Bigelow Aerospace, A new Genesis in space |
Bigelow Aerospace, A new Genesis in space |
Aug 2 2006, 04:30 PM
Post
#46
|
|
Rover Driver Group: Members Posts: 1015 Joined: 4-March 04 Member No.: 47 |
new pictures:
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/index.php |
|
|
Aug 4 2006, 04:59 AM
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 172 Joined: 17-March 06 Member No.: 709 |
My take on the flight of Genesis 1 is this - we are seeing the first flight of a type of craft that will one day be flown to Mars. In fact, this TransHab-type craft will be used for crew quarters on the way to Mars, and as modules for a base on the surface of Mars. I applaud Bigelow in his efforts. He gets to pursue his business of orbital hotels, while at the same time, proving out the technology that NASA will need for advanced manned planetary missions. I see this as a Win-Win situation. Another Phil |
|
|
Aug 6 2006, 04:04 AM
Post
#48
|
||
Member Group: Members Posts: 172 Joined: 17-March 06 Member No.: 709 |
A few more thoughts on Genesis 1/Transhab. First, check out this excellent article on the history and important advances of Transhab (from Hobby Space). It features a detailed interview with Constance Adams, one of the key contributors to the Transhab project. http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/I...tanceAdams.html Second, here is the link to an article from Popular Science that highlights Transhab, but also gets into the challenge of "Knowledge Capture" at a place like NASA. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace...ecbccdrcrd.html And for your viewing pleasure, here is an image from the NASA History book, "Spaceflight Revolution." It shows a 24-foot inflatable toroidal-shape structure on display during a visit to Langley by Jim Webb in December 1961! Everything old is new again. One more thought concerning inflatables. As I recall, Mike Griffin made mention, about a year or so ago, of an Earth orbital fuel depot that might be used in future manned Mars expeditions. He was pointing out that one way that Commercial space companies could make "easy" money was by hauling fuel to Earth orbit. It is now extremely expensive to launch anything into orbit, but if it could be done cheaply, then the start-up space companies could earn a niche in the space exploration architecture. I mention this because Griffin went on to say that this fuel depot could be man-tended, i.e., not permanently manned. This may then lead one to imagine that these temporary quarters could be inflatable modules bought from that pioneer of orbital motels, Bigelow Aerospace. Another Phil |
|
|
||
Sep 13 2006, 02:51 PM
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 163 Joined: 16-March 05 From: Oakville, Ontario, Canada Member No.: 201 |
I wonder if Bigelows "hotel" or some other version will ever be attached to the ISS for crew quarters.
Be a cheap addition to the ISS and give Bigelow lots of credibility. Since it was to be installed initially, I wonder if the idea was/will be ever approached. |
|
|
Sep 14 2006, 03:44 AM
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 6-April 06 From: Cape Canaveral Member No.: 734 |
I wonder if Bigelows "hotel" or some other version will ever be attached to the ISS for crew quarters. Be a cheap addition to the ISS and give Bigelow lots of credibility. Since it was to be installed initially, I wonder if the idea was/will be ever approached. No, Bigelow never was or will be part of the ISS plans |
|
|
Sep 14 2006, 05:36 PM
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 163 Joined: 16-March 05 From: Oakville, Ontario, Canada Member No.: 201 |
No, Bigelow never was or will be part of the ISS plans I was dissappointed that transhab was cut from the station plans way back when (2001??)..... Side note..what plans do they have for the habitat..just saw an article saying it was canceled in feb 2006 |
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 01:52 AM
Post
#52
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
How the heck do they think they're going to expand the ISS crew to six people if they only have two sleeping berths on the whole complex???
-the other Doug -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 06:50 AM
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: 29-August 06 From: Columbia, MD Member No.: 1083 |
How the heck do they think they're going to expand the ISS crew to six people if they only have two sleeping berths on the whole complex??? -the other Doug http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts115/fdf/manifest.html 6-person capability will be established with STS-128 slated for early 09. They're adding sleeping berths and facilities. |
|
|
Sep 21 2006, 05:57 PM
Post
#54
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 163 Joined: 16-March 05 From: Oakville, Ontario, Canada Member No.: 201 |
|
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 08:29 AM
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 593 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 279 |
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts115/fdf/manifest.html 6-person capability will be established with STS-128 slated for early 09. They're adding sleeping berths and facilities. The romantic in me would rather like to see one of the shuttles left at the ISS. Endeavour on STS-133 perhaps, the crew - if it's a logistics mission - not necessarily being large, and able to nip home on a Soyuz. Or two. Why shouldn't a last flight be a one-way-ticket, a symbol of the work the shuttles have done in ferrying stuff to orbit for 25 years? That'd leave Discovery and Atlantis for museums (Smithsonian and the Cape, no doubt), and Endeavour as - urrrr - a "test article" for investigations on the long exposure to vacuum. Or something. Andy |
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 12:11 PM
Post
#56
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: 29-August 06 From: Columbia, MD Member No.: 1083 |
The romantic in me would rather like to see one of the shuttles left at the ISS. Endeavour on STS-133 perhaps, the crew - if it's a logistics mission - not necessarily being large, and able to nip home on a Soyuz. Or two. Why shouldn't a last flight be a one-way-ticket, a symbol of the work the shuttles have done in ferrying stuff to orbit for 25 years? That'd leave Discovery and Atlantis for museums (Smithsonian and the Cape, no doubt), and Endeavour as - urrrr - a "test article" for investigations on the long exposure to vacuum. Or something. Andy That's an interesting idea, but that would add so much mass to the ISS that I wonder if it would be able to maintain it's orbit with normal reboosts. Whatever remaining propellent would be left in Endeavor would be used up eventually and then you'd just have a really heavy anchor weighing down the station. |
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 12:45 PM
Post
#57
|
|
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, 12:49 PM
Post
#58
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3648 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
What's the full mass of ISS compared to an empty shuttle? Anyway, it's not the mass that determines the need for reboosts, but the amount of drag. Granted, a bigger mass will require more fuel, but I wouldn't be surprised if the new solar panel area actually costs more than a shuttle due to increased drag surface, so more frequent reboosts are needed.
-------------------- |
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 12:52 PM
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 562 Joined: 29-March 05 Member No.: 221 |
|
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 12:54 PM
Post
#60
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 6-April 06 From: Cape Canaveral Member No.: 734 |
the orbiter at 230K lb would be a significant portion of the ISS mass. Also, it would change the mass propertities. even though the solar array may have more drag, the shuttle still would cause a moment that would have to be compensated for
It would block the docking ports. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd September 2024 - 01:26 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. |