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."
The x-prize is for a sub-orbital shot only. So they won't need a place to stay for a while yet.
Of course, once the proposed yearly x-prize competitions get going (races for height, shortest turnaround etc), it may only be a few years before a private party is able to launch people into actual orbit. Then it will be cool if someone has an of-the-shelf inflatable habitat ready for use.
He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
"...also funds the National Institute for Discovery Science, which investigates unexplained phenomena. It is particularly concerned with reports of cattle mutilations associated with UFO-type activity (such as strange lights in the sky). In 1996, Bigelow bought a Utah ranch from a couple who claimed that it had been dogged for years by "anomalous phenomena"; the businessman then installed scientific researchers and surveillance equipment to document activity."
OK then, I am going to trust this guy with my life in a hostile environment. Right.
I will wait until the mark X model is tested. Thank you very much.
Just because it's "inflatable" doesn't mean that it can't take a hit. You're not talking about a penny rubber ballon here. Even a rigid structure doesn't take hits well at the velocities encountered in space. And you'd actually have less chance of a breach with low impact collisions with a non-rigid structure. And the 2000 number awfully low, I think that's the activly tracked stuff.
By not having to send up a rigid structure, you can save on weight and space, resulting in considerable savings, as you can send up a larger structure with less assembly in space required.
Besides, by the time you inflate one of these to 1 atmosphere, the pressure difference between that and outside you'll have a very rigid structure. From looking at the articles, parts of the structure are rigid, providing points for preset 'utilities'. The expandable portions would be to provide space.
I don't read AC A human right
Folks there are plenty of jokes about an inflatable structure but they need not be so fragile as one might think. After all bullet proof vests are largely kevlar.
& co ntent=http%3A//www.spacex.com/falcon_overview.php
Transhab had to deal with the problem of micrometerite impacts same as any manned space structure. Not to mention once you deal with much besides a micrometeorite it dosn't matter what the building material is.
On the positive side this could be a serious boost to private space ventures. This guy wants a 3/4 hab up next year ? Falcon V can boost 4000kg+ to Stations orbit for 12 million if all goes well.
http://www.spacex.com/index.html?section=falcon
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.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Never underestimate the power of gas filled bags. The Mars rovers even use them!
Space, for the most part is an empty environment. Once in space, the aerodynamics of the craft don't matter much. We have very strong synthetic fibers, make huge kevlar-like inflated bubbles. Big enough to dissipate the energy, or deflect the object. Use honeycomb like layers, and it could probably be made from replaceable pieces, in the (I'm thinking, unlikely) event of a puncture.
It would have to be assembled in space, and even large enough to encompase the craft to get to, and for use on the planet surface.
If your going to go anywhere REALLY far away....wear a bubble!
Space debris could be very catastrophic,
Well, put it this way: a pressurized metal container can shatter if you hit it with enough force. An inflated structure would most likely take a pair of small punctures.
Of course, wither way you don't want to be in the way of that micrometeoroid while it's shooting through your space station, but if you're in a metal can, it might be coming at you with additional shrapnel that you've provided.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It's really bugging me that I can't remember ANY of the details, but I recall reading about a revolutionary new polymer with molecules that lined up to give a thin sheet the same effective radiation blocking ability as a much thicker sheet of lead. Obviously, this would be a major boon to space travel where weight vs radiation shielding tradeoffs are (reluctantly) made at every step. If anyone out there knows what the hell I'm talking about and has a link, PLEASE post it and preserve my sanity...
Suppose instead of two thin membranes with air in the middle this 'bubble' were actually several layers of membranes inflated with a gel capable of sealing any minor impacts. Multiple layers would help to slow the velocity of any object that can penetrate the initial membranes while the gel could congeal around the hole creating a seal. We know the military is working on 'fluid' armor that goes rigid on impact as well.
Such a scenario might actually be safer than the 'tin can' approach as the 'bubble' could heal itself.
I would also be curious if a lead powder suspension could be used in such a gel that could possibly serve as radiation shielding.
I've been looking over the Bigelow patents on USPTO site. Check out "inflatable satelite", "...thermal management" and "spacecraft sleeping berth" for some of the things they have been working on. The most revolutionary item so far seems to be building an inflatable Transhab-type module, but putting the solid core to the edge of the inflated cylinder. The core has two sets of fold-out floor panels that form two floors, plus the core has a vac-safe section. If there is a puncture, the crew can seal it up and evacuate into another section of their station.
Bigelow on USPTO.gov
start saving those frequent-flyer miles,
Josh
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
This thing will almost certainly be in low-earth orbit (LEO). That keeps it inside the Van Allen Belt, which do the majority of radiation shielding for us.
As I recall (I'm mostly an airplane guy, though I Am a Rocket Scientist), outside the Belt, radiation shielding isn't assured, anyway--it would make the craft far too heavy to launch. The trans-lunar Apollo missions, for example--if a solar flare came along at a bad time, those guys were toast. Sure, they could orient the craft to put as much of it between them and the sun as they could, but for a major solar flare, it wouldn't have been enough.
Sitting in the Belt itself is bad, too. Apollo guys were okay because they only spent a brief time crossing it, but they generally keep satellites out of that region because they wouldn't last long.
Keep the hotel close to Earth, and micrometeorites will be the biggest hazard.
--Riblald
Which explains why Chinese Science was more advanced than Western Science was till roughly 1800.
And also explains why Islamic Scholars preserved the Greek and Roman classics.
And also explains why Algebra has its foundations in the work done by Islamic scholars.[OK, a specific Islamic scholar, if you want to quibble.]
Traditionally, it has been organized Christianity that has opposed scientific progress in the west.
There is no correlation between being a priest, and being a Christian. From roughly 500 CE to roughly 1800 CE, the Holy Roman Catholic Church was the dominant institution in the west. It was the institution that provided education. The net result is that one became a priest, in order to study, or to gain political power. Spiritual conviction had nothing to do with the decision.
And in passing, I'll note that spiritual conviction still is a minor consideration for those who do become priests.
Perhaps if Christians would actually practice the teachings of their holy book, there might be less backlash against them. But when they pick and choose what they want to practice, and believe, then why should they get any respect?
a: That is objecting to something, purely because of the source of the thing.
b: Why don't Christians practice the only diet that the First Testament states does not violate the Aseret ha-Debrot?
a: By that reasoning,organ transplants should be illegal to perform.
b: The First Testament also talks about taking a needed body part from an individual, for the use of another individual --- a body part that the second person needed, in order to live.
OTOH, consistency has never been a strong point with christians, of any sect, religion, creed, dogma, or theology.
Amber
Wind Beneath Thy Wings