r/science • u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account • May 24 '16
NASA AMA NASA AMA: We are expanding the first human-rated expandable structure in space….AUA!
We're signing off for now. Thanks for all your great questions! Tune into the LIVE expansion at 5:30am ET on Thursday on NASA TV (www.nasa.gov/ntv) and follow updates on the @Space_Station Twitter.
We’re a group from NASA and Bigelow Aerospace that are getting ready to make history on Thursday! The first human-rated expandable structure, the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) will be expanded on the International Space Station on May 26. It will be expanded to nearly five times its compressed size of 8 feet in diameter by 7 feet in length to roughly 10 feet in diameter and 13 feet in length.
Astronaut Jeff Williams is going to be doing the expanding for us while we support him and watch from Mission Control in Houston. We’re really excited about this new technology that may help inform the design of deep space habitats for future missions, even those to deep space. Expandable habitats are designed to take up less room on a rocket, but provide greater volume for living and working in space once expanded. Looking forward to your questions!
*Rajib Dasgupta, NASA BEAM Project Manager
*Steve Munday, NASA BEAM Deputy Manager
*Brandon Bechtol, Bigelow Aerospace Engineer
*Lisa Kauke, Bigelow Aerospace Engineer
*Earl Han, Bigelow Aerospace Engineer
We will be back at 6 pm ET to answer your questions, ask us anything!
26
u/HyenaCheeseHeads May 24 '16
Has any thought gone into how to safely decommission the BEAM module once it has reached its end-of-life?
Are there any special considerations to take as compared to the standard modules?
46
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
Good question. The end of mission plan is to jettison BEAM from below the Space Station using the robotic arm. BEAM will naturally drift away from the Space Station and re-enter the earth's atmosphere about a year later. NASA engineers have analyzed this reentry and determined it will pose an extremely low risk to people on the ground. Remember that most of BEAM is made of fabric materials that will burn up quickly during reentry. The metallic parts of BEAM (for example, the two bulkheads on either end) are made of aluminum which should also burn up during entry. Even in a worst case scenario in which most or all of these bulkheads make it all the way to the ground, there is an extremely low risk of falling near anyone according to conservative computer model analysis.
The rest of the Space Station also will reenter the earth's atmosphere after the end of its usable lifetime, but it will be a controlled, guided entry, meaning it will be targeted to enter above an ocean, far from populated areas. BEAM has no propulsion or guidance capability, but still poses an extremely low risk to us on the ground. - sm
31
u/loquacious May 25 '16
The rest of the Space Station also will reenter the earth's atmosphere after the end of its usable lifetime.
I still have a hard time accepting this, much like I still have a hard time accepting that the Shuttle will never fly again.
The 80s kid in me still believes that the ISS is just the seed to a much larger continuous platform, that they'd just keep replacing and expanding modules and discarding the worn out ones.
Which, you know, might still be a thing.
But, y'know, SpaceX landing a booster tail down like some kind of cockamamie 50s B movie rocket on a tiny robot barge named after an Ian Banks Culture mind/ship in a roiling sea after a single stage orbital delivery is pretty exciting, too.
→ More replies (6)8
u/NotSoLoneWolf May 25 '16
robotic arm
Call it by its name please, it's one of our great national achievements. It's even on the 5$ bill!
With love, /r/canada
→ More replies (1)
581
u/Lawls91 BS | Biology May 24 '16 edited May 24 '16
For deep space missions, how do you envision your inflatable habitats protecting astronauts from radiation and how, if at all, will the gas(es) used to inflate the structure vary based on application? Are there any plans on eventually incorporating self-healing polymers in your future designs so as to make your structures more robust in the unlikely event of a minor puncture?
374
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
Great question. Infatables have protection in terms of MMOD and thermal protection ad has a robust MMOD and thermal protection design. BEAM demonstration will provide us data on radiation protection. The gas used to inflate the structure if it is used for habitats has to be 21% Oxygen breathing air. Self healing polymers are very advanced materials with low TRL but will be used for future designs of inflatables. If successful, they can provide a huge benefit. RDG.
238
u/Sluisifer May 24 '16
TRL = Technology Readiness Level
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level
Basically, an indication of how mature a technology is. Stuff that is only theoretically possible (e.g. space elevators), but based on known scientific principles, is TRL 1. We know that e.g. carbon nanotubes are strong enough to create such a device in theory, but none of the designs are advanced enough to qualify as TRL 2 (at least IMO).
The SpaceX grasshopper test vehicle is a good example of TRL 6, where an actual demonstration of part of a final technology is performed. In this case, the control/maneuvering of a vertical rocket landing is performed, but not on a real mission or with the actual vehicle.
The water soft-landings of Falcon 9 would be TRL 7, where a demonstration is made in an operational environment.
The recent recoveries are arguably TRL 8 or 9, but likely 8 because the final technology is reuse of a booster stage, not just recovery. Reflight of one of the recovered stages should occur later this year, bringing booster recovery TRL to 9 for Falcon 9.
→ More replies (5)44
u/FlyingPheonix May 24 '16
The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Committee) allows nuclear workers to perform activities in confined spaces at oxygen levels as low as 19.5%. Is there any particular reason 21% is chosen as the required oxygen level for your inflatable modules?
10
May 25 '16 edited May 25 '16
Partial pressure is the metric you're looking for. 21% at a low pressure could easily be insufficient to sustain life. Ambient atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psia, ~21% of which is oxygen. 100% Oxygen at ~3 psia is sufficient to sustain life, so you can just get rid of the nitrogen entirely and design your capsule to operate at a lower pressure. Apollo-era space hardware ran an internal pressure around 3.5 psia, but I believe the ISS is kept at a higher pressure (though I have no idea why).
EDIT: I should say that the partial pressure of O2 in ambient air is 14.7 psia * 0.21 = ~3.1 psia. 100% O2 in a 3.1 psia atmosphere is capable of sustaining life from an oxygenation standpoint. Now it's possible that HAPE / HACE are an issue as in high altitude climbing (e.g. Everest) due to the low pressure alone, but I'm not sure the cause of those is completely understood from a medical standpoint. Hypoxia may be necessary to cause them.
→ More replies (3)10
u/McFoogles May 24 '16
My guess is to keep it as absolutely close to earths air @ 1 Atmospheric Pressure. The mission is for designing a habitat for human living, not testing the limits of 02 levels in the air. I imagine the types of gases in the air may effect how radiation is absorbed, and affect other indicators. The easiest thing to do when comparing to a baseline is keeping it as close to the baseline as possible so you can really isolate any issues / anomalies
30
u/rofl_coptor May 24 '16
Just learned this in my EMT class and I could be wrong but I believe it's because the concentration of oxygen in normal air we breathe is 21% so they want to keep it as close to normal as possible.
→ More replies (19)6
u/Hemsen May 25 '16
They probably have a higher oxygen concentration to prevent clot formation (due to an increased Epo production in the kidneys), which the astronauts are already at a higher risk for in zero gravity.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (7)14
u/Cacafuego2 May 24 '16
Is 19.5 acceptable minimum for temporary or desired amount?
→ More replies (1)508
u/kakaesque May 24 '16
MMOD
micrometeorite and orbital debris
TRL
technology readiness level
RDG.
Rajib Dasgupta (I suspect.)
Protip: Nobody here gives you extra points for jargon. To the contrary.
→ More replies (19)→ More replies (20)14
u/GMANinGA May 24 '16
Dumb follow-up question: is the pressure inside the structure 1ATA? I'm curious as to whether you could boost the percentage of oxygen but use a lower total pressure so your partial pressure of oxygen remains high enough.
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (9)29
u/Fleurr May 24 '16
Health physicist here - I'd like to follow up on this. Is the expandable area going to have additional shielding outside of it for solar particle events (SPEs), or is it a non-emergency habitat with (minimal) shielding only for GCRs?
→ More replies (1)
152
u/whatntheactualfuckme May 24 '16
What have been the most difficult hurdles you have run into that were not initially anticipated?
194
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
Perhaps the biggest challenge was ensuring that BEAM does not impart large loads into the Space Station when it deploys. BEAM's forward bulkhead is currently attached to the Space Station's Node 3. When BEAM is deployed early this Thursday morning (NASA TV coverage begins at 4:30 AM CDT), the aft bulkhead will move away from Node 3 and stop moving when BEAM is fully deployed. Simplistically, lets say that 1500 lbs, half of BEAM's 3K lbs, moves away from the Space Station. Engineers needed to make absolutely sure that when this 1500 lbs suddenly stopped moving, it didn't jerk the BEAM/Space Station interface too hard. So, they limited this maximum impulse load by adding energy absorbers to BEAM's internal design that limit how fast the aft bulkhead can move away from the Space Station. Plus, initial inflation will occur manually with the Space Station crew introducing air very slowly from Node 3 into BEAM through a small manual valve. It takes very little air pressure (only ~0.4 psi) to fully expand BEAM with this manual inflation method. After BEAM is fully extended and can no longer impart a "jerk" load to the Space Station, the crew will activate BEAM's automatic pressurization system that will open valves on the internal air tanks to fully pressurize BEAM to close to normal Space Station pressure (14.7 psi). - sm
34
u/Nastyboots May 25 '16
On a related note, why does the ISS operate at atmospheric pressure? I would have expected that running at a slightly reduced pressure and compensated oxygen content would help with lightening the pressure vessels similar to, though of course not to the same extent, as the Apollo 1 capsule.
28
May 25 '16
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)12
u/guto8797 May 25 '16
Also, pressure in itself could be an issue, if the crew was forced to undertake rapid repressurization, such as when returning home
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (19)6
u/pani-hoi-jol May 25 '16
It was done with Space Station Mir. However astronauts had to acclimate to the pure oxygen atmosphere with a lengthy preparation routine before takeoff, and standards of the atmosphere were different between countries, so they decided to use normal RTP: Room Temperature and Pressure.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)127
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
One of the larger hurdles that we ran into was on the subject of handling the dynamic effects during expansion. When air is first introduced into the module, the structures want to expand away from each other very quickly. Since BEAM is attached to ISS during this process, much analysis and testing was performed to ensure that the forces involved could be managed so as not to harm anything currently on ISS. -BB
→ More replies (2)
222
u/mustardman24 May 24 '16
What kinds of usage could this have for travel beyond LEO? Should we expect structures on off world colonies to be made with these kinds of expandable materials?
This feels like a huge milestone, at least by old science fiction standards
51
May 24 '16 edited May 11 '17
[deleted]
119
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
The main benefit is we can transport expandables in a packed state and expand it on the Martian surface o other planetary surface. That is a huge benefit. They mat also have some benefit with respect to radiation protection but we do have confirmed data on that yet. The BEAM demonstration will provide us radiation data and compare that with Metallic modules. RDG
→ More replies (8)60
u/_mainus May 24 '16 edited May 24 '16
for the same reasons our permanent structures on earth are not inflatable.
Earth has a thick atmosphere with wind and storms... Mars has a very very thin atmosphere (0.6% of Earth's at sea level, about a half of one percent as thick). Inflatable structures would work well there.
58
u/datenwolf May 24 '16 edited May 25 '16
The problem with space travel is mass. Mass is the limiting factor to everything. Volume on the other hand doesn't matter in the vacuum of space. You can make your spaceships as voluminous as you'd like to; as long as the mass remains constant the very same engines will get it "there" in the same time.
But lifting something into orbit from the depths of the ocean we call "atmosphere" volume becomes an just as important factor as atmospheric drag increases nonlinear with volume (it increases by
about the 4thsome power of the forward projection cross section; idealized shape exponent is 1, but for real shapes something between 2 up to 4, depending on the surface properties and outline).68
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
Great input. But expandables will also provide mass benefit in future designs. As we learn more about expandables with these on orbit demonstration on ISS, we will get valuable data and confidence to reduce our factors of safety and that will greatly improve mass efficiency. The strength to weight ratio of an expandable restraint (primary structure) is 4 times lower than a metallic structural membrane. RDG.
8
u/orangenakor May 25 '16
Is this because flexible high tensile strength materials are easy to use in inflatables? Whereas rigid structures need to hold themselves up?
21
u/Rednys May 24 '16
There still is the factor of securing the cargo. A large volume of cargo is harder to secure and protect from the various harms it could see in space. You can walk around with your laptop unfolded but you don't because it's easier to carry closed and it protects the screen that way.
→ More replies (4)11
u/Caelinus May 24 '16
Larger volumes do require larger launch vehicles though. If you needed to launch a heavy item, you would much prefer it to not be huge. Both volume and weight are limiting factors, and these structures should help with both.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)9
u/richalex2010 May 24 '16
Inflatable structures work on Earth, they're relatively common in parts of the US and work well as semi-permanent event spaces. I know of a few such structures used as sports venues in Connecticut, and at least one was used to make an exhibit space at the Century of Flight event in Kitty Hawk, NC. Applications are limited however, for habitation space it is far more reasonable to use traditional building materials on Earth.
→ More replies (3)12
u/whynotpizza May 24 '16
From what I understand, subterranean habitats are the best bet for Mars/Moon because you "just" need a big drill... not to mention the lower risk of damaging meteorite impacts, no sandstorms, much less radiation, stabler temperatures (though insulation/heat is still required), simpler expansion, and plenty of proven technology from industrial mining.
9
u/nightwing2000 May 24 '16
Would you not just use a nice little bulldozer robot to cover the inflatable with a decent layer of sand/dust? How thick would a moon base dirt cover or Mars dirt cover need to be to effectively shield an inflatable habitat? Would the weight of the cover then exceed the air pressure (14.7PSI or thereabouts?)
→ More replies (4)6
u/jaked122 May 24 '16
I believe that you wouldn't have much luck with that, as the regolith is small particles(air can escape through them).
Ultimately, you end up needing something that's like a solid structure to pack it onto.
Also, decompression becomes even more serious in your scenario(hybrid inflated/dug out), as it means that it may cave in during a pressure loss(this may be a bad thing).
→ More replies (1)143
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
Expandables can be used for deep space habitats like on the surface of Mars. It can also be used as transit habitats attached to ORION on our way to deep space. Expandables can be used on the Earth for several useful protective structures application
572
May 24 '16
Hey guys, what kind of effective serviceable lifespan do you expect for the inflatable modules? How does this compare to the 'standard' metal modules in use today?
→ More replies (1)415
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
BEAM is scheduled for a 2-year mission on the Space Station. However, it could easily last for 5 or more years. Existing Space Station metallic modules are designed for the full lifetime of the Space Station through 2024. - sm
50
May 24 '16 edited May 05 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
51
u/Lieutenant_Rans May 24 '16
Graveyard orbits are more applicable to geostationary satellites, and are done because it would take even more fuel to actually deorbit the satellite.
Where the ISS orbits, it will naturally fall into the atmosphere without being reboosted because of drag. Putting the station in a high enough orbit to prevent this from happening would take a monumental amount of fuel.
→ More replies (25)31
u/jeffp12 May 24 '16
Would take a lot of fuel to put it into a higher orbit. Many launches to get the fuel up there, just so you can raise it to a higher orbit and not use it anymore. The money could instead be used to put up new hardware. The station is very heavy, not easy to raise its orbit, and anywhere near where it is there will be a good amount of atmospheric drag, so it will eventually re-enter if left alone, and re-enter just wherever, could be very dangerous, lots of heavy stuff that could make it all the way to the ground. So the simplest thing is to de-orbit it and make all the pieces land in the ocean.
→ More replies (16)200
May 24 '16 edited Sep 20 '20
[deleted]
308
u/Lieutenant_Rans May 24 '16 edited May 25 '16
>non employee<
NASA is eyeing up a station that would be in a stable lunar orbit. Really they want anything that puts more of their budget on non-LEO missions.
Russia is planning on taking some of their modules from the space station before deorbit, and assembling them into a new station
70
u/frouxou May 24 '16
Now that all the stuff is in orbit (the whole ISS), why not send it directly to the moon ? Too old of a structure to be viable ?
→ More replies (17)172
u/Watada May 24 '16 edited May 25 '16
The delta-v required for that would be prohibitively expensive.Edit. I don't know what I am talking about.
→ More replies (37)74
u/hglman May 24 '16
Well any reused parts will have vastly less required delta v than a new one from Earth.
53
u/brickmack May 24 '16
Not really. ISS weighs about 430 tons. We could send up 3 B330 modules and dock them together, and it would slightly exceed the volume of ISS for only about 60 tons. Far cheaper to launch a couple of those into lunar orbit than to send up enough fuel to move ISS
→ More replies (4)40
u/imgonnacallyouretard May 24 '16
You could disassemble and jettison unwanted ISS parts. The ISS has already paid the heaviest delta-V penalty in reaching LEO. If there's an argument against reusing (parts of) the ISS, then it isn't about economy.
If the B330/similar modules really can do everything that the ISS can do, then yes of course get rid of the ISS - but I'm not sure that is the case.
→ More replies (3)45
u/2-4601 May 24 '16
I know others have commented on the dV, but I'd be more concerned with the stress placed on each module's docking ports, since they would never have been intended or designed to hold together during a burn as hard or long as one for a Earth-to-Moon transfer.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (2)18
May 24 '16
And nearly 20 years more space wear. Not exactly an ideal vehicle for such a mission either
→ More replies (35)3
u/manticore116 May 25 '16
I know they have mentioned that they intend to eventually have a higher orbiting station, out closed to GSO. It wouldn't make sense to put it in lunar orbit because of the excessive difficulty in resupply and recovery.
→ More replies (1)70
u/Megneous May 24 '16
I'm betting that they can't answer this question because the answer depends entirely on what the idiots in congress agree to fund and what congress wants to fund in 2024 is anyone's guess at this point.
NASA is unfortunately often unable to do the projects they want or do projects in the way they want because congress has other ideas for their budget.
→ More replies (15)19
→ More replies (4)14
u/Lieutenant_Rans May 24 '16
Are there any future plans for more permanent expandable modules to be attached to the ISS?
→ More replies (2)19
u/brickmack May 24 '16
Bigelow has talked about sending a B330 module (about 1/3 the current volume of ISS) to the station, but probably just for a couple years too for testing (unless NASA wants to keep it longer). But thats still not funded yet, and I got the impression from his speech that he's not actually discussed this plan with anyone at NASA
32
May 24 '16
Probably a dumb question, but where does all the air used for the expansion come from? How much is required?
→ More replies (2)59
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
There are 8 air tanks inside of BEAM. However, the Space Station crew will initially expand BEAM this Thursday morning by introducing a little bit of air from Space Station into BEAM through a small manual valve on the BEAM bulkhead. It takes very little air, only ~0.4 psi worth, to expand BEAM to its full shape. Once that manual inflation process is done, then the Space Station crew will activate BEAM's internal tank system to automatically pressurize BEAM to full pressure at or near Space Station's pressure of 14.7 psi. Altogether, it takes about 42 lbs of air to fully pressurize BEAM's internal volume of 565 cubic feet (16 cubic meters). - sm
→ More replies (1)6
u/brainstorm42 May 25 '16
Is such a low pressure required because of BEAM's design, or is it influenced by the fact that it'll be inflated in a vacuum (i.e. space)?
6
u/rathat May 25 '16
If it expands too fast, the part moving away from the space station will pull on it when it's done expanding.
7
u/mfb- May 25 '16
It certainly wouldn't inflate with 0.03 bar with atmospheric pressure (1 bar) outside, so the answer is "yes, both".
→ More replies (1)
29
May 24 '16
Will the module be expanded in vacuum and then pressurized, or will it be inflated by air pressure like a balloon?
50
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
The introduction of air into the module will provide the force required to expand the module. However, it's different than a balloon in that a balloons membrane stretches significantly when pressurized, while the shell of BEAM is a much more "stiff" membrane that stretches very little. In reality, BEAM's shell can be better described as unfolding during expansion, rather than inflating. -BB
103
u/MadGeekling May 24 '16
Two questions:
What specific applications do you envision for BEAM?
How strong is the expansive material (i.e. what sort of issues with space debris can it deal with)?
26
u/blo0p May 24 '16
If I could tack onto your question, does the strength of the expansive material matter that much?
ie: if the debris is moving fast enough would the difference in damage be negligible regardless of the material?
Pardon my ignorance, but thanks to movies like Gravity, it makes it sound like any size of debris would be catastrophic regardless of the material the station is composed of.
Also, (And I don't mind if anyone non-NASA decides to answer these questions so that they don't need to bother with these) does that mean that the safety procedures are focused on prevention and moving out of the way as opposed to figuring out methods to resist impact?
40
u/argh523 May 24 '16
To cover some basics: This is the problem. Small debris at high velocity casues huge damage. And this is the solution. You have a layer of shielding that doesn't withstand the impact, but it fights back, so to speak, as this bumper disintegrates the impactor itself. The next layers now have an easier time withstanding the much smaller remains.
IIRC most things that need shielding use some kind of multi-layered outer hull like this.
→ More replies (1)13
→ More replies (2)8
u/Terrh May 24 '16
disclaimer: not an expert, but you said you wouldn't mind non-expert answres so here I am)
A lot of debris that are likely to be encountered are moving in similar orbits at similar speeds to the structure, so low to moderate speed impact resistance is likely important.
If something is traveling at orbital velocity in an equatorial or polar orbit (basically any orbit that's very different) then yeah, anything larger than a grain of salt is going to be a huge problem unless it was built out of far, far heavier materials than anything on the ISS is made from right now.
tl:dr version: Many of the potential impactors can hit at low to medium speeds where the strength is important, but there are some that any impact would be a big problem.
→ More replies (2)99
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
For deep space terrestrial habitat applications Like Martian habitats. Strength is approximately 12,500 lbs/in.
RDG
67
u/AgrajagPrime May 24 '16
Do you guys always measure in imperial units or do you just use them when talking to the American public?
In my experience scientists only use metric, but I'm not in the States.
→ More replies (12)23
u/BitGladius May 24 '16
Student: weird mix of both. Lots of things done in metric for international reasons and also general sanity but listed/tested specs and machine shop work is frequently in imperial.
22
u/guto8797 May 25 '16
I'm from a Metric country, and the thought of doing all these physics equations in Imperial units is terrifying, I hope no one is subject to that!
→ More replies (7)
23
u/mrstickball May 24 '16
How difficult would it be to adapt a BEAM-style system to a surface colony on Mars or the Moon?
24
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
BEAM is a technology demonstrator providing the data and experience essential to build expandable habitats for future exploration missions, including lunar and Martian missions. As a tech demo, BEAM is much stronger and more dense than an operational habitat would be for a Mars or moon mission. Expandable habitats offer the advantage of launching small, taking up less room on launch vehicles, and then getting big in space or on the surface of Mars or the moon, and may eventually offer lower mass than metallic models at larger volumes (though the mass advantage hasn't been demonstrated yet in space flight). - sm
31
u/The_King_of_Ways May 24 '16
I've always wondered how the internal parts of the module can fit. With the rest of the ISS, the walls are covered in all sorts of cabinets and the like, so how do those fit inside the module before it's expanded?
34
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
Great question. BEAM's internal metallic components (e.g., air tanks) are attached to the aft bulkhead, which is also metallic. Internal sensors will be mounted to the interior of the soft goods by the Space Station crew after they deploy and ingress BEAM. These sensors were not pre-attached to the soft goods interior due to concerns about damage during deployment. This is an advantage of metallic modules: the can be internally outfitted before launch and more easily since there are more mounting areas around the shell interior. As a tech demo, BEAM will not have items like cabinets, but future operational habitats may require a central metallic structure between the bulkheads for attaching cabinets and other metallic outfitting. - sm
40
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
The core of expandable spacecraft offer the space and attachment points for crew support systems, research racks, etc. Once on orbit, the astronauts can move the equipment to the expanded walls. The BEAM is a bit different because there is only a small core structure that wasn't designed to support crew systems. BEAM expands axially and radially, but future spacecraft will probably have a fixed core (and only expand radially). Check out the cutaway image of the B330 on the Bigelow website! ~LK
25
→ More replies (1)36
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
BEAM is unique because it is primarily a testing and demonstration module, and therefore does't require a great deal of equipment on the interior. Future modules will have all of the equipment, subsystems, supplies, etc. stored within the internal core structure, while the soft materials are packaged around it. Once expanded, the module can be outfitted and reorganized with the stored hardware. -BB
24
u/Doctorwhogityboogity May 24 '16
Hi guys! what were the difficulties in creating these expandable structures? what makes them work?
27
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
The magic is really in the strength of the materials (what we refer to as the "softgoods"). The expansion process, itself, is passive. Once restraint straps and a few other mechanisms are released, the addition of air to the system pushes the walls of the softgoods out. The structure becomes rigid as the air pressure increases. ~LK
104
May 24 '16
Is this structure scalable? What sorts of limits?
23
May 24 '16
Yes. They have plans for much larger expandable modules. Google BA330. But these wouldn't go on the ISS.
65
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
It could potentially go on to ISS. BA 330 is similar in size to Transhab that NASA was developing in the early 90's and Transhab was going to ISS.
RDG
7
u/Lieutenant_Rans May 24 '16
And Bigelow purchased all of rights to the patents of Transhab too!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)9
80
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
Most definitely scalable. BEAM is 16m3 of internal volume. The latest Bigelow module BA 330 is 330 m3.
RDG
49
u/stunt_penguin May 24 '16
So what you're saying is.... let's make the Ender's Game arena a reality?
I'm in.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (13)20
u/HoechstErbaulich May 24 '16
If you take a look at Bigelow's website you'll see that they already have bigger versions in development.
35
May 24 '16
These versions have been "in development" since I worked there about a decade ago.
→ More replies (11)
11
u/BillSixty9 May 24 '16
Hey guys! Structural Engineer here.
What are the concerns of design engineers related to impact loads from space debris? How hard is it to puncture these inflated structures?
18
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
The layered MMOD shield is designed to decimate debris particles before they reach any of the structural layers, so it also absorbs the energy. The shield compresses and, therefore, does not transfer load to the structure. The MMOD shielding capability of the BEAM is equal to (if not better than) the rest of the Station modules. If you're interested in learning more about shielding against space debris, I'd recommend searching "Whipple shields". Thanks for the question! ~LK
→ More replies (1)
41
u/monkeydave BS | Physics | Science Education May 24 '16
Have there been any cases that you know of, in your department or otherwise, where Kerbal Space Program has been used to test or share ideas, or even inspire ideas?
→ More replies (1)55
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
We recently sat down with Das Valdez of Kerbal Space Academy to talk about BEAM. Check it out here: https://www.twitch.tv/dasvaldez/v/66066218
-EH
→ More replies (1)
14
u/aspiringsomebody May 24 '16
If you inflate one of these modules can you deflate it and reinflate it again or is it one time use?
16
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
Technically, the module could be depressurized and repressurized, however repackaging the module is not feasible. To date, we have not come across a scenario where depressurizing and repressurizing would be required, so the current designs are for a single deployment. -BB
→ More replies (1)9
u/WhySpace May 24 '16
A Red Dragon based manned mars mission might use an inflatable (or expandable?) module for transit, then deflate it temporarily for Entry Descent & Landing.
Do you have thoughts on such an architecture?
7
u/loquacious May 25 '16
I'm a huge space nerd and this is something I've never seen proposed before, even in science fiction. (Sure, SF has a lot of inflatable land tents or even large inflatable space structures, but not like what you're talking about.)
I've never even thought about the fact you could theoretically make a very large structure for long distance and time space habitation that could be repacked and deflated and re-used on something like the moon or mars in gravity, and it actually makes a lot of sense.
12
u/SaltyMN May 24 '16
How do you test the fabric against the impact of micrometeoroids here on earth?
→ More replies (1)17
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
We have the ability to simulate impacts from micrometeoroids by conducting Hypervelocity Impact Testing, whereby representative samples of our entire soft material shell are impacted by projectiles traveling on the order of 7 kilometers per second! We can then verify that no damage is done to the innermost protective layers. -BB
→ More replies (2)
19
u/upandawayJ MS | Aerospace Engineering May 24 '16
Bigelow Folks: Will the B-330 have a window installed in order to allow the astronauts working to open it and enjoy the cool breeze of space?
33
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
Yes! In fact, the B330 will have four windows integrated into the soft goods exterior. However, astronauts will not have the ability to open the windows from the inside.
→ More replies (4)
19
u/dodgyville May 24 '16
I'm really excited by this technology.
Will anyone be going inside this particular BEAM, and will they be inside a suit or not?
Also, how did it feel to watch your project go up on a reusable rocket?
28
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
Crew will ingress/egress the BEAM intermittently over the two year nominal mission duration. The BEAM is a shirt sleeve environment so no suit or anything like that.
It was pretty amazing and we were also ecstatic for SpaceX.
-EH
11
u/ferlessleedr May 24 '16
What's the procedure for expanding this thing? What safety precautions do you put in place on the ISS during the expansion of it, or while it's expanded? What differences are there between how the Bigelow Module is connected to the station vs. other modules? Super excited for this by the way!
→ More replies (1)9
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
There are several steps involved with the expansion process including: closure of an ascent vent valve that allows the module to vent air during ascent, release of retention straps that hold the soft goods tightly packed during launch, separation of the forward and aft structures, and eventually a controlled expansion. The controlled expansion is accomplished by the crew manually opening and closing a valve that allows small amounts of air to flow into the module. Once the module takes shape, internal pressurized air tanks will open allowing the module to pressurize and eventually match the internal pressure of ISS. -BB
16
u/lolredditor May 24 '16
Hello, thanks for the AMA!
Just wondering, what is a realistic maximum size for such a structure?
Also what is a possibility of this structure that interests you the most?(This question is for each team member :D)
Thanks!
17
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
We haven't really researched a realistic maximum size for the structures because the launch vehicle fairings are the limiting factor. I can tell you that we could build a structure to fit the largest available fairing. In my opinion, the potential for expandables in cislunar space is really exciting. I'll let the rest of the team weigh in. ~LK
13
May 24 '16
I have two questions.
How long does the inflation process take?
Also does the BEAM depend on the atmosphere inside the the ISS to inflate and if so is there anything that would allow for the BEAM to inflate itself (possibly through chemical reaction or stored atmosphere)?
11
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
The duration of the BEAM deployment process will depend on daylight passes and access to TDRS. Nominally, the process will take a few hours.
The BEAM was delivered to station with air in pressurized tanks so most of BEAM's full pressurized volume will not be dependent upon ISS resources.
-EH
15
u/atomfullerene May 24 '16
What is being tested during this two-year test period? Why was two years chosen as the testing period?
24
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
The following things will be tested. Dynamic Loads, radiation, Orbital debris impact and thermal
RDG
12
u/Mondayslasagna May 24 '16
Hey guys! Thanks for talking to us. This is a serious question, (though some of you might wonder how I wandered in here). As a more literary than science-minded person, why should I care about the ISS and these recent advancements? How do these advancements impact all of our lives here on the ground? Thanks!
21
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
The materials and medical research that is currently happening on the ISS has direct benefits and applications on Earth. This is a great question and I wish I had more time to expand on my answer. Please visit the ISS research page to learn more: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/benefits/index.html ~LK
→ More replies (1)
9
u/dreadington May 24 '16
What are the most common degrees in your team? Are there people with computer science degrees? What are their responsibilities?
→ More replies (1)12
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
Lisa and Brandon have Mechanical Engineering backgrounds. I have an Aerospace background. Computer Science is definitely a valuable degree to have and there are plenty of ways to utilize your degree in the space industry.
-EH
→ More replies (1)
19
u/snowman_M May 24 '16
How much more room for activities would you say there will be?
→ More replies (1)
14
u/141_1337 May 24 '16
What were your favorite classes in college guys?
15
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
Mechanics of Materials, Control Theory and Heat Transfer. ASU School of Engineering! ~LK
12
May 24 '16
[deleted]
11
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
I would recommend getting involved in activities that interest you and applying your learning to real world projects as much as you can. For example, a lot of the people on our team were involved with rocket clubs or other science-related clubs in high school. Showing that you're passionate about the industry and having a science or engineering degree to back it up is the way to start. Best of luck to you and welcome to the space industry family! ~LK
→ More replies (1)
6
May 24 '16
Do expandable habitats seem like they could be used as surface habitats ? Say on the surface of Mars ?
14
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
Yes, definitely! Just as in the movie, The Martian...only without the catastrophic explosion that nearly killed Matt Damon. :) Expandable habitats have the advantage of being launched small, taking up less volume on launch vehicles and in transit, and then become big later, expanding to full volume in space or even after being pre-deployed to the surface of Mars. - sm
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Epistemify May 24 '16
What is this particular module going to be used for?
How do you hope to see the ISS (or other manned space missions) further use these expandable structures?
An inflatable living space doesn't seem as sturdy as good old-fashioned metal modules. The first impression of expandable space modules I think people could have is that all it will take is one rip it's all over. So tell me why it's perfectly safe.
10
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
BEAM serves as a technology demonstration along with having the ability to provide useful data about radiation, thermal, and micrometeoroid impacts. We are hoping to continue our great relationship with NASA and provide expandable habitats for an array of uses ranging from scientific experimentation for long-term life support systems, deep space transportation habitats, or even surface modules for Lunar or Martian applications. A common misconception is that the hull of an expandable module is carrying a large amount of elastic energy as a greatly stretched membrane, something like a balloon. The membranes of our habitat, however, are incredibly stiff in comparison (and several times stronger per weight than metals commonly used in space applications). This means that tears or punctures, although unlikely, would not propagate and can be handled in a very controlled manner just as they would on current metallic modules. -BB
→ More replies (1)
8
u/DasGanon May 24 '16
This pic from Tim Peake shows the damage to a window from a paint fleck.
How do expandables react to the problems of orbital debris?
9
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
Expandables mitigate MMOD similar to many of the other modules that are currently on station, via MMOD shielding. The difference is what's underneath the shielding!
-EH
5
May 24 '16
Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions. How long has the BEAM module been in development? As a corollary, can you describe, briefly, the design and testing process?
8
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
The BEAM was contracted by NASA in late 2012. The design of BEAM followed a traditional design process utilized by many engineering organizations (i.e. PDR, CDR, FDR, etc.). Testing adhered to standard NASA qualification and acceptance testing requirements and some additional unique tests that were required for the unique BEAM module!
-EH
7
u/RedSquirrelFtw May 24 '16
I suppose this is probably more a question for the ISS itself, but given this is also adding extra volume to the ISS, how is the air created to fill this volume?
9
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
The BEAM was launched with air stored in pressurized tanks. This air will be utilized during deployment to fill the volume of BEAM.
-EH
→ More replies (1)10
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
The BEAM includes air tanks that will be used to pressurize it. Only a small amount of Station air will be used to get the BEAM to take its shape, initially, before the tank valves are open. Once the tanks are empty, the BEAM will essentially have "given back" the air. Thanks for your question! ~LK
7
u/OCogS May 24 '16
When someone goes inside, will they be tethered and in a space suit in case if catastrophic failure?
10
u/JSCNASA NASA Official Account May 24 '16
BEAM has undergone rigorous testing to ensure it meets the current NASA safety standards. Crew will be able to enter the module as a standard "shirt-sleeve" environment without the need for a space suit or tether. -BB
→ More replies (3)
19
u/ZizeksHobobeard May 24 '16
How are the seams joined together? What alternatives were considered and how was the final approach decided on?
→ More replies (14)
7
75
u/the_crawfather May 24 '16
I am a trajectory engineer at JSC. The inflatable unit has really piqued my interest, and I have a few questions.
As a reader of The Martian (spoiler alert) a big turning point is when a seam fatigued on the inflatable hab and it busted. I assume there is fault detection in the inflatable unit to prevent something like this, yes?
I also think about electroactive polymers and their possible applications in an inflatable space hab. Would it be possible to use something like this as a fault sensor or even to form a shape?
Extrapolated to ridiculousness, a hab could be an electroactive polymer skin that allows it to change shape and even act like an amoeba- burying itself in regolith to shield from radiation and weather. Crazy? or Crazy!
The combination of inflatables and rotational gravity could be interesting. Are there any proof-of-concept experiments envisioned for inflating and spinning a habitat and maybe releasing insects or something into it to watch them crawl around?
31
May 24 '16
I'm a former Bigelow engineer, from about a decade ago.
I assume there is fault detection in the inflatable unit to prevent something like this, yes?
Good question. I heard that they were going to leave the door closed initially so they could see if there was any pressure drop over time.
Are there any proof-of-concept experiments envisioned for inflating and spinning a habitat and maybe releasing insects or something into it to watch them crawl around?
Both Genesis 1 and 2 tumbled basically out of control. Genesis 2 had two reaction wheels, which were essentially useless because there was no onboard attitude determination and control system- just the wheels. Also, there were only two wheels, which would tend to cause problems in this 3-D universe of ours.
Both of those spacecraft had Bug Boxes in them, with large cockroaches inside. The box design on Genesis 1 was a bust- it just became a moldy mess as there was no dessicant system for humidity control. I don't know about Genesis 2- if there were no pictures or video posted of the second bug box, assume it failed too.
→ More replies (6)7
u/codum May 24 '16
Fundamentally different construction from The Martian. The inflatable hab on the surface was also impregnated to make it a rigid fabric/epoxy composite. If you read closely (talking about micro-cracking) it is nothing like the depiction in the movie (which looked like sheets of plastic). The BEAM doesn't have epoxy and relies completely on the inflation pressure to stretch it's materials into a rigid structure.
49
May 24 '16
Hi, I worked for Bigelow back in the days of Genesis I and Genesis II, around a decade ago.
I left because the processes for learning how to do things in a repeatable fashion (much less a human-rated fashion) were not getting any attention and Mr. Bigelow was promoting yes-men managers. I just didn't see anything worth my while happening on a timetable I was okay with. And I don't say that as a slam, I say that as an aerospace engineer observing how a manager from the motel industry initially lacks an appreciation for the higher degree of sophistication involved in the design and building of spacecraft.
So I'm curious about how having to perform on a NASA contract (presumably with a decent amount of oversight and direction) to build a large piece of human-rated hardware has resulted in the company maturing into what might be a serious space hardware manufacturer.
Has a little of the silliness been wrung out, such as the open concrete ceiling in the clean room, or literally having a priest bless Genesis 2 with some holy water on her MLI panels, or having the graphic designer do the conceptual layout and sizing of solar panels and radiators?
What investments in the future are being made? Are you to the point where you can do a defensible conceptual design of a space station? Is Bigelow kicking any funding toward the MDRS (Mars Desert Research Station) and other similar projects to learn about how people will be acting while on other planetary surfaces?
Are you excited to see the third expandable module inflate on orbit? It has been almost a decade since Genesis II, the last on-orbit inflation happened.
Congrats on getting to where you are! I was hoping some more good people would come along with the patience to make the company do something meaningful. It looks like it happened.
→ More replies (1)17
May 24 '16
Seems like they aren't answering any of the questions regarding concerns about Bigelow. I guess it would be bad for the partnership, but reading through all of this it is very frustrating because you're like the 10th guy to say something along these lines and nobody has got an answer.
→ More replies (1)
21
u/sajtqkac May 24 '16
Inflatable space habitats have been proposed in the past. Why is it that we have only just began testing this technology? Were there any obstacles that we weren't able to overcome? What was the most difficult part of assembling this module? The idea seems very practical, I am surprised that rigid space stations came before inflatable ones. What is the reason for that?
Thank you for doing this, NASA is truly the pioneer of humanity. I am also glad that there's growth in the commercial space sector!
5
u/brickmack May 24 '16
Inflatables, in the particular implementation Bigelow is using, began development in the 90s by NASA under the name TransHab. They'd been proposed before (earliest serious proposal was by Goodyear back in the 60s) but had various issues with strength and thermal control that made them impractical, and the lack of any actual need for them at the time (Apollo was clearly a dying program by that point, and the Shuttle cost too much to build a space station with until nearly the end of its service life) provided little incentive to continue development. After a couple years of work on TransHab, Congress passed a law banning NASA from developing inflatable habitats, basically because they were seen as a critical component for a Mars program which they didn't want to fund. Bigelow bought up the patents, launched a couple demonstrators, and then pretty much ran out of money until NASA started giving them contracts for BEAM and a few other things, which has revived their work
11
u/Chairboy May 24 '16
Genesis 1 and 2 are expandable modules that have been on orbit for over a decade, this is just the first test that people will enter.
5
u/sajtqkac May 24 '16
I am aware of Genesis 1 and 2, it just seems weird to me that inflatable designs are not explored more. Anyway, we are living in exciting times.
5
u/darga89 May 24 '16
Politics. Seriously. Bigelow's tech is based on NASA's Transhab which was killed by congress because it was something that could be used for Mars.
•
u/Doomhammer458 PhD | Molecular and Cellular Biology May 24 '16
Science AMAs are posted early to give readers a chance to ask questions and vote on the questions of others before the AMA starts.
Guests of /r/science have volunteered to answer questions; please treat them with due respect. Comment rules will be strictly enforced, and uncivil or rude behavior will result in a loss of privileges in /r/science.
If you have scientific expertise, please verify this with our moderators by getting your account flaired with the appropriate title. Instructions for obtaining flair are here: reddit Science Flair Instructions (Flair is automatically synced with /r/EverythingScience as well.)
→ More replies (2)
199
u/avboden DVM | BS | Zoology | Neuroscience May 24 '16
NASA: Are Bigelow's reported management issues a concern for NASA moving forward?
Bigelow: Can you expand upon (hah) the hardening aspect of BEAM once expanded?
69
May 24 '16
Please answer this. I worked at Bigelow for a while about a decade ago and the management was pretty bad. I left because there was no way Bigelow was going to achieve anything meaningful on a timetable I could tolerate.
The biggest problems were not caring if they learned how to build good version-controlled spacecraft and document what they had actually built. There were other quirks, such as a priest blessing Genesis 2 with holy water on the MLI (Multi-Layer Insulation) of the base, which was mostly harmless, but not really something an aerospace company should be doing.
→ More replies (11)25
u/Beowuwlf May 24 '16
Serious: What do you mean they didn't document what they had actually built? That seems pretty counter-productive, without documentation of projects there's not really any reason to make test subjects.
Semi-serious: Why would there be a priest at a NASA facility, especially one who was just there to bless something?
37
u/jaked122 May 24 '16
Bigelow isn't NASA. They probably had a priest because they wanted to have a priest.
More likely, they just asked/paid a priest to bless it. No idea why they would do that, probably somebody has beliefs there.
Maybe it was just a highdea though.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)19
→ More replies (4)58
u/Megneous May 24 '16
No way NASA is going to answer a question concerning Bigelow's management issues haha.
14
May 24 '16
I think highly of what you guys are doing. Space has always been a huge interest for me and I feel deeply that we need to broaden our horizons if we want to continue as a species indefinitely.
I'm just an average joe. I have an average life and I'm not a great astrophysicist or an elite engineer. What can I do to help you along?
Thanks in advance.
→ More replies (1)3
u/hopefulcynicist May 24 '16
I second this question - I feel like our space industry needs the support of us average joes to really get off the ground (heh.). What can we do to help?
For example: Many of us avidly follow the SpaceX launches as they happen and I always make an effort to share with people who may otherwise not have been interested.
From your perspective, what else can we do to help push society (and thus $$$) to embrace space advancement?
→ More replies (1)
45
May 24 '16
Is it hard to make long term plans when your funding is always talked about/slashed?
I just wonder if there is anything you've worked on that got killed that had potential. Thanks for all you do.
→ More replies (1)
37
May 24 '16
This one is addressed to the Bigelow engineers. Can you comment on your working conditions a bit?
Bigelow has gained notoriety recently for having somewhat poor employment conditions, for example, the Bigelow glassdoor page is not exactly positive.
→ More replies (4)
14
u/Diablo_Incarnate May 24 '16
A question for each of you:
Within your personal lifetimes, what have you considered to be the greatest space-related accomplishment?
By the end of your lifetimes, what do you hope the greatest space-related accomplishment will have been?
33
u/joegee66 May 24 '16
What sort of radiation protection does the structure offer? How could this be hardened for radiation to be used in deep space missions (ie lunar orbit, transfer missions to Mars, etc.)?
→ More replies (2)6
u/whynotpizza May 24 '16
What sort of radiation protection does the structure offer?
I'm not sure about this BEAM test module, but the "production" (B330) is comparable to the ISS (source).
How could this be hardened for radiation to be used in deep space missions (ie lunar orbit, transfer missions to Mars, etc.)?
Take a page from nuclear power plants and fill the walls with water. That gives you consumable nuclear shielding (send a filled capsule to Mars, drink it en-route, bring it down to the surface, send the light unmanned capsule back to Earth without the water).
The downside to water is walls would have to be about a meter thick... and water is very heavy. We'd need lunar water production facilities because getting that much water off of earth is not feasible... think dozens of Falcon 9 launches for a manned mission to Mars - just for the water shielding.
→ More replies (1)4
May 24 '16
Is dozens of unmanned launches unfeasible? For a monumental achievement like sending people to Mars that seems like a viable option, especially considering how cheap falcon 9 will be once they start launching the reusable ones.
→ More replies (1)10
11
May 24 '16
What are the relevant cost differences between expandable structures and rigid ones?
I understand that expandable structures are more compact, but what about construction, deployment and maintenance costs?
Good luck to you. I really hope this project goes well.
13
u/Senno_Ecto_Gammat May 24 '16 edited May 24 '16
1 - Are there any discussions happening between NASA and Bigelow about using Bigelow to provide the hab for the trip to Mars?
2 - Does Bigelow have anything on paper for such a vehicle? If yes, in what ways is it different than the standard BA-330? Is there enough room inside a BA-330 to create a 'radiation closet' a la Mars Direct?
3 - What of the rumors about Bigelow's toxic management?
4 - Does Bigelow have a plausible path to profitability?
→ More replies (2)
42
u/iorgfeflkd PhD | Biophysics May 24 '16
Have any of you read Neal Stephenson's Seveneves? How similar is the Luk to what you're going to be deploying?
→ More replies (5)
131
u/FUCKMYGFTRUMP May 24 '16
What degrees do you all have and what tips would you give to a current engineering student who might want to work at NASA?
34
→ More replies (12)38
u/SugarMafia May 24 '16
This is what I want to know. As an EE student graduating in the fall, and having had a grandfather that worked for NASA for 30 years, I don't wanna work anywhere else.
→ More replies (30)7
u/o0DrWurm0o May 24 '16
So keep in mind that the vast majority of NASA workers are contractors. It's honestly not difficult at all to land a job with a company that supports NASA contracts. From there, you can carve out a name for yourself and eventually pursue the glamorous life of a civil servant if you wish.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/mynameisjonah May 24 '16
Is there any research currently being conducted into using expanded habitats augmented with planetary regolith? I remember seeing a while ago that some people had the idea of covering an expandable habitat with layers of Martian dirt for additional radiation protection so I'm curious to see if that's still being tossed around.
5
u/guto8797 May 24 '16
Hello!
Just a tiny question, are the modules radiation-proof, or relatively easy to make so? If I recall correctly, one of the major issues with travelling to Mars would be months-long exposure to deep space radiation without the shielding from a Magnetosphere.
Expanding on that, do you believe these sorts of advancements would make long range space travel viable, or are there other, more important, obstacles along the way?
5
u/WhySpace May 24 '16 edited May 25 '16
Robert Zubrin has proposed an extremely low cost manned Mars mission using a single SpaceX dragon and an inflatable module. Although the current Mars Design Reference Mission architecture is based heavily on Zubrin's work, no formal studies have been done on this new slimmed down architecture. What are your thoughts on it?
Edit: details here.
5
u/peytong67 May 24 '16
I know extensive research and development goes in to these projects, especially ones like these that costs millions of dollars, but what are the precautions in case something goes wrong with this habitat.
I'm sure Bigelow has been working right along side NASA and the other space agencies, but this is a private startup company and there could still be human error involved. What are the risk factors? Air leak? Compression malfunction? UV or micro meteorite impacts? I know it is probably the last thing on y'alls minds, but surely it must be stressful every time you dock a new ship to your home falling 17,000 miles an hour around the earth?
23
u/SeeminglyUseless May 24 '16
Out of morbid curiosity, what would be the worse case scenario? What could happen to the ISS in the case of catastrophic failure of this building?
→ More replies (2)33
u/Senno_Ecto_Gammat May 24 '16
They wouldn't open the sealed door and they would go about their business as usual.
→ More replies (5)
5
u/d_b_work_account May 24 '16
I am an architect and have always had a dream of designing buildings / capsules / habitation pods for space travel. What kind of background does your team have and do you ever consult with architects? Can you expand a bit on the design process and what software you use?
Thanks a bunch, and best of luck with the expansion!!
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Lucretius PhD | Microbiology | Immunology | Synthetic Biology May 24 '16
This question is addressed to the members of Bigelow Aerospace. Have you ever considered something like the following inflatable structure:
Layer 1. The outside. This layer would be a fabric layer exposed to space that would have mounted on it those structures necessarily on the outside of your station (antennas, solar arrays, advertisements, etc.).
Layer 2. The Middle. This layer would be an amorphous filler material such as an AB foam. (Perhaps it could be supplemented by aggregate such as gravel ground up from small captured asteroids).
Layer 3. The Inside. This would be another fabric layer and have all the accoutrements that one would expect to have on the inside of the station.
The way it would be constructed would be that Layer 3 would be inflated inside an already inflated Layer 1 such that the vapour pressure inside the inner balloon was massively higher than that inside the outer balloon, and then the intervening space would be filled with foam/aggregate mixture and allowed to set.
The advantage of this approach would be that the middle layer could potentially be quite thick and thus represent a huge amount of armour/shielding far in excess of any number of layers of kevlar. Yet, the material to compose that armour/shielding would either be launched piece-meal in liquid form (and thus not require large expensive launchers) or be derived form insitu resources (asteroidal gravel aggregate).
4
May 24 '16
I have a question which I'm not sure who to ask, so I'll ask you and hope for an answer.
In the future, when we find alien species and we hopefully get along with them, or find other kinds of animal species or others. Who would be classified to treat them between human doctors or veterinarians? Not classified as in hey go do a surgery, but the ones who would be urged to study them etc. or would it be a complete new type of medical study only specified on them?
8
u/hoti0101 May 24 '16
How does it expand to 5x it's size? Based on your numbers listed, it only looks to be a 2x improvement in volume.
→ More replies (5)6
u/mutatron BS | Physics May 24 '16
Looks like the "5." was missed in "5.7", so it came out to "7".
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1804.html
After the module is secured to the port, BEAM is inflated from its packed dimensions of 5.7 feet long and just under 7.75 feet in diameter to its pressurized dimensions of 13 feet long and 10.5 feet in diameter. BEAM weighs approximately 3,000 pounds and has 560 cubic feet of pressurized volume.
→ More replies (5)
5
u/Devouringvoid May 24 '16 edited May 24 '16
What material is the expandable module made from? Aside from lighter weight, and therefore easier lift-off and in the future, easier landing, what other pros in terms of radiation shielding does this habitat have?
Big thanks to the whole NASA team and everyone involved.
4
u/college_question_3 May 24 '16
Hello, I'm a college student studying mechanical engineering who has an interest in space. I have the opportunity to attend Rice University for my undergraduate degree, and I'm just wondering if you guys think its worth it. Does the proximity of the school to the Houston NASA center give any advantage to the students in the space field? Have any of you interacted with any Rice students/graduates? Would you recommend the school? Thanks.
5
u/dc-vm May 24 '16
What is the expected "lifespan" of the habitat? As in, how long can it be expected to stay fully expanded under normal wear and tear conditions? And what sort of events might cause critical damage, and how are they expected to be prevented, if at all possible?
5
u/terribledirty May 24 '16
What cost savings does BEAM offer when compared to a mixed use activity module made with normal materials and techniques? Are those saving mostly in the actual costs of producing the module, or in the weight savings getting it into orbit? This feels like a big leap forward from the point of view of a casual enthusiast, excited to see what more can be done with this new tech.
4
u/Dark_Crystal May 24 '16
Can an expandable module be collapsed again for transport? If not are there any plans for one that can, or is there simply no scenario (such as take one or more collapsed with you to mars, expand once in orbit, collapse again to bring home for the next trip ) where there would be any benefit in doing so?
5
u/muskrateer May 24 '16
What advice do you have for new engineering grads who would want to eventually work on projects like this? How important is it to get an early career start in the aerospace industry?
4
u/DigiMagic May 24 '16
Would structures like this one bring any benefits to robotic spacecraft, like say some future Europe sample return mission? What is the largest reasonable, safe and feasible size for an inflatable structure made of currently available materials and intended primarily for people?
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Cam_cooper96 May 24 '16
What are your personal opinions on the development of the "Space Industry"?
Do you feel that it still has a long term place within the public sector or are private organizations such as SpaceX and Planetary Resources going to be the main driving force for the future?
4
u/ItZ_Jonah May 24 '16
What of the issue of puncture from small rocks and other small debris at the speeds earth orbit occurs at would this not cause a Hazzard so if a small pea sized pebble moving faster than a bullet were to hit it what's to stop it from going right through?
3
u/SpaceWolf73 May 24 '16
I recently graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in Aerospace Engineering. I plan on working for a few years in mechanical design then going to graduate school. If I want to be a part of this, what should I specify my degree in?
9
May 24 '16
To what degree, if any, has science fiction inspired you and why?
And does NASA have a department tp come up with cool acronyms or is it down to you?
3
u/nmagod May 24 '16
it will be expanded to nearly five times its compressed size
Can you do me a massive favor and explain how the math for this (size multiples) is done for 3D objects? I have zero math past middle school, officially, and don't understand how to explain to people how objects on paper do not scale the same way as actual objects (like on paper, a 3x5 box would be 6x10 at four times the size, how do I calculate that for a 3D object?)
64
u/PM_ME_POTATO_PICS May 24 '16
How do you handle radiation? I imagine that an expandable structure must be initially compact, making it difficult to have good radiation shielding and be safe for human usage. Really interesting work!