Bigelow Aerospace, A new Genesis in space |
Bigelow Aerospace, A new Genesis in space |
Jun 1 2006, 07:18 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2454 Joined: 8-July 05 From: NGC 5907 Member No.: 430 |
To quote:
On June 16, he'll use a Russian Dnepr rocket to launch a 1/3-scale Genesis model of his planned commercial orbital space station. That much has been public for a while. What I didn't learn until just now is what will be on that module. Freefloating inside will be 1,000 photocards and small personal objects contributed by Bigelow employees. If all goes well, those items will be continuously blown throughout the pressurized module in a kind of space collage. Six onboard cameras will stream video to Bigelow's new website, which will launch tomorrow or Friday. Seven external cameras will provide views of the Earth from space and the outside of the module. If that doesn't get even the most disinterested member of the public at least intrigued about the possibilities of space travel, I don't know what will. But it gets better. Subject to a successful launch of the first module, Bigelow will launch a second Genesis module in September, and that one will contain photos and other small items contributed by anyone who cares to pony up $295. Full article here: http://michaelbelfiore.com/blog/2006/05/bi...s-to-orbit.html -------------------- "After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance. I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard, and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft." - Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853 |
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 12:45 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 6-April 06 From: Cape Canaveral Member No.: 734 |
How are you going to power it? Also, how do get rid of it at the end of the ISS? The additional habitable volume is insignificant
The orbiter would detiorate quickly. It would be worse that sitting on the ground. "Symbol of the work"? It is an inanimate object, it doesn't need a "reward". Your "reward" would give it a fate like Columbia |
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 01:15 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 593 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 279 |
How are you going to power it? Also, how do get rid of it at the end of the ISS? The additional habitable volume is insignificant Last issue first: it need not be. There's, what, ~300 cubic metres of payload bay not including the docking adapter. I can't believe that a small hab module - not a working volume, just additional space for the crew and/or tourists - couldn't be built in the next four years, providing more much-needed room. Power - for lighting, ventilation and heating - needn't be a huge amount. QUOTE "Symbol of the work"? It is an inanimate object, it doesn't need a "reward". I'm reminded of military aircraft. They look ok in museums, but nothing is as inspirational as seeing them fly. Post 2010, to know there's a shuttle permanently berthed at the gleaming, magnitude minus whatever-it-is ISS, rather than slowly falling to pieces as a museum piece, would be a wonderful reminder to people around the planet regarding that "magnificent flying machine" - and maybe it could just spur peoples' memories to recall the second half of Tsiolkovsky's famous quote: "...man cannot stay in the cradle forever." Andy |
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 01:39 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: 29-August 06 From: Columbia, MD Member No.: 1083 |
Last issue first: it need not be. There's, what, ~300 cubic metres of payload bay not including the docking adapter. I can't believe that a small hab module - not a working volume, just additional space for the crew and/or tourists - couldn't be built in the next four years, providing more much-needed room. Power - for lighting, ventilation and heating - needn't be a huge amount. The US Hab is fully completed, but won't be launched due to the additional cost after the ISS redesign a few years back. If someone could foot the bill for the launch and attachment, then that would be plenty of room and facilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitation_Module |
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 02:41 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 593 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 279 |
Bah-humbug!
Ok, I can see that they're no takers for the Tsiolkovsky Orbital Museum. Indeed, there's a bit of hatred at the mere romanticism of it all. That, and the current 20M$ a ticket entrance fee. Right - you asked for it. Here's the hard-engineering-headed side of me talking. The orbiters have been operating as a fleet of space shuttles up until now. When the last two (Atlantis is to be a hangar queen, I think?) are on their last trip in one direction (given the crew can return in a safer capsule) and the vehicles are no-longer needing to shuttle anywhere, has anyone asked whether flying brakes, wheels, and TPS upstairs makes any sense at all? Think of the mass you could throw out of each orbiter, and the resultant payload you could get in... Once you consider that, there's a <ahem> further option: While the angle-grinders are out, if the wings and stabiliser were removed for two one-shot shuttle C-equivalents, NASA would be not be that far off getting a brace of orbital ETs as part of their future freelance LEO gas station. Or at least a bit of orbital real estate that Mr. Bigelow might fancy. How's that for unromantic? Andy |
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 03:24 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 6-April 06 From: Cape Canaveral Member No.: 734 |
The orbiters have been operating as a fleet of space shuttles up until now. When the last two (Atlantis is to be a hangar queen, I think?) are on their last trip in one direction (given the crew can return in a safer capsule) and the vehicles are no-longer needing to shuttle anywhere, has anyone asked whether flying brakes, wheels, and TPS upstairs makes any sense at all? Think of the mass you could throw out of each orbiter, and the resultant payload you could get in... Once you consider that, there's a <ahem> further option: While the angle-grinders are out, if the wings and stabiliser were removed for two one-shot shuttle C-equivalents, NASA would be not be that far off getting a brace of orbital ETs as part of their future freelance LEO gas station. Or at least a bit of orbital real estate that Mr. Bigelow might fancy. How's that for unromantic? Andy Who is going to fly it up. you made if go from a few abort options to none |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th September 2024 - 10:09 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |