BEAM expansion and SpaceX launch tomorrow

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 12:47:33 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:


look for ULA to design and roll out a similiar product, its only other alternative is to abandon the launch market, as space X makes it uncompetive


I think ULA is currently cutting prices on at least some of their
boosters, but they're still relying on USAF and such to keep the cash
rolling in.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Which Musk is complaining about!

http://www.denverpost.com/2014/04/28...n-countys-ula/

The Concorde was tested in wind tunnel form, and in sub-scale aircraft like the BAC 221

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...49eb9905f7.jpg

With modern fabrication techniques, and modern computer and sensing technology, subscale systems can be tested in supercomputers and built at 1/6th scale or smaller, in drone form, and tested in flight, to achieve results at dramatically lower cost than earlier techniques.

http://qz.com/684828/india-will-soon...space-shuttle/

A 300 ton TSTO-RLV launched from a Maglev at 0.8 Mach, boosted to 3 km/sec with a hydrogen powered ramjet, and boosted to orbit with a hydrogen oxygen rocket, carries close to 60 tons into LEO - with reuse of all components.

0.3 km/sec - Maglev - 0.00 tons
2.7 km/sec - Scramjet - 25.82 tons hydrogen
6.2 km/sec - LOX/LH2 Rocket - 25.63 tons hydrogen 140.92 tons LOX

58.46 tons - payload.



On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 3:02:36 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 2016-05-28 09:05, Jeff Findley wrote:

Instead of grasping for the ring of bleeding edge technology, doing what
you can with existing tech is proving to cost far less and is producing
results far faster than many engineers would have imagined (especially
after the expensive failure of X-33 and similar projects).


But isn't it NASA's role to advance the bleeding edge so that
eventually, what used to be bleeding edge becomes "off the shelf"
commercial stuff ? The problem with advancing bleeding edge is that you
have to be ready to accept high rate of failures.

But the goal of X-33 was to actually fly something. It didn't fly.
Afterwards, NASA declared that we just don't have the tech for reusable
launch vehicles. SLS will be all expendable.

A sane technology demonstrator would have one new piece of tech on it.
X-33 was packed with new tech. It was destined to fail from the very
beginning.

The politicial funding for NASA appears to be hungry to cut funding
after first failure. Imagine if SpaceX cut funding for re-entry
attempts after first failure.

I doubt that. SLS hasn't even flown once and it's not been cut. Actual
successful flights of the thing seem aren't as important as the pork
spending.

Aviation is interesting because commercial airplanes have moved from 4
"commodity" engines to using 2 "bleeding edge" engines such as when the
777 was launched.

This greatly reduces maintenance costs for airlines.

Yes, because engines became more reliable, you didn't need as many
extras on a trans-oceanic flight. And those two "bleeding edge" engines
are evolutions of every other high bypass turbofan that came before.
So, "bleeding edge" is a tad bit of an exaggeration. They are, in fact,
quite mature technology wise and are based on decades of experience with
prior engines.

Once Musk has mastered mass production of "small" rocket engines, will
we see a move towards fewer, more powerful engines ?

LOX/methane Raptor is in the plan.

BTW, dor yesterday's launch, I noticed the exhaust was not so clean and
was red. When I run my camping stove on kerosene, it produces a blue
flame and very little if any smoke. I know that my portable camping
stove is just a little bit smaller than those engines, but shouldn't
they be burning the kerosene very cleanly and producing blue flames ?

Look at the exhaust of the Saturns and Atlas. All orange flame too.

When you get to a point where you chill the kerosene down to fit a
little bit more in the tank, shouldn't drive for performance have first
gotten to have a perfect combustion to produce blue flames ?

Nope. You don't want to burn oxidizer rich in a rocket engine. It will
literally burn your engine. In fact, you often want a bit of extra fuel
to flow down the insides of the exhaust nozzle to help keep it cool.
That unburned kerosene then burns in the atmosphere, giving a large
bright distinctive exhaust.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 3:04:27 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On May/25/2016 at 6:56 PM, Jeff Findley wrote :
Tomorrow should be an exciting day. BEAM is set to be expanded in the
a.m. (EST) and SpaceX is scheduled to launch another comsat (and attempt
another high energy barge landing) in the p.m.

Jeff

The excitement was stretched over a few days but it was great.

I wonder though about BEAM. I'm not sure, it was only a small test
version. I don't know what would happen if you scale up. If you build a
much bigger inflatable module, would the problems they had with
inflation be bigger or easier?

Those weren't really problems so much as learning what to expect. NASA
was very cautious and only allowed a few seconds of air into BEAM at a
time. Besides, what's a few days of inflation time for a module
expected to be tested for a couple of years?

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-c...00-350x221.jpg

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont...le-580x326.png

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/...9261141951.jpg


BEAM is composed of two metal bulkheads, an aluminum structure, and multiple layers of soft fabric with spacing between layers, protecting an internal restraint and bladder system; it has neither windows nor internal power.

It is inflated from its packed dimensions of 2.16 m (7.1 ft) long and 2.36 m (7.7 ft) in diameter to its pressurized dimensions of 4.01 m (13.2 ft) long and 3.23 m (10.6 ft) in diameter. The module has a mass of 1,413.0 kg (3,115.1 lb),and its interior pressure will be 14.7 pounds per square inch (1 atm), the same as inside of the ISS.

BEAM's internal dimensions provide 16 m3 (565 cu ft) of volume where a crew member will enter the module three to four times per year to collect sensor data, perform microbial surface sampling, conduct periodic change-out of the radiation area monitors, and inspect the general condition of the module.

Contrast the 16 m3 volume and 1.4 ton weight with the volume and weight of the Apollo Command Module

The Apollo Command Module
Crew: 3
Crew cabin volume: 218 cu ft (6.2 m3) living space, pressurized 366 cu ft (10.4 m3)
Length: 11.4 ft (3.5 m)
Diameter: 12.8 ft (3.9 m)
Mass: 12,250 lb (5,560 kg)

Two such modules attached to a Dragon capsule, could provide lots of volume for a 7 passenger crew on long duration missions.

In message
Rick Jones wrote:

Watching the technical webcast, was that one of the steering vanes
which ignited around the time of the entry burn?

Quite possibly spent hydraulic fluid burning. The previous first stage
has what appears to be a burn mark on the interstage starting from
around the same point.

Anthony

In article . com,
says...

On 2016-05-29 02:34, William Mook wrote:

BEAM is composed of two metal bulkheads, an aluminum structure, and multiple layers of soft fabric with spacing between layers, protecting an internal restraint and bladder system; it has neither windows nor internal power.

Looks mostly cut and pasted from the FAQ:
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/beam-facts-figures-faqs

Is there really no internal power ? You'd think there would be
power/data connections for monitoring equipment ? Does it not have fans
for cooling and heating ?

For leak checks, the hatch and any vents are closed between the module
and ISS. Heating and cooling, when astronauts go inside for
inspections, is provided by air ducts from ISS.

From the FAQ:

The primary purpose of the crew ingress is to collect
deployment dynamics sensor (DDS) data, perform surface
sampling, conduct periodic change-out of the radiation
area monitors (RAM) and inspect the general housekeeping
condition of the module. The sensors collect dynamic
loads data during BEAM deployment. NASA does not plan to
stow any ISS equipment or hardware inside BEAM. Because
BEAM has no internal power, crew members will carry
battery operated lights while conducting tests inside.

DDS data will be downloaded to the Space Station laptop
through a USB port and then transmitted to the ground.
The surface samples will be analyzed for microbial growth.

The RAM sensors are used in addition to the active,
real-time radiation monitors, or REMs, discussed below.
RAM sensors collect passive radiation data inside BEAM
in the form of cumulative doses. RAMs have a limited
life, so they need to be periodically replaced and sent
to the ground for analysis. Radiation data collected by
both the RAM and REM sensors inside the BEAM module
will be compared with corresponding data collected by
these sensors in metallic modules on other parts of ISS.
Two of the RAMS will be co-located with the two REM
detectors, and in this way will provide a direct
comparison between active and passive measurements.

But, since final inflation was from BEAM's internal air tanks, activated
by a control panel inside ISS, there are clearly some (at least
temporary) electrical connections to BEAM from ISS.

How can they test the module's resilience if the pressurized compartment
isn't maintained to normal temperatures while the outside goes from very
hot to very cold ?

It is, by systems on ISS, only when astronauts are inside.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

"Alain Fournier" wrote in message ...

On May/25/2016 at 6:56 PM, Jeff Findley wrote :
Tomorrow should be an exciting day. BEAM is set to be expanded in the
a.m. (EST) and SpaceX is scheduled to launch another comsat (and attempt
another high energy barge landing) in the p.m.

Jeff

The excitement was stretched over a few days but it was great.
I wonder though about BEAM. I'm not sure, it was only a small test version.
I don't know what would happen if you scale up. If you build a much bigger
inflatable module, would the problems they had with inflation be bigger or
easier?


Alain Fournier


Hmm, interesting, I had thought the Genesis I and II modules Bigelow had
flown were larger, but apparently not.

That said, Bigelow does have some experience with this sort of module for a
few years on orbit.

This it the first docked module however.

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

On May/28/2016 at 11:04 PM, Jeff Findley wrote :
In article , says...

On May/25/2016 at 6:56 PM, Jeff Findley wrote :
Tomorrow should be an exciting day. BEAM is set to be expanded in the
a.m. (EST) and SpaceX is scheduled to launch another comsat (and attempt
another high energy barge landing) in the p.m.

Jeff

The excitement was stretched over a few days but it was great.

I wonder though about BEAM. I'm not sure, it was only a small test
version. I don't know what would happen if you scale up. If you build a
much bigger inflatable module, would the problems they had with
inflation be bigger or easier?

Those weren't really problems so much as learning what to expect.

I agree, and that is the point of my question. All was nice and well
this time. But if Bigelow just scales up, what should we expect? Of
course Bigelow is going to take note of all what happens with BEAM and
plan their next modules accordingly. But does Bigelow have to look at
what happened during inflation and design bigger modules accordingly, or
can they just say, well if it expanded at that size, it is obviously
going to expand when it will be bigger. I don't know if a bigger module
would make expansion more or less prone to sticking together.

NASA
was very cautious and only allowed a few seconds of air into BEAM at a
time. Besides, what's a few days of inflation time for a module
expected to be tested for a couple of years?

Right, plus it makes for a better show. If it expands too fast it's
interesting, if it takes more time it's interesting for longer. I'm not
saying that I'm hoping for glitches, but when they happen and are solved
I don't mind.

Anyway, congratulations to Bigelow and all those involved.


Alain Fournier

Alain Fournier wrote:

On May/28/2016 at 11:04 PM, Jeff Findley wrote :
In article , says...

On May/25/2016 at 6:56 PM, Jeff Findley wrote :
Tomorrow should be an exciting day. BEAM is set to be expanded in the
a.m. (EST) and SpaceX is scheduled to launch another comsat (and attempt
another high energy barge landing) in the p.m.

Jeff

The excitement was stretched over a few days but it was great.

I wonder though about BEAM. I'm not sure, it was only a small test
version. I don't know what would happen if you scale up. If you build a
much bigger inflatable module, would the problems they had with
inflation be bigger or easier?

Those weren't really problems so much as learning what to expect.

I agree, and that is the point of my question. All was nice and well
this time. But if Bigelow just scales up, what should we expect? Of
course Bigelow is going to take note of all what happens with BEAM and
plan their next modules accordingly. But does Bigelow have to look at
what happened during inflation and design bigger modules accordingly, or
can they just say, well if it expanded at that size, it is obviously
going to expand when it will be bigger. I don't know if a bigger module
would make expansion more or less prone to sticking together.


Just off the top of my head I would think less of a problem overall,
even if there is more adhesion. On a much longer structure I would
expect that at least some of the fabric sections would expand. That
would probably be enough vibration and such to break the rest loose.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

In article m,
says...

On 2016-05-29 15:03, Jeff Findley wrote:

Looks mostly cut and pasted from the FAQ:
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/beam-facts-figures-faqs

To be a fly on the wall of that room where it was decided to spend
gazillions of dollars and not even bother installing a LED light and
camera in the module. (would have been extremely useful to monitor
inflation from inside.

It looks to me, from the pics on Twitter
(https://twitter.com/ian_benecken on May 25), that there is a window in
the middle of the BEAM hatch.

Gives me impression that NASA was not interested in this, but Bigelow
convinced higher ups to let them test it, but this resulted in "we'll
let you berth, but we won't give you power/data."

The MPLMs were only berthed for a few months and had more systems in them.

I can see NASA uneasy about BEAM being connected to the station's ECLSS
as its mateials may release "new car smell" gases into the station,
especially when it is heated by the sun. All the more reason to install
powered electronics to monitor air quality.

Consider this: imagine a scenario where the fabric rips (MMOD or other
failure) Having video of it from a camera inside would provide
invaluable data to find out why it did.

If this were a true evaluation, you'd think they would have instrumented
the module up the wazoo.

And if I were Bigelow, I might have considered covering the top "disk"
with solar cells to provide minimal power to power monitoring equipment
with some antenna where it could downlink data directly to Bigelow
whenever the station was over its offices.

For leak checks, the hatch and any vents are closed between the module
and ISS. Heating and cooling, when astronauts go inside for
inspections, is provided by air ducts from ISS.

I suspect crews will wear oxygen masks during ingress. They may time the
periods to be just after a sunset so temperature would be bearable.

Why would temperatures be a problem? It's quite well insulated and ISS
can circulate air into BEAM before ingress.

NASA claims that BEAM is "human rating". But it looks to me like it is
not yet Human Rated and that human rating will be the end result of this
experiment.

It's based on NASA's Transhab tech, which was most certainly "human
rated". Remember, NASA does the "human rating", so that means whatever
NASA wants it to mean.

Question:

During launch and prior to inflation, are the conditions near the CBM
structure where electronics would be expected such that they would fail
before being powered ?

In the past, modules such as MPLMs were powered almost all the time
(either by shuttle, or canadarm) and had atmosphere to allow
electronics to stay cool enough. Are modules such as BEAM incapable
of having electroncs, fans etc because they would not survive the
period in space prior to inflation ?

Unknown. You'd have to ask a Bigelow Aerospace engineer why BEAM was
designed the way it was. Perhaps NASA had quite a bit of input into
this. Or perhaps Bigelow Aerospace just didn't want to bother with the
added expense of "human rating" the electronics and other bits. Again,
NASA gets to write the rules for "human rating", so I'd bet it can be a
big p.i.t.a. to do anything to their specs.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Alain Fournier was thinking very hard :
On May/28/2016 at 11:04 PM, Jeff Findley wrote :
In article , says...

On May/25/2016 at 6:56 PM, Jeff Findley wrote :
Tomorrow should be an exciting day. BEAM is set to be expanded in the
a.m. (EST) and SpaceX is scheduled to launch another comsat (and attempt
another high energy barge landing) in the p.m.

Jeff

The excitement was stretched over a few days but it was great.

I wonder though about BEAM. I'm not sure, it was only a small test
version. I don't know what would happen if you scale up. If you build a
much bigger inflatable module, would the problems they had with
inflation be bigger or easier?

Those weren't really problems so much as learning what to expect.

I agree, and that is the point of my question. All was nice and well this
time. But if Bigelow just scales up, what should we expect? Of course Bigelow
is going to take note of all what happens with BEAM and plan their next
modules accordingly. But does Bigelow have to look at what happened during
inflation and design bigger modules accordingly, or can they just say, well
if it expanded at that size, it is obviously going to expand when it will be
bigger. I don't know if a bigger module would make expansion more or less
prone to sticking together.

Hasn't Bigelow already flown (and is still flying) bigger modules?
Not the size of the B330, but ...


For Bigelow, BEAM could be regarded as a step backward. The expandable
space modules he launched a decade ago—the Genesis I and II—weren’t
designed for human use, but they were autonomous, with solar cells, and
filled with avionics and equipment. Comparatively, BEAM is an empty
shell—after a decade of work and waiting.

Except for two things. Bigelow says his engineers have reworked and
improved the layering. The BEAM hull has layers of Kevlar, the fabric
strong enough to stop bullets, and Vectran, another artificial fabric,
which is two times as strong as Kevlar. Vectran was used for the
airbags that cushioned Mars rovers when they landed on the Martian
surface. BEAM’s hull is six inches thick; the shell for the B330
modules is 18 inches thick.




URL:http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/robert-bigelow-visio-future-living-space-180958698/#IySv3Fi7sWH4fbJY.99



NASA
was very cautious and only allowed a few seconds of air into BEAM at a
time. Besides, what's a few days of inflation time for a module
expected to be tested for a couple of years?

Right, plus it makes for a better show. If it expands too fast it's
interesting, if it takes more time it's interesting for longer. I'm not
saying that I'm hoping for glitches, but when they happen and are solved I
don't mind.

Anyway, congratulations to Bigelow and all those involved.


The Genesis modules weren't attached to a space station when they were
inflated, though:

"Already, BEAM has presented unexpected complexity. Space is the land
of pure Newtonian mechanics and BEAM is being launched folded to
one-quarter its flight volume. When air pressure expands it to full
size, it will push against the International Space Station, potentially
putting all that load on the docking port connection. “When we analyzed
the rate at which the gas would come out of the tanks,� says Dasgupta,
“it was imparting a lot of load to the space station.� Now, BEAM will
be inflated more slowly and the module will be outfitted with shock
absorbers."
[same Smithosonian article]

Oh, and 20 layers, and differences from the original TransHab. And
they've been working on the how-to of packing since 1999.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?