Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Details On Inflatable Space Modules 190

Posted by Hemos from the jetson-world dept.
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.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Details On Inflatable Space Modules More

Details On Inflatable Space Modules

Comments Filter:

  • Xanadu (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman@ g m a i l . com> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:01PM (#10398847) Homepage Journal
    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 [blogs.com]. 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.

    • Re:Xanadu (Score:5, Informative)

      by StalinsNotDead ( 764374 ) <umbaga&gmail,com> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:13PM (#10398967) Journal
      There's this [zdomes.com], 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. [csmonitor.com]
      • 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.

      • Re:Xanadu (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Pigbot ( 797016 )
        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.

    • Re:Xanadu (Score:2, Interesting)

      by SDEggbert ( 801442 )
      "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...

    • BTW... (Score:4, Informative)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman@ g m a i l . com> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:44PM (#10399229) Homepage Journal
      ...the exact opposite of an inflatable space station, is a skin tight space-suit [wikipedia.org]! If we could develop that technology, space walks could become as easy as diving! (If not a smidge easier.)
      • First technological hurdle: develop pressurized space codpiece. There are places where you just can't have everything skintight.

    • Re:Xanadu (Score:5, Informative)

      by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:52PM (#10399298) Homepage
      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.

      • Re:Xanadu (Score:3, Informative)

        by jfdawes ( 254678 )

        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.

        • 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.

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

    • Re:Xanadu (Score:3, Informative)

      by hernick ( 63550 )
      http://www.monolithic.com/ [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 temperat
    • "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'...

    • 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.

  • Damn... (Score:4, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:01PM (#10398851) Homepage Journal

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

    • Re:Damn... (Score:2, Funny)

      by elementus ( 811192 )
      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.
    • 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?

  • Fools! (Score:5, Funny)

    by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) * on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:03PM (#10398865) Homepage
    Inflatable space modules are all well and good--until The Terrorists(tm) develop a gigantic space pin!

  • The biggest challenge (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pi_0's don't shower ( 741216 ) <<ethan> <at> <isp.northwestern.edu>> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:04PM (#10398877) Homepage Journal
    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...
    • We discussed a possible solution [slashdot.org] 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.
    • 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 fu

      • 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 reuse

    • 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)

    • 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

      • Re:The biggest challenge (Score:4, Insightful)

        by sbeitzel ( 33479 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @05:20PM (#10399518) Homepage Journal
        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...
        • 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?
          • 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 im
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Robert T. Bigelow's plan to orbit massive inflatable space habitats

    Bigehi's.

  • The next logical step (Score:3, Funny)

    by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:10PM (#10398940) Homepage Journal
    Line the floor with multicolored plastic balls, and we have a perfect place to keep our space toddlers.

  • and finally... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Blue-Footed Boobie ( 799209 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:10PM (#10398942)
    An austronaut gets to yell "Hey NASA, BLOW ME!" and not get nasty looks...

  • Physical Concerns? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by waldoj ( 8229 ) <waldo&jaquith,org> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:10PM (#10398943) Homepage Journal
    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
    • 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

      • Re:Physical Concerns? (Score:4, Informative)

        by heptapod ( 243146 ) <heptapod@gmail.com> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:40PM (#10399203) Journal
        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.

    • Re:Physical Concerns? (Score:4, Informative)

      by onkelonkel ( 560274 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:20PM (#10399030)
      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.
      • 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? :)

      • 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.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

      I can guarantee Larry Flynt [larryflynt.com] 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.

    • Re:Physical Concerns? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cmowire ( 254489 )
      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 s
      • 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.
      • In this case 10 PSI.
        (I RTFA and was supprised to see a figure so low)
        -nB

  • Space Junk (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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...?

    • Re:Space Junk (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:25PM (#10399075) Homepage
      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.
      • 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.
        • 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.
          • 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.
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • 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 [bbc.co.uk].

  • Micrometeoroids Much? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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

    • Re:Micrometeoroids Much? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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 part

    • Re:Micrometeoroids Much? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jbeaupre ( 752124 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:42PM (#10399220)
      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/ [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.
    • I would inflate it with a giant Fix-a-Flat can.

  • These are not fragile (Score:5, Informative)

    by mrright ( 301778 ) <rudiNO@SPAMlambda-computing.com> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:22PM (#10399044) Homepage
    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.
    • 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) o

    • 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.
    • 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

  • Just like everything else.... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...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?

  • Baloonish (Score:5, Funny)

    by john_anderson_ii ( 786633 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:23PM (#10399063)
    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.
    • 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.

  • Rip-stop is the key to puncture resistance (Score:3, Informative)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:35PM (#10399157)
    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.
  • 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.

  • Not just for space stations (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kippy ( 416183 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:50PM (#10399289)
    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.
    • 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.
  • 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?
    • 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, ci
  • 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?
  • Slashdot JUST covered the Inflatable Reentry Vehicles story [slashdot.org] 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. [space.com]

  • What the America Space Prize is not (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kris Magnusson ( 115926 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @06:00PM (#10399809) Homepage
    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.
    • 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

  • Nuclear Rockets! (Score:5, Informative)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug@@@geekazon...com> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @07:56PM (#10400569) Homepage
    Check out this fascinating detailed design [nuclearspace.com] 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.

  • How about massive foam filled fly-paper (Score:3, Interesting)

    by IBitOBear ( 410965 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @10:12PM (#10401205) Homepage Journal
    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-)

  • Space Hoppers (Score:3, Funny)

    by skinfitz ( 564041 ) on Friday October 01, 2004 @04:05AM (#10402715) Journal
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.

Close