Slashdot Mirror
Hotel Tycoon Pushes Inflatable Space Stations
heptapod writes "Reclusive millionaire and motel tycoon Robert Bigelow has announced launching inflatable space stations through his personal aerospace firm. He's working off of NASA's TransHab designs and hopes to get launch one as early as November 2005! I'm sure after someone wins the X Prize they'll need someplace to stay the night. I wonder if each inflatable station module won't come with complimentary bibles."
Well, a 5 star hotel is considered the cream of the crop but what about a hotel full of stars? Now that I got your attention, inflateable hotels? What about all space debris floating around up there? I read that there's over 2000 pieces of space junk floating around up there. What would happen if one piece of space debris hit an inflateable part of this hotel? That would definitely be a damper in my vacation plans.
Space debris could be very catastrophic, but the chances of being hit by it are still miniscule (compared to say a launch failure or being killed on the way to the launch pad).
While the X-Prize is a great thing -- and I'm personally crossing the Pacific this weekend to watch SS1's flight on Monday -- the current and upcoming generation of private spacecraft are still a very long way from being able to visit an orbiting hotel.
The good news though is that some companies do have a business plan for how to get from here to there in incremental, low risk, steps, and while making a profit along the way. XCOR, for example, has such a plan, financing later development with suborbital tourist flights and a few small satellite launches and sounding rocket replacement flights.
Scaled Composites may well have such a plan, though they haven't said yet what it is. But a story in today's Dominion Post (Wellington, NZ) originally from the Washington Post) (free registration required) quotes Burt Rutan as saying that suborbital flights are likely to start at US$30k - US$50k and drop to US$8k - US$12k in a second generation vehicle. That's a) a lot lower than the US$98k Space Adventures is planning to sell XCORs initial flights for, and b) indication that Scaled do in fact have an ongoing plan (d'oh).
What good is a bike pump in a vacuum?
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
What about all space debris floating around up there?
may be some will think, these hotels are space debris
After someone wins the X prize they will be back on the ground very soon, because the X prize is just for 100km altitude, not entering orbit. Entering orbit is very much harder (8 km/s delta-V instead of about 1 km/s). I dare say there will be follow-on competitions (such as the X Prize Cup) but it'll be quite a while before a privately-developed launcher makes it to orbit.
Zealotry != (strong) religious faith. You may find it hard to understand, but others don't always want what you've got. That's why I keep my strong religious convictions to myself, and don't cram them down others throats, unlike many others.
If they make this work then in short order they could have a station with more inhabitable volume than ISS for a fraction of the cost.
That's great, but how are you going to get people to your new station?
To put people into space you have to send them up on a man rated launcher. The only people with those right now are NASA, RKA (Russia) and CNSA (China). There are no private launchers capable of putting people into orbit and won't be for a considerable amount of time.
Al.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
Eh? Why does this qualify him for 'nut job' label? Just because he's doing it "outside the established scientific order"?
If you really think that someone independently investigating para-normal activity, without kow-towing to the 'powers that be' who have already failed to provide sufficient answers to these things (yes, cow mutiliation is real, no, nobody knows why it happens), then you, sir, are the nut job.
Here's a book you should read, Obedient Peon. Happy Authoritarian Day!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
"To put people into space you have to send them up on a man rated launcher. The only people with those right now are NASA, "
You may or may not have been noticed, but NASA does not have the capability of putting humans on orbit in 2004. Its doubtful that they will have this capability in 2005.
Even worse, US government organizations, like NASA, are not allowed to purchase a seat for their astronauts on Soyuz, and i doubt that Shenzou seats are for sale at the moment.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
"I wonder if each inflatable station module won't come with complimentary bibles."
Actually hotels sign contracts for the Gideon Bible. I would imagine Budget Suites/Bigelow Properties is under this contract.
The author of the slashdot post may not enjoy reading the Bible, the editor that didn't remove the blatant phishing comment may not enjoy reading the Bible, but there are those of us who do read. Even if it is for diversity rather than spiriutual growth.
I mean honestly, you are either going to have to take some reading material or a gameboy - you're not going to be able to go out on the beach for a stroll or to get a picture with Mickey.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Ok, people wrote that hull breaches caused by rubbish in orbit are not an issue, but what about radiation? I would think you need more than a layer of kevlar for shielding against that...
"Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-my-own-Grandpa." - Dr Hubert Farnsworth
Well if you are going to be a truly logical person you cannot discredit the theory that God exists because there is not logical proof that God doesn't exist as well. They are plenty of mathematical problems that cannot be proven but they seem to be true, because no one has found a way to disprove it. By saying I don't believe in God because there is no 100% proof that God exists. Is like saying I believe there has to be God 100% because of these small reasons.
I do believe in God but I know that there is a possibly I could be wrong. But that possibility can be for anything, what I perceive as reality could be fake too. I could or we all could be a brain in a jar being feed false stimuli in a universe where the laws of physics are completely different then here, and how would I know the difference. But because I believe that I am in a real universe so must I assume it is real because I cannot disprove that I am not. My faith in God is the same.
Some religious folks have told me that there is no such thing as believing in God with less than 100%. Either you believe or you don't. But, alas, it comes to no surprise that people can't even agree on that assertion.
Personally I do agree that the nature of faith is in accepting things as ultimate truth without conclusive evidence. With this criterion, disowing God is also a religious statement (believing something without conclusive evidence).
This leaves agnosticism (whether empirical or naive type) as the only truely logical choice. If there is no conclusive evidence, there is no established fact. Belief and logic do not mix.
I believe in the possibility of god.
But not in the religions man has created to govern man in gods name.
Science is the Real TRUTH!
OK then, I am going to trust this guy with my life in a hostile environment. Right.
Why not? It's basic scientific method: cattle are being mutilated, no-one knows who's doing it, let's watch and see if it happens again. It's not like he bought the ranch and turned it into a landing field for UFOs is it?
Well if you are going to be a truly logical person you cannot discredit the theory that God exists because there is not logical proof that God doesn't exist as well. They are plenty of mathematical problems that cannot be proven but they seem to be true, because no one has found a way to disprove it. By saying I don't believe in God because there is no 100% proof that God exists. Is like saying I believe there has to be God 100% because of these small reasons.
Yes, but all that applies to unicorns too - but I don't see people arguing for existance of unicorns. In fact, it applies to an infinite number of things, anything that we could conceive, but can't disprove.
The poster didn't say he believed God didn't exist, but rather implied that he simply didn't believe in God.
Not believing on the basis of a lack of evidence is perfectly reasonable, unless you're willing to believe in absolutely anything and everything that hasn't been disproved.
But because I believe that I am in a real universe so must I assume it is real because I cannot disprove that I am not.
But you can't disprove that you're a brain in a jar, so why don't you believe that too?
What would be more useful, and impressive, is independently verifiable evidence that is predicted by a simple and logical theory.
Faith is the most important component of belief. If there was independently verifiable evidence, there would be no need for faith.
Proverbs 21:19
Well as it was Jesus who said it I would assume he meant for you to follow his example. Which was one of actions not words. (He did good things and encouraged others to do good things and seek the God, but he did it in a very civil manor, not forcefully, and didn't force ideas upon others that didn't want to hear them.) :) But not everyone is very good at spreading words without being a dick, so I think those people should just stay home :)
So I take it to mean spread the word, but don't be a dick about it
Don't tell people about your religion. Give them a reason to ask about your religion.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
...the chances of being hit by it are still miniscule...
While the chances of the occupants being killed if it did happen are probably 100%. You gotta look at the important angles first. Is it worth the risk?
I was once contacted by someone from this organization, and they didn't strike me as nutjobs. I work at Vandenberg Air Force Base, where we launch rockets and occasionally cause weird lights in the sky, especially during twilight launches.
These folks simply called to verify that reports of lights in the sky they'd received did indeed correspond to our launches. As far as I could tell, they were simply interested in investigating and explaining claims.
Now, maybe they do have nutjobs there, but investigating physical phenomena doesn't automatically mean you're crazy.
Really, it's not such a bad idea. If they can stop micrometeorites as well as a metal frame, that's what really matters. I can't see a good reason why rigidity should be important across the whole station - only at key points, such as docking ports, and perhaps a hollow frame to mount inflatable modules on.
:)
There's another real advantage to this method that hasn't been mentioned yet: radiation shielding. If you build your station out of plastic instead of aluminum, you'll get far better radiation shielding (it's the hydrogen atoms that do the best job!). Furthermore, aluminum is a kind of nasty metal to use in extreme circumstances because as it warps, it stiffens and eventually will break (metal fatigue). I don't know the sort of stresses that a station is subject to, but I'd imagine that at least the day/night temperature changes provide some stress.
Now they just need to get Dr. Schlock involved... he'll know what to do.
Carbon, made, only wants to be unmade.
You may or may not have been noticed, but NASA does not have the capability of putting humans on orbit in 2004. Its doubtful that they will have this capability in 2005.
NASA has the capability--they just choose not to use it. The bureaucrats are scared to move, even though they know what caused the Columbia disaster. The astronauts want to fly!
i doubt that Shenzou seats are for sale at the moment.
China has embraced the market. Those seats would be available, for the right price.
There's another real advantage to this method that hasn't been mentioned yet: radiation shielding. If you build your station out of plastic instead of aluminum, you'll get far better radiation shielding (it's the hydrogen atoms that do the best job!).
Depends on the type of radiation being shielded against. High-Z is better for gamma shielding (and shielding against secondary x-rays from other types of radiation, though using low-Z reduces the amount of this). You also have a bulk disadvantage with low-Z materials (though in space, it's weight and not bulk that matters, so you're stuck no matter what).
Furthermore, aluminum is a kind of nasty metal to use in extreme circumstances because as it warps, it stiffens and eventually will break (metal fatigue).
Aluminum itself has very low fatigue strength, but in practice aluminum alloys with better characteristics are used. Google for "duraluminum", an alloy commonly used for aircraft, for one example.
For space uses, the cost of launch dominates over the cost of materials, so you can afford to use as expensive an alloy or composite as you like in the structure. Materials problems typically occur due to design oversight (e.g. carbon composites being etched away by the atmosphere), as opposed to cheap materials being used.
Inflatable stations are still an interesting idea, though. If I recall correctly, the "Cosmos" solar sail was going to be inflatable, to save on mass (a rigid craft would have to be sturdy enough to survive launch, requiring extra mass).
With all of the space junk floating around up there (nuts, bolts, bits of paint, shards of metal, etc...) his inflatable space station would be Swiss cheese in a matter of days. Just ask NASA how many times the IIS has been hit (the modules are protected by layers of Kevlar to guard against just these types of impacts).