Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Delivers World's First Inflatable Room For Astronauts (go.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The SpaceX Dragon cargo ship which launched from Cape Canaveral on Friday delivered the world's first inflatable room for astronauts. It arrived at the ISS on Sunday after station astronauts used a robot arm to capture the Dragon, orbiting 250 miles above Earth. The compartment should swell to the size of a small bedroom once filled with air next month. It will be attached to the space station this Saturday, but won't be inflated until the end of May. NASA envisions inflatable habitats in a couple decades at Mars, while Bigelow Aerospace aims to launch a pair of inflatable space stations in just four years for commercial lease. Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) will be restricted from the six on-board astronauts while NASA tests the chamber to see how it performs. The rocket used to launch the cargo ship successfully landed on a floating drone ship for the first time ever. It was the second time SpaceX successfully landed one of its rockets post-launch; the first time was in December, when the company's Falcon 9 rocket touched down at a ground-based landing site at Cape Canaveral, Florida, after putting a satellite into space.
i always wanted one, too.
I don't know anything about living situations in space, but I can't imagine there would be a great deal of privacy. Maybe this is an elegant solution for people who need a degree of solitude, and might broaden the selection criteria for the space program?
Way back in the day, Porn saved the Compact Disk Player, CD.
Then, Porn, saved the Internet (post NSF net).
Now Porn Saves ISS!
Ha ha
Let's figure out how to build structures like space stations on a larger scale
A cheap way to do that would be inflatable rooms, so a large work environment can be launched with fewer (and smaller) rockets.Of course, once built, such a thing would need to be tested, but I suppose that's a "complete waste of resources"...
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Yeah, they never would have thought of that...
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160001632.pdf
And the ISS is between 254-258 miles up.
Think less 'tent' and more 'bouncy castle' that's intended to have kids bounce all over it, except even stronger.
The inflatable module is rated to be as or more penetration resistant as the non-inflatable modules already up there, and at the pressure differential it will have, it will be roughly as stiff as well.
I don't read AC A human right
Whatever happened to good old titatium? Are we running out of?
Titanium is hard to work with, not as strong as kevlar fibers in this sort of application, suffers damage from radiation and temperature swings, and eventually cracks and shatters.
At a pressure differential approaching 1 atm, the inflated module will be approximately as stiff as a hard side structure at a fraction of the weight, and will actually be stronger in most respects. Should also last longer, but that's what testing is for!
I don't read AC A human right
An early prototype
Just sayin'...
Space debris that can penetrate the tent would also likely penetrate the hull.
For tiny items like paint flecks at more reasonable speeds, etc you can use a kevlar (or similar) inner catch layer(s) combined with a self-sealing outside layer(s).
But I'm sure that nobody involved in this project could possibly have thought of this problem, and you're the first to mention it.
Holy shit you are going a long way out! At least at your altitude the requirement to boost higher due to drag will be almost zero.
pop a can of self-expanding bulletproof foam to fill up the walls of the new module, and you have arguable a safer module than the existing modules.
The first half of what you said isn't really true. All metals are much more resistant to radiation damage than polymers. Nearly everything fatigues, not just metals. Plastics tend to be prone to creep, outgassing (think gases that become condensed liquids/solids on solar panels), embrittlement at low temperatures, etc. I don't think it's obvious that these modules are great for space applications, though lunar / mars structures should be more certain. Exciting to see it tested though.
Uhhhh... Last I checked they were doing exactly what you suggest - building structures like space stations on a larger scale.
Think about inflatable sheep and penetration, then you'll understand why and how it works.
C|N>K
We've had self-sealing containers and fabric-based armor for a while now.
Of course, I'm sure SpaceX and NASA engineers never considered the possibility of using either of these, and no doubt the container will simply pop like a balloon when the first micro-meteorite impacts it.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Sure you did, the idea is almost 60 years old. http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRA...
800 miles above the surface of the planet, living in a fucking TENT! "No space debris could possibly puncture the fabric walls of this baby"
The 'fabric' in that 'tent' is more puncture-resistant than the existing walls of the space station. Bigelow over-engineered the hell out of it to minimize its likelihood of failure.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Which testing is the exact point of this exercise.
I would have thought that there would be a lot of differences between considerations for accommodation in open space (a radiation resistant spheroid with no need to account for gravity presumably), the moon (radiation resistance, gravity, and presumably a hemisphere or some other shape with appreciable "floor area") and Mars, more gravity, Maybe build something inside a cave that conforms to the walls inside and need not be exposed to so much radiation or flying paint chips?
So much so that I would think it best to test a mars-living module here on earth, not in space.
Nullius in verba
Should be:
"SpaceX Delivers First Out Of This World Inflatable Room For Astronauts"
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
If I wrote like that I'd submit anonymously too.
At the bottom of the
"suffers damage from radiation and temperature swings, and eventually cracks and shatters."
Odd, the SR-71 is said to get stronger with time as each flight tempers the metal more and more.
Mostly random stuff.
If it works exceedingly well as hoped for, the fact that it's an inflatable means storage is easier.
This would allow for much more construction to be performed or easier delivery. Like, more food, oxygen and water since the inflatable rooms are lighter and take less space while deflated.
Let's figure out how to build structures like space stations on a larger scale or a moon base. When we're able to successfully put a colony in space or on the moon, then perhaps we can look toward going to Mars. For now, though, this is a tremendous waste of time and resources.
Space stations and a moon base are an even bigger waste of time and resources.
I get that we'll eventually need to colonize other worlds
A small and fragile colony on another planet isn't going to add any significant improvement to the odds of survival. We could use the same resources to improve the odds here on Earth by a greater degree.
"is said to"? By who?
Also, did they specify stronger or tougher? In engineering, the distinction is important.
Listening to NASA talk about how they would like to have these in Mars in a "couple of decades" is just depressing.
Seriously, when did America become the country of thinking small?
A couple of decades? For F's sake, we went to the moon nearly 60 years ago! 60 freaking years later and we are not even up to the same level as before the microprocessor was invented.
I misread it as "first inflatable astronaut". That auto-pilot scene from "Airplane" came to mind.
Table-ized A.I.
Drop. In. The. Bucket.
We really do know. Bigelow has put up inflatable habitats for testing before, this is just the first time NASA's used one. NASA is a very conservative organization, in the safety sense, which is great but slow.
I'm surprised the Russians never went anywhere with this technology. Their safety record is somewhat equal to your average town carnival, but they've made a lot of discoveries about living in space that the ISS uses.
A traditional rigid module for the ISS is about 15 tons with 106 cubic meters of space. Bigelow's 330 module is 20 tons with 330 cubic meters of internal space. So 210% more internal volume for only 5 more tons of mass.
Filling that volume up can be done by several smaller rocket launches rather than 1 huge rocket launch for a traditional module, which is cheaper and easier to do. Furthermore, the internal components can be changed around unlike more traditional built in components.
There will still be call for the traditional rigid structures, especially for equipment it otherwise wouldn't be conceivable to send up individually. For large living space, hydroponics, or other general purpose zones the inflatable structures will be superior.
Meh, everyone has their own goals. I personally wish we'd be focusing toward a colony in Venus's cloudtops (the most Earthlike place in the solar system).
But Mars gets all the money.
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
(Most earthlike apart from Earth, that is ;) )
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
Indeed - BEAM is built to the same debris impact tolerance standards as the ISS itself. High strength fibers, it should be pointed out, are also used in bulletproof vests.
Fibers tend to have far superior tensile strength to weight ratios vs. metals.
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
Indeed. I'm not opposed to missions designed for human settlement offworld - I actually think that's a great goal. But I am designed for "for the cameras" bread and circuses stuff. I'll put it simply: if you launch a habitat, and by the end of its lifespan (say, 20-30 years if you build it well) they haven't reached the capability to by and large rebuild the lion's share of that habitat, then you've wasted your money. You've just done a massively expensive systems test, which could have far more efficiently (money-wise) been conducted by robotic systems on Mars and mockups at home.
Meanwhile, there's a TREMENDOUS amount that we have yet to learn about our own solar system. Heck, look at Earth's twin Venus... it's almost embarrassing how little we know about it, in almost every respect, and it's the easiest planet to get to (about the same delta-V as Mars if you use aerocapture, but shorter transit times, more frequent launch windows, and more available sunlight; aerocapture is easier as well) And it's not like we don't know how to study it - Venera proved it for the surface, VEGA for the clouds, and there's been several orbiters. But we still know next to nothing about the nature of its lightning; we only know the most common elements of its clouds as a whole (not specific layers or lesser constituents), and there are potentially whole layers (such as surface hazes) that we're not even sure if they exist; we're not even sure whether the most significant cloud particle type (type 3) actually exists; we still don't know what's absorbing Venus's UV (polyatomic sulfur? Iron chlorides?); we think it's the most volcanically active planet in the solar system but we've only "maybe" been able to "kind of" observe one eruption; we think it may rain, snow, or ice out but we really don't know; we still don't know what causes a large portion of Venus's weird landforms; we still don't know what the "snow" is on Venus's mountains; we still don't know exactly why Venus is as it is today, so different from Earth (all we have is theories); and about fifty other really fundamental things. And it's right bloody next door.
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
Hurricane-force winds and hydrogen fluoride rain will make that an exciting place to live. It might be the most earthlike, but outside of active volcanos and ocean trenches you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere on Earth less hospitable. It makes the south pole look like a pleasant holiday resort in comparison.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
We are using a lot more resources to improve the odds here on Earth and the results are pretty meh.
So why do you think results would be any better if we tried to do the same on another planet ? The underlying reasons for things going "meh" aren't suddenly going to disappear just because we're using rockets.
"Winds" are not hazardous, turbulence is. The high wind speed (superrotation) is a significant benefit, not a negative; you circle the planet at no energy cost, and it dramatically reduces your day length.
There's still a good deal uncertainty about the degree of turbulence that can be expected, and like Earth it probably varies greatly by latitude and altitude. At this point, the only data that we have on that comes from the Vega probes. From what we've seen, it's probably in the same ballpark as that on Earth.
Hydrogen fluoride rain will not occur on Venus. We're not sure if any rain (or snow, or hail, or icing, or other forms of precipitation) occurs on Venus, and if so, from what compounds (that will depend on the altitude). But hydrogen fluoride is too minor of a constituent to form a significant portion of rain at any altitude.
Hydrogen fluoride's risk comes from (like all chemicals on Venus) permeation through the envelope. Plants are rather sensitive to HF, moreso than to H2SO4 and H3PO4 mists and SO2. The rate of permeation of a compound depends on the surface area and the permeation rate data for the compound, which is usually based on the material and relative to thickness and temperature. The VEGA balloons used old-school PTFE, which has rather high permeation (as one might guess, given that expanded PTFE is used in breathable waterproof fabrics). But plastics have moved beyond that. The next big shift was to liquid crystal polymers like vectran. They're not as chemical-resistant as PTFE, but generally considered "good enough" for Venus; they're also much stronger and they have incredibly low rates of permeation. The big problem with liquid crystal polymers is that they're very complex, chemically; it would be difficult to produce them locally. Hence the ideal approach IMHO - if one wants low permeation but also easy production chains - is modern PTFE variants plus a UHMWPE ripstop.
There have been big advancements in PTFE in recent years, such as Teflon NXT and FEP (among many others). NXT is PTFE plus a fraction of a percent PPVE, which dramatically reduces its permeability as well as improving a lot of its other properties. They're not as good as vectran, but the permeability levels are acceptable. PPVE could be supplied from earth, but it's not the only such comonomer that provides such benefits. IMHO the most interesting is HFP, because that can be produced from the same process that produces TFE, just at higher pressures. Indeed, FEP is a copolymerized HFP/TFE. As for the ripstop, UHMWPE is even simpler than PTFE to produce, and more to the point has already been demonstrated for space applications, so it's at a high TRL (though fabric production from it is a lower TRL). While UHMWPE doesn't have the heat tolerance of PTFE, it's otherwise excellent - acid resistant (in case anything permeates through), extremely abrasion resistant, and a very high tensile strength to weight ratio. It's UV sensitive, but Venus isn't a high UV environment, and 0,2% HALS absorbers imported from Earth render it quite stable (there's a lot of other absorbers that can be paired with it). For the PTFE you'd also want ATO or ITO (0,2-0,5%) to make it high-E.
Did I mention that I've been researching this topic? ;)
It's more hospitable than Mars. :) People focus a lot about Venus's cloudtop acids (which are actually a resource - heating 85% H2SO4 mist (which your engines that compensate for meridional drift can suck across adsorption bed) yields water (both directly and by the decomposition of H2SO4 to H2O + SO3) and oxygen (from the catalytic decomposition of SO3 at elevated temperatures)). But the acid mists
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
What about Bigelow's Genesis 1 and 2 inflatable modules. They have been on orbit for many years. http://bigelowaerospace.com/bi...
I'm curious what kind of testing is involved? I'm assuming that having people board the module will not happen for some time until they are pretty sure it can't suffer a catastrophic blowout. Unless they've already done vacuum testing on the ground?
Meh, everyone has their own goals. I personally wish we'd be focusing toward a colony in Venus's cloudtops (the most Earthlike place in the solar system).
But Mars gets all the money.
I once heard that the US spends all of it's resources on Mars because the Soviets had put a lander on Venus. The US wanted to prove its superiority, so it chose to explore the more distant and inhospitable Mars.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Hurricane-force winds
"Winds" are not hazardous, turbulence is. The high wind speed (superrotation) is a significant benefit, not a negative; you circle the planet at no energy cost, and it dramatically reduces your day length.
There's still a good deal uncertainty about the degree of turbulence that can be expected, and like Earth it probably varies greatly by latitude and altitude. At this point, the only data that we have on that comes from the Vega probes. From what we've seen, it's probably in the same ballpark as that on Earth.
On the other hand, there is some unknown form of lightning and so-called "atmospheric gravity-waves" (completely unrelated to gravitational waves) detected by ESA's Venus Express. This seem to indicate that we really don't know what to expect about the atmospheric conditions on Venus and it's likely a floating ship in the atmosphere could actually be a continuous thrill ride experience.
We can always dream things, but right now these things are still in the realm of science fiction, not science fact. Perhaps theoretically possible, but may or may not be practical.
Just stopping to do things will not be sufficient at this point.
It still would be preferable to continuing with business as usual, but that's exactly what we're doing. Everybody agrees that saving the planet would be nice, but a lot of people think watching TV with a beer is ever nicer. With that attitude, who's going to fund trillions for a space colony with little chance of success ?
It's not "science fiction", but it absolutely does require significant prep work (same as a Mars colony). As mentioned, there's no shortage of missions sitting on the backburner that would provide much of the needed data... but Mars gets all of the funding.
The nature of Venus's lightning is very much unknown at this point of time, including whether there's a hadesphere "anomaly" that shocks things as they descend through it and whether there's a radio-reflective layer that allows for lightning detection from great distances. But both of these things only apply to the lower atmosphere. It's unclear at this point whether there's any lightning at all in the middle (habitable) cloud layer. Lightning flashes have never been visually detected, so that at least rules out the upper cloud deck, and reduces the odds that it's in the middle. But we also don't think it's volcanic based on the evidence thusfar. We really don't know. That said, even if lightning does exist in the middle cloud deck, like Earth you wouldn't expect it to be uniformly spread across the wide potential latitude and altitude ranges - the odds that every habitable height and latitude would be high lightning risk zones is extremely unlikely. It's quite possible that none of them face a lightning risk.
As for the danger from a lightning strike to a blimp, on Earth it's proven to be.... well, underwhelming. While lightning has been implicated in fires of hydrogen airships, in helium blimps it hasn't been implicated in more than rare, minor skin damage (to be fair, blimps don't fly when adverse weather is to be expected - but even ground-tethered aerostats which are out 24/7 deal with lightning surprisingly well). And this is with no lightning protection system, which could readily be incorporated into a Venus habitat. And even moreso? Check the dielectric strength for helium vs. oxygen and nitrogen vs. CO2. Helium breaks down far easier than air on Earth (0,15 vs 3 MV/m), making it easier for lightning to flow through a blimp than through the air around it. This isn't the situation on a Venus habitat filled with O2/N2. And the outside environment ionized particulate matter, unlike the interior. And a PTFE/UHMWPE skin is a better insulator than polyurethane/nylon.
In short: more data is absolutely needed. But in no way does it appear like it's going to be a serious problem.
I'm not sure you know what gravity waves are, given your inclusion of them here. We have them on Earth, too. In fact, we really had to search to find them on Venus; there's no evidence that they're more common or more severe than on Earth (nor should they be - the mountains that (presumably) cause them are such great distances below). They can be a source of turbulence**, but no more than other sources on average. Glider pilots love using them** to make long sustained glides. Furthermore, on Venus they've only ever been detected over Ishtar Terra anyway - by far the highest mountains.
** There's really three effects in play - near the ground you have rotors (high turbulence, but irrelevant here), then higher, stationary lee waves (stable, good for gliding), and evanescent waves (detached; cause high level turbulence by shifting the tropopause periodically up and down... but a blimp designed for tropospheric operation doesn't care about that). More to the point, blimps aren't particularly turbulence sensitive to begin with - they're not like planes. In severe cases they can pitch and roll, but they never lose lift (obviously). Lesser turbulence that would bother passengers on an airplane is generally unnoticeable on a blimp.
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
The Soviets' didn't explore much outside of Venus and the Moon (their Mars program was rather ill-fated... though at least they tried; they didn't even try outside the orbit of Mars). But their efforts concerning Venus really were admirable; they had some failures but overall they proved that exploration of Venus is quite doable, and gathered most of the data that we have today.
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
Overrated at 1? Ouch.
Move along, no sig to see here.
There's a lot of people that think we should be taking a closer look at lava tubes on the moon as potential sites for bases. The same could be used on Mars. No radiation, stable temperature, protection from micrometeorites... seems a no-brainer, except we haven't actually explored them yet.
With less gravity, you can have larger caves. There is evidence for lava tubes on the moon that you could fit stadiums in.
Something like this could be a cost effective way of using natural caves and lava tubes as bases. If you want the fabric to press against the walls, though, you'd have to do some excavation and smoothing first, though.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
It seems odd that that chart indicates resources as high, as in the cloud layer there are nearly no resources and getting to the ones on the surface would be difficult (to say the least...).
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?