4 ms·

The Bigelow design is actually significantly stronger than the ISS modules. You're thinking about "inflatable" wrong- they have an expandable mesh of fabric se

The Bigelow design is actually significantly stronger than the ISS modules. You're thinking about "inflatable" wrong- they have an expandable mesh of fabric several layers thick that is extremely strong and lets them get a larger diameter module out of a smaller payload fairing. If you get hit with debris of any reasonable size, you're fucked one way or the other. The Bigelow design is easier to seal up and more robust against smaller debris.

JoeAltmaier 14y ago
The layered approach is how all space transport is shielded - micrometeorites puncture the 1st layer (pinhole) and turn to dust/gas, spatter against the 2nd layer harmlessly. You'll have to do 'patch duty' periodically on the outer balloon, but again its usually only pinholes to deal with, leaks are small and easily found, trivial to fix.
moonchrome 14y ago
>If you get hit with debris of any reasonable size, you're fucked one way or the other. I wonder if this will be included in the brochures.
- yew 14y ago
  I suspect (a fair proportion of) the initial crop of tourists are already aware. The risk isn't really that high, though. It'll only become a real concern once things start to scale up. Then we'll have to clean up orbital space. The real problem is dealing with the occasional solar radiation surge. Bigelow's baseline designs were sourced from NASA, though, so I suspect they have a plan for that.
  - moonchrome 14y ago
    I meant it as a joke about his phrasing not about actual risk but I guess it's hard to express tone with text, at least for me :)
    - yew 14y ago
      Ah, it might be as much a matter of my interpretation skills. But anyway, it's still true that the real danger is radiation. I would be interested in finding out whether they intend to shield part of the station or just schedule visits around solar flares . . .
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Large orbital debris is tracked, and manned spacecraft take efforts to avoid it. Natural stuff like meteoroids and whatnot are incredibly rare, combined with the fact that space is really, really, really big this makes getting hit by such things far less likely than, say, getting hit by lightning.
- arethuza 14y ago
  There is no lack of people willing to try to climb Mt Everest and this is probably a lot safer than that.

JoeAltmaier 14y ago

The layered approach is how all space transport is shielded - micrometeorites puncture the 1st layer (pinhole) and turn to dust/gas, spatter against the 2nd layer harmlessly. You'll have to do 'patch duty' periodically on the outer balloon, but again its usually only pinholes to deal with, leaks are small and easily found, trivial to fix.

moonchrome 14y ago

>If you get hit with debris of any reasonable size, you're fucked one way or the other. I wonder if this will be included in the brochures.

yew 14y ago
I suspect (a fair proportion of) the initial crop of tourists are already aware. The risk isn't really that high, though. It'll only become a real concern once things start to scale up. Then we'll have to clean up orbital space. The real problem is dealing with the occasional solar radiation surge. Bigelow's baseline designs were sourced from NASA, though, so I suspect they have a plan for that.
- moonchrome 14y ago
  I meant it as a joke about his phrasing not about actual risk but I guess it's hard to express tone with text, at least for me :)
  - yew 14y ago
    Ah, it might be as much a matter of my interpretation skills. But anyway, it's still true that the real danger is radiation. I would be interested in finding out whether they intend to shield part of the station or just schedule visits around solar flares . . .
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Large orbital debris is tracked, and manned spacecraft take efforts to avoid it. Natural stuff like meteoroids and whatnot are incredibly rare, combined with the fact that space is really, really, really big this makes getting hit by such things far less likely than, say, getting hit by lightning.
arethuza 14y ago
There is no lack of people willing to try to climb Mt Everest and this is probably a lot safer than that.