Slashdot Mirror
Inflatable Private Space Station Launched
Anonymous_Space_Ranger writes "CNN is reporting that the first steps to have a private space station are underway in Russia. While today's launch is unmanned, it is designed to orbit the planet for 5 years while the durability of the design is tested and future flights are planned around it." From the article: "[Robert] Bigelow envisions building a private orbiting space complex by 2015 that would be made up of several expandable Genesis-like modules linked together and could be used as a hotel, or perhaps a science lab or college. He has committed $500 million toward the project."
I wonder how well a beer bong works in zero gravity...
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
I hope they don't let go of the string and let it float away!
Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
"While today's launch is unmanned, it is designed to orbit the planet for 5 years while the durability of the design is tested and future flights are planned around it."
t s/discoveryiss_single.jpg
Unfortunatly, the mission ended almost as fast as it started when they couldn't figure out how to get the air pump to work while in orbit.
In almost related news, here is a cool pic taken today of the ISS transiting the sun during today's EVA:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/satcom_transi
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
Ahhhh, thank you!
just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
"could be used as a hotel, or perhaps a science lab or college."
Riiiight. They will send people to college... in space. Well technically LEO, but whatever. On the other hand, drinking and having sex in 0 G does sound fun.
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
This just in! British secret agent lauches into orbit on an emergency launch of china's Shenzou space vehicle on a joint mission to combat the orbital battlestation of new supervillian!
On a slightly more serious note, am I the only one who is weary of the "private" exploration of space, where the projects are controlled by individuals/companies rather than by the people as a whole? I mean, yeah its great for scientific advancment and all.. but the potential for abuse seems pretty severe....
Well, according to the TFA:
So, the idea is to determine exactly what the risks would be.
After all, to coin a phrase, "Space is big...". If you put it in the right place, made it able to heal from smaller bits hitting it, and limited your stay to a few weeks, your statistically greatest risk would be from getting up there and back. If you're 100x as likely to blow up on the way up or burn up on the way down than to have your space station smashed by space junk, it's not worth worrying about the space junk.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Look at the Zodiac boats used as landing craft by the Navy SEALS. They are inflatable, but they are anything but weak. They are designed to operate in enviroments that we can only dream of and they survive. I am interested in following how this test project survives over the next five years. I am not entirely convinved that it will work (nothing in space exploration or habitation is ever 100%) but I would not be so quick to write it off as a sure failure.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
About 2.5 hours from now, the module will phone home and we will get a better sense of how the module is doing. Here are some additional resources...
i s-1_launch.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5173388.stm
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060712_genes
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Aerospace
At those speeds, debris punches holes in metal just as easily.
Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
The Russians just launched my girlfriend into space!
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
Your opinion makes sense to me, on account of:
/.er always trumps the opinion of people studying a problem as part of a business plan to profit from successfully solving the problem.
1) All inflatable structures are essentially thin-walled latex balloons that will pop under the slightest stress.
2) Rigid structures in orbit are constantly stricken by space junk, but do not fail because of their thick armor plating.
3) Nobody is tracking the larger space junk.
4) Nobody has ever conducted experiments to learn more about the specific risk posed by the smaller space junk, meteoroids, etc.
5) And, of course, because the opinion of a random
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
I can see the title now.. Robert Bigelow, Interplanetary Gigolo
If you're 100x as likely to blow up on the way up or burn up on the way down than to have your space station smashed by space junk, it's not worth worrying about the space junk.
The world is full up with fussbudgets. Perhaps we should take all the phone sanatizers and . . .
KFG
I doubt even the space shuttle would protect you from anything as small as a bolt hitting it. A number of years ago a single paint fleck hit the windshield of the Shuttle and took out a large pit in the glass. Something even as large as a bolt would be catastropic. There's a lot of space junk up their, but most of it is trackable and can be steered away from in plenty of time.
With something inflatable, thin walls might be an advantage for small untrackable space-junk. It'd likely pass right through the whole structure and impart little energy to it (doing little damage). There'd be holes of course, but with the proper material that wouldn't rip the holes would be small and repairable.
AccountKiller
Well, there was a case that I remember where a chip of paint in orbit gouged out a good-sized dent in the space shuttle window. In this case, the window was manly enough to stop a paint chip.
An inflatable, on the other hand, has to be flexible in order to allow it to inflate. That seems to imply that something like a paint chip might just well zip right through a wall or two.
What I have always thought was a good idea (but I am not a rocket scientist) is to use some type of expanding foam to fill the inflatable. It would be heavier than air, but a lot more durable. You can get cans of this stuff for a few dollars from your local hardware store, and one can will expand it volume probably 50X. Once the stuff dries, it is rigid. Plus, you could use thinner baloons, as the foam would provide the durability. I wonder how well it would work in space...
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Will put it in a different orbit from the bulk of the space junk...then there would be a great void between in and the orbiting debris that we could call the "star-chasm"?
Sincerely,
The A.S.S.
[Amazingly Stupendous Sarcasmo]
A goal is a dream with a deadline
You are correct that the magnitude of the rotation vector is the same for any two circular orbits of the same diameter, however there are two things that you have not considered:
1) Orbits are elliptical, so orbiters can collide at non-zero relative speeds.
2) The direction of the rotation vector need not be the same between any two orbits. One orbit may be pole-to-pole, while another may track the equator. Or one may be a "left-hand" orbit around the equator, while another may be a "right-hand" orbit. The second case is the worst: the space junk could hit the station at a relative speed of twice the orbital speed of the station.
All the comments on this post about designing the station to withstand the impact of any untracked space junk still applies, though.
Gentlemen! What you are now travelling in, high above the comforting embrace of mother earth, is the pinnacle of inflatable technolo *pop*>FWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIZZZZZZZZ
3) Nobody is tracking the larger space junk.
i ct_war/norad/
NORAD - from 1968. Yes, the space junk is still tracked today.
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-71-1552-10481/confl
Or were you using the sarcasm tag? I could not tell.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Maybe passing through an occupant on the way through. That doesn't sound very safe to me.
Welcome to space. It's not safe. Neither is mountain climbing or skydiving, yet people do these activities all the time. Also you should probbably be comparing the risk of being hit by space junk with the risk of dying on re-entry or liftoff. I'd be willing to bet that the risks posed by space junk are a LOT smaller than liftoff/re-entry.
Also try to remeber that although there's a lot of junk, it's spread out over a VERY large area. The size of human being is relatively small, so it's not terribly likely that someone would be hit by space junk.
AccountKiller
An inflatable, on the other hand, has to be flexible in order to allow it to inflate. That seems to imply that something like a paint chip might just well zip right through a wall or two.
That depends on how much "give" there is. With the right kind of cushioning effect to absorb the energy, it might actually be pretty durable.
Your best bet is Clark Lindsay's RLV and Space Transport News.
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php
You are right that Bigelow Aerospace isn't very press-savvy. But they seem to be remedying that problem slowly.
It's going to suck to be the one who has to blow that up...
noobcake or noobmuffin? It is the same price...
Not to mention all that debris and junk that will no doubt be floating around inside this structure. Something Hollywood doesn't portray is the sheer amount of crap (sometimes literally fecal matter) and general gross-ness in weightlessness. Remember Newton's laws? If you cough, saliva travels until it hits something -- then it sticks, since it's moist. In the high humidity environment, bacterias, molds, and other fun stuff run rampant. Got crumbs in space? You're going to be breathing them in, big time.
Severe skin infections and aspiration pneumonia are common in space. Going to the bathroom is a science experiment gone bad (think vacuum cleaner). If you stay in space more than 11 months, your skeleton and muscles become weakened permenantly. Fluids shift towards your head, causing your face to become puffy and swollen.
All in all, in spite of the view (which would probably be spectacular), I would personally never stay in a weightless environment for an extended period of time, such as implied by a hotel or college setting.
I say these things not to be a troll - I think it's an admirable idea, and my hat is off to whoever decides to live on this contraption. I just want to remind people that space is dangerous and dirty; it's not the sterile wonderland from the movies we've all come to know and love.
(( (CRAYON) )) >
a small bit of junk will go straight through the wall, this creates a hole, and a presure imbalance. The next layer in will be rapidly sucked towards the hole, but because the imact is unlikely to be exactly normal (90 degrees) to the surface the hole made in the inner layer won't line up with the hole in the outer layer, so it will make a seal. You could probably use the pressure imbalance to hold them together or have some magic glue on the inner walls. They can have lots of layers too. I imagine the walls could be a cellular foam like structure, maybe 10cm thick. Inflating the walls is also done by exploiting the pressure imbalance, each cell basically acting as a valve. The walls don't have to be inflated to a higher pressure than the internal pressure, from the inside they would feel spongy and soft, they would kind of self inflate like those camping mattresses.
You can find more technical details about the launch on the space fellowship: http://www.spacefellowship.com/News/?p=1614
We can expect video's and pictures, of the "living" annimals etc!
...it's a balloon!
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
What about traditional spacecraft? Most manned ships are in fact metallic balloons that have enormous inside pressure (compared to the outside). The only difference is that traditional metal spaceships don't ever change their size or shape. Oh, and BTW the Volga airlock made for the first Soviet EVA was made of fabric. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voskhod_2
"The inflatable time machine is ready to go!"
Summary of parent comment:
... [Pop] Latex Balloons ...2) [Strike] rigid structures ... [with] space junk ...3) ... Track ... Larger Space Junk4) ??????5) ... profit [!!!1one!] ...
1) Summary of parent comment
2) Summary of parent comment:1)
3) ???
4) Profit!
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Well, one problem here... when you make something pass through the entire structure, in space there's a little problem with that: explosive decompression. Now that you've introduced a hole or two in your structure, all that pressurized stuff in the structure wants to get out of the structure, and spread far, far apart.
It all depends on how big the hole is, and how the material you're working with behaves. Pop a rubber balloon with a tiny hole and it explodes. Pop a rubber inflatable raft however, and the air just leaks out slowly.
I'm sure you could make a material that has less of a tendency to tear, and is also lightweight and inflatable.
AccountKiller
With ovre 4 million pounds of space junk flying around at speeds up to 17,500... I for one would NOT want to be in an inflatable structure. Wow!
Many people hear "inflatable structure" and think of some sort of balloon ready to pop at the smallest prick. Bigelow's structure are actually quite sturdy though, arguably more durable than the ISS's walls. From a BBC article on the launch:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5173388.stm
It is built around a rigid central core and two solid bulkheads. The inflatable walls are composed of a range of materials including Kevlar, often used in bullet-proof vests, and a fibrous textile called Vectran.
The walls are designed to be airtight and tough, to withstand the impact of space debris and small meteorites.
On a full-scale module, each wall would be 40cm (16 inches) thick.
"It's extremely durable and resistant to any puncture or penetration," said Mr Bigelow.
"Wait a minute. Space debris! *slap* Guys, hold off on that idea - you have to read this slashdot post first!"
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
The specs indicate that the walls are 16 inches thick. The advantage is that the walls bend and you can fold it up for easy transportation into space. I guess the guys that are complaining the 16 inches is to thin are the same guys that brag to women that their 4 inches is really 8. They lack real perception.
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
I can't wait to join the 22236 mile high club!!!!!!!!!
load "$",8,1
It seems this point has to be made 3 or 4 times every time a submission about Bigelow comes up...and people still don't believe it. Zodiak boats are a perfect example of a robust inflatable structure. Another good example is a tire. Compare the impact resistance of those things to a thin sheet of aluminum!
The inflatable module is really only different in that uses air pressure to maintain its shape instead of framework (actually, there is a framed core down the middle with avionics and inflation equipment and to support mounting equipment inside the pressurized portion...also similar to Zodiaks). The skin is several layers of different insulating, containing, and protective materials. Some of these are tougher than Kevlar! The result is a module that is (hopefully) stronger by weight than equivalent rigid capsules, has more interior volume, and fits in a smaller launch fairing.
Along with the confusion about the vulnerability being similar to a balloon, people also get confused about the volume. Unlike a balloon, it doesn't grow to several dozen times its packed volume. I think it's closer to a factor of 2 or 3, depending on the model. It won't revolutionize living in space, but if it lives up to its potential, it will be another step in the right direction.
FYI, NASA originally started development work on the technology under the Spacehab project to be used for one or two modules on the ISS. Due to budget constraints and time limits, they chose the traditional modules and set the development effort aside until Bigelow bought rights to the technology. The technology might also see applications in long-term lunar or Martian bases.
KHAAANNN!!!
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
It continues to astonish me that there are people out there who have $500 million (half a billion dollars!) to throw at a project as speculative as this. Certainly it's cool and I'd love to have one myself. This guy's able to throw $500 million at something just to see if there's anything there. Woof!
I wish some (one!) of these guys would get it into their heads to toss me $100,000 to see if I might work/do something they might consider cool. I'd spend the rest of my life bouncing from country to country installing Free Software on every box I run across and teaching its owner how to use it. Wouldn't that be a lovely legacy to invest in? Or not sexy enough? Drat. Consider it anyway please, you Mark Shuttleworths of the world.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit