IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Bigelow Aerospace, A new Genesis in space
remcook
post Aug 2 2006, 04:30 PM
Post #46


Rover Driver
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1002
Joined: 4-March 04
Member No.: 47



new pictures:
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PhilHorzempa
post Aug 4 2006, 04:59 AM
Post #47


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 164
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PhilHorzempa
post Aug 6 2006, 04:04 AM
Post #48


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 164
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.



Attached Image



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jabe
post 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. smile.gif
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post Sep 14 2006, 03:44 AM
Post #50


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 6-April 06
From: Cape Canaveral
Member No.: 734



QUOTE (jabe @ Sep 13 2006, 10:51 AM) *
I wonder if Bigelows "hotel" or some other version will ever be attached to the ISS for crew quarters. smile.gif
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jabe
post Sep 14 2006, 05:36 PM
Post #51


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 16-March 05
From: Oakville, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 201



QUOTE (Jim from NSF.com @ Sep 14 2006, 03:44 AM) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Sep 15 2006, 01:52 AM
Post #52


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3227
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Drkskywxlt
post Sep 15 2006, 06:50 AM
Post #53


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 287
Joined: 29-August 06
From: Columbia, MD
Member No.: 1083



QUOTE (dvandorn @ Sep 15 2006, 03:52 AM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jabe
post Sep 21 2006, 05:57 PM
Post #54


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 16-March 05
From: Oakville, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 201



interesting..
LM and bigelow..
16 launches a year???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AndyG
post Sep 22 2006, 08:29 AM
Post #55


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 279



QUOTE (Drkskywxlt @ Sep 15 2006, 07:50 AM) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Drkskywxlt
post Sep 22 2006, 12:11 PM
Post #56


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 287
Joined: 29-August 06
From: Columbia, MD
Member No.: 1083



QUOTE (AndyG @ Sep 22 2006, 10:29 AM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Sep 22 2006, 12:49 PM
Post #58


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3564
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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paxdan
post Sep 22 2006, 12:52 PM
Post #59


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 557
Joined: 29-March 05
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (AndyG @ Sep 22 2006, 09:29 AM) *
Why shouldn't a last flight be a one-way-ticket

You seem to be forgetting one of the crucial rules of flying:

"Always try to keep the number of landings you make equal to the number of take offs"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th September 2014 - 05:59 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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 a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.