A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Expandable modules??



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 18th 13, 02:06 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Expandable modules??

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...


This is all very curious and interesting.
Must be the ultimate do-it-yourself kit. First the hab will have to be
off-loaded from the Dragon capsule, then what? Is it assembled within
the station or from the outside with it attached to the arm?

Once attached to the Tranquility node it's inflated, so I imagine there
are extra air cylinders included with the 'kit'?

Anyone know?

I might need to fire off an email to Mr. Perrotto for clarification...


Or you could just watch the video.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/video...html?media_id=
158539341

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #22  
Old January 19th 13, 12:15 AM posted to sci.space.station
Dr J R Stockton[_193_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Expandable modules??

In sci.space.station message -
september.org, Thu, 17 Jan 2013 07:25:27, Jeff Findley
posted:

In article om,
says...


Question: if a detached module is ordered to open a valve to let the

air
out, could this provide enough delta-V to cause it to drop sufficiently
to cause re-entry ? Since this module is to be empty, the amount f
energy required to lower its orbit would be less significant than a full
module.


You'd have to "do the math". One big challenge would be to insure it
was pointed in the right direction when it was deflated. If it's got
enough delta-V to reenter, it would have enough delta-V to impact the
station. Due to safety issues alone, I'm guessing it will either remain
completely inflated or would be only partially deflated before being
released by ISS.


You should be able to work it out for yourself. I've seen and forgotten
the necessary figures, but no doubt you can find them. I'll assume that
it, inflated, is roughly equivalent to a 4m cube of mass 2.5 tonnes.

Volume 64m^3, 64000 litres; air is 1.2g/L, so 77kg of air - mass of air
is 3% of total. Exhaust velocity will be of the order of Mach 1, 760
mph, so if the nozzle is efficient the delta-V of the module will be 3%
of that, about 23 mph.

IIRC, the delta-V of the re-entry burn of a Shuttle was of the order of
225 mph. Such a module therefore cannot power its own re-entry, though
it could lower the orbit to be noticeably below that of the Station.

Now re-do that with the correct figures for the module and a better
estimate of the nozzle efficiency!


I suspect they'll leave it at least partially inflated so that it
remains a "fluffy" structure which will reenter faster than if they
deflated it completely and caused it to become more dense.


It is the initial lowering of altitude which takes longest - think
"scale height" - so the effect of an initial reduction of orbit size may
be more useful than maintaining fullest fluffiness. But, as a pure
physicist's guess, I suspect that a great deal of deflation in pressure
will be needed before the cross-section of the module decreases much.


--
(c) John Stockton, near London. Mail
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.
  #23  
Old January 19th 13, 09:50 PM posted to sci.space.station
Dr J R Stockton[_193_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Expandable modules??

In sci.space.station message -
september.org, Fri, 18 Jan 2013 08:04:54, Jeff Findley
posted:


An instantaneous force of approximately 74,000 pounds on ISS *is* what
would happen in real life if the inflatable part detached from the CBM.


Not quite. If the whole inflatable part detached suddenly, there would
be an instantaneous removal of that force from a part which is designed
to handle that force and also (for convenience in construction and
assembly) to handle zero force. The effect would undoubtedly be bad
enough, but not as great an overkill as a punch of 74,000 pounds applied
to a similar-sized arbitrary area of the surface of ISS.

If only the distal half detached, the instantaneous force would be
greater in the ratio of the cross-section of the module to that of the
hatch.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
  #24  
Old January 24th 13, 09:06 PM posted to sci.space.station
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Expandable modules??

On 1/18/2013 4:19 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
No doubt the t shirt will be along shortly!

Brian


Umm, T Shirt?

What would you like to have it say? I'm quite a bit easier to stump than Henry.
His residence must look like an AIAA research library.

https://www.aiaa.org/


In my case all I can give you is : Hey Dave didn't RMFP again...

?

;-)

Dave

  #25  
Old January 27th 13, 04:39 AM posted to sci.space.station
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Expandable modules??

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

There is a new release on this.
seems to me though that they will be keeping it closed off most of the
time
in case of disaster.


"Disaster" is a harsh word that I would not use. If there was any
chance of it experiencing a sudden structural failure, the forces on ISS
would not be pretty. If that were a likely possibility, it wouldn't be
allowed to be attached to ISS at all.


Imagine this "worst case" scenario:


Thanks. Now you've given Bob a whole new thing to go nuts over.

That said, like you, I'm pretty confident that NASA and Bigelow have done
their work.


BEAM "comes undone" where the inflatable part attaches to the "solid
disk" end. The diameter of this looks to be roughly the diameter of a
CBM, whose outside diameter is approximately 80 inches. The area of a
disk 40 inches in radius is pi*r-squared or approximately 5027 square
inches. NASA spec'ed ISS internal pressure as sea level, or 14.7 psi.
So the instantaneous force on ISS caused by the "solid disk" releasing
is surface area times pressure or approximately 74,000 pounds.

In other words, the worst case scenario structural failure of the BEAM
pressure vessel would turn out to be a "very bad day" for ISS.

Jeff


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

  #26  
Old January 27th 13, 04:41 AM posted to sci.space.station
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Expandable modules??


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


To top this all off, I'm not even sure that what I pose as a "worst case
scenario" truly is the "worst case scenario". Other failure modes might
prove worse, depending on the details. This is why NASA and Bigelow
Aerospace employ aerospace engineers, because this truly is "rocket
science".


A massive leak appears in the side, which puts a torque moment on the module
which then rips out the CBM port on the station side leading to massive
depressurization. Then the station tumbles out of control and lands on the
next Soyuz waiting to be launched, destroying it and the pad and killing the
crew and backup crew during a photo-op.

(my stab at worst case.)



Jeff


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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One-man Explorer Modules K. M. Kirby Space Shuttle 11 February 22nd 07 01:43 PM
How many more modules are to be added to ISS? bob haller Space Station 13 August 16th 04 04:48 AM
ISS Modules without Shuttle? Josh Gigantino Policy 10 November 27th 03 06:30 AM
Commercial ISS Modules? BenignVanilla Space Station 7 July 13th 03 03:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.