Slashdot Mirror


Details On Inflatable Space Modules

Decibel writes "Although it's been mentioned on Slashdot twice now, this article contains more details about Robert T. Bigelow's plan to orbit massive inflatable space habitats, with the first test modules to be launched next year. It also details the $50 million "America's Space Prize", with the objective to "spur development of a low-cost commercial manned orbital vehicle capable of launching 5-7 astronauts at a time to Bigelow inflatable modules by the end of the decade.""

190 comments

  1. Amazingly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    They're always shaped like giant breasts.

    1. Re:Amazingly by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny
      They're always shaped like giant breasts.

      This must be an enormous disappointment to MegaMaid, I'm sure she would have had something else in mind.

      'She's gone from suck to blow'

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Amazingly by AdolChristin · · Score: 1

      Mel Brooks has been the unofficial /. mascot for the past couple of days... Getting back onto topic, I wonder what sort of materials something like this would be made out of, it seems like something without rigidity would be more susceptible to micrometeorite punctures? Remembering of course that I'm Computer Science and not Materials Engineering...

      --
      #include "forums.h"
      int main() {while (bollox) postcount++;}
    3. Re:Amazingly by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Getting back onto topic, I wonder what sort of materials something like this would be made out of, it seems like something without rigidity would be more susceptible to micrometeorite punctures?

      At the velocity anything is moving foam rubber or carbon fibre would be the same thing. After what a paint chip did to sone of the shuttle windows (what, 8" of layered safety glass?) I'd be more worried about larger bits and how to disperse their kinetic energy rather than try to put something rigid in the path (keep in mind, if it's facing away from the Sun it could have a very low surface temperature, thus more brittle.)

      Maybe like one beachball inside another beachball with a layer of sand between...

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:Amazingly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd. I thout that it looked like the Dennies boy

    5. Re:Amazingly by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Man these rocket scientists and engineers are getting smarter all the time. Space literally has the largest amount of air available in the universe. It's not like it's a rare commodity, in fact on Apollo 12, Armstrong wanted some fresh air, so he opened up an airlock.

  2. Xanadu by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's kind of cool to see this idea come to fruition. I'm sure that every child has gone through one of those inflatable castles and wondered what it would be like to have an inflatable house. I myself have often wondered if houses on other planets could be constructed in a manner similar to the late Xanadu. Just inflate the basic structure with just high enough PSI to make it rigid, then spray foam all over it. Allow the structure to cure, and you've got yourself air-tight, super-strong walls that can be repaired from pretty much any damage just by spraying more foam!

    Something to think about, anyway.

    1. Re:Xanadu by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's this, too. The guy does pretty much what you describe but adds some kind of metal infrastructure as well. The structure of this type that was up in the panhandle of Florida through a hurricane fared remarkably well.

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
    2. Re:Xanadu by SDEggbert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Just inflate the basic structure with just high enough PSI to make it rigid, then spray foam all over it. Allow the structure to cure, and you've got yourself air-tight, super-strong walls "

      Then re-use the air...

    3. Re:Xanadu by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 4, Informative
      Allow the structure to cure, and you've got yourself air-tight, super-strong walls that can be repaired from pretty much any damage just by spraying more foam!

      You can start to get respect for these inflatable structures when you realise that normal atmospheric pressure is just about 10 *tonnes* per square meter.

      These structures seem to be made from a woven kevlar material.

      They also have to be able to survive impact from debris in LEO and micrometeors without simply popping.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    4. Re:Xanadu by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Or simply fill it up with expanding foam from the inside.

      --
      Deleted
    5. Re:Xanadu by hernick · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.monolithic.com/ has already constructed many inhabitable earthly structures using this technology.

      They inflate a large plastic dome, and then they start building - from the inside. They first spray 3 feet of polyurethane, which provides excellent insulation. They use the polyurethane as a support for an inner shell of steel reinforcement bars. Once the bars are in place, they spray 3 feet of concrete.

      So, by building from the outside in, they can keep building no matter what the outside temperature is. The plastic dome that gives shape to the structure remains as the outer skin. The building has the strength and thermal capacity of concrete, the incredible insulation of polyurethane, and has the strongest shape known to man.

      This is better than geodesic domes. A bit more expensive, though.

    6. Re:Xanadu by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      These are basically normal concrete sprayed over the inside of a balloon. You can also get foamed concrete which is made up largely of air, or vacuum I suppose if you expose it to space. Some of the attractions of it are, it's very light, as little as 50kg/m^3 and it's a very good insulator which is going to be extremely important in space in direct sunlight.

      I suspect that 50kg/m^3 is probably still far too heavy for space usage, perhaps aerogels will be the materials best suited.

      --
      Deleted
    7. Re:Xanadu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOu sound like an expert on inflatable stuff - I'll bet you have an inflatable wife to go with that inflatable house.

    8. Re:Xanadu by jfdawes · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can start to get respect for these inflatable structures when you realise that normal atmospheric pressure is just about 10 *tonnes* per square meter.


      No, you can't.

      10 tonnes per square meter =
      22,046 pounds per square meter =
      22,046 pounds per 1550 square inches =
      About 14.2 psi.

      You can exert more pressure with your little finger.

      FTA: The ISS is pressurized to 14.7 psi. Skylab was 12. These inflatable things are going to be about 10.
    9. Re:Xanadu by Pigbot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But how does it fair against micro meteorites? I can see it doing fine under most circumstances, but there are some very fast, very small rocks in space that can fly through a foot of concrete. Even the space shuttle gets them embedded in the glass of the windshield, and we are talking the best glass money can buy.

      Unless they use some kind of technology like "seal a flat" in the walls, I can't help but to wonder if the idea is really all that feasible.

      --
      print "Oink!\n" if ( $tail =~ "pull" );
    10. Re:Xanadu by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      I'd like to see you try to keep in the atmosphere of a space habitat entirely with your little finger :-)

      It does actually matter that you have *lots* of inches. And the energy stored in the compressed gas is pretty high- you'd certainly know it if one of these things burst.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    11. Re:Xanadu by alokeb · · Score: 0

      Hell... I thought this was for inflatable rubber dolls...

    12. Re:Xanadu by spike+hay · · Score: 1

      I've heard an interesting plan for a moon base: Make a big carbon fiber fabric bubble. Inflate to 14 PSI. Spray it with special epoxy that will solidify in the harsh lunar sun. Then, pile moonrocks on top of it. The rocks, of course, will weigh little due to the low gravity.

      With only a couple hundred pounds, you have a ready made structure that shields against cold, heat, vacuum, and radiation.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    13. Re:Xanadu by ChickenAintDone · · Score: 1

      I imagine they're using the best fabric money can buy.

  3. Damn... by grub · · Score: 4, Funny


    I'd love to see the "Trojan Condom" logo on that thing. Talk about great product placement.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Damn... by elementus · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's all good til they have a hole in one of them. Then guess which company's condom's aren't going to be bought as much.

      --
      Bad karma for correcting people I always say.
    2. Re:Damn... by AGMW · · Score: 1
      I'd love to see the "Trojan Condom" logo on that thing. Talk about great product placement.

      So the Trojan Horse was full of soldiers, perhaps the Trojan Condom would be full of seamen?

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
  4. Fools! by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Funny

    Inflatable space modules are all well and good--until The Terrorists(tm) develop a gigantic space pin!

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Fools! by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Funny

      US officials believe terrorist WMD programs have already developed a more advanced version of the gigantic space pin, called the gigantic space needle and that it is hidden in a giantic haystack somewhere in Iraq.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Fools! by Guano_Jim · · Score: 1

      No, it's the Canadians who will take out any inflatable space modules.

    3. Re:Fools! by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 4, Funny

      terrorist WMD programs have already developed a more advanced version of the gigantic space pin, called the gigantic space needle

      Oh No, they already got it into Seattle!! We're all doomed!!

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
    4. Re:Fools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do random debris and mini-asteroids count? If so, then god is a terrorist too!

    5. Re:Fools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not needed. We will simply give the laser info to Haliburton and let them sell that to the terrorists.

    6. Re:Fools! by spitzak · · Score: 1

      My god! Microsoft and the terrorists are working together! Look where they stashed that space needle!

    7. Re:Fools! by izakage · · Score: 0

      Pop! Pffffffffffffffffffffft. Oops.

    8. Re:Fools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space Ghost: Really? Oh boy! Hey, you wanna put on some pressure suits and go outside and see my interplanetary monument to the safety pin? (dramatic music, BooBooKitty floats by outside the studio window, Space Ghost doesn't notice) I just erected it.

      (BooBooKitty floats toward giant open safety pin outside, dramatic music)

      Moltar: Hey, Space Ghost, look out the window.

      Space Ghost: (sees BooBooKitty floating by) Well, BooBooKitty! Come crawlin' back to Daddy, huh?

      Moltar: Isn't she drifting precariously close to your big pin?

      Space Ghost: (gasps) Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...

      (BooBooKitty drifts closer to pin)

      Space Ghost: ...ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo... (takes a breath) Nooooooooooooooooooooo...

      (BooBooKitty drifts closer and closer, finally connects with business end of safety pin, punctures & spins off out of control)

      Space Ghost: I warned Christo, I told him we needed a rubber safety tip! (as BooBooKitty jets by outside the window)

      Zorak: (stares at Space Ghost)

      Space Ghost: What, you guys saw me, there's nothin' I could have done.

    9. Re:Fools! by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Crap, I even live here and didn't think of that joke!

      In a related note we are the heroin capital of the US.... Really.

  5. The biggest challenge by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I would love to see someone take on the biggest challenge, articulated nicely here in the article:
    The new contest also presents challenges far greater than the X Prize by requiring development of a vehicle that could maneuver to dock at well over 100 mi. altitude and survive a 17,500-mph. reentry.
    The big problem, in addition to getting enough thrust to get up to that speed (and into a stable orbit), is how to get down! Ever climb a tree so high that you couldn't figure out how to get down? The analogy is much worse in outer space. The whole idea is, you have an atmosphere that you'll be blasting through at that speed, 17,500 mph or so, and you need some way to decelerate and deal with the heat... good luck to those going ahead with this...
    1. Re:The biggest challenge by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We discussed a possible solution just a few days ago. The only thing I didn't mention is that the Falcon V would be a good alternative choice for launch vehicle. Especially given how much Boeings prices tend to fluctuate upward for newcomers.

    2. Re:The biggest challenge by antifoidulus · · Score: 0

      I think an even bigger challenge is to get a real doll into deep space orbit. That way aliens can experience the "finer" aspects of human beings, and maybe the won't be so quick to eat all of us, even the men as we are needed to make more females....well until the aliens come with their advanced science that is....damn

    3. Re:The biggest challenge by Jormundgandr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is not such a big problem. People have been doing it successfully for 50 years. The early orbiters didn't even use fancy-schmancy ceramic tiles to keep them safe, they just used tough heat-resistant ablatives to protect the soft, delicious astronauts inside.

      As for the deceleration, all that atmosphere tends to help, especially when you deploy parachutes ;)

      Seriously, you make it sound as if inventing a wheel would be impossible today, because small-time inventors don't have the massive government funding those 10,000 b.c. technicians did.

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
    4. Re:The biggest challenge by gomiam · · Score: 3, Funny
      Ever climb a tree so high that you couldn't figure out how to get down?

      Yup. Still there.

      (Note to self: do not climb to trees looking for better WiFi access)

    5. Re:The biggest challenge by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 1
      This is not such a big problem. People have been doing it successfully for 50 years. The early orbiters didn't even use fancy-schmancy ceramic tiles to keep them safe, they just used tough heat-resistant ablatives to protect the soft, delicious astronauts inside.
      No no... I'm sorry. My whole point is that the challenge, as I have understood it (and perhaps I'm wrong) , is that this needs to be reusable. The space shuttle, for instance, is something that could go into orbit, come back down, and be reused. The Apollo modules weren't reusable, and I don't think anything that was really inexpensive (compared to say, the $50 million prize) has been made that's reusable. So how do you propose to build something reusable that meets all the above criteria?
    6. Re:The biggest challenge by XaviorPenguin · · Score: 1

      My question is that since it is inflatable and space is a vaccuum, wouldn't the inflatable device implode on itself?

      --
      Friends help you move...
      REAL Friends help you move dead bodies... ^_^
    7. Re:The biggest challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's working!! You're online!! Why would you ever come down?? And the view is bound to be better than from your moms basement.

    8. Re:The biggest challenge by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you read my response? A Big Gemini capsule could easily meet the requirements. Especially on the reentry part. All that's needed is a classic epoxy/silicon heat shield, then the parawing for landing. On the ground the heat shield would be peeled off and replaced, the parawing repacked, and the capsule would be ready for relaunch.

    9. Re:The biggest challenge by nick-less · · Score: 1

      My question is that since it is inflatable and space is a vaccuum, wouldn't the inflatable device implode on itself?

      Think it over again, the vacuum is *outside* and the air is *inside*, so why should it implode?

    10. Re:The biggest challenge by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 1

      you have an atmosphere that you'll be blasting through at that speed, 17,500 mph or so, and you need some way to decelerate and deal with the heat

      I'm an idiot when it comes to space, and I find this concept hard to grasp.

      Okay, so the space station is going at about 17,500mph to stay in orbit, I get that. You undock from the space station and head for Earth.

      Now, why can't you use thrusters to decelerate to 0mph and then just get 'pulled in' by gravity? I understand that gravity will eventually acclerate you to a pretty nasty speed, but couldn't you use thrusters of some kind to keep the speed within a certain level? Or would those thrusters require an impractical level of fuel?

    11. Re:The biggest challenge by XaviorPenguin · · Score: 1

      Oops! Sorry! Blond moment! ^_-

      --
      Friends help you move...
      REAL Friends help you move dead bodies... ^_^
    12. Re:The biggest challenge by sbeitzel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now, why can't you use thrusters to decelerate to 0mph and then just get 'pulled in' by gravity?

      Well, what are you going to be pushing out of those thrusters? The really basic problem with space travel is that we like to think of it like terrestrial travel: we want to be able to make big changes in velocity over short periods of time. The problem is that in space, there's not a lot of stuff to grab onto and throw around. About the only thing you've got lots of is light, but photons aren't very massive, so solar sails take a long time to effect a large delta-vee.

      So, there's not a lot of stuff lying around. So, bring some with you! Except, for each ton of stuff you bring up the gravity well, you have to throw away several tons in the process (check out the relative size of the space shuttle and the liquid fuel tank and solid rocket boosters it uses to get up into orbit). Those extra tons of propellant translate directly into dollars, and that's what makes it expensive to get up there and then come back.

      This is why people are constantly looking for a way to get stuff up into LEO without burning up lots and lots of propellant. Space elevators, balloons, high-altitude airplane launches...

      --
      Oh, go on, check out my job.
    13. Re:The biggest challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like you found WIFI access though. Hope you have a really long power extension cord.

    14. Re:The biggest challenge by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

      While it might be difficult to protect control surfaces, I can't think of anything else that would really be lost by expanding an ablative surface to cover the whole cockpit/rocket assembly, which is basically what a reusable orbiter is.

      You'd have scrape off the rest of the ablative coating and apply another before the next launch, but I think that still makes your ship reusable.

      Control surfaces might be pretty tough to pretect that way though. There are other ways besides traditional control surfaces to maneuver an aircraft though. The ones that immediately come to mind are plasma thrusters already installed for orbital flight and smooth, bendable control surfaces rather than hinged ones.

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
    15. Re:The biggest challenge by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      But the upper stages of the delivery vehicle would either burn to a crisp in reentry or orbit forever. You can't get full reusability in a capsule design because a capsule doesn't have engines built-in.

      Now, granted, someone could come up with a hybrid design that might work, but it certainly is far from trivial.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    16. Re:The biggest challenge by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

      The other reply to this comment is correct in saying that yes, this WOULD require horrendous amounts of fuel. The problem is that it takes time to do that deceleration, and in the time between 17500 mph and 0 mph you've already fallen into the atmosphere. So you'd need a way to slow down so ridiculously fast that gravity's pull hadn't got you by the time you're going 0.

      To allow the immortal Douglas Adams to sum up: gravity glances up and demands to know exactly what the hell you think you're doing up there.

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
    17. Re:The biggest challenge by emmons · · Score: 1

      The beauty of offering a prize like this is that there will be LOTS of groups of very intelligent and educated people thinking about the idea. One of them just might figure it out. The answer is that right now we don't have it figured out.. if we did, what would be the point of a contest? But, just because we don't have it figured out now doesn't mean there isn't a solution to be found.

      The primary problem with government-funded programs is that they rarely do anything cheaply. There is virtually no incentive for those in charge of such programs to figure out cheaper ways.

      --
      Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
    18. Re:The biggest challenge by jcr · · Score: 1

      why can't you use thrusters to decelerate to 0mph and then just get 'pulled in' by gravity?

      You could, but that's far from the most efficient way to get down. The way we do it today is we burn the engines long enough to drop you into a low-enough orbit that atmospheric drag can take it from there.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    19. Re:The biggest challenge by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

      How about using a nice long bit of maglev track and zoom some craft down it until it hits escape velocity. Hit the ramp at the end, fire its onboard rocket to help it along and off you go. Now, I would assume this has been thought of. Any ideas why this isn't being developed? Maybe it is?

    20. Re:The biggest challenge by sbeitzel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's been thought of. Heinlein uses it in "The Man Who Sold the Moon" and "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and many others have used the idea as well. It's really cool, and it just seems like it ought to work.

      A while ago (or maybe a couple of whiles...I'm old and I forget details) I read a summary of a report on various launch technologies. (The report was, I believe, from JPL. Someone with more patience for their website than I will probably find it.) But it boiled down to: no way. Not, "physically impossible," but, "hideously expensive and inefficient." As I recall, it took huge amounts of energy - so that even in energy terms it is cheaper to use rockets.

      --
      Oh, go on, check out my job.
    21. Re:The biggest challenge by sjames · · Score: 1

      The space shuttle, for instance, is something that could go into orbit, come back down, and be reused.

      Unfortunatly, it turns out that the 'minor repairs' on the ceramic tiles after each flight is more expensive and time consuming than stripping and re-applying an ablative epoxy heatshield would be.

      It's true that the Apollo capsules weren't reusable, but that wasn't due to the heat shield. Also keep in mind that the shuttle is conservative early '70s technology. We have developed much better epoxys and application techniques in the last 30 years.

  6. Heh by elementus · · Score: 0, Troll

    I just can't wait til one of these goes off accidently. Then it'll be funny. Oh, and by the way, when's Microsoft going to patent this?

    --
    Bad karma for correcting people I always say.
  7. 50 million dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What will they be worth at the end of the decade? Close to nothing?

  8. They should call them... by GillBates0 · · Score: 1
    Robert T. Bigelow's plan to orbit massive inflatable space habitats

    Bigehi's.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  9. The next logical step by L.+VeGas · · Score: 3, Funny

    Line the floor with multicolored plastic balls, and we have a perfect place to keep our space toddlers.

    1. Re:The next logical step by wertarbyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a Zero-G environment, where is your floor?

      --
      Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
    2. Re:The next logical step by jcr · · Score: 3, Informative

      The enemy's door is down! Duh!

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  10. and finally... by Blue-Footed+Boobie · · Score: 3, Funny

    An austronaut gets to yell "Hey NASA, BLOW ME!" and not get nasty looks...

    --
    DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
    1. Re:and finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that an australian or austrian astronaut which makes an austronaut?

  11. Physical Concerns? by waldoj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can anybody explain what, if any, physical concerns exist with the use of an inflatable bladder in space? I can't quite envision how an inflatable object would behave in zero-G (perhaps just like any other object?), but in a vacuum, presumably explosion would be quite a difficult problem. Obviously, they've thought this through, but if somebody could explain the challenge of the proposition, I'd love to hear it.

    I only know enough about this to know that I don't know enough about it.

    -Waldo Jaquith

    1. Re:Physical Concerns? by wetlettuce · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't quite envision how an inflatable object would behave in zero-G (perhaps just like any other object?), but in a vacuum, presumably explosion would be quite a difficult problem.

      Zero-G doesn't matter in this case. Think about when you blow up a ballon, this air pressure inside is greater than outside, it's same in space just the pressure can be much lower to maintian the shape. They probably keep it around normal atmospheric pressure the comfort of the astronauts.

      Make you wonder though, when you pop a ballon with a pin it goes bang...

    2. Re:Physical Concerns? by onkelonkel · · Score: 4, Informative

      If (big if) you inflate to sea level air pressure you need to contain 15 psi. Not a big deal. A bike tire can take up to 100 psi, a plastic 2l coke bottle can take over 150 psi. Make the habitat B I G and it will hold a lot of air. If something pops a hole in it, it will take a long time (many minutes) to deflate. Somebody will have to put down their beer, float over to the hole and slap on a peel-n-stick patch.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    3. Re:Physical Concerns? by MooseByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I can't quite envision how an inflatable object would behave in zero-G."

      I can guarantee Larry Flynt will provide the answer in an exlusive photo spread. ;-)

      Seriously though, it will behave the same as any other object.

      " but in a vacuum, presumably explosion would be quite a difficult problem."

      Not with the proper materials and a good compartmentalized design. Try not to think of it like a birthday balloon. Completely different stuff.

    4. Re:Physical Concerns? by cmowire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just like any other object, in both cases.

      A ballon is a few PSI of pressure higher than the surrounding atmosphere. A inflatable space module is 14.7 PSI higher than the surrounding atmosphere.

      All space modules need to deal with being inflated at 14.7 PSI. It's just that the whole point of the inflatable space module, like the older Atlas boosters, are designed such that they work *with* the overpresure instead of working against it.

      The main problem is if you leak out all of your atmosphere, it won't stay inflated. But generally, it not staying inflated is the least of your problems.

    5. Re:Physical Concerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Think of bubble wrap, instead.

      Especially think of how much fun it is to pop those crunchy little compartments one at a time.

      Now, imagine you're God...

    6. Re:Physical Concerns? by heptapod · · Score: 4, Informative

      The only reason why a balloon goes bang when you pop it with a pin is because the rubber rips and the air is violently released. If you put a piece of scotch tape over an inflated balloon and insert a pin you'll see that the balloon didn't pop but there's a hole. The tape reinforced the balloon and kept the rubber from tearing apart.
      These inflatable habitats would simply leak air. There wouldn't be any Hollywood gratifying explosions.

    7. Re:Physical Concerns? by grazzy · · Score: 1

      Wouldnt it be better to stick to the beer since it'd most likely fly towards the hole otherwise.

      And uhm, the beer, aint we talking zero gravity here? :)

    8. Re:Physical Concerns? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      It's easy not to let it colapse anyway. I presume that a few fiber constructs would do the trick. There is no gravity to let it colapse, let alone presure from outside. And a few bars might be a necesity, otherwise the structure would be lost due to the air currents when a leak presents itself.

      The trick is not to let it leak too much air. The bigger the better I presume.

    9. Re:Physical Concerns? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      In this case 10 PSI.
      (I RTFA and was supprised to see a figure so low)
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    10. Re:Physical Concerns? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      Somebody will have to put down their beer, float over to the hole and slap on a peel-n-stick patch.

      Hopefully, they wont take too long to do it, as that escaping air will be acting as a thruster, creating what Newton called an equal and opposite reaction. That could start the module spinning (in the wrong way) or alter it's orbit. Of course, the more massive the module is, the more resistant it will be to accelerations.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    11. Re:Physical Concerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, imagine you're God...

      OK, I am a god. An eeeeeeeeevil god!

      First I will crush your infereor space baloon and then just for fun, I will throw your precious Milky Way galaxy into (a larger) anti-matter galaxy.

      Then just sit back, grab a beer... um .. ambrosia and enjoy the fireworks!

    12. Re:Physical Concerns? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Having a couple of basketballs floating around would provide a quick way to plug the hole while you're on your way to seal it. The ball will drift with the breeze.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    13. Re:Physical Concerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a thin-walled cylinder at a given pressure, the hoop stress is directly proportional to the radius of the cylinder. Bike tires and coke bottles have relative small radii when compared with one of these inflatable space module bad boys so even though they can take much higher pressures, they aren't necessarily under as high a stress. I would do the calculations to compare the three but the thickness of the walls of the inflatable modules is not given.

    14. Re:Physical Concerns? by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      could we put stuff in to make them asplode then?

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    15. Re:Physical Concerns? by Maxite · · Score: 1
      Need you be reminded that THAT is what happens on EARTH? We're talking about a near-perfect vacuum, so I am quite sure that the gases will escape at a much faster rate than if they have to displace other gases around them then just get out.

      If something pops a hole in it, I'd hope that someone finds that hole quickly. If the structure is just a giant bubble, then once all the air is let out, there's no air for anyone to breathe. If the structure is like a walled one (two layers of material to trap air between them), then after all the air escapes from that, the only support will come from the air that is in the living area.

      --
      Ah, you found me!
    16. Re:Physical Concerns? by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      And car tires are a couple atmospheres above the surrounding atmosphere.

      Bicycle tires (at least for some of us) are 8 to 10 atmospheres above the surrounding atmosphere.

      Staying inflated is probably not a problem for space modules-- they'll probably be made to inflate and rigidize (there are various technologies, some of which are reversible, some not).

    17. Re:Physical Concerns? by Gewis · · Score: 1

      The Apollo craft really only had thin sheets of metal, almost like a rigid aluminum foil, as the only thing between the astronauts and outer space. It was very thin, and an inflatable structure held rigid by the inside air pressure wouldn't be very different, except that it'd be a lot smaller and easier to launch in the first place. Then once it's up, you just blow it up, and voila, you've got yourself an orbital habitat.

    18. Re:Physical Concerns? by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      On Earth or in space makes no difference in this case. The fact that there is an (Oh My God!!) "NEAR PERFECT VACUUM !!" is irrelevant.

      I'm thinking that for big bubbles and small holes the leak rate depends on (a) the size of the hole and (b) the difference in pressure from inside to outside. In space inside 15 psi, outside "NEAR PERFECT VACUUM" 0 psi, difference 15 psi. In a hangar in Pasadena, inside 30 psi, outside 15 psi, difference 15 psi. The results should be the same, no??

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  12. Space Junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hope all the floating space junk/garbage out there in orbit doesn't puncture the module. Maybe they could develop a way to have the side instantly fill the hole with a hardening substance and stop the leak quickly. I think there are automobile tires that do that now...?

    1. Re:Space Junk by cmowire · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are thinking that the walls will be like a rubber ballon.

      The walls will be thick enough to provide the same level of orbital debris protection as existing space station modules. Remember, the Atlas booster had aluminum ballon fuel tanks -- it would actually collapse if the tanks were empty. When other engineers were suggesting it would never fly, they presurized it and gave them a sledgehammer to try to break the booster.

      It rebounded and almost hurt the engineer swinging the hammer.

      The instant-fill holes are harder than you'd think. Instant-fill tire stuff is designed to work in an atmosphere that you aren't breathing.

    2. Re:Space Junk by mrright · · Score: 1

      Slight correction: the atlas ballon tanks are made from high quality stainless steel. Other than that you are correct. The atlas was an amazing design.

      --
      Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
    3. Re:Space Junk by invid · · Score: 1

      Space junk tends to be flying so fast (36,000kmph) that it would damage whatever material your ship was made of. It's better to have something that could be repaired easily. Here's a link on space junk.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    4. Re:Space Junk by stfvon007 · · Score: 1

      What about having watersacks in the walls, when one is punctured, the water coming out will freeze the hole closed. Just need to make the water come out slowly enough to freeze it in place.

      --
      All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
    5. Re:Space Junk by cmowire · · Score: 1

      True, but is the ice going to be structurally sound enough and not evaporate? The advantage of an inflatable module is that it's compact and lightweight, but I'd say that if you want ease of repair for Things That Can't Be Replaced, you'd probably stick with a hard-shelled Aluminum case.

      So a mars probe with an inflatable habitat would end up like the characters in Dark Star -- Sleeping in the meat locker.

    6. Re:Space Junk by jcr · · Score: 1

      What about having watersacks in the walls, when one is punctured, the water coming out will freeze the hole closed.

      Sorry, it's not that easy.. Water suddenly exposed to vaccum will just boil off as vapor. It might settle back on the spacecraft and accumulate as a layer of frost, but there's no way this would work as a self-sealing strategy.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  13. There's no way this will work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Inflatable space-age polymers are nowhere near as durable as they claim.

    Er, so I've heard.

    1. Re:There's no way this will work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up!!
      Funny!!

  14. Micrometeoroids Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm sure it's being addressed but the first thing I think of is the effects of micrometeoroid impacts on whatever skin they're using. Then I wonder about the effects of extreme temperature gradients on the skin. I'm sure rapid decompression of the "air bladder" should the skin be pierced has been considered as well.

    Pardon me if I seem a bit old-fashioned but I'll wait for the answers/results of these questions before I would invest any more time or money into this.

    If it can be done, super! It sounds like it could be an interesting marvel.. if they can pull it off.

    fms,chi

    1. Re:Micrometeoroids Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFM. From the article:

      Covering the straps will be a five-layer micrometorite shield constructed in part of carbon-fiber composites, but using a less costly design than similar NASA shields. The module will have a total of seven layers with the interior inflated to 10 psi. compared with 14.7 psi. for the ISS and 12 psi. for the 1970s Skylab space station.

      More than 50 ballistics tests at the University of Dayton Research Institute and the University of Denver Research Institute were devoted to firing particles of 0.25-5/8 in. toward the Bigelow shield at velocities from about 1.9-4.3 mi./sec.

      "The tests showed we have a shield that performs comparably to NASA's, but at a fraction of the cost," says Brian Aiken, the overall Bigelow program manager. Aiken has extensive experience in satellite design, mostly on military spacecraft at TRW (now Northrop Grumman).

    2. Re:Micrometeoroids Much? by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Informative

      Those micrometeoroids piercing the skin isn't too bad for the bubble. Just a small hole. It's the people and equipment inside that will hate getting sprayed with debris. The way they take care of it on space stations is to create bumpers. An outer shell takes the initial impact. The meteoroid punches through, but shatters and vaporizes, spreading in a plume. The second layer then gets to absorb a reduced impact over a greater area. There's more to it, but that's the basics. To protect an inflatable habitate, it might require a double-bubble, like the Zorb http://www.zorb.com/. Inflate the outer bubble at far less than 1 atm and let it take the punctures. Still have to fix the leaks, but they will be far slower. The inner bubble will be unpunctured.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    3. Re:Micrometeoroids Much? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      I would inflate it with a giant Fix-a-Flat can.

    4. Re:Micrometeoroids Much? by Sneftel · · Score: 1

      To protect an inflatable habitate, it might require a double-bubble...

      Yeees... yes, I see where you're going with this. Just chew up the space station, reform it, and redeploy. Genius!

      --
      The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
  15. No terrorists needed by Linux_ho · · Score: 3, Funny

    All it will take is "Someone Like Larry." They will have to put up signs everywhere: "No playing darts in inflatable space habitat" "Soccer cleats will be confiscated" "DO NOT RUN WITH SCISSORS"

    --
    include $sig;
    1;
  16. Safe Space? by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

    The important part about these inflatable structures is that they are light, right? So they can be lifted easily and still be large. But when I hear "light" the next thing that follows is usually "flimsy".

    Space, even in earth orbit, isn't exactly a safe place. Maybe they could built it so that a water supply surrounded the living quarters to protect against the inevitable solar (and cosmic) radiation, but simple things like pieces of dust, or even the piece of chicken that hit the ISS a few months ago, could be devestating to a flexible plastic structure going thousands of miles an hour.

    I've heard of water protection for the ultra-light space stations before, but how do these guys plan to make their spacecraft leak-proof? Isn't that pretty much the whole point to a space ship?

    --
    -sig removed for tax purposes-
    1. Re:Safe Space? by cmowire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not plastic.

      It's Kevlar fiber, generally, along with a variety of other materials, all of which have been tested in space or are currently on the space station. Just because a cheap injection-molded plastic toy breaks easily doesn't mean that all non-metallic materials are easily broken.

      They've already worked the water supply angle out there. It depends on the project. The Transhab had the water supply going down the center, so you could stay in the shadow of it during radiation events.

      Leakproofing is one of the problems they solve to make it all work. Just because a cheap rubber balloon can't hold pressure for years on end doesn't mean that all non-metallic materials have leaks.

    2. Re:Safe Space? by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

      Sorry for not being precise. I said plastic as a bit of embellishment, not because I thought the ships were really made out of cheap plastic. Kevlar may be able to stop bullets (in some forms) but space debris can pack as much or more kinetic energy than a rifle bullet, and kevlar "inflated" doesn't seem to have much support behind it.

      I also did not mean that the ships would naturally leak, I was referring to puncture events.

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
    3. Re:Safe Space? by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That's what came to my mind first, too. They tout this as a means for building lunar and mars bases. Now, they say they have a new shielding technology. Maybe it's really good and keeps out high energy photons and particles. What remains are the neutrons. To shield these, there are basically two ways: thick layers of either water or solid rock.

      IMHO the only viable way to build a habitat where people are supposed to live for an extended period of time (i.e. years) is underground.

      Might work as a cheap way to build big LEO (below the Van Allen belt) space stations though ...

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    4. Re:Safe Space? by cmowire · · Score: 1

      They just handle space debris like all of the other modules. They use a series of hard-and-soft layers to deaccelerate and absorb the energy of impacts. In order to even be considered for use, it *must* be at least as good as the hard-sided modules. If you RTFA, you'd read that they already fired projectiles at orbital velocity at the module. They found out that it works just fine, except that it's cheaper.

      You also have to remember that astronauts have never actually repaired any sort of hull puncture in space.

    5. Re:Safe Space? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      Uh-uh. It's Kevlar. Sure, it's plastic. But it's used in bullet proof vests, to stop bullets. And Kevlar has an amazing strength/weight ratio- meaning it's stronger than aluminum/titanium/whatever for the same weight of material.

      That's why they want to use it, it's a better material for holding air in. And the Kevlar won't tear if punctured, it will just leak (gently, until you patch it up.) Big holes are unlikely (and instantly fatal whatever vessel you are in)- it's mostly just flecks of paint and micrometeorites they are worried about.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  17. These are not fragile by mrright · · Score: 5, Informative

    With all the needle jokes and condom comparisons one could get the impression that these inflatable modules are less rugged than the aluminium modules now used for the ISS.

    This is not the case. They are made out of multiple layers of kevlar (the same stuff that bulletproof vests are made of). In tests with the NASA-designed transhab inflatable module they have proven to be much more resistant to space debris than aluminium hulls.

    Also even if a particulary large piece of space debris should punch a hole in one of these modules, they are so big that there would be plenty of time to evacuate them before the pressure drops too much. A long-time station will probably also have a repair kit on board.

    Third, the problem of space debris is particulary severe in low earth orbit. But in a higher earth orbit there is much less space debris, and the stuff that is there moves with much lower relative velocities. So from a space debris point of view low earth orbit is the absolute worst case. A station at an Earth/Moon lagrange point or in deep space would need little or no space debris protection.

    --
    Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
    1. Re:These are not fragile by WindBourne · · Score: 1
      Also even if a particulary large piece of space debris should punch a hole in one of these modules

      Easy solution for that. Mount some friken laser beams on the system, add a couple of fins, and we will be eating space junk.

      However, I have to agree with you. Good example is the roof at Denver International Airport. It turns out that it has cost but a fraction of what a regular roof would cost for both initial and on-going. I have been impressed with it. One part did rip under more than 4 feet (4/3 meters) of wet snow, but a number of regular roofs collapsed.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:These are not fragile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Stuff in higher orbits does NOT move at slower velocities. How ridiculous.

    3. Re:These are not fragile by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It will probably be extremely difficult to repair these modules. However, it will be fairly reasonable to keep one or more spare modules lying around and just blow them up as you need them, or more likely, keep them inflated and put them in the path where debris is most likely to strike. In the meantime they can be tied into the structure so that their life support equipment can help take load off the other units and operate redundantly.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:These are not fragile by scowling · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong. Here are two examples:

      http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/ or bmech/vel_calc.html

      http://www.solarsystem.org.uk/datatext.html

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    5. Re:These are not fragile by caswelmo · · Score: 1

      The article mentions that water bladders would be added to the hull after expansion to protect against radiation. I wonder if some sort of powder/liquid could be added to these bladders that, once in place, could turn them hard. Better meteorite & puncture protection (from inside & outside) as well as eliminating floating water in the event that one of the water bladders is punctured. Of course, it may make it harder to get to the hull in the event of a puncture, but that could be helped with how the bladders are designed.

    6. Re:These are not fragile by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

      If they're already know by NASA to be so much superior to the currently used ISS modules, why not use the much cheaper inflatable kevlar to complete the woefully overbudjet and underbuilt ISS?

      You make it sound as if it's a no-brainer. I have the same healthy skepticism of the bureaucrats over at NASA, but a superior design like this couldn't go over the heads of the many excellent engineers NASA (still the largest most successful space agency ever) still attracts.

      I'm sure that if it were simply safer, as you seem to be saying, they'd be using it already.

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
    7. Re:These are not fragile by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      The engineers talk about this kind of stuff all the time - but the management always manages to put the kibosh on the ideas before it can get out of the brainstorming stage. Anything which might cause a major upheaval in NASA's internal bureaucracy structures is to be terminated with extreme prejudice :-(

    8. Re:These are not fragile by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      The Bigelow modules are built using the Transhab technology licensed from NASA, which was initially intended to be used on the ISS. There's some debate over why Transhab funding was cut: some say that it would've required more development time than NASA wanted, or perhaps they simply wanted to stick with aluminum shells because they were more used to them.

    9. Re:These are not fragile by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      > They are made out of multiple layers of kevlar

      Not to nitpick, but they're actually made out of Vectran, which is twice as strong as kevlar and performs better in extreme temperature conditions.

  18. Just like everything else.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...this new frontier of commercial space flights and doing stuff in near space will just lead to one industry taking a lead and pushing the cutting edge while others sit by watching.

    Let's face it, within 5 years there could be space hookers. All the really rich lonely people will push this endeavor.

    Which just begs the question, who will be the premier space pimp? Who will be the Lando Calrission in the next 5 years?

    1. Re:Just like everything else.... by deathcloset · · Score: 2, Funny

      This begs the next question, when will the first space pr0n be made?

      it's a valid question.

      We're all intrigued by the behaviour of fluids in zero G, DONT ACT LIKE YOU'RE NOT!

    2. Re:Just like everything else.... by s4m7 · · Score: 1

      CowboyNeal is already the premier space pimp, you Insensitive Clod!

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    3. Re:Just like everything else.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that dude from that boy band.

    4. Re:Just like everything else.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rats.
      I was hoping someone would have answered with:
      The First Real Space Pimp being:

      SNOOPDOG IN OUTER SPACE!
      He got the spacehos
      and
      they on the roll

      Standin on the corner
      shakin their thing
      Standin on the corner
      of a blingbling X-wing

      Yo. Hey there spacehos!
      A shakin yo rumps
      in da zero g
      makin fly moves
      for all da dope Gs

      Gazzim, Flazzim Skibbledeedee
      Snoopdogs got the SpaceHos
      for all the spacehomies!

      Heeeey
      Hooooo
      Heeey
      Hooooo

  19. Baloonish by john_anderson_ii · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just can't picture one of these space balloons without thinking about one end coming loose, and the whole thing blasting crazily about in space while making a ridiculously load farting noise.

    --
    Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
    1. Re:Baloonish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In space... no one can hear you fart.

    2. Re:Baloonish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In space, no one can hear you fart.

    3. Re:Baloonish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In space no one can hear you fart.

    4. Re:Baloonish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, space is a vacuum and therefore...

      In space no one can hear you fart.

    5. Re:Baloonish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have news for you:
      In space... no one can hear you fart

    6. Re:Baloonish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not funny
      you suck

    7. Re:Baloonish by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Jesus, I hate it when people go all silly and pollute a serious topic with goofiness. OF COURSE THERE IS NO SOUND IN SPACE, hence, no farting noise.

      --
      -Styopa
  20. round out the ensemble... by techgeek10101 · · Score: 0

    ...with inflatable furniture and inflatable companions. woo hoo!

  21. Rip-stop is the key to puncture resistance by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Informative

    All inhabited spacecraft are inflated structures and all are prone to punctures. In space, you can't easily prevent the puncture (even aluminum capsules have some risk), but what happens next determines the survival of the crew. If the puncture just leaves a pinhole, then all that's needed is a patch. If the hole leads to a larger tear, then death soon ensues. This problem is not unique to space as a jet airliner is just a big balloon that will pop if poorly designed or maintained.

    Materials such as rip-stop nylon use strong threads at crossing angles to prevent propagation of a hole or tear. The same principle could be used in inflatable spacecraft to limit the scope of an puncture damage. The interlacing threads would limit the damage to one or a few cells of the structural material.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Rip-stop is the key to puncture resistance by rbabb · · Score: 1

      Just use the same material those new trash bags are made of, they STRETCH! woohoo!

    2. Re:Rip-stop is the key to puncture resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever put tape on a balloon and punctured the taped part of the balloon? The air just seems out slowly. It doesn't pop. You could easily patch a balloon that was made out of a substance which won't easily tear. The nylon stuff they are using probably won't tear easily.

  22. Space balloons by rts008 · · Score: 0

    No dear, that's not a UFO or waether balloon...it looks more like SPACEBALLS! When did Mel Brooks say he was doing the new one?

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  23. reality TV by NoInfo · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thinks they should make a reality TV show out of all of these 'Space Prizes'?

    Perhaps some network could air 'The Astronaut', where someone is eventually chosen to go into space, and they'd use the advertisement proceeds to fund some space start-up.

    Heh, it'd be the first show where being 'voted off' is a good thing.

    1. Re:reality TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now thats thinking outside the box! What synergy! Thanks for the idea... sucker.

      -Hollywood exec.

    2. Re:reality TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.astronauterna.nu/

  24. BTW... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...the exact opposite of an inflatable space station, is a skin tight space-suit! If we could develop that technology, space walks could become as easy as diving! (If not a smidge easier.)

    1. Re:BTW... by Undefined+Parameter · · Score: 1

      In space, no one can hear you freeze your ass off. ;-)

      ~UP

      --
      Eat the Path.
    2. Re:BTW... by serutan · · Score: 1

      First technological hurdle: develop pressurized space codpiece. There are places where you just can't have everything skintight.

    3. Re:BTW... by spike+hay · · Score: 1

      In space, since there is no air, it would be the equivalent of being in a thermos bottle. An object in space only loses radiant heat, which is not much.

      So an astronaut would keep toasty warm in a scandalously revealing skin tight suit. Sunlight is the real bugaboo, though. You would burn your ass off.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  25. Not just for space stations by kippy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This could also be used for interplanetary craft.

    Imagine launching to Mars. Even if you launch in a tuna can ala Zubrin, it's still pretty confined. If you launch in an un -nflated balloon, accelerate and get pointed at Mars, you can inflate and have twice or three times the living space. As long are you're willing to be confined for a few hours at first, the place could be quite roomy and more people could be sent per trip as long as provisions are increased.

    Just a thought.

    1. Re:Not just for space stations by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      Good idea, I'm thinking of spaceship sections that look like an accordion. You could extend the length of the spaceship by putting a section in the middle of the ship, or sprout modules off the sides.

    2. Re:Not just for space stations by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, space travel adds some more complexities to this otherwise nifty idea. Space debris sucks, but space debris while your bubble-ship is hauling major ass is a lot worse. Basically, you take the particle, take your ship, figure out the vectors, and then add the relevent speeds together. Also, tiny bits of stuff orbiting the sun tend to be moving much faster than stuff orbiting the Earth (relative to the Earth)

      Also, you're stuck with having to protect your bubble from self-inflicted acceleration damage. I'm not a bubble mathematics expert, but it seems like this would be a limiting factor in acceleration unless you were willing to add rigid structural supports, which defeats the whole purpose anyway.

      Just pointing out a few structural problems in this concept. *points to structural problems in concept* See?

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
    3. Re:Not just for space stations by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      The bubble is flexible, so it can probably withstand much more violent accelerations than the rest of the ship. The mass of the bubble and the gas inside is negligible next to the pressure, so the bubble won't even deform much. Just treat the bubble like drywall without a stud - don't screw heavy cupboards into it, and you'll be fine.

    4. Re:Not just for space stations by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Accelerate, inflate, inflate backwards, accelerate backwards. Be mindful to get these steps in the right order, and there won't be any acceleration stress on the bubble. As for impacts... All studies so far show that inflated hab modules provide better impact survivability that aluminum. I'm a metallic foil haberdasherer, so I'm a big fan of alu-construction at all scales, but even I have to bow to good engineering. >90% of a mars trip not using ion or nuke propulsion will just be coasting. (Hohman transfer orbits and all that...)

      That said, I don't think it would be a good idea for the first Mars mission. We've never done one of those before, so I think the first one should be the ultimate engineering woosie mission, with as little unproven tech as possible, for, I think, obvious reasons.

    5. Re:Not just for space stations by kippy · · Score: 1

      right on.

      I agree that it's probably not a good idea to do the first mission with all new tech. Part of the Mars Direct plan is the fact that it uses 100% existing and tested tech. However, I could see this becoming useful for transporting an initial colony (~100 people). Hell, depending on how big these can scale up, they might be able to transfer thousands of people at a time.

      Shit, I'd be happy to see a team of 6 land before I die.

    6. Re:Not just for space stations by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

      Would you build your Mars spaceship out of drywall without a stud?

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
    7. Re:Not just for space stations by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

      I think you'll want your bubble to be inflated before you try to put anything in it. So you if you accelerate, then inflate, how are you going to put stuff inside? I don't know what you mean about inflating backwards. Do you mean deflate, then decelerate?

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
    8. Re:Not just for space stations by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Why the heck would it be any more difficult to inflate a module after acceleration? Seriously, I don't understand at all. Except for the fact the Mars is now heading towards you, there would be no way to notice the change in velocity. It's... you know... In outer space. No acceleration, no friction, no vibration, no engine running, was a tongue in cheek means to say deflate.

      Have you ever studies a Hohman transfer orbit? It's just coasting for as much of the way as possible.

    9. Re:Not just for space stations by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

      I'm confused too man. Here's what I'm thinking:

      The spaceship inflates, right? So before it inflates the space inside it is very small. I'm assuming you want to put astronauts on your ship. In order to get astronauts onto your ship before it takes off/leaves spacedock/whatever you need to put them into a fairly large area. But if you propose to avoid acceleration damage by not inflating the ship until after the acceleration, how are you going to get astronauts onto the ship before it leaves?

      That's what I'm confused about.

      The relative motion of the planets and ship aren't what my problem is concerned with.

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
    10. Re:Not just for space stations by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that not the *whole ship* is inflatable. I was assuming a ship small enough to get into a single heavy booster, but with just enough room for all four guys to have a chair, and an extra inflatable module. Then, Once you are on your way, you inflate the extra module, which gives you a lot of extra living room, making the trip to Mars more pleasant. That way, it's all a single throw to Mars, and you don't have to deal with orbital assembly, or multiple launches, or anything. And, if you fail to inflate the extra hab space, everything still works, it's just cramped.

    11. Re:Not just for space stations by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

      Well, that'd work then. Thanks for clearing that up. Although if the module really failed to inflate, you might have some homicides on board in fairly short order. :)

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
    12. Re:Not just for space stations by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      I'd assume that would be policy, since with a smaller crew, you need less space, so it would be less of an issue, and lower stress for the survivors.

  26. Good for the amoonsement park maybe... by DrKyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A lot has been said about the fears of preventing the inflatable capsules from being punctured, but the article states that they don't even have the solution to sealing them properly yet. The Bigelow team is also developing how to fold and package those soft goods around the module's aluminum core, so once inflated in space, creases and folds and critical seals around windows and hatches do not leak. Plus, and I'm not physicist, but isn't it cold in space? And doesn't gas pressure drop when it gets cold? Are these things to be inflated with liquid nitrogen and oxygen? This site http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part4/secti on-14.html leads me to believe that if you were on the sunny side of Earth things would be ok, but go into a shadow and whoops, there goes the inflation.

    1. Re:Good for the amoonsement park maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing that the material would be flexible but not very elastic. The air pressure would increase with temperature. A rubber balloon would react by increasing in volume. (Conversely, it would deflate in lower temperature.) A non-elastic balloon would be always stressed to a non-elastic point; dropping the pressure isn't going to have a big impact on the volume. Remember that the pressure outside the balloon is zero, so that the internal pressure is balanced by the stress in the material.

      Also, the temperature would probably be controlled. After all, people would be in there, so the temperature probably won't be allowed to vary by more than 15K. The pressure could be controlled by having some air compressors or some external elastic air reservoirs.

      Space is cold, but you wouldn't lose heat too fast because all heat transfer is through radiation

    2. Re:Good for the amoonsement park maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the station would have to be insulated to protect the occupants from the temperature swings anyway, so being on the sunny or shadow side of the earth wouldn't be an issue.

    3. Re:Good for the amoonsement park maybe... by cybercuzco · · Score: 1

      Ok, say you have a baloon, and you heat one side and cool the other (assuming the baloon doesnt pop) heres what happens. The air on the hot side gets hot and expands, increasing the pressure on that side. The air on the cool side contracts, decreasing the pressure. Thus a pressure gradient is created, and hot high pressure air moves to the cold low pressure side. The momentum of the hot air pushes the cold air, which moves towards the hot side where it is heated. As long as the air is free to move, circulation will keep the air from varying too much in temperature. Plus the baloon material provides some insulation so that the air cant transfer heat as efficiently. Vacuum is an awsome insulator. Make the outside of the capsule highly reflective and you can basically heat it with body heat and computers.

      --

    4. Re:Good for the amoonsement park maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point was if the module was on the dark side of the *Earth*. Hot air can't move in to fill the gap, because there's nothing to heat the air up.

  27. Bummer! by coopaq · · Score: 1
    I read it as "Details On Inflatable Space Models"

    Some kinda geeky Tyra Banks or something.

  28. OH MY GOD by mcc · · Score: 1

    Inflatable space stations?

    So Dr. Schlock from Sluggy Freelance has now escaped into reality, or something?

    When can we expect the vampires and nanoviruses and killer rabbits to follow?

  29. First, Inflatable Reentry Vehicles, now this... by wernst · · Score: 2, Informative
    Slashdot JUST covered the Inflatable Reentry Vehicles story on September 3, so its nice to see that people are thinking of inflatable items to cover the whole trip.

    Incidentally, those wacky Russians did a test of this thing's ability to survive reentry and it seemed to to pretty ok. Check it out.

  30. Just like everything else....Masturbation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We're all intrigued by the behaviour of fluids in zero G, DONT ACT LIKE YOU'RE NOT!"

    Were even more intrigued if they're our own.

  31. In space, no one can hear you fart. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  32. What the America Space Prize is not by Kris+Magnusson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These inflatable modules are cool and everything, but I'm much more interested in the America Space Prize than the modules.

    I was hoping that one of the criteria for the contest was that the entire spacecraft, not just the crew module, would be reusable. As far as I can tell, the winning entry will be launched on a traditional throwaway booster. Given this, it will cost you half a mil to fly to a Bigelow Inflatable Hotel for a week of fun in space, hardly an affordable price.

    It seems, therefore, the America Space Prize is not about tourism but competing directly with NASA for space science money. Not necessarily bad, but not as exciting as seeing the frontier of affordable LEO space tourism open up.

    --
    "I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
    1. Re:What the America Space Prize is not by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, reusability isn't some sort of panacea which suddenly makes everything cheaper -- just look at the shuttle. It will be in the best interest of whatever teams compete for the orbital prize to make their product as cheap as possible, since they'll be dealing with the commercial world, rather than the government world. It makes no sense to dictate whether those cheap solutions should be expendable or reusable.

      Undoubtedly some entries will be expendable, while others will be reusable. The market can decide which wins out in the long run.

    2. Re:What the America Space Prize is not by Gewis · · Score: 1

      Quite the contrary, there are a lot of rich people willing to pay half a mil to go to space. Yeah, you're probably not their primary target, but the America Space Prize is absolutely about private space access, commercial development, and tourism. You're just going to have to stomach the fact that it will only be available to extremely wealthy people for a while. As for me, I'm hedging my bets that I can get people to pay me half a mil to take 'em to space.

  33. Groan... by Zilfondel2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What's in a name?

  34. no website by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 1

    I Googled and found no website for America's Space Prize. I'm sorry, but for something high-tech like this, I'm having a hard time believing it's real and credible, when it doesn't have its own website. Heck, Bigelow's own website is *really* light on any details.

    Am I alone in this?

    --
    Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
    1. Re:no website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should read the article:

      "Company founder and millionaire Robert T.
      Bigelow told Aviation Week & Space
      Technology that he will announce as early as
      this week a new $50-million space launch
      contest called America's Space Prize."

      Since he hasn't set it up yet, there's nothing to have a site for. I guess he'll set up a site when all the details are set.

  35. Anyone get these ST book references? by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    "Oh PLEASE guys, let me in - I'll be good!"

    "These are not standard j-10 diagnostic messages captain..."

    "Got the lil' devil... Uh oh." :)

    P.S. Mods, it IS on topic - if you've read the most bizarre Star Trek book on the 'planet'...

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  36. pressure by cat'taur · · Score: 1

    Partial Pressure of O2 is what's important.
    If you have more oxygen, you need less pressure to get enough into your bloodstream. Earth's atmosphere is about 21% oxygen. If you could get the air in the habitat to 50% oxygen, you would need that much less pressure. (Of course, people traveling back and forth between the habitat and Earth might have some problems with the pressure differences)

    1. Re:pressure by cmowire · · Score: 1

      There's other problems at play, too.

      You don't want to recreate Apollo 1, for one.

      Also, all of your equipment is generally certified for 1 ATM and the cooling available from that amount of atmosphere. Lower pressures require different components.

      On the other hand, it does mean that you don't need to spend as much time pre-breathing before you go out in your low-pressure suit.

  37. Nuclear Rockets! by serutan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Check out this fascinating detailed design for a completely reusable Saturn-V size rocket, powered by a Gas Core Nuclear Reactor engine. The engine emits non-radioactive hydrogen propellant. The rocket described would be able to lift 1000 tons of cargo into orbit and return to a powered landing, for only 5% of today's cost per pound.

    I know "nuclear" is still a dirty word, but the gas core reactor design is a completely different approach than a big pile of plutonium. Very promising in terms of power, safety and cost.

    It's a long article, 14 parts, but well worth reading. Skip the first 5 or 6 sections if you just want to know how the thing works.

    1. Re:Nuclear Rockets! by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 1

      That's actually a pretty interesting read.

      It's kinda sad to think how far we would be if we weren't so scared of nuclear rockets/reactors/etc...

      Regards
      elFarto
  38. The verb 'to orbit' ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Robert T. Bigelow's plan to orbit massive inflatable space habitats

    Since when did the verb 'to orbit' change or is Bobby Bigelow intending to revolve around these habitats on a regular basis ?

  39. What kind of geek are you anyway? by ravenspear · · Score: 1

    How dare you use English units in a scientific context!

  40. two words by shokk · · Score: 0, Redundant

    space junk

    --
    "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
  41. How about massive foam filled fly-paper by IBitOBear · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So I was thinking, once we get the massive inflatable technology under our belt, we could probably manage to make these really really really big balons that self-fill with energy-disapating foam once in orbit. (Think styrofoam, you know basically rigid once set-up.)

    These things could be set on orbits "just slightly different" than those that were "known " to contain the the smaller space debris.

    Since the mass of the balons would be relatively low, we would know when impacts took place.

    So by deliberately intersecting the orbits of this stuff we would accumulate it in the rigid foam. The outer structure would be pierced, but by then it would only be strapping on the foam mass to keep *it* from disintegrating.

    Over time, in a low orbit, the orbit would decay and the big foam ball would have a nice energetic reentry, bolts, wrenches, gasgets, and all.

    In high orbits, the thing could be retrieved.

    If the thing were in a retrograde (backwards from all the normal orbits) it wouldn't necessarily even have to capture the debris. A little momentum would be exchanged and both objects would fall to lower orbits.

    And it would look good from the "big rubber hilton across the way" 8-)

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:How about massive foam filled fly-paper by dew-genen-ny · · Score: 1



      that seems like a bloody good idea....

      --
      tom-george.comBecause geeks rate higher t
  42. I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...right on the side: "warning: this is not a lifesaving flotation device"

  43. Polymers and UVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are these inflatable space stations to be made out of polymer materials? If so, what about UV radiation from the sun?

    UV radiation tends to degrade polymers over time.

  44. and one meteor will deflate the inflatable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens if a pea size meator hit that thing? will the inflatable space station deflate and goes out of control - like a balloon?

  45. Too much heat is more likely by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

    I doubt that lack of heat to keep the gas pressure up is going to be a problem.

    Don't forget that on Earth things cool quickly by evaporative cooling, conduction or convection. In space, the only way to lose heat from a habitat would be by radiation. Once you've got a crew (human bodies generate large amounts of heat), life support systems, cooking facilities and lights, the real problem is going to be how to get rid of heat.

  46. Space Hoppers by skinfitz · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just hope the original designer of the Space Hopper is alive to see this.

    I can just picture him now as some crazy old guy who keeps shouting "I told you so! I told you so! See? Nobody believed Old Crazy Jim when he said .." etc.

  47. Ummmmm by Mostly+Monkey · · Score: 1

    Where are the windows? Maybe it's just me but I would like to see the planet I'm orbiting.

    --
    Chika Chik-ah... do-e ow ow.