Expandable modules??

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.

BrianJan. 16, 2013

Trent J. Perrotto
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1100


RELEASE: 13-024

NASA TO TEST BIGELOW EXPANDABLE MODULE ON SPACE STATION

LAS VEGAS -- NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver announced Wednesday
a newly planned addition to the International Space Station that will
use the orbiting laboratory to test expandable space habitat
technology. NASA has awarded a $17.8 million contract to Bigelow
Aerospace to provide a Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM),
which is scheduled to arrive at the space station in 2015 for a
two-year technology demonstration.

"Today we're demonstrating progress on a technology that will advance
important long-duration human spaceflight goals," Garver said.
"NASA's partnership with Bigelow opens a new chapter in our
continuing work to bring the innovation of industry to space,
heralding cutting-edge technology that can allow humans to thrive in
space safely and affordably."

The BEAM is scheduled to launch aboard the eighth SpaceX cargo
resupply mission to the station contracted by NASA, currently planned
for 2015. Following the arrival of the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft
carrying the BEAM to the station, astronauts will use the station's
robotic arm to install the module on the aft port of the Tranquility
node.

After the module is berthed to the Tranquility node, the station crew
will activate a pressurization system to expand the structure to its
full size using air stored within the packed module.

During the two-year test period, station crew members and ground-based
engineers will gather performance data on the module, including its
structural integrity and leak rate. An assortment of instruments
embedded within module also will provide important insights on its
response to the space environment. This includes radiation and
temperature changes compared with traditional aluminum modules.

"The International Space Station is a uniquely suited test bed to
demonstrate innovative exploration technologies like the BEAM," said
William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for human exploration
and operations at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "As we venture
deeper into space on the path to Mars, habitats that allow for
long-duration stays in space will be a critical capability. Using the
station's resources, we'll learn how humans can work effectively with
this technology in space, as we continue to advance our understanding
in all aspects for long-duration spaceflight aboard the orbiting
laboratory."

Astronauts periodically will enter the module to gather performance
data and perform inspections. Following the test period, the module
will be jettisoned from the station, burning up on re-entry.

The BEAM project is sponsored by NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems
(AES) Program, which pioneers innovative approaches to rapidly and
affordably develop prototype systems for future human exploration
missions. The BEAM demonstration supports an AES objective to develop
a deep space habitat for human missions beyond Earth orbit.

For more information about Bigelow Aerospace, visit:

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com

For more information about the International Space Station and
animation of the BEAM, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/station

-end-


--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user.
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Jan. 11, 2013

Trent J. Perrotto
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1100


Mike Gold
Bigelow Aerospace
240-235-6016


MEDIA ADVISORY: M13-011

NASA, BIGELOW OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS SPACE STATION EXPANDABLE MODULE

WASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded a $17.8 million contract to Bigelow
Aerospace to provide a new addition to the International Space
Station. The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module will demonstrate the
benefits of this space habitat technology for future exploration and
commercial space endeavors.

"The International Space Station is a unique laboratory that enables
important discoveries that benefit humanity and vastly increase
understanding of how humans can live and work in space for long
periods," NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver said. "This
partnership agreement for the use of expandable habitats represents a
step forward in cutting-edge technology that can allow humans to
thrive in space safely and affordably, and heralds important progress
in U.S. commercial space innovation."

Garver and Bigelow Aerospace Founder and President Robert Bigelow will
discuss the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module program at a media
availability at 1:30 p.m. EST (10:30 a.m. PST) Wednesday, Jan. 16, at
Bigelow Aerospace facilities located at 1899 W. Brooks Ave. in North
Las Vegas.

To attend, media representatives must contact Mike Gold at
by 8 p.m. EST (5 p.m. PST) Jan. 15.

Journalists interested in a one-on-one interview with Garver should
contact Sarah Ramsey at 202-215-9680 or or
Michael Cabbage at 202-549-8073 or .

For more information about Bigelow Aerospace, visit:

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com

For information about NASA and agency programs, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov

-end-


--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

In article m,
says...

NASA put out a tweet pointing a a video:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/st...m_feature.html

Looks like the inflatable module is to be just a payload in some sort of
Dragon ship berthen on ISS. Payload extracted from the dragon (or
whatever that ship may be) and then brought to another CBM port.

It's just a normal Dragon, as far as I can tell. Dragon's service
module has always had an unpressurized "trunk" for delivery of
(external) cargo to ISS.

I was really expecting the non-inflated module to be "the ship" instead
of some object inside a ship.

That's the beauty of inflatables, they're lightweight and compact during
launch, but expand to quite large sizes when inflated. They're also
quite strong. Ever stand on top of an unopened aluminum pop can, drink
the pop, then try to stand on the empty can? The empty can is much more
susceptible to buckling (crushing) than the full can.

On top of that is the ability for an inflatable to have *better* MMOD
protection than a fixed (rigid aluminum) shell since their inflated
outer diameter is not constrained by launch vehicle fairing diameter.

Also of interest is that the end is a solid disk, as opposed to being
inflatable. So it is more of an inflatable cylinder between the solid
CBM at one end and that solid disk at the other end.

My first guess at this would be that it keeps the design symmetric which
simplifies structural design. My second thought is that, like other
Bigelow inflatable designs, there could be an internal structural
connection between the CBM end and the "solid disk" end.

The one difference I see is that this design seems to expand in length
when inflated. I don't believe other Bigelow inflatable module designs
have done this. I'm guessing this modification to the design was made
in order to get BEAM to fit inside the Dragon trunk.

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

In article om,
says...

On 13-01-16 16:51, JF Mezei wrote:
NASA put out a tweet pointing a a video:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/st...m_feature.html

More details:

Launches aboard SpaceX Dragon. (launch number 8 in 2015).

Air to inflate it will be stored inside the module.

It is to be a 2 year test period with instruments to monitor radiation,
air leaks, temperature. Crew members will periodically enter the module
to see it. Module to be ditched after 2 years. (no sure how it will
de-orbit though).

So this is not an addition to the space station, it is more akin to
those experiments where they leave some material exposed to space for 2
years and monitor them.

Precisely.

And there is no information on whether the module will be outfitted with
anything inside or whether it will just be the monitoring equipment.

Since it will be disposed of at end of life, it would not surprise me if
it were used to store trash, especially near its "end of life" on the
station. Trash buildup, and clutter in general, was one of the big
problems on Mir. Visits by the shuttle helped Mir get rid of a lot of
trash they otherwise had a hard time getting rid of. I would expect
that ISS might have similar issues.

This is related to the problem where a suitcase packed with clean,
neatly folded clothing seems to be much harder to pack with the same
clothing once they've been worn and are no longer neatly folded.

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.

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.

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

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.

No, I think this is simply due to the fact that it is an experimental
module, so keeping it closed allows Bigelow to collect data on the rate
that air leaks out of the module. If the hatch were open all of the
time, this would not be possible, especially if the leak rate is too low
to measure over a relatively short time interval (with the hatch
closed).

Also, it has no active life support and perhaps less MMOD protection
than a "full sized" module would have. A MMOD strike could cause a
leak, so it's better to keep the hatch closed most of the time.
Radiation exposure might also be an issue (Bigelow will be collecting
data on this as well). Those would be my only safety related concerns.

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

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:

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
--
"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

On 1/17/2013 5:42 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
There is a new release on this.

[...snip...]

The BEAM is scheduled to launch aboard the eighth SpaceX cargo
resupply mission to the station contracted by NASA, currently planned
for 2015. Following the arrival of the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft
carrying the BEAM to the station, astronauts will use the station's
robotic arm to install the module on the aft port of the Tranquility
node.

After the module is berthed to the Tranquility node, the station crew
will activate a pressurization system to expand the structure to its
full size using air stored within the packed module.


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...

Dave

On 1/17/2013 5:23 PM, David Spain wrote:
Once attached to the Tranquility node it's inflated, so I imagine there
are extra air cylinders included with the 'kit'?

Anyone know?


Never mind... Didn't read the whole thread... Seen the video...

Dave

No doubt the t shirt will be along shortly!

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"David Spain" wrote in message
...
On 1/17/2013 5:23 PM, David Spain wrote:
Once attached to the Tranquility node it's inflated, so I imagine there
are extra air cylinders included with the 'kit'?

Anyone know?


Never mind... Didn't read the whole thread... Seen the video...

Dave

In article om,
says...

On 13-01-17 07:31, Jeff Findley wrote:

Also, it has no active life support and perhaps less MMOD protection
than a "full sized" module would have.

It depends on how well decked out the CBM portion is. CBM can support
ventilation from the station, and I would assume the module would have
heaters as a bare minimum. It likely would have similar systems to the
original MPLMs.

I doubt it has "similar systems to the original MPLMs". Everything I've
read says it has *no* environmental control systems.

A closed hatch makes it easier to monitor not only pressure changes but
also outgassing of the balloon material at first.

True. They've said repeatedly it is instrumented in order to
characterize leak rates. I've not read anything related to out-gassing.

A MMOD strike could cause a
leak, so it's better to keep the hatch closed most of the time.

That is an interesing question. From what I read, the station has very
sensitive pressure monotors and can detect small leaks in any module.

How sensitive? Since all of the interconnected modules normally have
their (internal) hatches wide open, how would one identify which module
was the source of the leak?

If the door is opened and there is a small leak, it makes it possible
for crews to go into the module, investigate and close the hole. If the
door is kept closed, then once the pressure difference between station
and module i large enough, you can no longer ingress the module to fix
the leak. This becomes a complex EVA (likely requiring module be
detached so EVA astronaut can ingress the deflated module for the
outside), and in a deflated module, it makes it much header to identify
the location of the leak.

The BEAM module has its own pressurization system. Keeping it inflated
would depend on the leak rate and how much gas is left in the
pressurization system. I have not read any details about this system,
so I hesitate to speculate further.

Still, the safest way to operate this test is with a closed hatch except
when the module is being inspected and data collected. This is exactly
how the articles in the press are describing operations with BEAM.

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

In article om,
says...

On 13-01-17 11:24, Jeff Findley wrote:

BEAM "comes undone" where the inflatable part attaches to the "solid
disk" end.

So the instantaneous force on ISS caused by the "solid disk" releasing
is surface area times pressure or approximately 74,000 pounds.

If the balloon were to cleanly detach from the CBM in one shot, wouldn't
the very initial force be split evenly between balloon and station ?

No, the initial force on ISS depends only on the pressure and surface
area. The initial force on the remainder of the BEAM pressure vessel
and end cap would be equal and opposite.

And as the gap increases with balloon speeding away, wouldn't the force
against the station very very quickly drop to non dangerous levels ?
Much of the air pushed out the balloon might still travel towards the
station, but by the time it reaches it, its psi would have dropped to
nearly 0 and would be able to flow around the module instead of hitting
just the CBM door.

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.

Please note that I did carefully choose my wording to say "instantaneous
force" or "initial force". Yes, the force would decrease as the air
from the module spread out in vacuum. A very detailed analysis would
need to be performed to characterize the rate of decrease of the force.
In other words, someone would need to "do the math" and that's not part
off my day job since I don't work for NASA or Bigelow Aerospace.

Also it is more likely that a break would not be clean. For instance,
you might have a rip around half the diametre around the CBM. In such a
scenario, the air would be expelled in one direction and the force would
be more akin to a rocket engine, measuring mass of air being accelerated
in one direction.

That is why I carefully worded this as a "worst case scenario". In
engineering, it's always prudent to do analysis on the likelihood and
consequences of a "worst case scenario".

In the scenario I described, the consequences would likely be dire,
which is why I am asserting that the likelihood of such a large leak
happening on BEAM must have been determined to be very unlikely. If it
were likely, NASA wouldn't let the thing be attached to ISS in the first
place. I'm sure that Bigelow Aerospace has shared its findings on the
two (unmanned and untended) Genesis inflatable test spacecraft it placed
in orbit on unmanned launch vehicles. Such data would go a long way
towards convincing NASA that the technology is safe enough for a two
year test at ISS.

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".

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