Posted on 05/25/2004 12:00:02 PM PDT by tricky_k_1972
Making "space available" is at the heart of the global travel, tourist and lodging industry. That business axiom is no stranger to Robert Bigelow, owner of the Budget Suites of America Hotel Chain.
But now the North Las Vegas, Nevada-based Bigelow is putting his money down on inflatable Earth orbiting modules. He’s intent on attracting not only high-flying sightseers, but those hungering to crank out made-in-space products and evaluate microgravity processes.
Bigelow’s plan is to establish a habitable commercial space station for research, manufacturing, entertainment and other uses.
First Genesis, then Nautilus
Bigelow Aerospace is developing the Genesis Pathfinder -- one-third scale hardware meant to shakeout the bugs in a much larger space habitat tagged the Nautilus.
The first Genesis test is now slated for launch in November 2005 onboard the maiden voyage of the Falcon V -- an offshoot of the yet-to-fly private booster being designed by Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) in El Segundo, California. That agreement has been confirmed by SpaceX chief rocketeer, Elon Musk.
Plans are also afoot to loft a second Genesis Pathfinder module in April 2006. For this in-orbit evaluation, Bigelow Aerospace has executed a non-technical framework agreement that, pending a U.S. State Department go-ahead, would use a Dnepr booster under contract with ISC Kosmotras, a Russian and Ukrainian rocket-for-hire company.
Awaiting U.S. State Department approval
Kosmotras was founded in 1997, converting retired R 36-M ballistic missiles into the silo-launched Dnepr space booster. The R 36-M is known to the West by its NATO classification -- the SS-18, or "Satan."
Bigelow Aerospace and Kosmotras have agreed to financial terms for one or more Dnepr launches. The U.S. firm is awaiting U.S. State Department approval before moving ahead with technical discussions.
"Assuming export control does not become an issue -- which we sincerely hope will be the case since we're not dealing with any sensitive technologies - [Bigelow Aerospace] is looking forward to having a long-term relationship with Kosmotras," said Mike Gold, corporate counsel for Bigelow Aerospace in Washington, D.C.
"Our goal had always been to identify and develop relationships with one domestic and one foreign launch provider," Gold said.
Ballooning expectations deflated
Bigelow Aerospace has been working on space inflatable modules, picking up where NASA’s inflatable TransHab project ended, or was deflated partly due to political wrangling.
TransHab had undergone extensive testing at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. The inflatable module was designed to offer far more volume to live-in crews of the International Space Station (ISS) and could have been utilized as habitats for Moon and Mars dwellers.
However, TransHab’s support shell was eventually punctured. Technical issues, escalating cost and Congressional pressure to avoid adding more uncertainty to the ISS program led to a shutdown of the NASA TransHab effort.
Tech-transfer
Working with NASA’s Johnson Space Center’s Technology Transfer and Commercialization Office, Bigelow signed in 2002 -- and has since renewed twice -- a NASA Space Act Agreement. That agreement enabled the private group and NASA to work together on evaluating next generation inflatable/expandable space module technology, Gold explained.
According to the space agency’s tech-transfer office: "In simplest terms, NASA's technology transfer is the process by which space technology developed by NASA is transferred to businesses for another purpose."
Gold told SPACE.com that Bigelow Aerospace has also secured two patents that NASA held in regard to inflatable space structures. Bigelow Aerospace paid NASA "a substantial sum" he added, to acquire the sole rights to commercial development of the inflatable technology represented by those patents.
In March, Bigelow Aerospace executed another exclusive licensing agreement with NASA, this time involving a NASA patent on shielding technology, Gold noted.
Go-it-alone, do-it-myself approach
Gold said that in late summer and early fall of this year, Bigelow Aerospace sub-scale modules will be undergoing vibration and vacuum chamber testing at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. The testing is being done under the auspices of the NASA Space Act Agreement.
"We’re looking forward to continuing to work with NASA as we transform the dream of affordable space structures into reality," Gold explained.
Bigelow has taken a go-it-alone, do-it-myself approach to inflatable space structures.
"We’re not taking any government money for the development of our spacecraft. This is purely driven by private-sector money and we are neither accepting nor soliciting external third-party funds," Gold advised.
Space spandex: instant room
In a very real sense, the Genesis Pathfinder is a trial balloon. It will demonstrate systems to be used on a full-scale inflatable space structure. The first mission next year will focus on the inflation process itself. Special built-in monitoring cameras and other instruments are to relay inflation information and gauge vessel integrity. Solar cells are to power the structure’s command and control equipment. Onboard telemetry gear will relay "how’s it going data" down to Earth.
At launch, Genesis will weigh roughly 3,000 pounds (1,360 kilograms) and sport dimensions about 15 feet (4.6 meters) in length and 6.2 feet (1.9 meters) in diameter. With a huff and a puff, the structure is to essentially double in diameter size once in orbit.
The Genesis Pathfinder spacecraft are not identical but will weigh roughly the same, Gold said.
Sub-scale testing of Genesis would evolve to the Nautilus. This larger inflatable design is expected to tip the scales at between 45,000 to 50,000 pounds (20,000 to 23,000 kilograms) fully loaded. Once fully-inflated this module would be roughly 45 feet (13.7 meters) long and 22 feet (6.7 meters) in diameter.
"Most importantly, the Nautilus will contain 330 cubic meters of usable volume," Gold said.
Marketplace in space
Why inflatable space habitats?
Gold said the technology offers several advantages. For one, an expandable structure can be tightly packed inside a variety of rocket nose farings, at econo-class prices. Additional, once in orbit, they offer increased pressurized volume for crew and experiments. Lastly, they provide a lot of instant room at low-cost.
"We have evaluated a lot of NASA TransHab work and have moved on substantially from where they were," Gold said. "We are continuing to aggressively pursue the development of next generation expandable space structures. Building a real private-sector marketplace in space cannot be done by any one nation alone. Instead it will require a global mix of talents, resources, and technologies," he said.
Bigelow Aerospace was founded in 1999. Explains the firm’s website: "Our goal is to create a new cost paradigm for space station construction. We intend to so reduce costs of station habitable structure as to make the difference between space stations being only government available or having space stations affordable for general business ownership."
Brian Berger of Space News contributed to this story from Washington, D.C.
Link to Bigelow Aerospace http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/
Didn't the Moties fly inflatable spacecraft?
I just got an inflatable hot tub. It's very space age. It's strange sitting in it; feels like being in a rubber boat but with the water on the inside. LOL!
I have not read that series by Niven, sorry.
And just what are you guys up to now? ;)
1. It needs to be rigid
2. It needs to be puncture-proof
3. You pretty much have to launch it without anything stuck to the walls, meaning "some assembly required."
Also, if you look at the mass of the full-fledged module (> 20,000 kg), it doesn't really seem to offer that much mass savings for the additional trouble you'd have in making the thing operational. In that light, I suspect the primary advantage is that it requires less volume on the booster than does a rigid platform. This is a legitimate savings.
For man-rated habitats, I think the costs and risks of testing, maintenance, and activation might negate the price advantage (if any) of being able to launch on a smaller booster. For example: for it to be man-rated, you need to make sure the thing holds air. The alternatives are to test (and fix) it on the ground, deflate and re-pack it, and hope for the best; or to launch it, inflate it, and let it sit for a while to see if it holds air. In the latter case, if it doesn't hold air, it's tough to imagine not having to launch a replacement, as opposed to trying to patch the leak(s). Activation (i.e., wiring, mounting racks, and so on) would probably require an additional manned launch to do that work....
In any case, it's a cool concept, and I think there are probably ways to make it work. The technical difficulties are probably fairly substantial, though.
Well I know the Army has resealable fuel tanks, maybe something that uses that sort of technology.
This picture is probably not technically feasible: if it's inflatable and not extremely rigid, I don't see that you would really want to dock anything to it. Consider what would happen if the docking vessel came in just a little too fast: just like any other balloon, the walls would expand as they absorbed the impact. What would that do to the integrity of the module, not to mention anything that happened to be stuck to the walls?
The "proper" approach would be to mount these guys to a rigid hub of some sort, and to dock to that instead. I don't think you'd want any inflatables along the "structural axes."
Note, however, that you probably couldn't have any penetrations (i.e., sensors, wires, windows, antenna mounts) on these guys. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it makes them less flexible than traditional rigid bodies.
Thats a good point about not docking the soyuz on the structural axis. Another interesting question would be how to use inflatable modules on future moon missions. You could have an inflatable mission module or landing module, but you'd have to be careful with docking. Also, you could do a transhab style thing with a solid core and fix any problems with that.
I believe they did design a window into the transhab somehow, so I think its possible.
injectable foam is an interesting idea. I'm sure it would expand very differently in space though. Maybe I could submit that to NASA as a student experiment thing.
"less flexible than rigid bodies": no pun intended, I'm sure.
Space Ping! This is the Space Ping List! Let me know if you want on or off this list!
It's re-inventing the wheel but give Burt some moola and he'll make it happen.
Wish I could peek at his plans for SpaceShip2!!!
Thanks, Kevin.
Got the T-shirt.
nice, is that a soyuz with an inflatable orbital module? That is a good sort of design.
Thats the sort of thing that I draw in school when I get bored. I think the CEV should be based heavily on the soyuz, but be a 6 person vehicle. You could leave the inflatable module in orbit. You could link perhaps several inflatable modules and some service modules launched on their own and docked remotely. Then all you have to do is launch up another cm and a landing module and you've got a very nice lunar vehicle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.