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."

42 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Parallel by StevenHenderson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nature reports that an inflatable re-entry vehicle could one day carry astronauts or robots to the surface of Earth or Mars

    Well, hey if they can do this, I'm gonna go ahead and use my water wings to go down Niagra Falls!

  2. Paging Dr. Schlock... by Robotech_Master · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...I'm sure that eminent mad scientist from Sluggy Freelance can attest to the efficiency of inflatable technology...

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    1. Re:Paging Dr. Schlock... by abb3w · · Score: 3, Informative
      No, he's definitely referring to Dr. Schlock from Sluggy Freelance, the time travelling expert in inflatable technology.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  3. Inflatable? by keiferb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hear "inflatable", and instantly think of the three pool floats we had to replace each year because one sprung a leak. Our first AeroBed also springs to mind almost as quickly as it sprung its first, second, and third leaks.

    I'm no astrophysicist, but isn't something like this going to be fairly prone to puncture by even the tiniest of debris?

    1. Re:Inflatable? by erick99 · · Score: 3, Informative
      This is the only part of the article that even hints at the durability of the "craft":

      The surface is made from a tough, flexible polymer coated with a paint that can withstand temperatures of around 900 C. The exact composition of the paint is a closely guarded secret, says Joachim Thäter, an engineer at RRSS.

      I was more amazed that it can withstand the heat of re-entry when you consider that the ceramic tiles on the shuttle glow red from the friction of the atmosphere.

      Probably there is far more detail that clears these things up but I doubt the average non slashdot reader is all that picky about the details.

      Cheers,

      Erick

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    2. Re:Inflatable? by JacquesItch · · Score: 4, Informative


      I was more amazed that it can withstand the heat of re-entry when you consider that the ceramic tiles on the shuttle glow red from the friction of the atmosphere.

      Mars' atmosphere is much thinner than Earth's so it wouldn't generate nearly as much heat.

      JacquesItch

    3. 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
    4. Re:Inflatable? by WhiplashII · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The space shuttle goes up to about 1500 C as I recall. Designs like this rely on rapid decelleration at high altitude, so they do not get as hot. It basically depends on your exposed surface area to mass ratio. An inflatable object gets a very large surface with very low mass, so it works well.

      As an extreme example of this, back in the Apollo days there was a design for an inflatible parachute to allow one person to return to earth wearing nothing more than a Mercury-class space suit!

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    5. Re:Inflatable? by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, however, there are two factors that make this a far easier technical challenge:

      A) An inflatable structure like this has a *much* larger surface area. The goal here is not to "soak up" the heat, but to radiate it away. This is largely surface area limited. This allows it to keep the temperature down.

      B) The very large cross-sectional area of an inflatable reentry system allows the craft to begin to slow down from air resistance at higher altitudes. Not only does this mean that the craft doesn't need as much fuel for reentry, but it allows for a steadier velocity reduction profile.

      C) Lower temperatures of reentry make *huge* differences. Look at the tensile strength of aluminum alloys at different temperatures, for example, here's some data on Aluminum AA 1100 O (a cheap aluminum):

      Temperature (K) Tensile Strength (MPa)
      53, 172
      183, 103
      242, 96
      328, 90
      386, 69
      441, 55
      503, 41
      566, 28
      628, 20
      691, 14

      Here's data from a good aluminum alloy - AA 7178 T76 T7651:
      53, 730
      183, 634
      242, 606
      328, 572
      386, 475
      441, 214
      503, 103
      566, 76
      628, 58
      691, 45

      Now, we're not dealing with an aluminum parachute or anything here - aluminum is just something that I happened to have data for offhand. However, you often see tensile strength fall off like this with most materials. Temperature is a *very* important factor.

      --
      I'm you from the future! We have to finish our time machine before the Angels of Destruction find the portal!
    6. Re:Inflatable? by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, it's not like we have any gigantic inflatable structures that last for very long periods of time out there.

      Oh, wait, we do: They're called "Blimps".

      The bigger you make it, the *safer* it is against puncture resistance. Blimps require tears a number of inches long to pose a threat. Micrometeorites aren't exactly going to be a big problem here.

      I'm glad to see this finally implemented; it is the next logical reentry step. Huge surface area and huge cross-sectional area. It'd be wonderful - it would even reduce the amount of fuel you need for reentry.

      --
      I'm you from the future! We have to finish our time machine before the Angels of Destruction find the portal!
  4. I've seen this movie before... by dlleigh · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Except it was Jupiter that time.

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

  5. Human factor by Himring · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Such inventions are what's needed if those who promote the "human factor" of space exploration are to prevail. 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. However, it does sound like this device being used as a "life boat" is serendipitous. Actual efforts along these lines should be more pursued on a project level. If we want to put people in space then we need to assure their safe return....

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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
  6. 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 MikeMacK · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe they used parachutes to help land the rovers, so they do work. I think the atmosphere is thin, but with a big enough chute it will help to slow it down.

    2. 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.
  7. Hey, if they can make inflatable furniture by Jakhel · · Score: 3, Funny

    and inflatable women, why not make inflatable space ships? Now all we need are inflatable monkeys to put on the ship and we'll be set to go

    1. Re:Hey, if they can make inflatable furniture by griblik · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cool.

      Let's go :)

      --
      Warning: May contain nuts
  8. Dream come true by bman08 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's my dream to one day, science and god willing, successfully land on the surface of the earth.

    1. Re:Dream come true by jepaton · · Score: 5, Funny

      Science has known how to do this for a long time, they call it "jumping".

      For more information:

      Jump Training Techniques

  9. Re:What happens if... by TykeClone · · Score: 5, Funny

    The same thing that happens in cartoons - it will make a farting noise and zip back and forth until it stops, at which point it will realize that it is not obeying the law of gravity, say "Yipes" and fall.

    --
    A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  10. "I don't know, Scotty." by Gulik · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Maybe it's just the idea of an inflatable rubber starship that bothers me."

    Anyone else getting How Much For Just The Planet? flashbacks?

  11. and what about... by Docrates · · Score: 4, Interesting

    where's the "journal" in journalism?

    This article should have also talked about:

    - micormeteorites hitting the capsule
    - thrust capabilities, if any
    - why it is incompatible with the shuttle
    - some background on the company (beyond the press release)

    Just like the blurbs the other day: We found aliens, they're gray and tall, three eyes and the males have breasts. SETI says so. Then a day later.... JK!, JK! there're are no aliens hidden behind the moon impersonating basketball players... we swear!

    --

    There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
  12. RTFA by kmmatthews · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's for re-entry, not for general flight in space.

    It's the heat shields that are inflatable, and they are armored - e.g. not the same material as your pool floats...

    --
    feh. stuff.
    1. Re:RTFA by WormholeFiend · · Score: 5, Funny

      "It's the heat shields that are inflatable, and they are armored - e.g. not the same material as your pool floats..."

      It's only a matter of time before ThinkGeek starts selling pool floats made from orbital re-entry material.

    2. Re:RTFA by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Funny
      It's only a matter of time before ThinkGeek starts selling pool floats made from orbital re-entry material.
      Used orbital re-entry material, I should hope. That will earn you some extra bragging rights... "Yup, yup, that thing you're floating around on has actually been in outer space!".
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  13. 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 charliekowalchuk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Look, unless you happen to be a rocket scientist, perhaps you should leave the heavy thinking to the NASA engineers. (I happen to be one, but think of me as a wanna-be myself, as I am transferring over to the Electric space propulsion division soon)

      Anyway, I would agree to your comment, that yes, due to Mars gravity, it would be hard(er), well harder 40 YEARS AGO. Technology and efficiency have taken great strides these past 40 years, and we feel confident in our ability to make a rocket that does what its supposed to do.

      I can tell you, that Mars manned missions have been fully detailed with many many different mission paths that could be taken. For instance, using Ion propulsion and launching from the International space station or the moon are one of the many possibilities that have already been detailed by many scientists and engineers.

      Give NASA a little faith; you don't need to back seat drive them like some little ol' lady.

    2. Re:How do we get back??? by glpierce · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just bring a really big rubber band and throw it over a pair of mountains. Sheesh.

      --
      G
    3. 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.

  14. FINALLY! by p51d007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The "heat shield" is back! For 20 years, every American launch used an ablative heat shield for reentry. At least someone is starting to use it again, than trying to "fly" back from space using something so fragile that it could be damaged by a piece of foam insulation going several hundred miles per hour. Ditch the shuttle and bring back ELVs

    1. Re:FINALLY! by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Informative
      At least someone is starting to use it again, than trying to "fly" back from space using something so fragile that it could be damaged by a piece of foam insulation going several hundred miles per hour.

      Dude...it's not the foam insulation at several hundred miles per hour that's the problem. It's the pound-and-a-half of foam plus ice that's the trouble.

      The kinetic energy of 750 g of foam at 240 meters per second is about 22 kJ. That's about the energy delivered in ten high-powered rifle shots , or in the neighbourhood of a hundred rounds from a moderately-sized handgun. The leading edge of the Shuttle wing that took the collision is already one of the most heavily reinforced parts of the Shuttle, and it's made with a carbon-fibre composite material--not the brittle tiles. Even so, the foam was a lot more abuse than we could expect it to stand.

      When the oxygen tank blew in the Apollo 13 service module, there was a great deal of concern at NASA about it because they were afraid that it might have damaged their heat shield. In that case, they tried the reentry anyway, because (as with Columbia) there wouldn't be any good way to effect rapairs or launch a rescue. It turned out all right, but there were a lot of nervous engineers. I expect that faced with a couple pounds of material at five hundred miles per hour, the Apollo heat shield wouldn't have made it either.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  15. Finally,.... by ImaLamer · · Score: 3, Funny

    ......now my inflatable girlfriend and I can ride in style.

    --
    Get your Unix fortune now!
  16. Oh dear by stormhair · · Score: 2, Funny

    They'll have to blow it up before it'll work

  17. Funny Typo. by g0bshiTe · · Score: 3, Funny
    "Nature reports that an inflatable re-entry vehicle could one day carry astronauts or robots to the surface of Earth or Mars."


    I will be able to tell my children of the day man set foot on Earth.
    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  18. Mission to Earth by tedhiltonhead · · Score: 2, Funny

    carry astronauts or robots to the surface of Earth or Mars

    Maybe one day we'll even send people to Earth!

  19. The can fill it with hot air. And... by CFD339 · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's a huge oversupply of hot air right now which should keep prices low.

    In fact, I think there is a huge storage facility currently for excess hot air in New York at Madison Square Gardin.

    -- ;-) --

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  20. Hope they think it through... by payndz · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Great. We forgot the damn foot pump. Okay, Bob, start blowing..."

    --
    You must think in Russian.
    1. Re:Hope they think it through... by bwy · · Score: 2, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, the space ship blows up YOU!

  21. 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.