Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Model of Inflatable Space Station to Launch Feb 16

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the long-term-thinking dept.

63

alex writes "A Russian rocket will launch a 1/3 scale model of of the Bigelow inflatable space station a week from Friday, according to The Space Fellowship. This prototype will carry a thousand personal objects donated by Bigelow Aerospace employees. If all goes well, another prototype should go up by September, and non-Bigelow-employee enthusiasts might be able to contribute their own garbage--err, personal items--to the project. (Via Futurismic)"

cancel ×

63 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I got stuff (0, Offtopic)

gervaisc (904588) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475016)

I'll donate some socks to repair the CO2 Canisters.

Re:I got stuff (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476722)

Why would they bring extra CO2 with them?

Re:I got stuff (1)

gervaisc (904588) | more than 8 years ago | (#15477369)

I meant to say CO2 filter in reference to the Apollo 11 movie but I pressed submit to fast. And also don't they use compressed CO2 to make minor corrects to the orientation of the craft? Similar to the system used by the MIT students and their satellites.

Re:I got stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15487297)

Apollo 13, not Apollo 11.
Apparently, you "pressed submit to [sic] fast", again.

Replace "February 16th" with "June 16th" (4, Informative)

benhocking (724439) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475017)

According to TFA.

Re:Replace "February 16th" with "June 16th" (0, Flamebait)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475667)

are you sure you don't mean April 1st?

Re:Replace "February 16th" with "June 16th" (2, Funny)

nizo (81281) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475745)

They would have launched it sooner, but it took longer than they expected to blow up all the little inflatable astronauts.

Feb16 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15475035)

Feb 16 or June 16?

Oh, this is actually happening? (3, Interesting)

ZSpade (812879) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475074)

That's awesome. And here I thought it was just a lot more talk like usual. You know what's funny is how much of a joke these simplistic little devices are going to make the ISS look like an over funded joke. That said, with out the ISS's prior existance, we probably wouldn't have enough data about how space effects humans to even be doing this. Truly amazing. The one thing I would fear, staying in a giant "bubble" like this... One micrometeorite and pop...

Re:Oh, this is actually happening? (1)

Ana10g (966013) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475208)

If I remember correctly, the thing is armored over the outer skin, with a special coating that's pretty extreme.

Re:Oh, this is actually happening? (1)

iocat (572367) | more than 8 years ago | (#15491504)

And yet still... one little slightly-less-than-micrometeorite and *poof* But the chances of that happening are pretty small. I'd go.

Re:Oh, this is actually happening? (1)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475287)

Why do you need ISS to provide data on humans in space? There are many years' worth of data from Russian and American space stations already. ISS isn't going to add a lot to that, actually.

no armor necessary (2, Informative)

m874t232 (973431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475313)

If the thing is properly constructed, the effect of a micrometeorite is no worse than with other constructions. Basically, don't think of an elastic skin that snaps, but something more akin to airtight canvas. If you punch a hole in that, you just get a small hole, nothing more. If anything, inflatable space stations are easier to repair than other constructions.

Re:no armor necessary (1)

david.given (6740) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475389)

If you punch a hole in that, you just get a small hole, nothing more. If anything, inflatable space stations are easier to repair than other constructions.

Indeed --- they can even be made, quite simply, self-healing; make your station twin-walled, and fill the cavity with volatile goo. Anything punctures the outside, and the goo will ooze out, harden , and seal the hole. Very simple. (Any object big enough and moving fast enough to penetrate both layers is going to wipe out your habitat anyway and isn't worth worrying about.)

If you have enough of it, it even doubles as radiation shielding... Dr. Schlock, eat your heart out!

Would it work in the (near) vacuum of space? (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475413)

Will the goo harden in orbit, or does it need an oxidizing agent? Hardening seems like a chemical reaction that would need something to react with. Perhaps there's a coating on the outer surface of the membrane?

Re:Would it work in the (near) vacuum of space? (3, Informative)

david.given (6740) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475575)

Will the goo harden in orbit, or does it need an oxidizing agent?

Vacuum has amazing evaporative power --- some substance with a volatile solvent in it should work fine. Exposed to vacuum, the solvent will evaporate off in practically no time. Plain PVA glue would most likely work, although you might need some thickener to reduce the flow rate.

I don't know what the Bigelow hab is using; from the very limited information available, I don't think they're going for this approach. I suspect they're just using an ordinary tough skin.

(The Apollo spacesuits had cooling systems that worked by evaporating water. The water evaporated so quickly that they had to keep the coolers turned all the way down, or the astronauts got far too cold...)

Re:Would it work in the (near) vacuum of space? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15475635)

Will the goo harden in orbit, or does it need an oxidizing agent?

I'd imagine you'd forego oxidation or moisture cured compounds. Your best bet is to use a polymer that is kept fluid by means of a volatile solvent. When the stuff hits the vacuum of space, the solvent rapidly boils off, and the remaining compounds can then polymerize/harden. Sort of like rubber cement [wikipedia.org] or white glue [wikipedia.org] .

I remember a Heinlien book (GHoE?) (1)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475486)

Where the lunar tunnels had neutral buoyancy balloons in them that were partially filled with a hole-plugging goo. The suction from a breach drew the balloon to the hole, where it was burst by being forced through the hole by the pressure differential. The goo (and balloon material) formed a temporary patch

Re:I remember a Heinlien book (GHoE?) (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475801)

he goo (and balloon material) formed a temporary patch

Not to mention the protagonist's ass.

Re:I remember a Heinlien book (GHoE?) (1)

sabre86 (730704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15477720)

It is The Green Hills of Earth. The name of the story -- the book is a compilation of stories in the Future History universe -- is "Gentlemen, Be Seated."

Re:Oh, this is actually happening? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475372)

I've seen a video show that described the inflatable habitat. The "skin" is actually many layers of alternating materials to seal, insulate and absorb micrometeoriods, maybe some of the layers are self-healing, but I'm not certain. They showed a sample inflation in a vacuum chamber and it's pretty impressive.

Re:Oh, this is actually happening? (4, Interesting)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475458)

First of all, they are hardly simplistic little devices. NASA spent a fair bit of money and several years researching and development of the concept. No doubt Heinlein, Clark, or Asimov also discussed the idea of inflatable modules long before Bigelow heard about them.

NASA's Transhab project was originally intended to utilize inflatable modules for the ISS. Like most aerospace projects, it ran over budget and the program was cancelled before all of the technical challenges like reliable inflation (these are much more complex than a balloon) were solved. Bigelow bought rights on the NASA patents when he started his aerospace company, and has been working on ironing out the remaining design details and figuring how to reliably manufacture them for several years now.

Second, these are not quite as revolutionary as they sound. They do offer significantly more internal volume for the weight, but not a huge amount. I think it's about double for Bigelow's layouts. There is a lot of core framework, life support, etc equipment associated with each module. They also only address the issue of creating interior volume, not fueling, power, temperature control, docking, and all the other major parts of a space station. They also don't offer much benefit for certain ISS modules like Columbus, which has built in experimental stations that can't realistically be inflated and would be difficult at best to install in a SpaceHab module after inflation. However, the technology may later be applied in areas other than habitation. One proposal is replacing the aluminum trusses that support solar panels with inflatable tubes that become sufficiently rigid when pressurized. Third, they may actually be safer than current aluminum modules. The synthetic materials they are made from are even stronger than Kevlar, and layered just like the aluminum/mylar/whatever else currently used. The difference is that these are elastic, so they can be folded up conveniently for launch, and they maintain their outer shape via pressure rather than framing. The same radiation protection would be offered. When a micrometeorites do hit they will probably not be massive enough to penetrate the skin. If one does, you would have a slow leak that could be located and repaired. They aren't inflated to near their ultimate yield strength like balloons are, so a small breach would not immediately grow into a tear that would cause them to "pop."

Check out some of NASA's conceptual drawings [nasa.gov] for a better idea what these modules are really like.

Re:Oh, this is actually happening? (1)

iNetRunner (613289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15477690)

So.. In space, you can't hear inflatable space stations pop. =)

Besides, in Soviet Russia inflatable space stations pop you.

Re:Oh, this is actually happening? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475605)

ou know what's funny is how much of a joke these simplistic little devices are going to make the ISS look like an over funded joke. That said, with out the ISS's prior existance, we probably wouldn't have enough data about how space effects humans to even be doing this. The one thing I would fear, staying in a giant "bubble" like this... One micrometeorite and pop...
Three sentences, not one factually correct.

Re:Oh, this is actually happening? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15475765)

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

Contrary to many popular expectations, inflatable modules are often considered to be more durable than the rigid modules found on the International Space Station. This is partially due to their use of several layers of vectran, a material twice as strong as kevlar.


and Wikipedia's article on the Nautilus [wikipedia.org] , the space station module for which this is a proof of concept:

Its skin, made of rubber wrapped with several layers of high-tension straps, is particularly resistant to damage from micrometerites and debris. It can take a stronger impact than most current spacecraft.


This will be a very durable station.

Re:Oh, this is actually happening? (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476064)

That said, with out the ISS's prior existance, we probably wouldn't have enough data about how space effects humans to even be doing this.
Like we didn't collect enough between the Mir and Skylab? I mean, a group of cosmonaughts stayed on the Mir for a whole leap year(366 days)!

The one thing I would fear, staying in a giant "bubble" like this... One micrometeorite and pop...

It won't pop like a ballon here.
This is a complex sandwich of various materials, including metal foils and kevlar. In most ways it's stronger than traditional space hulls. It's very flexability can make it more resistant to penetration from a micrometeorite. The only difference is that it takes advantage of the low pressure of space, and the necessity of pressurizing for human occupation. It works like traditional blow-up structures. Increase the air pressure inside a bit, and up it goes. The difference is, with the lack of pressure and gravity outside, the pressure needed to inflate it is practically negligable. And it'd stay 'inflated' even with a loss of pressure once it's opened up.

regulation (1)

l2718 (514756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475077)

I think commercial space exploration essential -- we've realized most of the governmental benefits of space travel (GPS, weather satellites, went to the moon ...), and except for science (which isn't enough to drive a space program) and the military (which won't pay for other stuff), nothing will happen unless we all start paying for it directly.

However, the government always like to meddle in private people's affairs. Sometimes it's necessary (someone should probably make sure the launch vehicles don't crash-land on people's houses), but most of the time it isn't, especially when we're talking about testing experimental technology.

Probably not everyone agrees, so: can you make a good case for the Space Precautionary Act?

Re:regulation (1)

sidfaiwu (901221) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475105)

I wonder if they'll launch my collection of broken glass and sewing needles?

Re:regulation (1)

l2718 (514756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475251)

The real question is: will there be a rule against taking sharp objects on board space planes?

Re:regulation (1)

sidfaiwu (901221) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475323)

Or, relating to your original comment, should there be a regulation against sharp objects on inflatable spacecrafts, assuming they are actually dangerous? I suppose such a regulation would be unnecessary, as the company that creates the craft would have incentive to ban dangerous objects themselves in order to protect their property and reputation.

Re:regulation (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475547)

Absolutely agree, and one of the first things they should look at is "are you allowed to send balloons into space filled with rings, bottle-caps and toys".

Fun for everyone! (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475101)

Inflatable ISS, coming to a McDonald's Playplace near you!

Micrometeorites? (0, Flamebait)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475113)

In space, no one can hear balloons exploding (and you screaming inside)

Re:Micrometeorites? (1)

sidfaiwu (901221) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475146)

The person inside would certainly hear it; just before the blood starts spewing from his/her ears!

Did anyone else read (2, Funny)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475121)

Inflatable model to be launched to space station?

cool! (2, Funny)

bigattichouse (527527) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475125)

Can I put my collection of 19th century sewing needles in it? :)

Finally... (3, Funny)

KodeJockey (928302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475128)

Its the dream home my inflatable doll always wanted.

Re:Finally... (1)

castoridae (453809) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475337)

Well space does get lonely... inflatable woman... :-)

Stutter (1)

Lithgon (896737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475142)

I didn't know you could stutter while typing...

Don't hit the Piñata (1, Flamebait)

Ana10g (966013) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475149)

Okay, so when this demonstration is over, what are they going to do with all that crap when the piñata pops? More orbital junk?

Re:Don't hit the Piñata (1)

nbannerman (974715) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475304)

Given this is a prototype, I doubt it'll suffer a sudden loss of pressure. It'll probably lose pressure slowly. Assuming that it does this, I guess the items inside will stay inside, and the risk will be minimal.

Of course, I am definately not a rocket scientist, so take this with a pinch of NaCl.

Re:Don't hit the Piñata (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475626)

Even with a sudden loss of pressure, if the material is designed not to tear easily, the items should mostly stay inside. Just because it's inflatable doesn't mean it has to pop like a latex balloon when it gets a hole in it. Once the initial discharge of gas is complete, there will be nothing forcing the objects to leave the inside.

Re:Don't hit the Piñata (1)

WombatControl (74685) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475315)

Okay, so when this demonstration is over, what are they going to do with all that crap when the piñata pops? More orbital junk?
Right until the time it hits the atmosphere... if there are any English coins in the collection it would then give new meaning to the phrase "hey, check out that flaming queen." (Too much Family Guy for me...)

Re:Don't hit the Piñata (1)

Feyr (449684) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475364)

dont forget the canadian coins. we have an english queen on them

Bad timing (1)

Anonymous MadCoe (613739) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475150)

Getting media attention will be hard around that time with the world cup going on.

Re:Bad timing (1)

k31bang (672440) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475241)

Here in the good ole USA most the country will be watching some poker tour :-(

I'm confused (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475470)

Do we want it blow up or not?

Obligatory Sluggy Reference (1)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475597)

Dr. Schlock [wikipedia.org] would be proud.

Solid Surface (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475641)

I love the idea, but I'm sort of curious about putting instruments inside, mounted to walls and things like that. Having everything floating around in a big balloon would be annoying.

For example, astronauts inside would want some ovens and things like that to cook food. Astronauts tend to have muscle problems on their return to Earth if they don't exercise and all the exercise equipment I've seen is secured, etc. There's also the obvious question of EVAs, windows, etc.

Perhaps a non-airtight capsule somehow secured inside this balloon?

Re:Solid Surface (2, Interesting)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475916)

Astute questions, but ones which the engineers have already thought of.

The Spacehab modules aren't quite as simple as they sound (otherwise they would have been included on the ISS). I believe they are to be built with mounting features included on the walls for things such as dividers and lockers. The trick is making sure these don't interfere with a smooth inflation. Additionally, the core of the module, which provides longitudinal rigidity and holds the inflating and related equipment will offer more rigid mounts for items where that may be important, like exercise gear. Also, EVA's would not be handled directly from these modules. You would still need airlocks for that, which could possibly be added onto the end, or else included in a traditional module. And yes, windows can be included in the spacehab modules.

Re:Solid Surface (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476151)

To expand a bit, I believe that they do have some sort of airlock available. I think they're located on the ends(it's sausage shaped, not ballon shaped). They also don't collapse completely, there's room to design the equipment to move into place as the module inflates, or even have an astronaught move it into place once inflation is complete. As long as it can fit through the lock, you can even bring it in later.

Re:Solid Surface (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15480743)

Why stop at ovens? If I were an astronaut, I'd demand a nice barbeque pit in my space station.

I just hope noone is launching (0, Offtopic)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15475650)

the Lance of Longinus anytime soon (reference to Evangelion).

Pop.

Um, Houston, we've got a problem.

What?

We've sprung a leak.

Why?

There's a large lance-like DNA needle stuck in our space station and we're losing air pressure fast ...

MOD UP: Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15485135)

The parent is barely offtopic, as it relates to a humorous scenario and references an anime series.
That, and it was the best laugh I've had for quite some time. Thanks WillAffleckUW.

What's a "floot"? (1)

NeuroManson (214835) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476143)

Inside the model there will be 1000 photocards and personal objects from Bigelow Aerospace employees all flooting inside the space station.

Re:What's a "floot"? (1)

SlowMovingTarget (550823) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476567)

That is the word "floating" with a "flamboyant British" modifier applied. For example: "I couldn't poossibly be expected to knoow that!" In Europe, this sort of over-the-top pronunciation is represented with an umlaut.

Re:What's a "floot"? (1)

Patrik_AKA_RedX (624423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15477792)

A "floot" is what you call the junk that normaly lays on the floor of your bedroom, minus the gravity.

"anybody" can have their stuff in there? (2, Funny)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476459)

FTA: "If you log onto the Bigelow Aerospace Web portal, you will have a chance to actually see your item floating by!"

I think that what they really mean is:

"If you log onto the Bigelow Aerospace Web portal, you will have a chance to actually see a whole bunch of GoldenPalace.com merchandise floating by!"

- RG>

First Images. (1)

triso (67491) | more than 8 years ago | (#15476675)

The first thing I imagined was a bouncy castle. Those were the days.

But just for Americans? (1)

Cicero382 (913621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478197)

This sort of stuff really interests me so I took a look at the site. There I saw the career page - "Cool", I thought, "This is the kind of stuff I'd work on for free!"

But I can't - 'cos I'm not American. You'd have thought that these guys would have tapped into the FOSS workforce. Also, non-Americans can forget going after the $50 M prize.

It rather puts the rhetoric on the home page into perspective. Ah, well. Back to ESA.

"Brilliant Condoms" redux (2, Informative)

IAN (30) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478527)

The inflatable spacecraft idea has been floated (heh) in the 80s by a scientist at LLNL who previously came up with the idea of using gobs of small interceptors for strategic missile defense -- the concept known as Brilliant Pebbles. His rather aggressive promotion of inflatables attracted a lot of criticism, and someone called the scheme "Brilliant Condoms". With a moniker like that, it's no wonder that support and funds have been scarce.

The idea has its merits, as mentioned elsewhere in the comments... Volume to mass ratio is much better than that of a solid structure, and micrometeorite shielding can be provided adequately.

boom! shrapnels everywhere! (1)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478738)

On news today:
How didn't we see that an inflatable baloon would explode if something hit it?
Did terrorists attack the US by using that baloon to try to kill the people on earth?
How did Oussama ben laden get to space to blow that thing?

Coming up next:
Why did the pendant with Hitler's picture burned while going back into atmosphear, while the virgin mary pendant pierced and destroyed the international space station?
We got nazis and religious men coming to comment on that after these messages...

Inflatable church (1)

RESPAWN (153636) | more than 8 years ago | (#15479555)

I wonder if the model will look anything like this: Inflatable Church [inflatablechurch.com]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>