Inflatable space habitats

[sferrin]

1. How does "Bigelow seems to disagree " with me and "SpaceX and the private sector in general"?

"But Bigelow's tweet about this was somewhat passive aggressive, implying that it was an "overabundance of caution" that halted the inflation, not a technical problem."

Elon Musk has said on numerous occasions that the NASA model wouldn't be able accomplish what SpaceX has done in such a short amount of time. Others as well. It's not exactly a secret. Nobody is saying NASA is stupid. Just that they are risk-averse to a degree that it takes them ages to get anything done.

2. NASA is not monolithic and "most everything coming out of NASA these days" is unqualified. NASA science mission, space technology and aeronautics make up about about 40% of the budget. The part of 44% that is human spaceflight operations covers the TDRSS, DSN and other tracking systems. Commercial crew and cargo are also funded from this pot. Orion and SLS only make up 18% of NASA budget. The space probes is where NASA excels. We don't need NASA building launch vehicles (SLS included). And also explain "rapid reaction or development time"? Seems that SpaceX is following the standard timelines. 4 years to develop the basic Falcon 9, longer if you include the advanced versions. No different from most science spacecraft.

Fair enough. I would say specifically that with regard to launcher development, space travel, and working in space (astronauts, space station -related hardware, etc.) they are overly risk averse.

3. Spacecraft and station logistics on more 30 shuttle missions. More 30 spacecraft on ELV's including Titan IV, Atlas II, Delta II, Atlas V, Delta IV and Falcon 9

In what capacity?

4. Wrong, NASA does have a say on what happens to the Falcon 9 on missions it is buying. Also, who cares that rockets land on a barge at all. They are just scrap and not going to be resused. Reuse is still an unknown.

Typical NASA bashing and SpaceX FanBoi post

Not at all. Just pointing out that SpaceX is accomplishing what NASA wouldn't dare try, certainly not in today's environment.

 

[blackstar]

How many space programs have you successfully run?

How many have you?

I'm not the one posting about how NASA should be running their space programs on the ISS. That would be you. So it would be nice if you could back up your assertions with some indication that you actually know the subject.

 

[sferrin]

How many space programs have you successfully run?

How many have you?

I'm not the one posting about how NASA should be running their space programs on the ISS. That would be you. So it would be nice if you could back up your assertions with some indication that you actually know the subject.

Does one need to be a NASA administrator to have an opinion or to observe that, compared to past performance, NASA's current institutional mindset is not what it once was? No, of course not. So I'm not seeing that you have a point here. A bit like saying one has no business commenting on Chryslers 2016 lineup unless they're an automotive engineer.

 

[Arjen]

NASA's current institutional mindset is not what it once was?

The mindset that got Challenger blown up?

This started about whether waiting a day or so inflating the structure, to find out what went wrong, was a sign of NASA being over-cautious. You appear to be the only one here who thinks that.

 

[Byeman]

delete

 

[Byeman]

In what capacity?

As an launch site support engineer at various times with the USAF, McDonnell Douglas and NASA. Did actual hands on with MDAC. Supported military, commercial and civil spacecraft

Fair enough. I would say specifically that with regard to launcher development, space travel, and working in space (astronauts, space station -related hardware, etc.) they are overly risk averse.

Doesn't that makes sense since human lives are involved?

Not at all. Just pointing out that SpaceX is accomplishing what NASA wouldn't dare try, certainly not in today's environment.

Not true at all.
a. NASA funded much of SpaceX's early development.
b. Contractors do most of the work for NASA.
c. Comparing unmanned projects to manned projects.
D. NASA doesn't need to try such things. That now belongs in industry's hands.
e. See Mars Pathfinder, LSDS, etc

 

[riggerrob]

Returning to the original topic: look up red line aerospace.com

 

[RyanC]

It's hardly excessive risk-aversion to take a couple of days to examine why you might be getting unexpected results in a situation like this.

Plus, it's currently attached to the ISS, which took quite a long time, and lots of money to assemble; and is a multi-national project between multiple nations.

Taking a few days to figure out why it's doing this before we do Y under those circumstances is understandable.

If BEAM was a free-floating tech demo like the last Bigelow module, they'd be hammering it with pressure now to fix it, IMHO.

 

[blackstar]

It's hardly excessive risk-aversion to take a couple of days to examine why you might be getting unexpected results in a situation like this.

Plus, it's currently attached to the ISS, which took quite a long time, and lots of money to assemble; and is a multi-national project between multiple nations.

Taking a few days to figure out why it's doing this before we do Y under those circumstances is understandable.

If BEAM was a free-floating tech demo like the last Bigelow module, they'd be hammering it with pressure now to fix it, IMHO.

And we have a winner!

To backtrack a bit, taking an extra day to figure something out doesn't seem like extreme risk aversion at all. They tried it, it didn't work, they decided to get a good night's sleep, look at the data, and try again. I did the same thing when I couldn't get my old sofa down the stairs.

...And it worked. Seems like the right call. I'd also add that we don't know what crew time limits they were pushing. If it was time for the astronaut to do his exercise routine or go to sleep, or to go on to some other things on the schedule, that could have been reason enough to try again later.

But RyanC's point is an important one--the ISS is a big, expensive, multi-national platform. You don't do stuff half-cocked when there's a lot of money and international partnerships involved.

There is a bigger issue with regards to BEAM on the ISS. Bigelow originally wanted NASA to commit to much more than what they did. If I remember correctly, Bigelow wanted both a larger module and also a free-flyer. NASA nixed both of them, telling Bigelow that if they were going to plug any new piece of hardware into the $100 billion space station, they were going to operate under a conservative set of constraints, not dictate terms to the people paying the bills. NASA has five and a half decades of space operations experience, so it's a little churlish to tell them that they don't know their shit.

 

[RyanC]

With that said, Sferrin does have a point, crudely stated; though.

Or as I like to refer to it:

"Elon Musk was able to build this in a cave! With a box of scraps!"

SpX's recovery program is going like gangbusters due to them accepting the risk of failure (they kept crashing stages before they got it down to an acceptable success rate), and simply trying again a few months later.

Contrast this to other aerospace programs (X-51 -- one year interval between tests; and ULA Recovery -- proposed around 2005, won't actually occur until like 2020+) and you can understand Sferrin's impatience.

 

[blackstar]

Contrast this to other aerospace programs (X-51 -- one year interval between tests

That was due to funding, not risk aversion. They did not have money to launch at a faster pace. (And from what I heard from somebody who was very familiar with the program, it's a convoluted story; part of the cost issue had to do with the cost of the B-52 used to launch it. It's an expensive aircraft to maintain.)

I accept the argument about risk aversion in general, but not in the case of BEAM and ISS.

 

[sferrin]

Contrast this to other aerospace programs (X-51 -- one year interval between tests

That was due to funding, not risk aversion. They did not have money to launch at a faster pace. (And from what I heard from somebody who was very familiar with the program, it's a convoluted story; part of the cost issue had to do with the cost of the B-52 used to launch it. It's an expensive aircraft to maintain.)

I accept the argument about risk aversion in general, but not in the case of BEAM and ISS.

Perfect example right here (starting at 16:10):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mZopFn4bkQ

They actually considered quitting. The 4th flight is a perfect example of why you don't give up at the first sign of difficulty. But then they did nothing with it. They didn't try to keep testing to expand the envelope or get a really good feel for what they were working with, no. It's like they went, "whew. . .we finally sorta succeeded. Let's quit so we can end on a success".

And I'm not specifically blaming the AFRL. They have a finite amount of money. I'm blaming the mindset of the ENTIRE edifice all the way to the top. The pols don't want to be seen anywhere near perceived failure because you'll have places like POGO and Taxpayers for "Common Sense" skewering you for things they don't understand. "Oh my God, Senator SoAndSo is lavishing the pork on this failure of a program, etc. etc. etc." That cows the people asking for money because they know they won't get it if there is a whiff of risk let alone failure. The system is broken IMO.

Anyway, enough of that topic.

 

[blackstar]

Contrast this to other aerospace programs (X-51 -- one year interval between tests

That was due to funding, not risk aversion. They did not have money to launch at a faster pace. (And from what I heard from somebody who was very familiar with the program, it's a convoluted story; part of the cost issue had to do with the cost of the B-52 used to launch it. It's an expensive aircraft to maintain.)

I accept the argument about risk aversion in general, but not in the case of BEAM and ISS.

Perfect example right here (starting at 16:10):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mZopFn4bkQ

They actually considered quitting. The 4th flight is a perfect example of why you don't give up at the first sign of difficulty. But then they did nothing with it. They didn't try to keep testing to expand the envelope or get a really good feel for what they were working with, no. It's like they went, "whew. . .we finally sorta succeeded. Let's quit so we can end on a success".

And I'm not specifically blaming the AFRL. They have a finite amount of money. I'm blaming the mindset of the ENTIRE edifice all the way to the top. The pols don't want to be seen anywhere near perceived failure because you'll have places like POGO and Taxpayers for "Common Sense" skewering you for things they don't understand. "Oh my God, Senator SoAndSo is lavishing the pork on this failure of a program, etc. etc. etc." That cows the people asking for money because they know they won't get it if there is a whiff of risk let alone failure. The system is broken IMO.

Anyway, enough of that topic.

The video does not make your case. He said they considered quitting, but they didn't quit. They did the fourth test and it succeeded. And the reason they did not do any more (although he doesn't say so) was because that particular test program had succeeded in its goals and was over, not because of risk aversion. And hypersonics has been short on cash for a long time. Go dig through the trade press and you'll find quite a bit about that.

 

[sferrin]

The video does not make your case. He said they considered quitting, but they didn't quit.

Show me where I said they quit. I said, "They actually considered quitting." The only way the notion of quitting should have even entered the conversation is if they'd discovered on the previous flights that the entire system was fundamentally flawed, or the program had already spent all the money. Such was not the case. Not even close.

They did the fourth test and it succeeded.

Reread my post.

And the reason they did not do any more (although he doesn't say so) was because that particular test program had succeeded in its goals and was over, not because of risk aversion.

Actually they didn't reach their originally stated goals (Mach 6) but they probably got "enough" to call it a win without too much embarrassment. And the US makes the Keystone Cops look like professionals when it comes to hypersonics (hell, even supersonic air-breathers for that matter). Almost completely disorganized and without much of a plan beyond powerpoints. And before you get uptight, I'm blaming the decision makers and those holding the purse strings, not the technical side of things.

 

[fredymac]

Video of first entry into BEAM module. I have an old Nova documentary (late 70's) showing concepts for constructing very large structures in space with automated beam builders. Grumman actually put together a conceptual prototype (I can't recall if it functioned) which easily fit into the cargo bay of the shuttle and could spool out kilometer long triangular trusses. A different automated "spider" would then fabricate plating over the trusses. I was disappointed they never test flew a beam builder although they did erect a telescoped truss in the cargo bay on one flight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZZdp727ek

 

[Flyaway]

NASA May Extend BEAM’s Time on the International Space Station
Erin Mahoney - October 2, 2017

NASA is exploring options with Bigelow Aerospace to extend the life of the privately owned Bigelow Expandable Activity Module. Known as BEAM, the module is attached to the International Space Station and continues to perform well during its technology demonstration mission. NASA has issued a synopsis of an intended contract action to partner with Bigelow Aerospace to extend the life of the expandable habitat and use it for long-term in-orbit storage. This step continues NASA’s commitment to expand private-public partnerships, scientific research and commercial applications aboard station to maximize the benefits from humanity’s premiere laboratory in microgravity.

NASA’s use of BEAM as part of a human-rated system will allow Bigelow Aerospace to demonstrate its technology for future commercial applications in low-Earth Orbit. Initial studies have shown that soft materials can perform as well as rigid materials for habitation volumes in space and that BEAM has performed as designed in resistance to space debris.

BEAM launched on the eighth SpaceX Commercial Resupply Service mission in 2016. After being attached to the Tranquility Node using the station’s robotic Canadarm2, it was filled with air to expand it for a two-year test period to validate overall performance and capability of expandable habitats. Since the initial expansion, a suite of sensors installed by the crew automatically take measurements and monitor BEAM’s performance to help inform designs for future habitat systems. Learning how an expandable habitat performs in the thermal environment of space and how it reacts to radiation, micrometeoroids and orbital debris will provide information to address key concerns about living in the harsh environment of space. This extension activity will deepen NASA’s understanding of expandable space systems by making the BEAM a more operational element of the space station to be actively used in storage and crew operations.

Space station crew members have entered BEAM 13 times since its expansion in May 2016. The crew has conducted radiation shielding experiments, installed passive radiation badges called Radiation Area Monitors, and they routinely collect microbial air and surface samples. These badges and samples are returned to Earth for standard microbial and radiation analysis at the Johnson Space Center.

The original plan called for engineers to robotically jettison BEAM from the space station following the two-year test and validation period, allowing it to burn up during its descent through Earth’s atmosphere. However, after almost a year and a half into the demonstration with positive performance, NASA now intends to continue supporting BEAM for stowage use and to allow Bigelow Aerospace to use the module as a test-bed for new technology demonstrations. A new contract would likely begin later this year, overlapping the original planned test period, for a minimum of three years, with two options to extend for one additional year. At the end of the new contract, the agency may consider further life extension or could again consider jettisoning BEAM from the station.

Using the space inside BEAM would allow NASA to hold between 109 to 130 Cargo Transfer Bags of in-orbit stowage, and long-term use of BEAM would enable NASA to gather additional performance data on the module’s structural integrity, thermal stability and resistance to space debris, radiation and microbial growth to help NASA advance and learn about expandable space habitat technology in low-Earth orbit for application toward future human exploration missions. Given that the volume of each Cargo Transfer Bag is about 1.87 cubic feet (0.53 cubic meters), use of BEAM for stowage will free an equivalent space of about 3.7 to 4.4 International Standard Payload Racks, enabling more space in the ISS for research.

With an extension of the partnership, Bigelow also would be able to continue to demonstrate its technology for future commercial applications in low-Earth orbit. The public-private partnership between NASA and Bigelow supports NASA’s objective to develop deep space habitation capabilities for human missions beyond Earth orbit while fostering commercial capabilities for non-government applications to stimulate the growth of the space economy.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-may-extend-beam-s-time-on-the-international-space-station

https://www.fbo.gov/notices/92129895cfbdb9e887d2afbae61f4b79

 

[Foo Fighter]

I wonder how an inflatable habitat could cope with micro meteorite impacts, I can only conclude a self sealing property much like self sealing fuel tanks but is there something I am missing?

 

[blackstar]

I wonder how an inflatable habitat could cope with micro meteorite impacts, I can only conclude a self sealing property much like self sealing fuel tanks but is there something I am missing?

They have multiple layers, for starters. And I believe that the outermost layer is similar to kevlar, used in bullet proof vests. So the first defense is that the object does not penetrate all the way through, but shatters, expelling energy.

The biggest threat is not micro meteorites but space debris. There's a lot more of that in low Earth orbit.

 

[cluttonfred]

I wonder how an inflatable habitat could cope with micro meteorite impacts, I can only conclude a self sealing property much like self sealing fuel tanks but is there something I am missing?

According the this NASA page, Skylab's walls were a little over 3.18 mm thick, presumably of aluminum, and not penetrated by the micrometorites the station encountered. It wouldn't take much Kevlar to offer more protection than 1/8" aluminum.

 

[Byeman]

I wonder how an inflatable habitat could cope with micro meteorite impacts, I can only conclude a self sealing property much like self sealing fuel tanks but is there something I am missing?

According the this NASA page, Skylab's walls were a little over 3.18 mm thick, presumably of aluminum, and not penetrated by the micrometorites the station encountered. It wouldn't take much Kevlar to offer more protection than 1/8" aluminum.

It had a shield and kevlar is not needed.

 

[Flyaway]

NASA Extends Expandable Habitat's Time on the International Space Station

The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module, known as BEAM, will remain attached to the International Space Station to provide additional performance data on expandable habitat technologies and enable new technology demonstrations. NASA awarded a sole-source contract to Bigelow Aerospace to support extension of the life of the privately-owned module, and its use to stow spare space station hardware.

After NASA and Bigelow successfully completed collaborative analyses on BEAM life extension and stowage feasibility, astronauts began the process to provide additional storage capability aboard the station by removing hardware used for the initial BEAM expansion. They then converted sensors that monitor the BEAM environment from wireless to wired (to prevent interference from future stowage items on transmission of sensor data). Next they installed air ducting, netting, and large empty bags to define the stowage volume for hardware inside BEAM. NASA and Bigelow later will likely add a power and data interface to BEAM, which will allow additional technology demonstrations to take place for the duration of the partnership agreement.

This new contract, which began in November, will run for a minimum of three years, with two options to extend for one additional year. At the end of the new contract, the agency may consider another extension or could again consider jettisoning BEAM from the station.

The space inside BEAM will hold up to 130 Cargo Transfer Bags of in-orbit stowage. Long-term use of BEAM will enable NASA and Bigelow to gather additional performance data on the module’s structural integrity and thermal stability and resistance to space debris, radiation, and microbial growth, to help NASA advance and learn about expandable space habitat technology in low-Earth orbit for application toward future human exploration missions. Using BEAM for stowage will free up about 1.87 cubic feet (0.53 cubic meters) of space in other station modules for research.

NASA’s use of BEAM as part of a human-rated system allows Bigelow Aerospace to demonstrate its technology for future commercial applications in low-Earth Orbit. Initial studies have shown that soft materials can perform as well as rigid materials for habitation volumes in space and that BEAM has performed as designed in resistance to space debris.

BEAM launched on the eighth SpaceX Commercial Resupply Service mission in 2016. After being attached to the Tranquility Node using the station’s robotic Canadarm2, it was filled with air to expand it for a two-year test period to validate overall performance and capability of expandable habitats. Since the initial expansion, a suite of sensors installed by the crew automatically take measurements and monitor BEAM’s performance to help inform designs for future habitat systems. This extension will deepen NASA’s understanding of expandable space systems by making the BEAM a more operational element of the space station to be actively used in storage and crew operations.

Space station crew members have entered BEAM more than a dozen times since its expansion in May 2016. The crew has conducted radiation shielding experiments, installed passive radiation badges called Radiation Area Monitors, and routinely collect microbial air and surface samples. These badges and samples are returned to Earth for standard microbial and radiation analysis at the Johnson Space Center.

The public-private partnership between NASA and Bigelow supports NASA’s objective to develop deep space habitation capabilities for human missions beyond Earth orbit while fostering commercial capabilities for non-government applications to stimulate the growth of the space economy.

Last Updated: Dec. 4, 2017
Editor: Mark Garcia

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-extends-beam-s-time-on-the-international-space-station

 

[aonestudio]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxXQ2y8Gz9Y

 

[Rhinocrates]

It blowed up real good!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHkvD7-u7y8

 

[publiusr]

I prefer metal thank you…especially the kind that gets stronger as it gets colder:

Say hello to the toughest material on Earth

Scientists have measured the highest toughness ever recorded, of any material, while investigating a metallic alloy made of chromium, cobalt, and nickel (CrCoNi). Not only is the metal extremely ductile—which, in materials science, means highly malleable—and impressively strong (meaning it...

phys.org

And you can ground it too.

An inflatable docking collar might be a good cushion. The hard docking Soyuz filled Zarya with cracks. Here the inflate takes the abuse…and can blow apart if said capsule were to explode—saving the main hull, say?

Now—-the best thing is to have the combination I describe above surrounded by an inflate…so your spacewalk is between the inflate that keeps you from floating off and the metal hull.

Put your trash in the gap for further insulation.

 

[aonestudio]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1b3WrY9gLQ

Sierra Space’s LIFE Habitat Completes Successful Ultimate Burst Pressure Test | Sierra Space

Sierra Space’s LIFE Habitat completes ultimate burst pressure test and becomes only active commercial space company to meet threshold.

www.sierraspace.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWoyXpo4XeE

Sierra Space Successfully Completes Series of Major Development Milestones for First Commercial Space Station | Sierra Space

Second sub-scale LIFE Habitat test article exceeds NASA certification requirements after ultimate burst pressure (UBP) test. This second test further establishes Sierra Space as the leader in commercial space station development and the only active commercial space company to meet multiple...

www.sierraspace.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGcdrxB2Qow

Sierra Space Completes Third Successful Test of Inflatable Habitat Unit Designed for First Commercial Space Station | Sierra Space

Sierra Space's subscale version of LIFE™ Habitat exceeds NASA certification requirements in duration test for extended human missions.

www.sierraspace.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcJuz6JA0BU

Sierra Space Advances Future of Space Habitation in Low-Earth Orbit and Deep Space with LIFE™ Test | Sierra Space

Recent testing demonstrates company’s leadership in building inflatable structures for extended human-rated space missions Space Act Agreement expands collaboration opportunities with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center to further advance LIFE Habitat LOUISVILLE, Colo. – March 23, 2023 –...

www.sierraspace.com