On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 8:06:18 AM UTC-5, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Rick Jones" wrote in message ...

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

You also have the benefit that the larger the volume, the slower it
is to leak if it gets punctured (of course you also have a larger
surface area for potential punctures. ;-)

Quibble, but don't you mean "the longer it will take to depressurize?"
I'd think the rate of leakage would depend on the size of the hole,
not the size of thing in which the hole was made.

Yes, that's probably a more accurate rendering of what I meant to say.

That and with the greater volume, you can design it so that it is easier
to access the inside of the pressure wall so that a patch could be
applied to any hole which is causing a leak. On an inflatable, you put
the equipment along the central axis because that's where the structure
which supports launch loads is located.

On ISS, the walls of the aluminum skinned modules are almost completely
covered up with equipment. Getting to a leak on ISS could be quite
involved, depending on where it is located.

True, I almost mentioned that.

Overall I think inflatables really need to be looked at a lot more.


Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

congress passeda law prohibiting inflatables on ISS.....

no doubt to control who got the money spent on iss