13 ms·
SpaceX is launching an inflatable space habitat
- sktrdie 11y agoI'm super passionate of space habitats and have done extensive reading about them. This is not a habitat in the real sense of the word. It provides a more spacious environment for the ISS. Therefore, it's just an extension to the already existing science laboratory (not habitat). For humans, a habitat should replicate earth's environment. Gravity is the first thing that comes to mind, but there are other things it should provide. I hope in the near future we work on actually building/sending habitats in space with the goal of actually living there, and not only for scientific research.
- tdaltonc 11y agoAre there any ongoing human space habitat design/construction projects you really like?
- LeifCarrotson 11y ago> a habitat should replicate earth's environment. Then what is the point of having the habitat in space in the first place? Should we block off the windows, too, and replace them with posters of the side of some terrestrial apartment? Hamstring the solar panels because the atmosphere would block a lot of energy? Living in space should be different than life on earth. Humans need some things to be similar to survive, so give them those things - possibly including some time in gravity - but we don't need a few more square feet of living space equivalent to a vacant lot.
- freehunter 11y agoI agree that living in space does not need to perfectly replicate the feeling of living on Earth. Humans should be supplied with the things they need to live and gravity might be one of those things, but only when it comes to long term health concerns. On the other hand, the word "habitat" literally means the natural home of an animal or plant, and a gravity-free inflatable balloon in space is about as far from the natural living space of a human. It's going to be a long, long time before anyone can recreate Earth-like conditions in space.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago>possibly including some time in gravity Living in zero gravity tends to be very bad for long term health because bone and muscle mass start disappearing. Radiation shielding is a huge problem. Inflatable habs provide almost none, so they're dangerous in LEO and potentially fatal further out. And then there's danger from micro-debris. So inflatables could be good for short trips - space hotels, especially - and for extra storage. But they're really not a solution for long-term occupation.
- jp555 11y agoHow about inflating them with water, and then living inside another air inflated bubble inside? Like a giant cell. Radiation shielding, micrometeorite shielding, plus water is pretty important too. Other gear can float inside the water behind their own membranes like organelles, some use the water to radiate heat away, some use water for other things like making macronutrients (carbs, fibre, protein, & fat), or processing waste.
- jpatokal 11y agoAnd where are you proposing to get the necessary swimming-pool-like volumes of water? Shipped from the Earth at ~$20,000/kg?
- jp555 11y agoThat's only the cost if you use disposable rockets. About the same cost/kg of flying if you're throwing away the 777 after one flight. Reusable rockets are magnitudes cheaper per launch. Or there's robotic in-situ water mining - Ceres has a shallow gravity well and probably has as much water as Earth. Easy? No, but space is always going to be hard.
- zardo 11y ago>How about inflating them with water, and then living inside another air inflated bubble inside? What they actually propose to do is inflate the walls, then store water and supplies on the interior walls.
- jarmitage 11y agoWhat are your top recommendations for readings/lectures/challenges for those interested in the topic?
- cromulent 11y agoProbably not what you had in mind, but I found Neal Stephenson's novel Seveneves to be very thought provoking on the subject. I had never thought of inflatables before I read that.
- eric_h 11y agoAgreed - I very much enjoyed the exploration of what it would take to support a major colony in orbit.
- jasonpeacock 11y agoThis is an older, but very practical and educational read: http://smile.amazon.com/Millennial-Project-Colonizing-Galaxy-Eight/dp/0316771635 http://smile.amazon.com/Millennial-Project-Colonizing-Galaxy...
- timroy 11y agoI can recommend Gerard O'Neill's The High Frontier. https://www.scribd.com/doc/239652061/The-High-Frontier-Human-Coloni-Gerard-O-Neill https://www.scribd.com/doc/239652061/The-High-Frontier-Human... Thanks for the recommendation for The Millenium Project, jasonpeacock, I'll check it out. :-)
- rm445 11y agoDevelopment of inflatable volumes is a reasonable step towards us becoming a spacegoing species. If you have a decent bag and enough air to pressurise it, you can have as much room as you want in space. There's no external pressure working to collapse it. Of course, there are questions to answer about safety, shielding against debris and radiation protection, but that's the point of doing the research. I love this kind of stuff. It serves to remind people that space travel isn't just launch vehicles. Part of, as you say, providing a place in space for humans to live, is providing spacecraft that aren't utterly cramped.
- Retric 11y agoInflatable habitats actually scale worse than ridged structures. The problem is as you inflate a structure the air pressure is constant but the surface area increases. And you must carry the load around the edges. The advantage is actually in mid-sized structures where you can more easily compact them for transport where rigid structures are sent up in a single piece for strength. PS: This is also why you need buttressing around above ground pools. For comparison 1ATM = 33.9 feet of water. Above ground pools rarely go above 1/3 ATM at there base. Granted, they are also not made out of Kevlar, but the same basic problems apply in space.
- zzalpha 11y agoYour mistake is in assuming we're simply optimizing for volume and nothing else. Factor in each of size, cost, and deployment complexity, and it's clear many feel that inflatable structures represent huge potential wins. Besides, it's not like you actually need to build single, huge volumes. Space-based habitats built of multiple, smaller linked structures makes more sense, anyway, as it enables module isolation in case of failure.
- Retric 11y agoWe are still thinking in terms of tiny structures. Picture a space station with 100,000+ people. From a safty standpoint you want modular structures. But, you also want to minimize the areas directly linked to space. Thus you end up with something like a nuclear submarine vs an ever expanding ant hill. Remember apartment builds give every room a view, but that's high risk in space. You can also reuse walls, between areas to cut down on mass without compromising if there is a leak.
- robbiep 11y agoIt should also be noted that this will not be actually inhabited by the resident astronauts - it contains a heap of sensors to monitor retention of pressure and atmosphere etc, and astronauts will enter it a handful of times (wikipedia suggested around 30-40 times during its mission last time I looked) - so it's just laying the groundwork for a potential further attachment in the future
- ortusdux 11y agoI hope everything works out with this test. B330, the larger variant, could be launched on a Falcon Heavy and add 35% to the volume of the ISS in one go.
- ceejayoz 11y agoIt should be noted that this is for NASA to the ISS, and not for human use. They'll check it out occasionally and maybe use it for storage after a while. Still, it seems like the way of the future for human living spaces. I visited the Air and Space Museum in DC and the Skylab was amazingly roomy compared to ISS modules.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoI've always thought that Mars missions should 'drag a bag' behind an atomic rocket. The best shielding is the inverse-square law. Put the habitable part of the mission vehicle several miles from the fissionables! At the end of a tether.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- LeifCarrotson 11y agoBut directly behind the rocket is where most of the energy goes. I'd also be curious how the tether would avoid getting cooked by the rocket exhaust. I think a long mast, putting the riders in front of a large mass of fuel, would be much simpler. But you're right, it is a lot easier to design an ultra-light, super-strong tether than a giant mast.
- bosdev 11y agoAre we sure a feasible tether/mass could handle the impulse of a nuclear explosion?
- neverminder 11y agoPretty sure he had this in mind: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoMy father-in-law worked on that in the 60's (project Rover). It got defunded for some reason, or we might have been to Mars in the last century...
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoJust swing it in a circle? Lots of pendulum arrangements that don't put the meat in the path of the heat.
- jessriedel 11y agoA little related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11374655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11374655
- drzaiusapelord 11y agoThis is kinda a dick headline. The real credit should be to Bigelow for building the BEAM. Its a very impressive solution and I believe the first full scale habitat inflatable in space. I guess the SEO people at techcrunch know words like 'SpaceX' gets results, but this article is like saying "American Airlines sends Obama to Chicago." Instead of "Obama visits Chicago." The transportation isn't the story here. The cargo is. Some details and photos of the BEAM here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Module https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Mo... http://bigelowaerospace.com/beam/ http://bigelowaerospace.com/beam/ Kudos to the team at Bigelow for making it this far. Let's hope for a successful deployment. Inflatables have often been assumed to be how we'll build habits off planet. They're light but durable and could soon be deployed on the moon with our current technology to act as a semi-permanent base. Imagine a dozen of these tied together. The lift cost would be a fraction of what a 'hard' habitat would cost. Or from less ambitious perspective, one of these acting as a commercial space hotel. Space tourism works better with a destination.
- carapace 11y agoSpittle Bug. Expanding: Space craft and stations should be modelled on the spittle bug's nest, a cluster of bubbles. These metal cans are a conceptual hold-over.
- onetimePete 11y agoThat robot-arm is a miracle, it can attach-crawl from docking station to docking station across the whole station. Standing ovations for NASA!
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoIt's from Canada eh.
- onetimePete 11y agoEh, its to late to make a pipe to redirect the praise-stream, is it? Sorry.
- erikpukinskis 11y agoShots of maple syrup for everyone!
- IgorPartola 11y agoIf they don't call it a moon bounce I will be really mad.
- ChuckMcM 11y agoOhhh, the soft walls, the lack of windows, and a lockable door between it and the rest of the space station? What is not to like? Might as well try out some of those "hotel room" features to help Bigelow design a better room for space tourists. I was really excited to see Bigelow's ideas here, and have enjoyed seeing stories of their test modules floating around in orbit. It seems to make a lot of sense if you want something that transports small, and grows big when it is deployed (no joke intended). I remember thinking it was like one of those "pop up" tent trailers you see at the campground. Easy to transport but very spacious and useful once set up.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoI'd like to see one designed that could be manufactured in orbit, or on the moon. That could jumpstart space manufacturing and expansion like nothing else.
- madaxe_again 11y agoOr you could launch them and fuel cheaply with a space gun, along with Robots to bash the components together into a functioning structure, and leave the mucky rocketry bit for your g-sensitive meatbags.
- jlebar 11y agoHow is sending up raw materials better than sending up completed parts? At best, the total weight is the same, but if you're doing manufacturing in space, you also have to send up tools.
- thearn4 11y agoI would assume the parent comment's idea is based off of an assumption of some sort of ISRU (in-situ resource utilization). Which, to be fair, is tricky.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoNo! The raw materials are already on the moon (bauxite). Just send up tools, then make unlimited modules.