Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Technology

Inflatable Spaceship Ready for Test 174

Posted by michael from the please-leave-all-sharp-objects-at-home dept.
colonist writes "Nature reports that an inflatable re-entry vehicle could one day carry astronauts or robots to the surface of Earth or Mars. The heat shield (that can withstand 900 C) and the parachute are inflatable. The advantage of inflatable structures is weight: a 130 kg vehicle can carry about 200 kg of cargo back from the space station. The vehicle is made by Return and Rescue Space Systems."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Inflatable Spaceship Ready for Test More

Inflatable Spaceship Ready for Test

Comments Filter:

  • Parallel (Score:5, Funny)

    by StevenHenderson ( 806391 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [nosrednehevets]> on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:04AM (#10148175)
    Nature reports that an inflatable re-entry vehicle could one day carry astronauts or robots to the surface of Earth or Mars

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

  • What happens if... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by CypherXero ( 798440 )
    It deflates in space?

  • Paging Dr. Schlock... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) * on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:05AM (#10148183) Homepage Journal
    ...I'm sure that eminent mad scientist from Sluggy Freelance can attest to the efficiency of inflatable technology...

  • Inflatable? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by keiferb ( 267153 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:05AM (#10148184) Homepage
    I hear "inflatable", and instantly think of the three pool floats we had to replace each year because one sprung a leak. Our first AeroBed also springs to mind almost as quickly as it sprung its first, second, and third leaks.

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

    • RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

      by kmmatthews ( 779425 ) * <krism@mailsnare.net> on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:11AM (#10148232) Homepage Journal
      It's for re-entry, not for general flight in space.

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

    • Re:Inflatable? (Score:3, Informative)

      by erick99 ( 743982 )
      This is the only part of the article that even hints at the durability of the "craft":

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

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

      Probably there is far more det

      • Re:Inflatable? (Score:4, Informative)

        by JacquesItch ( 715968 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:20AM (#10148302)

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

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

        JacquesItch
        • They also plan to use the design as a re-entry-to-earth vehicle for astronauts.

          =Smidge=

          • Re:Inflatable? (Score:5, Informative)

            by Rei ( 128717 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @11:01AM (#10149748) Homepage
            Yes, however, there are two factors that make this a far easier technical challenge:

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

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

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

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

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

            Now, we're not dealing with an aluminum parachute or anything here - aluminum is just something that I happened to have data for offhand. However, you often see tensile strength fall off like this with most materials. Temperature is a *very* important factor.
      • If you compare the form of the Space shuttle, which has to fly and land later on, and the re-entry vehicle, you probably notice that it is a kind of inverse parachute and thus by design slower. Afer all it doesn't have to land on wheels.

      • Re:Inflatable? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by WhiplashII ( 542766 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @09:02AM (#10148659) Homepage Journal
        The space shuttle goes up to about 1500 C as I recall. Designs like this rely on rapid decelleration at high altitude, so they do not get as hot. It basically depends on your exposed surface area to mass ratio. An inflatable object gets a very large surface with very low mass, so it works well.

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

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

          I can't be the only one excited by that idea - once the whole "space tourism" thing gets more economically feasible, you'll have all the rich playboy thrill-seekers paying to go up and "space dive." Maybe in my lifetime it'll become cheap enough for regular guys like me to do it.
        • As an extreme example of this, back in the Apollo days there was a design for an inflatible parachute to allow one person to return to earth wearing nothing more than a Mercury-class space suit!

          Does this qualify as base jumping or baseo (building, aerial, span, earth, orbit)?

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

        I think that's because the tiles on the shuttle get pushed through the air much harder. The trick in this technique is the comparativly low density of the reentry vehicle. If you have the surface of a football field to slow down a rather smallish mass, you get much better deceleration and are able to dissipate the energy much better to the surrou

      • ...the ceramic tiles on the shuttle glow red from the friction of the atmosphere.

        Just a small pedanticism: The shuttle tiles are heated by air compression, not friction.

        TTFN
      • Everything will glow red, it's a function of the temperature, so it does not make a difference if the material can withstand it or not... actually its glowing is a good symptom that it has not been destroyed ;)
    • I would be willing to bet that it is compartmented. In addition, the outer shield is not inflated. Finally, anything that would puncture the outshield probably would have done so to the shuttle or other structures.
    • Here's an argument for sucess.

      In order to areo-brake - you must generate energy roughly equivelent to the energy of a launch (adjusted for the new mass, less fuel and ejected stages)

      You do this by rubbing yourself against the atmosphere.

      Because the density ratio of atmosphere/orbitor is so low, most of the rubbing is done at a low altitude when the air is harder.

      If, on the otherhand, you can improve the density ratio at a higher point, then you can take a nice gentle rub starting at the tip of the atmos
    • I know we are talking only about a heat shield in this design, but the TransHab module (wiki [wikipedia.org], Howstuffworks [howstuffworks.com]) is even more resistant to puncture than the actual "skin" of the ISS.

      For the little story, TransHab was really a great project but got canned by congress because it was way over budget. NASA still decided to fund a research project on it and that time Congress actually forbad NASA any new research on an inflatable habitation module. So NASA gave it of the Italian contractor that was building parts f

    • Re:Inflatable? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Rei ( 128717 )
      Yes, it's not like we have any gigantic inflatable structures that last for very long periods of time out there.

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

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

      I'm glad to see this finally implemented; it is the next logical reentry step. Huge surface area and huge cross-sectional area. It'd be wonderful - it would

  • I've seen this movie before... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dlleigh ( 313922 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:07AM (#10148195)
    Except it was Jupiter that time.

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

  • Human factor (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Himring ( 646324 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:07AM (#10148197) Homepage Journal
    Such inventions are what's needed if those who promote the "human factor" of space exploration are to prevail. Killing a shuttle full of astronauts for purposes of some objective experimentation in space isn't worth it. Providing best-possible-safety and life preservation is what's needed at this point. However, it does sound like this device being used as a "life boat" is serendipitous. Actual efforts along these lines should be more pursued on a project level. If we want to put people in space then we need to assure their safe return....

    • Re:Human factor (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:24AM (#10148328) Homepage Journal
      The shuttle, while a marvel of engineering, is a very inefficient way to get to and from space. It's not modular, so you're always launching the entire craft every time, complete with bricks, wings, control surfaces and landing gear which are of no use in space except to provide a bigger target for orbital debris. This means that a simple crew transfer that would be possible for $100 million costs $1 billion.

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

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

      • Re:Human factor (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Idarubicin ( 579475 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @11:39AM (#10150081) Journal
        A major factor in improving costs is to make the engines and pumps retrievable. That way, all we're throwing away would be pressure tanks, which can be manufactured cheaply.

        Not necessarily.

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

        Throwing them away might well end up being cheaper.

    • Re:Human factor (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bziman ( 223162 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @10:27AM (#10149431) Homepage Journal
      Killing a shuttle full of astronauts for purposes of some objective experimentation in space isn't worth it. Providing best-possible-safety and life preservation is what's needed at this point.

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

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

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

    • If we want to put people in space then we need to assure their safe return....

      I agree. Money should be no object if we want manned space exploration. Or we can safely explore space unmanned with robots and save a bundle. What's the difference in cost between sending a human and a rover to Mars?

      As long as we want to complain about the budget we shouldn't be allowed to risk the lives of our astronauts, IMO.

  • Parachute? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by GoMMiX ( 748510 )
    I didn't think a parachute could work for a mars landing because the atmosphere was so thin...

  • Hey, if they can make inflatable furniture (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jakhel ( 808204 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:07AM (#10148199)
    and inflatable women, why not make inflatable space ships? Now all we need are inflatable monkeys to put on the ship and we'll be set to go

  • Dream come true (Score:5, Funny)

    by bman08 ( 239376 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:07AM (#10148203)
    It's my dream to one day, science and god willing, successfully land on the surface of the earth.
  • Hey, that's the way they implement heat shields for the Gundam mecha's as well. kewl!! I never thought someone would take it seriously.

  • "I don't know, Scotty." (Score:4, Funny)

    by Gulik ( 179693 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:10AM (#10148225)
    "Maybe it's just the idea of an inflatable rubber starship that bothers me."

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

  • and what about... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Docrates ( 148350 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:10AM (#10148227) Homepage
    where's the "journal" in journalism?

    This article should have also talked about:

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

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

  • How do we get back??? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bcarl314 ( 804900 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:11AM (#10148233)
    I know I've posted this before, but the major problem in going to Mars, and to me one which is the most significant problem which we did not have with moon missions, is that Mars, unlike our only natural satellite, has a gravity about 75% that of earth. Meaning that the escape velocity is significantly higher on Mars than on the moon and that some tiny fire-cracker punch won't get you into orbit. So, getting to Mars may not be a problem, but getting off, with enough feul to make it back will be. In fact, I would guess that you'd need to construct a fairly significant lauch vehicle on Mars just to get off the planet.
    • Well, yes, and no. The reduced surface gravity helps more than you might think. Also, Mars has no atomosphere to speak of. Taking off from Earth, drag is signifigant up to, say, 75,000ft or so.
    • Leave the return vehicle in orbit, same as the Apollo missions. Yes, overall a manned Mars mission is a larger affair, but it's the same principles at work.
      • You're missing the point. You need a launch vehicle to get you from the Martian surface back into orbit. You cannot leave that vehicle in orbit. It has to be brought to the surface. On the Apollo missions, this was built into the lunar module. Due to the much higher gravitational pull of Mars, the return to orbit vehicle has to be larger, a lot larger.

    • Re:How do we get back??? (Score:5, Informative)

      by charliekowalchuk ( 778678 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:32AM (#10148392)
      Look, unless you happen to be a rocket scientist, perhaps you should leave the heavy thinking to the NASA engineers. (I happen to be one, but think of me as a wanna-be myself, as I am transferring over to the Electric space propulsion division soon)

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

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

      Give NASA a little faith; you don't need to back seat drive them like some little ol' lady.
      • I'm not trying to tell NASA what to do, I'm simply stating a fact that we aren't in Kansas anymore. This is not some little rock with 10 % of the earth's gravity, and unless I missed some major advancements in the past 40 years, the basic physics behind gravity still applies here.

        I need to emphasize that I don't think GETTING to Mars is going to be a problem, I think getting OFF Mars will be a problem. Regardless of whether we have some low-orbit module that will break our orbit from Mars and get us back
    • Just bring a really big rubber band and throw it over a pair of mountains. Sheesh.
    • Maybe, just maybe, they've already thought of this.

      Leave a return craft in orbit to achieve escape velocity, or make the return craft on the planet large enough to get off by itself. And nobody ever said we had to bring the propellants with us.

    • First, get your facts straight:

      Mars' surface gravity is about 38% that of Earth.

      Second . . . don't you think NASA guys think about this sort of thing?

      I've seen lots of interesting proposals for making fuel for the return trip right on the surface, using a refueling station sent ahead of time. It would be fast, but such a station could turn CO2 into methane. (With enough energy, it could even cook up the LOX oxidizer.)

      You don't need to bring your return trip fuel down to the surface with you. You can lea

  • FINALLY! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by p51d007 ( 656414 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:12AM (#10148243)
    The "heat shield" is back! For 20 years, every American launch used an ablative heat shield for reentry. At least someone is starting to use it again, than trying to "fly" back from space using something so fragile that it could be damaged by a piece of foam insulation going several hundred miles per hour. Ditch the shuttle and bring back ELVs
    • 'starting to use it again'

      You mean like the Russians have been using for years now?

      Those guys who go up in Soyuz do come back, ya know.

    • Re:FINALLY! (Score:3, Informative)

      by Idarubicin ( 579475 )
      At least someone is starting to use it again, than trying to "fly" back from space using something so fragile that it could be damaged by a piece of foam insulation going several hundred miles per hour.

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

      The kinetic energy of 750 g of foam at 240 meters per second is about 22 kJ. That's about the energy delivered in ten high-powered rifle shots [surgical-tutor.org.uk], or in

  • Finally,.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john.lamar@g m a i l . com> on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:13AM (#10148249) Homepage Journal
    ......now my inflatable girlfriend and I can ride in style.

    • Re:Finally,.... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      But make sure it's a woman, though, because one time I... heh.

  • Oh dear (Score:2, Funny)

    by stormhair ( 718450 )
    They'll have to blow it up before it'll work
    • Quite. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't air at a premium in space?
      • Breathable air is, but an inflatable heat shield doesn't need breathable air. The prototypes are inflated by canned nitrogen, and future models will be inflated using the exhaust fumes from decomposition of a nitrogen-based powder.
  • i can't wait 'till re-entry, when the superheating of the inflatable spaceship will cause it to pop like a balloon in an industrial oven.

  • Funny Typo. (Score:4, Funny)

    by g0bshiTe ( 596213 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:28AM (#10148368)
    "Nature reports that an inflatable re-entry vehicle could one day carry astronauts or robots to the surface of Earth or Mars."


    I will be able to tell my children of the day man set foot on Earth.

  • In space... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...no one can hear you take a bath with the ship.

    U.S.S. Rubber Ducky has disappeared from radar. Possible conversion error suspected in its disappearance.
  • ground...

    Astronaut surprise, anyone?

    Eeuwww... Gooey
  • An inflatable re-entry craft is nothing compared to Airship-to-Orbit [wordiq.com].
  • carry astronauts or robots to the surface of Earth or Mars

    Maybe one day we'll even send people to Earth!
  • just think how much less time it will take NASA to get back to business whenever they lose a spacecraft!

    "in other news, NASA commented that the likely cause of crash was that they dropped a weighted baloon from space..."

  • Oh great, I can see the headlines in the Martian Daily Planet "Earthings arrive in (snigger) "inflatable" (sneer) spaceship (lololol!)"
  • This almost sounds like the begining of one of those "Darwin Awards" stories.
  • One of the emergency rescue techniques investigated during he early space program was inflatable structures that could bring down lone astronauts.
    • Mod parent up, he's right. Here's the link [astronautix.com]

      "In the early 1960's Aerojet studied project FIRST (Fabrication of Inflatable Re-entry Structures for Test) in order to evaluate the use of inflatable Rogallo wings for emergency return from orbit. ... The resulting trajectory was found to be practical under automatic or manual control. G loads during re-entry would not exceed 2.0 G."
  • There's a huge oversupply of hot air right now which should keep prices low.

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

    -- ;-) --

  • Hope they think it through... (Score:3, Funny)

    by payndz ( 589033 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:54AM (#10148560)
    "Great. We forgot the damn foot pump. Okay, Bob, start blowing..."
  • I guess the Jetsons were really ahead of their time in figuring that their vehicles could fold up into a suitcase?
  • Ignition in T minus five ...

    four ...

    three ...

    two ...

    one ...

    Ignition!

    *POP!*

    Houston, we have a problem.
  • The ship may be inflatable, but thay have to HAUL THE AIR TO INFLATE AN INFLATABLE SHIP TO SPACE. Comressed air may not weigh a whole lot itself, but the big ass metal bottle you have to put air into to haul it anywhere has a whole lot of weight. This concept might have value as an emergency vehicle of last resort, when it doesn't matter if you transfer the air out of a station because you're evacuating it. That's about the only circumstance I can see use for the concept.
    • Since there is no air in space, you would only need a little bit of air to fully inflate the vehicle. By the time you fell sufficiently near to earth that you would need more air pressure to keep the vehicle fully inflated, who knows, maybe it would then be feasible to then scoop up and compress some air. If the vehicle was falling at a sufficient velocity, you might have a ready supply of high-velocity air that would be readily compressed. Maybe some rocket-science blowhard can reply and tell me wheth
    • Right... and it's not like they'd be bringing any air into space with them otherwise!
    • You don't need canned air. Gunpowder doesn't need air to burn, and it produces plenty of exhaust gas. Similarly, nitroglycerine decomposes just fine without air, and produces even more gas. And what do you think they use to inflate the airbags in your car?

  • Pfbfbbbpfpffpbfbfppffpfpfbbffbfbfff... splat.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Pull the trigger and you're garbage." -- Lady Blue

Close