Expandable modules??

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 om,
says...

On 13-01-12 04:15, Brian Gaff wrote:

WASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded a $17.8 million contract to Bigelow
Aerospace to provide a new addition to the International Space
Station.

Transhab V2.0 ?

And how would it get to the station ?

The same way anything else gets to the station these days.

SpaceX is the only US firm with tested software/systems to get a ship
within berthing distance.

Orbital Sciences is not far behind.

Does SpaceX have "tug" designs already done based on Dragon ?

Orbital Sciences may be a better bet here considering how they're
approaching the commercial resupply of ISS.

Would such a tug be attached to the CBM side of TransHab, or would
they
build a structural shell around the deflated balloon so the tug could
bring Transhab with an exposed CBM ready to be berthed and then leave
with the shell, leaving baloon free to be inflated ?

(Tug attached to CBM side would have to wait for Transhab to be
grappled, then detach from transhab, then rotate transhab so CBM faces
node, then berth).

The powerpoint presentation makes it look like the "tug" delivers it to
ISS, then the SSRMS moves it to a CBM ("tug" stays docked to ISS during
this move).

Would the N2 and O2 (and the tanks to contain them) needed to inflate
the module be considered a heavy load that would be shipped separatly
(along with outfitting of the new module) ?

I'd think that would be integrated into the inflatable module, since
that's one of the systems to be tested.

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 1/12/2013 4:15 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
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.


Does not appear NASA TV will be covering this event, nothing streaming from Bigelow website either it appears. Too bad. Guess we
will have to await the reporters take...

Dave

I'm not that sure I'd trust an inflatable module myself, after all it will
be a bit fragile I'd have thought.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"JF Mezei" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 13-01-12 04:15, Brian Gaff wrote:

WASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded a $17.8 million contract to Bigelow
Aerospace to provide a new addition to the International Space
Station.

Transhab V2.0 ?

And how would it get to the station ?


SpaceX is the only US firm with tested software/systems to get a ship
within berthing distance.

Does SpaceX have "tug" designs already done based on Dragon ?

Would such a tug be attached to the CBM side of TransHab, or would they
build a structural shell around the deflated balloon so the tug could
bring Transhab with an exposed CBM ready to be berthed and then leave
with the shell, leaving baloon free to be inflated ?

(Tug attached to CBM side would have to wait for Transhab to be
grappled, then detach from transhab, then rotate transhab so CBM faces
node, then berth).

Would the N2 and O2 (and the tanks to contain them) needed to inflate
the module be considered a heavy load that would be shipped separatly
(along with outfitting of the new module) ?

Maybe its just a lot of hot air? grin.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"David Spain" wrote in message
...
On 1/12/2013 4:15 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
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.


Does not appear NASA TV will be covering this event, nothing streaming
from Bigelow website either it appears. Too bad. Guess we will have to
await the reporters take...

Dave

In article ,
says...

I'm not that sure I'd trust an inflatable module myself, after all it will
be a bit fragile I'd have thought.

Not at all. These things aren't party balloons, but highly engineered
structures.

Most importantly, they're much more resistant to MMOD damage than the
existing ISS modules. This is due to the extra MMOD protection which
can be much more easily added to an inflatable than to a rigid pressure
shell which is constrained in diameter by the launch vehicle.

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

Brian Gaff explained :

I'm not that sure I'd trust an inflatable module myself, after all it will
be a bit fragile I'd have thought.

You didn't bother reading about this when the Bigelow test item was
flown, did you? Or about any of the Transhab studies? They have a
much less fragile skin than a weather balloon does, and the things that
threaten that skin would also threaten the metal-skinned modules the
ISS already uses.

I found this quote on the Bigelow site:

"Ballistic Protection:"

"BA 330 utilizes an innovative Micrometeorite and Orbital Debris
Shield. Hypervelocity tests conducted by Bigelow Aerospace have
demonstrated that this shielding structure provides protection superior
to that of the traditional “aluminum can� designs."

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/ba330.php
(I don't know how accessible their site is for AT readers, but that
page is mostly a background graphic and a div-section of text with a
vertical scroll bar.)

So they claim to be not be fragile compared to their competition.
They've had a successful on-orbit (uncrewed) demonstration, and it
sounds like they are ready to sell real, usable space to their
customers.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

In article mn.782e7dd16b3f8f99.127094@snitoo,
says...

Brian Gaff explained :

I'm not that sure I'd trust an inflatable module myself, after all it will
be a bit fragile I'd have thought.

You didn't bother reading about this when the Bigelow test item was
flown, did you? Or about any of the Transhab studies? They have a
much less fragile skin than a weather balloon does, and the things that
threaten that skin would also threaten the metal-skinned modules the
ISS already uses.

I found this quote on the Bigelow site:

"Ballistic Protection:"

"BA 330 utilizes an innovative Micrometeorite and Orbital Debris
Shield. Hypervelocity tests conducted by Bigelow Aerospace have
demonstrated that this shielding structure provides protection superior
to that of the traditional ?aluminum can? designs."

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/ba330.php
(I don't know how accessible their site is for AT readers, but that
page is mostly a background graphic and a div-section of text with a
vertical scroll bar.)

So they claim to be not be fragile compared to their competition.
They've had a successful on-orbit (uncrewed) demonstration, and it
sounds like they are ready to sell real, usable space to their
customers.

Also, don't forget this concept originated within NASA as Transhab.
Designs and testing for Transhab were quite extensive and were
successful. Unfortunately, the project was canceled before given a
chance to fly. NASA, and the politicians who hole the purse strings,
lacked the vision necessary to fund Transhab to completion.

Bigelow Aerospace took that same inflatable technology pioneered by NASA
and used it to design their own inflatable modules. It should come as
no surprise that their test modules have been successfully flown in
orbit.

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 Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:56:27 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote:


Unfortunately, the project was canceled before given a
chance to fly. NASA, and the politicians who hole the purse strings,
lacked the vision necessary to fund Transhab to completion.

Well, that's a bit strong. Remember that at the time, NASA was
severely overbudget and behind schedule on Space Station. If you were
Congress and NASA came to you and said, "Oh, we know we're 100% over
the budget figures we gave you a few years ago, and assembly complete
is now fouryears behind schedule, but we want to give up on Boeing's
aluminum Hab module and build this untested, unproven, new technology
inflatable Hab instead", what would you say? And what would you say
when NASA couched that design in terms of being a prototype for a
manned Mars mission (the "Trans" part of Transhab) when NASA didn't
even see light at the end of the tunnel for their current
multi-billion dollar program?

Congress said no, in no uncertain terms. I can't say that I blame 'em.

The time is right, now. It certainly wasn't in 2001.

Brian

In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:56:27 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote:


Unfortunately, the project was canceled before given a
chance to fly. NASA, and the politicians who hole the purse strings,
lacked the vision necessary to fund Transhab to completion.

Well, that's a bit strong. Remember that at the time, NASA was
severely overbudget and behind schedule on Space Station. If you were
Congress and NASA came to you and said, "Oh, we know we're 100% over
the budget figures we gave you a few years ago, and assembly complete
is now fouryears behind schedule, but we want to give up on Boeing's
aluminum Hab module and build this untested, unproven, new technology
inflatable Hab instead", what would you say? And what would you say
when NASA couched that design in terms of being a prototype for a
manned Mars mission (the "Trans" part of Transhab) when NASA didn't
even see light at the end of the tunnel for their current
multi-billion dollar program?

Congress said no, in no uncertain terms. I can't say that I blame 'em.

The time is right, now. It certainly wasn't in 2001.

I suppose so. At least the technology was picked up by Bigelow
Aerospace and tested in space. That gives the concept a lot more
credibility than it had in 2001 since it had never flown.

The competing "off the shelf" technology in the future would be a repeat
of Skylab. Using SLS's LH2 or O2 tank structural design as a starting
point for a pressurized (manned) module. The upside to SLS's tanks is
their large diameter (8.4 meters or 27.6 feet). Such a module could be
"dry", like Skylab, or perhaps even "wet" if it were made from a spent
upper stage.

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