This 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.
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.
I'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.
Development 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.
It 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
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.
Ohhh, 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.
I'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.
It 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.
I 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.
I'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.
But 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.
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|10 years ago|reply
Some details and photos of the BEAM here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Mo...
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.
[+] [-] sktrdie|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rm445|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tdaltonc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robbiep|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LeifCarrotson|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jarmitage|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceejayoz|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ortusdux|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessriedel|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carapace|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
Standing ovations for NASA!
[+] [-] kevin_thibedeau|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LeifCarrotson|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] IgorPartola|10 years ago|reply