Space first stage recovery.

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article , says...
BEAM to ISS is scheduled for this coming March. March 20th in fact.
Riding up-hill on an F9-FT out of SLC-40 Canaveral.

An inflatable module on ISS should go a long way to proving the tech is
ready for use in a deep space HAB module.

Hopefully.

I think one of the big benefits of inflatable modules is they can be big. I
think more room has a lot of advantages, including psychological ones.
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. ;-)

MMOD protection of an inflatable can actually be greater than that
surrounding a typical aluminum pressure vessel. This is because the
aluminum vessel's MMOD shielding is limited by the internal diameter of
the payload fairing it is launched inside. An inflatable does not have
this same constraint, so it can have more MMOD layers spaced further
apart. More layers spaced further apart is exactly what you want to
stop hypervelocity particles.

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...

"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.

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

"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

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article , says...
BEAM to ISS is scheduled for this coming March. March 20th in fact.
Riding up-hill on an F9-FT out of SLC-40 Canaveral.

An inflatable module on ISS should go a long way to proving the tech is
ready for use in a deep space HAB module.

Hopefully.

I think one of the big benefits of inflatable modules is they can be big.
I
think more room has a lot of advantages, including psychological ones.
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. ;-)

MMOD protection of an inflatable can actually be greater than that
surrounding a typical aluminum pressure vessel. This is because the
aluminum vessel's MMOD shielding is limited by the internal diameter of
the payload fairing it is launched inside. An inflatable does not have
this same constraint, so it can have more MMOD layers spaced further
apart. More layers spaced further apart is exactly what you want to
stop hypervelocity particles.

True. Most folks get this idea that because it's "inflatable" it's like a
balloon and very fragile. Far from the truth.


Jeff

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

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

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


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

Someone might want to tell NASA before they attach BEAM.



no doubt to control who got the money spent on iss

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

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:


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


I generally agree. Does anyone know if any long term exposure studies
have been done on the appropriate (presumably kevlar-like) materials
to see how they stand up to the environment on orbit?


I can't say for sure, but I'd be surprised if the LDEF didn't have some.
There's also the MISSE (Materials International Space Station Experiment).

Reading quickly, it seems atomic Oxygen is one of the bigger issues.

That said, Bigelow still has two of its inflatables Genesis I and II are
still up there.

Genesis I according to wikipedia still seems to have pressure as of 2011.
So that's a good sign.
Seems similar with Genesis II.

So that's a start. I'd have to dig deeper to see how much Bigelow has made
public, but my guess is they're monitoring as much as they can.



[Yeah, I'm being just a little lazy. I'll look for myself in a bit.]



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

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
web.com...

On 2016-01-28 14:22, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

congress passeda law prohibiting inflatables on ISS.....
Uh, no. Cite?


As I recall, when ISS budgets were ballooning, Congress started to
tighten the noose around NASA's neck to stop overspending.

It so happened that the Bigelow concept came to the table at the wrong
time and even if it was a great idea, Congress specifically prohibited
NASA from spending any money on it (and I believe at same time as the
"do not spend research money on manned mission to mars but not sure).

It is not clear to me if those decisions were permanent or just for a
couple of budget cycles.

Sort of. They explicitly said not to spend money on Transhab, because of
the budget at the time.

But there was no specific law outlawing inflatables in general.

Bigelow came after Transhab was cancelled.


As I recall, when shuttle was killed, a whole bunch of stuff was
rewritten, including giving NASA carte blanche to study/spend on manned
mission to Mars (hence Ares, Orion and now SLS.) Have no idea what
happened to the original restrictions on the Bigelow hab module.

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

Anyone who has used a tent to camp out shoudl know that an inflatable need not be fragile.

http://www.oddee.com/item_97036.aspx

There's an inflatable surf tent in the list above. lol.


On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:06:57 AM UTC+13, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article , says...
BEAM to ISS is scheduled for this coming March. March 20th in fact.
Riding up-hill on an F9-FT out of SLC-40 Canaveral.

An inflatable module on ISS should go a long way to proving the tech is
ready for use in a deep space HAB module.

Hopefully.

I think one of the big benefits of inflatable modules is they can be big.
I
think more room has a lot of advantages, including psychological ones.
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. ;-)

MMOD protection of an inflatable can actually be greater than that
surrounding a typical aluminum pressure vessel. This is because the
aluminum vessel's MMOD shielding is limited by the internal diameter of
the payload fairing it is launched inside. An inflatable does not have
this same constraint, so it can have more MMOD layers spaced further
apart. More layers spaced further apart is exactly what you want to
stop hypervelocity particles.

True. Most folks get this idea that because it's "inflatable" it's like a
balloon and very fragile. Far from the truth.


Jeff

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

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-01-28 14:22, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

congress passeda law prohibiting inflatables on ISS.....
Uh, no. Cite?


As I recall, when ISS budgets were ballooning, Congress started to
tighten the noose around NASA's neck to stop overspending.

It so happened that the Bigelow concept came to the table at the wrong
time and even if it was a great idea, Congress specifically prohibited
NASA from spending any money on it (and I believe at same time as the
"do not spend research money on manned mission to mars but not sure).

It is not clear to me if those decisions were permanent or just for a
couple of budget cycles.


Uh, budgets don't work like that. Budgets fund things. Things that
aren't funded aren't "prohibited". They're just not funded.

Actually sometimes Congress will write in such prohibitions because they're
afraid the executive branch will otherwise find a way to move money around.

Section 128 of the 1999 NASA authorization act is pretty much written as a
prohibition in my opinion.



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