basis.

The design is based on things NASA was developing on, with habitat modules being the ultimate goal.

And... it's considerably larger than a cupboard.

[Kibble]

you've achieved the same job with less mass, which is kind of what optimising spaceflight is all about.

Cutting down mass is only one component of optimizing spaceflight. Being economical, robust, and simple are equally important. Inflatable pressure vessels are more complex, have more failure modes, and are less economical because of how much work it takes to convert one from big empty space to a useable facility. Not that this means they have no use, they would probably be good for expanding a preexisting space laboratory for some more volume, without the cost of a Proton payload class rocket flight. But they certainly won't replace the aluminium-can configuration which has worked so well for the past 44 years.

[bigdad84]

Straight from Wikipedia:

How BEAM will ultimately be used by astronauts is still under discussion, but NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver suggests that the station crew would enter the module "a few times a year to collect data", and that the hatch would otherwise remain closed.The interior is described as being "a large closet with padded white walls", with various equipment and sensors attached to two central supports.

[Bill Phil]

it's kind of interesting that NASA is deciding NOW to install a habitat module for the crew, given that that was in the original plans but was cut as it was found to be unnecessary (given you don't need a designated bed in orbit; just take your sleeping bag and stick it to a wall anywhere in the station and BOOM, instant sleeping berth!)

They have designated sleeping areas.

- - - Updated - - -

Cutting down mass is only one component of optimizing spaceflight. Being economical, robust, and simple are equally important. Inflatable pressure vessels are more complex, have more failure modes, and are less economical because of how much work it takes to convert one from big empty space to a useable facility. Not that this means they have no use, they would probably be good for expanding a preexisting space laboratory for some more volume, without the cost of a Proton payload class rocket flight. But they certainly won't replace the aluminium-can configuration which has worked so well for the past 44 years.

It takes less launches to get the same volume. And the BA 330 is in the proton class. But it has about the same volume as Mir. That's more economical, in # of launches and cost per kg.

It would only take a few flights to set up. Maybe even only one. Compared to the half a dozen for Mir, that's an improvement.

All spacecraft have many failure modes.

[FishInferno]

Straight from Wikipedia:

How BEAM will ultimately be used by astronauts is still under discussion, but NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver suggests that the station crew would enter the module "a few times a year to collect data", and that the hatch would otherwise remain closed.The interior is described as being "a large closet with padded white walls", with various equipment and sensors attached to two central supports.

Why not just leave the hatch open all the time and use it for storage?

[LABHOUSE]

It's not inflatable. The proper term is expandable. It is made of several layers of which I imagine Kevlar (or something similar) is at least one of them. Most tiny debris particles vaporize upon hitting the first layer of protection, meaning there's much less for the subsequent layers to stop.

It's another launch I'm looking forward to. It must pack up pretty small if it can fit in a Dragon's trunk.

Inflating and stretching are different, inflation is a type of expansion.

[AbhChallenger]

Why not just leave the hatch open all the time and use it for storage?

Because it is not certified for long term habitation. It is not going to suddenly pop and depressurize the station. But there is the remote possibility that it could have other unforeseen issues. Such as material breaking down and entering the atmosphere. Outgassing etc..

Normally an experiment would be a free flying experiment attached to a service module. However, the station is being used for what the billions of dollars that went into it were meant for. A host for an experiment.

Long story short. It does not require crew wasting time interacting with it to prove it is a worthy technology for future stations and bases.

[Camacha]

Why not just leave the hatch open all the time and use it for storage?

Maybe there are risks, or potential risks, and they do not want to run this risk all the time.

[magnemoe]

They have designated sleeping areas.

- - - Updated - - -

As in cabins or bedrooms, they are tiny think capsule hotels.

It takes less launches to get the same volume. And the BA 330 is in the proton class. But it has about the same volume as Mir. That's more economical, in # of launches and cost per kg.

It would only take a few flights to set up. Maybe even only one. Compared to the half a dozen for Mir, that's an improvement.

All spacecraft have many failure modes.

You still need the life support, power docking, you also need all the science equipment, however much of the smaller one is on a standard rack for ISS, the benefit of berthing is that you can have an larger hatch and move these pallets, you also want an arm, one of the benefit of ISS is that its an cheap place to long term test stuff in space, just plug it to the station, it even have power. This is also the purpose of this test inflatable module to test it long term in space, they even get to test how it smells after long term in space

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe there are risks, or potential risks, and they do not want to run this risk all the time.

its some risks as in its not an crew certified module. It might also be that storing stuff in it could fool the outgasing analyze.

[Bill Phil]

As in cabins or bedrooms, they are tiny think capsule hotels.

You still need the life support, power docking, you also need all the science equipment, however much of the smaller one is on a standard rack for ISS, the benefit of berthing is that you can have an larger hatch and move these pallets, you also want an arm, one of the benefit of ISS is that its an cheap place to long term test stuff in space, just plug it to the station, it even have power. This is also the purpose of this test inflatable module to test it long term in space, they even get to test how it smells after long term in space

That's still a sleeping area. Bedrooms can be small, as long as the house is big enough. They also don't want to float around and bump into stuff.

All space stations need life support, power, science, etc. The life support and power are built into the BA 330. Maybe the first crew could set up everything if another cargo vessel is docked at another port. But that crew should be staying for a decently long time anyways. And the benefits outweigh the costs. Large volume for one launch and being cheaper? It means that more money can be dedicated to the missions, allowing the set up to happen.

It's good that's it's being tested on an already functional station.

[peadar1987]

Cutting down mass is only one component of optimizing spaceflight. Being economical, robust, and simple are equally important. Inflatable pressure vessels are more complex, have more failure modes, and are less economical because of how much work it takes to convert one from big empty space to a useable facility. Not that this means they have no use, they would probably be good for expanding a preexisting space laboratory for some more volume, without the cost of a Proton payload class rocket flight. But they certainly won't replace the aluminium-can configuration which has worked so well for the past 44 years.

Which is why they need to be tested. Complexity is hardly a dealbreaker in spaceflight.

[magnemoe]

This begs the question: How did we ever explore our own planet if human's don't have the fortitude to survive "trapped for months in a box, knowing that death is just outside your door"? Death is just outside the hull when you're on a ship, too. Whether you know how to swim or not, falling off a boat at sea is about as lethal as falling off a cliff. You might survive but chances are you won't because your melon sized head is very difficult to spot.

Falling overboard on a large sailboat has another issue, you have to change the sail setup to turn or even stop, this require getting lots of people up in the masts.

If you fell overboard while the sails was moved you could have an chance, if not no.

Ocean passages in the age of discovery would take months or years, the ships they used were tiny and cramped, and the statistical probability of reaching home again wasn't very good for the average crew member. Storms, disease, hostile natives, etc. all took their toll yet people still went. It may be difficult to understand for someone who's only ever known a comfortable urban life, but there are plenty of hardy people in the world who not only can survive harsh and isolated conditions; they thrive in them.

Yes its a good thing else we would have problems having an military. Yes its an adventure, and yes Tolkien is right about adventures, however you would look back on it fondly

Still the age of exploration and before was far out in danger level, not military service, not even modern commandos or special forces, more like the guys who parachuted out over .... controlled Europe , living conditions was worse.

- - - Updated - - -

That's still a sleeping area. Bedrooms can be small, as long as the house is big enough. They also don't want to float around and bump into stuff.

All space stations need life support, power, science, etc. The life support and power are built into the BA 330. Maybe the first crew could set up everything if another cargo vessel is docked at another port. But that crew should be staying for a decently long time anyways. And the benefits outweigh the costs. Large volume for one launch and being cheaper? It means that more money can be dedicated to the missions, allowing the set up to happen.

It's good that's it's being tested on an already functional station.

Would it not be just as smart to put life support on an separate module and leave more room in the core. And yes I agree for deep space exploration it would be an very good idea, also for an ISS replacement or secondary station.

[Bill Phil]

Would it not be just as smart to put life support on an separate module and leave more room in the core. And yes I agree for deep space exploration it would be an very good idea, also for an ISS replacement or secondary station.

While this works, it still will not have the same 60 kg per cubic meter ratio of the BA 330. Ironically, the much smaller Sundancer module had a better ratio.

Mir had about 370 kg per cubic meter. The ISS is worse off, but there are many trusses and other pieces of external equipment that are accounted in that.

Modules such as this are interesting because you would launch less payload for a lot of volume. A very valuable asset on missions to anywhere outside Earth's SOI.

[Vanamonde]

With regard to some removed posts, keep it on-topic, please, and the language filter exists for a reason, so please don't play tricks to get around it, okay guys?

[Beowolf]

I'm not sure it would be too wise to jump around too much. I suspect to make it as light as possible, they had to make the walls fairly thin, like the Apollo Lunar Module cabin. the skin in the LEM, as it was commonly called, were so thin that you could easily puncture it

I saw a recent update on that old story. In 1969 there was no good household comparison, so they talked about "layers of aluminum foil", which gave people the wrong impression. But we have a great visualization today. If you look at a picture of the LEM, the pressure hull looks like a can lying on one side, with the cockpit windows in one end. That hull was about triple the thickness of an aluminum can's skin, and holding only about one-third the pressure of a shaken soda can (4.8 psi vs. 15 psi). So they landed on the moon in a soda can. An astronaut could have punctured it if careless with a screwdriver or other tool, but not easily by-hand. Without the pressure and shape adding stability though, I bet you could crumple the hull metal in the palm of your hand.

Viewed from that perspective, it almost seems like a conservative design. Triple thickness and one-third pressure? Really, NASA?

[RainDreamer]

Wow, I never thought that a concept of possible space station module get this kind of heated discussion. I guess it shows how passionate we are with space technology.

On topic though, I wonder how viable are inflatable modules as non-pressurized storage modules. Like, uh...orbital fuel storage (bad idea, I know, but just popped in my mind)? We wouldn't have to pump in filler air to keep the fuel feeding into the engine, since the whole module can expand and collapse with the fuel content, right?

Edited March 17, 2015 by RainDreamer

[peadar1987]

Wow, I never thought that a concept of possible space station module get this kind of heated discussion. I guess it shows how passionate we are with space technology.

On topic though, I wonder how viable are inflatable modules as non-pressurized storage modules. Like, uh...orbital fuel storage (bad idea, I know, but just popped in my mind)? We wouldn't have to pump in filler air to keep the fuel feeding into the engine, since the whole module can expand and collapse with the fuel content, right?

With a vacuum outside, the only thing trying to force fuel out of the tank is its own vapour pressure, so you're going to have problems getting it to the engines without cavitation in your fuel pumps.

[Nibb31]

On topic though, I wonder how viable are inflatable modules as non-pressurized storage modules. Like, uh...orbital fuel storage (bad idea, I know, but just popped in my mind)? We wouldn't have to pump in filler air to keep the fuel feeding into the engine, since the whole module can expand and collapse with the fuel content, right?

That's called a bladder tank, and it's already used for space applications, mainly in RCS systems.

[PB666]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36016045

Well folks, it grabbled.

[Frida Space]

And now they signed an agreement with ULA to launch a B330 module in LEO (SpaceX didn't have big enough fairings to accomodate for the size of the module). I'm wondering who's going to pay for it -- it seems like Bigelow is silently hoping NASA will (partially) fund it.

spaceflightnow.com/2016/04/11/atlas-5-to-launch-commercial-space-habitat-for-bigelow-aerospace/