Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Inflatable Spaceship Ready for Test

Posted by michael on from the please-leave-all-sharp-objects-at-home dept.

colonist writes "Nature reports that an inflatable re-entry vehicle could one day carry astronauts or robots to the surface of Earth or Mars. The heat shield (that can withstand 900 C) and the parachute are inflatable. The advantage of inflatable structures is weight: a 130 kg vehicle can carry about 200 kg of cargo back from the space station. The vehicle is made by Return and Rescue Space Systems."

10 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. I've seen this movie before... by dlleigh · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Except it was Jupiter that time.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086837/

  2. Parachute? by GoMMiX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I didn't think a parachute could work for a mars landing because the atmosphere was so thin...

    1. Re:Parachute? by TykeClone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldn't this be more like the "bouncy landing" that the first mars rover did?

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  3. How do we get back??? by bcarl314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know I've posted this before, but the major problem in going to Mars, and to me one which is the most significant problem which we did not have with moon missions, is that Mars, unlike our only natural satellite, has a gravity about 75% that of earth. Meaning that the escape velocity is significantly higher on Mars than on the moon and that some tiny fire-cracker punch won't get you into orbit. So, getting to Mars may not be a problem, but getting off, with enough feul to make it back will be. In fact, I would guess that you'd need to construct a fairly significant lauch vehicle on Mars just to get off the planet.

    1. Re:How do we get back??? by bcarl314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not trying to tell NASA what to do, I'm simply stating a fact that we aren't in Kansas anymore. This is not some little rock with 10 % of the earth's gravity, and unless I missed some major advancements in the past 40 years, the basic physics behind gravity still applies here.

      I need to emphasize that I don't think GETTING to Mars is going to be a problem, I think getting OFF Mars will be a problem. Regardless of whether we have some low-orbit module that will break our orbit from Mars and get us back home, we still need to shoot that lander from the surface into a low-Martian orbit. This is where I think the real problem lies.

      Look at the size of the rockets we need, and the supporting infrastructure to build, and launch even a 1 ton payload. Granted they won't need to be that large to get them off the surface of Mars, but they will need to be significantly larger and more effecient that what was used on the Mooon.

      I do give NASA alot of faith, but it seems that either through budget cuts, poor administration, or confusing the Metric System with the English system, they have raised some doubts in my mind.

  4. Re:Human factor by Paulrothrock · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The shuttle, while a marvel of engineering, is a very inefficient way to get to and from space. It's not modular, so you're always launching the entire craft every time, complete with bricks, wings, control surfaces and landing gear which are of no use in space except to provide a bigger target for orbital debris. This means that a simple crew transfer that would be possible for $100 million costs $1 billion.

    NASA should focus on a decentralized program of craft development. Have a group that makes crew capsules, the best damn capsule they can. Another group works on propulsion systems, which would also be modular, and still another works on cargo systems. Rockets could be built using only the components that are needed.

    A major factor in improving costs is to make the engines and pumps retrievable. That way, all we're throwing away would be pressure tanks, which can be manufactured cheaply.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  5. Re:Inflatable? by Down_in_the_Park · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you compare the form of the Space shuttle, which has to fly and land later on, and the re-entry vehicle, you probably notice that it is a kind of inverse parachute and thus by design slower. Afer all it doesn't have to land on wheels.

    --
    "People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."

    B F
  6. Re:Human factor by bziman · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Killing a shuttle full of astronauts for purposes of some objective experimentation in space isn't worth it. Providing best-possible-safety and life preservation is what's needed at this point.

    I'd just like to point out that the two major catastrophes that have happened in the Shuttle program didm't give any time for a "life boat" to do any good. We didn't really think there was anything wrong until it was too late.

    As far the "worth it" factor, I wanted to be an astronaut when I grew up. And now that I've grown up, and I understand danger and death, I would still like to be an astronaut, danger be damned, because objective experimentation in space is everything. And the people involved in the space program believe in what they do too, or they wouldn't take the risk. They're not going to put themselves wrecklessly in harms way, but they know that sometimes things go wrong.

    So, I think it's a bit silly for you to tell them it isn't worth it. Also, as nearly as I can recall, we've never lost a crew in space, including prior to the shuttle program. All of the accidents have happened inside the atmosphere, at which point you're taking chances even in a regular airplane.

  7. There's NO AIR IN SPACE to blow the damn thing up. by leftie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The ship may be inflatable, but thay have to HAUL THE AIR TO INFLATE AN INFLATABLE SHIP TO SPACE. Comressed air may not weigh a whole lot itself, but the big ass metal bottle you have to put air into to haul it anywhere has a whole lot of weight. This concept might have value as an emergency vehicle of last resort, when it doesn't matter if you transfer the air out of a station because you're evacuating it. That's about the only circumstance I can see use for the concept.

  8. Re:Human factor by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Insightful
    A major factor in improving costs is to make the engines and pumps retrievable. That way, all we're throwing away would be pressure tanks, which can be manufactured cheaply.

    Not necessarily.

    The cost of retrieving the engines and pumps might be non-trivial. The cost of testing each engine and pump after retrieval will certainly be non-trivial. Also, each individual engine and pump in a reusable system would have to be significantly more expensive to design and manufacture. You'd be looking at a service life measured in hours, rather than minutes; they would have to survive being dropped into the ocean multiple times--heck, you'd have to make the damn things float; you have to be able to cut them out of the old craft and install them in the new; you have to be able to open them up to repair or replace parts...

    Throwing them away might well end up being cheaper.

    --
    ~Idarubicin