My wife bought a tent once , set it up in the backyard. I told her to take it down and pack it away or the sunlight will destroy the material it is made of. She repeatedly explained to me that the material was indestructible. So the sunlight destroyed the material turning the tent to rubbish. Then i had to pull it down myself. The sunlight really bites into material over time.
My buddies 1998 rag top is still water proof and it is parked outside in Michigan. Sadly the metal parts are not doing as well. A cheap tent not surviving is not surprising!
Yes. My tent had a nylon fly and the instructions said it had a lifespan of one year if left erected in full sun. It lasted 20 years tho. A lot of material sciences go into this "stuff" and it's the first iteration so if a reliable rocket hits the market then SS will get another chance.
@@Nell_Hell You mean at orbital velocities. Recall a flake of paint was embedded into a Space Shuttle window on one mission. Not to mention the scads of nuts & bolts liable to be flying around up there. That said, it looks like Sierra is doing some fine R & D to combat these kinds of things. Consider how many Kevlar body armor products can stop or reduce the impact of bullets. I’d be happy to visit one of the orbital habitats and feel safe.
Just to add..... 77 PSI is 5 times the operational pressure. Sierra not only complied with the 4x requirement, they just topped it off with 5x. 27% over de already established safety margin doesn't really sound impressive, right until you compare it to the operational pressures.
But if your on the ground then the external pressure is 14.7 psi so the relative pressure would be effectivly 4 atmosphere. The ISS is pressurized to 1 atmosphere, so a 4 fold safety margin for an on orbit would be exactly what they tested to. Claiming they exceeded the requirement by an additional atmosphere would then just be an outright deception, unless the NASA specs are infact actually written for ground testing and a 3x margin on orbit is what NASA actually specified.
@@kennethferland5579 I'm fairly sure the smart cookies at nasa are like really smart (yes sarcasm). Well apart from the management side of NASA which has always been dodgy, but the engineering side of NASA always has been of top notch quality. I'm fairly sure that the engineers specified 60 PSI with a double safety margin in mind. The amount of triple (or more) redundancies in every (critical) component is just crazy. The ISS has been flying up there for 30 years already and I can't think of that then any other way that the part that separates the astronauts from nothing is waaaaay overspec'd. Keep in mind a 1% margin over the 60PSI limit was deemed acceptable. A 27% increase is massive, it just sounds not so massive. It's just how you convey the information and how to put it into scale. And that was my intention.
Being an engineer that build stuff. This blow up habitat would not be of much use besides being used as a store room. Building up the interior and the working structure would be more work and more complex than it is worth. The final effort, cost and weight would be higher.
Yea this is what most people fail to understand, Space stations arn't condos in NY that sell by the square foot. You need literal TONS of interior lifesupport, workstations, labs, computers, etc etc, unless your planned space activities are just zero-g accrobatics. The equipment pieces are bigger then American refrigerators and have to be brought into the station by attaching a large conventional aluminum can modules that have the modules securely attached to the walls and passage room for people in the middle so the modules can be detached and relocated. AKA the exact arrangment of conventional habitat modules, at which point you might as well just leave the equipment in place in the new module. So the 'get the same volume as ISS in 2 launches rather then 6' looks a lot less impressive when you need to launch 4 more conventional habitats to actually support the same crew and work output from them. We would likely be a lot better off improving the mass and volume and LABOR efficiency of the equipment modules so that half of crew time weren't consumed by maintence.
It would be interesting to know the weight of this structure compared to a standard cylinder. I expect it might weigh more. I feel like extra space is crucial in some situations like growing plants and general crew wellbeing.
if it means space stations going from hamster tubes to actual livable space for crew activities and experiments, I think it's worth the complexity and work.
@@jeffsaxon3707 And you do? And do you even understand physics? Of a large chamber in zero gravity? Or the engineering and space inefficiency of making modular designs of one offs, in order to facilitate simplified assembly.
My only concern with this at all comes down to micrometeor impacts, given they are significantly more energy intensive than most firearms if you're unlucky, a structure like this would need to be carefully ensured to have proper evacuation options to ensure that in the event of a strike that people don't get trapped inside as it collapses.
well micro meteors will most likely self seal also this is just one layer they finished testing out of something like 7-8. One the section cut they showed at least 4 MMOD layers which are supposed to deal with that. Honestly this technology will be much more useful in cargo transfer and storage than space structures. Being able to simply deflate your tanks is something any rocket/craft can gain from. Reducing stress during de/acceleration,more rigid structure(compact),reduce the need for pressuresing the tanks(partially). It is definitely something that can be used in variety of ways. (Tires?)
Different layers. It's really interesting in how they deal with the smallest pieces. The foil you see in images of spacecraft is what usually does it. Micro meteors vaporize when they hit the foil. I don't know that they are planning exactly here but it's a solved problem. Besides, for the same mass, stuff like kevlar will be more puncture proof than the same mass of aluminum or steel.
That's your only problem with it? Not the fact that the inefficiency of shipping water, food, oxygen and everything else up into space is comparable to loading up a 5 ton vehicle with 2.5 tons of fuel just to ship 40lbs of stuff? (Math based on starship weight and payload) Help colonize and keep terraformed the Sarah first by planting a tree. Would be easier and better for humanity than dumping litteral tons of C02 into Earths atmosphere for every 40lbs of stuff you want to move up into space.
@@Chazulu2 if you are saying to terraform the sahara, liquid trees might be on of the best ways to do so because it has the benefits of a tree but the modularity and survivability necessary to do so.
There’s currently a small version of this craft attached to the ISS, albeit built by a different company. It’s used for storage, which may not sound impressive, but is quite important for the overall ISS operation.
One of these stations,could be launched from the moon and orbit close to the asteroid belt.Humanoid Robots could be used for maintenance. This could be a relay station to mass for future tourists
So why could you not have another 9 layer hull making a double hull, then fill that void with polyurethane foam. This would make the hull ,9 layers, expansion foam,that becomes rigid, and another 9 layers, giving a total of 18 layers with about a foot of foam all the way around. Acting as a thermal barrier. This would take the concept too a much higher level.
I think that Bigelow largely ran out of time, no one was buying cause no one was expanding ISS or making new stations when they were trying to sell. So maintaining a workforce without a customer bankrupted them.
It’s crazy how the burst is immediately destructive to all areas instead of a simple hole somewhere. I wouldn’t want to be in one of those when this happens! 😮
You could pack a hell of a big inflatable module in a 9-meter Starship, with all that room on the long axis. I bet it could be twice the volume of the ISS in one launch.
But Starships explode far easier than LIFE Habitats! Still, considering that Elon Musk does apply too much pressure on everyone it should be no surprise..
@@davidstevenson9517Err, what? The burst pressure here was 70psi (or close enough to), where Starship was tested to well over 100psi - IIRC, Starship had to pass Six atmosphere's for use, and surpassed Nine for the Test-To-Destruction. Everything else so far has been Flight Termination Systems, which means a Detonation, not a failure based explosion.
Please, for non american public, can you also give pressure in bar : this unit is almost equal to the atmospheric pressure and is far more intuitive than pound by square inch as pound and inch are almost unused outside USA and UK.
Simple math can answer that question which anyone interested in space science can and should learn for themselves. Basically one bar = one atm at sea level or 14.7 psi. Also in metric 1 atm is 760 mm. Thus if the NASA standard is 68 psi that works at 4.6 bar. And the burst test occured at 77 psi or 5.2 bar.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096a quick search in google solve the trouble.... As if I reply in french you'll have to put my answer in a translator ! For most of the people on Earth, French is an exotic language as PSI is an exotic unit.
Love seeing engineers blow things up like this - if gives them the absolute best data to assure the design is right, or show where it needs more work before it's ready to be used. If Boeing worked like this more, they'd have less failures involving passengers.
What protects it from a micro rock moving at over 17000 mile per hour. Ever launch a dart at a balloon. Get the idea. When they can show it can withstand a hit from a 50 Cal rail gun, then we can think about it. What does it do for radiation. Bring up modules and assemble them like Lego’s.
What component of the system does the inflating of the module? I mean, I know they have done a lot of work on the the material science and structural stability of the of the module itself, but do they already have a thing that can, once in space, inflate the thing too? Is it the cone looking thing at 5:05? Just curious.
Look. It's made for space. Any gas pressure over the outside pressure will "inflate" the structure (meaning all pressures over zero). It will hold 1bar of breathable air for human habitation (which is 1bar over space pressure). It is going to be "inflated" by the breathable life support systems, it's doesn't require anything else than normal air pressure. How do you make "air" in space? No idea, I assume they ship liquid nitrogen and oxygen to the iss, you just them up and release.
I have been keenly following this technology since the days of the TRANSHAB, intended for the ISS, as a test item for a manned Mars mission as a transfer module. The technology wasn't ready then, and NASA cancelled the project, but Bigelow picked up the technology and created 3 different modules which are on orbit now. One (very small one) being at the ISS. I always thought they would be far superior to metal tin cans as on-orbit modules. And I was very sad to see Bigelow fold when Covid hit, firing all their employees. Sadly, today they remain defunct. But it is good to see Sierra pick up where Bigelow was many many years ago. I hope Bigelow can sell some of their IP to Sierra, to help speed up the deployment of man-rated modules on orbit.
4:14 - Why do artists renditions always have the floor going along the long axis, when going across enables more living space, and makes it posible to 'hang' the module from a spinning structure to create floor where local down is Outwards from the center of spin. Floors across also makes it easier to dig a circular hole, drop one in, then cover with regolith for radiation shielding - the central mounts at each end then make the top floor in to an airlock, and the lower opeing able to be hooked in to underground tunnels between modules. Floors across also work as ribs and turn each floor in to a presurised bubble inside the main structure, meaning an incident blows out only one bubble.
Well first they don't ALWAYS show that. The original NASA concepts had the floors perpendicular to the long axis and the whole thing hanging 'vertical' from the ISS. The Horizontal flooring schemes you see mostly came from Bigelow and stemmed largely from mockups which were on the ground and thus had to conform to horizontal entry into the end caps onto a flat floors walkable under gravity. The configuration that is actually most likely, particularly for small modules will just be a floorless dohnut space and a central core, maybe with supplemental stuff attached to the outer wall, no one really needs a 'floor' in zero-G after all. As for your proposed arangments with gravity, a classic spinning external wheel stations have all kind of problems and no one (serious) is planning any. The vertical burrial idea is I think terrible. First off need to dig a deeper hole to pace the module in vertical then if it's placed horizontally, and in the vertical configuration entry would be through a vertical hole at the top, an inherently dangerous and unessarily cumpersome configuration. Concepts for utilizing an inflatable on a planetary surface consist of a shallow trench which it can sit in such that the end caps are at ground level, then the displaced regolith is heaped up ontop of the hab either as a lose burm or by filling sandbags like tubes which stretch over the top.
Is it even possible to test this on the ground in a chamber? Inflating it to its size in a giant pressure chamber seems like a very bad idea. Do you send a small scale model that’s already at size to test strength and endurance against space debris? Do you install hard panels on the outside later or does it always stay soft materials? Actually does resin cure in space? It does in a vacuum chamber so could you have a plastic liner of some kind and injecting resin to fully coat the shell to make it hard.. I’m over thinking this, I’ve got no clue what I’m talking about.
I wonder... would there be any difference considering that this test was conducted at atmospheric pressure whereas the environment in space is no pressure? There is also the relentless solar radiation. It does a lot of damage on earth, how about in space where it is unfiltered?
I am more worried about micrometeor punctures, those bad boys are traveling in many cases faster than bullets, and you are telling me that this balloon will be safe? IDK about that. I better see them testing it with 50 caliber guns to prove it can even handle that type of impact.
The inflation of the module relies on a self-contained air bladder around the habitat itself, it's completely seperate from the actual atmosphere inside
Humans encounter problems above 14.7 PSI (1 ATM = sea level) but we haven't been informed of NASAs intended internal operating pressure; only the max. internal pressure the habitat can withstand before exploding. Space Stations (Salyuts 1-7, Mir and ISS) usually operate at 2/3 ATM = 10 PSI, EVAs even lower; maybe that is NASAs SOP. (Gosh! Space lingo is chocker full of acronyms, isn't it?)
As engineered, this will never be durable enough for the many impacts from microparticles and larger in space. What you should consider is having a double-walled system that, after inflation, has a slow-setting resin injected via two veins built along the seamlines in the void between the two layers: one for resin, the other for fixative. Inflate, keep it under pressure, inject the liquids, allow double the required full-set period, then perform automated pressure tests (steady, pressure-hammering, etc) over a full week's time. Now you've got a SOLID shell that will provide at least as much protection as the metal craft in use today.
Wow, it's so amazing that there are many intelligent scientists and engineers here. Bravo!! 😆👏... I like these people in the comment section; they are so funny. They think they know more than the experts who spend a lifetime perfecting their work. Others are saying, "It would pop out or explode because of micro meteorites, etc." Come on!... Do you think they didn't know that? Hahaha, it's so funny to see so many geniuses here. I guess you should be the one making it.
It looks like SpaceX will attach 2 (or more) Starships together and emulate artificial gravity by a cable between the 2 Starships swinging around. Along with Starship, they can attach habitats as the primary living areas. As long as they take this path, it is possible to house personnel inside the habitat on Earth as a full mission test. Come to think about it, I would suggest one test at sea-level (1 Bar). This sort of testing will expose so many areas of improvement and further engineering advancements.
@@luther0013 lol peace of mind,i know I’ve been watching the burst tests too but im thinking more of that rotating in and out of hard sunlight after a few years,thats why
Your talking about alot of sunrise/sunsets on a full scale model,i dont exactly know where the one sits attached to the ISS but id imagine its not getting that full effect
It has a central rigid rod running between the rigid end caps, in that rod various equipment can be installed with basiclly dosn't have to ever move because the moduel only inflates in radius, not in length. All plumbing and electrical connections would also go through that rigid portion as well allowing connection to ther modules at the ends. Think of it like thouse camper tents which have a rigid floor and some basics furniture up to wasit height on them but a popup canvas walls and ceiling above waist level.
uhmmmmm, where does the air for these new "cabins" come from. Do they get inflated from the air in the other modules of the space station which just thins out the air. If they get inflated to quickly from the other station modules could that cause the other modules to implode.
Check out the ISS ECLSS wiki page for how the atmosphere inside is handled, and with the dangers of damaging other modules via loss of atmosphere the modules outright can't implode in space as there is no outside atmosphere to crush it in on loss of pressure, and the inflation of new modules would be done slowly while the air taken up by it's new interior volume is added via the life support system to keep the pressure at to normal operating pressure.
Though if you're talking about stuff in the single inflatable module, all of the rooms are likely just one big sealed chamber having no actual airtight seals between rooms so if one deflated you have a bigger problem called a leak.
so will the central spine have foldable sections to form floors and walls inside and could mall "closets" be left for emergency safe rooms perhaps a computer sever room lined with gold or lead to protect from radiation?? and why not 3d print the panels for furniture , storage units, and other fixtures rather than launch premade a spool of filament would be more launhable than a chair or cabinet!!
Like the 3D printed furniture idea; consider lunar outposts, having an endless supply of lunar regolith as raw material for interior furnishings. The Moon could offer endless opportunities for designers to have a field-day. Imagine a station with decor styled after "2001: A Space Odessy", for filthy rich tourists to pose their fat carcasses on. Just a question of available habitat space (as always...).
The central spin would largly contain the lifesupport equipment, that central spine is not really going to be a 'room' you can go into either, not unless your talking about the largest concivable versions of this concept. Also lead and other heavy elements are actually the WORST materials for pretection from the cosmic rays in space (per unit mass), heavy metal is good for Gamma-Ray shielding which is basically super high energy light, but Cosmic rays are large atoms moving near light speed, if they strike other large atoms then they will cause fission and a shower of secondary nuclear particles moving at high speed aka a 'shotgun' effect. Light elements like hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and thus water and plastic are best because incoming nuclei lose energy through collisions but can't actually break the small tightly bound nuclei apart to create secondary radiation. The light atoms ofcourse get thrown around violently but that is just heat. Because preserved plastic packaged space-food is mostly cargon, hydrogen and oxygen the ideal radiation shelter is the food and drinking water storage area.
i had read that water would be the best protector But it takes up a lot of space :) / area. maybe a whole hab designed for a safe room/ surrounded by water tanks?? according to the pic at6:22 the spine would be a kind of corridor earlier pic showed empty area for a room probably be lots of configurations tho . well we will see i guess have fun:)@@kennethferland5579
I honestly don't know why the design isn't 2 "Dual or tripled layered" spoked wagon wheels, So that they can be spun against each other, Why multilayered? So that if a puncture occurs there are pressurised layers left to protect from total failure. Why a wagon wheel configuration? the outer ring and it's sections "Rooms" if spun could provide some artificial gravity via the wagon wheels opposing spin to each other. Just remember the spokes are cables 20 meters or more and there can be two tunnels on each wheel going to the Hub joined to the Axle leading to the opposing wheel.. Gravity does not have to be 1G it may be a mere 1/3 or less of a G..
Why are they never talking about production. I believe in-house production with short supply chains will be essential for real improvements in the habitat space.
I bet Serra Space has one or more of their own stations, based on the LIFE habitat modules, before Blue Origin delvers the core module of Orbital Reef.
So in a single Falcon launch we could launch a volume as large as the ISS. That should really improve quality of life up there. It will also open up the space station for more people, simply because they can avoid each other. I know Sierra still wants to launch using New Glenn, but it would be better for them to disconnect from amazon space and operate independently.
Falcon 9 and Heavy payload fairings are 3.5m diameter. LIFE modules require 5.0m diameter, and designed to fit onto New Glenn (you idiot!). So neither Falcon can launch LIFE modules, ever.
No it was a single Starship/SLS launch. And keep in mind volume is not enough, crew needs massive equipment for lifesupport and work stations to actually DO anything other then play around bouncing off the walls. Suplemental launches to bring that equipment would largly wipe out the launch-count to crew-supported ratio differences.
@@kennethferland5579I'm just talking volume here, because that is what Sierra has created. With the current spacestation we routinely send equipment, quality of life equipment, support systems and experiments. But that wasn't the point here. My point is that the 7 meter long (yet to be developed) tube can be send up to space using a falcon 9. As this is roughly the size of their fairing. This 7 meter tube creates the same volume as ISS. Nothing more, nothing less. SpaceX also had designed an extended heavy fairing, but that one hasn't been developed/flown yet as far as I know. And won't be needed either, as starship will be in production soon enough. Anyway. with this inflatable system you can create more breathing room if you will for the astronauts, allowing for better comfort and longer stays. A high quality of life improvement if you will.
"One of the biggest challenges when it comes to creating a Space Station is the"... launch provider... If it get's delayed then your staff are all in wheelchairs before bleeeep fly's. The End
ok, so if they do it at 1 bar pressure (1 atmosphere) that's only 15 PSI, same as a bounce house. They've still never shown an internal skeleton providing extra rigidity. Flying bounce house?
It's the difference in pressure between the inside and outside that determines the stiffness. A bouncy castle inflated to 15 psia (absolute) would barely support itself here on the surface, while one inflated to 15 psig (differential) would be as stiff as a pro soccer ball. In space absolute and differential pressure are the same, so at 15 psia it would be stiff like the soccer ball
@@martythemartian99 the only one that went to space was 4 feet across and was used as a cupboard, and was made by a different (now extinct) company. The ones they keep showing in the renders have connectors at both ends, often with heavy looking things attached. For sure it's going to need a skeleton between ports, 15 PSI over something that big is still incredibly soft. I'd just be really interested in what their thoughts are about that.
@@somedudesstuff801 Yes I know it was a different company (Bigelow), but they did send two free flying test units into orbit before sending "the cupboard", as you call it. The fact remains that when the outside pressure is zero atmosphere, a pressure of 1 atmosphere (15 psi) is actually more than enough to keep the structure rigid. Not on Earth of course, but yes in space.
@@somedudesstuff801 15 pounds per square inch inside and zero pounds per square inch outside. How many square inches in the external containment layer? A lot of force holding its shape.
If I had a choice between this and a metal shell I would easily pick the metal shell. From the above movie it is obvious if the habitat blows you have zero time to get to a safe area. In a metal shell a puncture would still allow a short time to move to another non affected area.
This is a burst test, well beyond the conditions they will ever encounter in normal useage. The velocities involved, a metal shell would still puncture, and then zipper open faster then this does, as it's single piece sheets, rather then woven with shapes that support each other.
Actually the Aluminum shell of the ISS would pop like a ballon if it were to burst under that same pressure. And the inflatable system is belived to be MORE puncture resistent then aluminum because it has standoff layers and foam betfore the structural layer. All the enginering says it is safer.
I'm sorry no astronaut would dare to step into something so foolish as a floating balloon in space. lmao! What the structure needs is braided stainless steel on the outside once it reaches a critical point air is released the outer stainless steel braid locks into place creating a much stronger structural integrity. The technology already exists in water lines on submarines. the way to go is to use this inflatable unit in conjunction with the braided stainless steel mesh where once it expands it can never be deflated or collapsed.
Humans don't need to go to space anymore. We did that already, like, 50 years ago. Now, a gigantic, unaffordable waste of money. Muh, growing plants in zero gravity so, well, uh, just, better, and, like, cool.
And when the apocalypse comes, the rest of us will make sure to trip over people with that attitude, so we can make it to the lifeboat Starships first.
Forest you could learn a lot about the 'Benefits of Space Exploration' by doing a search of that phrase. The benefits are virtually endless. Microminiturizing of electronics was driven by making everything small to send up in satellites and human vehicles. Understanding of space is increased. The public is inspired by exploration of space. There are economic benefits from land based technology derived from Space technology. And so on.
As a physicist who closely tacks space exploration, I have nothing to learn about space from Google. We're long past electronics and other discoveries from a bygone era. Space is now about marginal gains at huge expense. Communication satellites, telescopes and warfare are mostly what is left. Second world countries trying to land on the moon and their landers either crash or, get this, tip over. The last US effort had, get this, a fuel leak. It is all unproductive wasting of financial and human resources. IMHO.
@@ForestFelvey Also asteroid "mining" which will just be picking a nice flat or bowl shaped rock to use as a heat shield, tying or netting down some rare Earth metals to the back of it, attaching some parashoots, and gently pushing it back towards a designated crash landing spot on Earth in the middle of an empty desert. Also probably AI probes to look for new (less advanced/developed) life. Lots of probes. But yeah, biological life colonizing outer space is not economical enough at all.
There's no air in space. So how do people breath in the ISS? Yeah, same way. You bring breathable gas up there. And you have CO2 scrubbers and what not. Those metal cans they're in are basically balloons also.
@@anomatoor I believe space stations operate at less than sea level ATM, about 2/3 = 10PSI. And for EVAs, the pressure is even less, about half the space station pressure; the astronauts must depressurize/repressurize in a "tank" (or risk "Space Bends"). Please correct me if I'm mistaken, anyone.
I wonder how they should stop all those tiny pieces of junk, are all the expensive equipment and astronauts just completely at the whims of random space junk?
The TSB report suggested the furnishings would be solid but light, unfoldable, almost kitset (or is that a "ikea flat pack"?). How about an inflatable effigy of Bill Nelson on each deck; keeping a simulated eye on the crew, remind them who's Boss? 🎈👤👀👩🚀👨🚀☝️
@@markweatherill It looks like they are using the standard CMB (Common Berthing Mechanism) of the ISS which produces a 1m x 1m doorway, thought that you can move the refrigerator sized racks that are the standard modules of all the ISS's internal components. Most of which are lifesupport and labs, the only thing that would really be called furniture are the sleeping cabins which are just hollow versions of the same standard rack modules.
Can’t wait to see how large future space stations will be able to get with these inflatable modules! Sounds like these modules can get placed into orbit with existing rockets so I can’t imagine what we’ll be able to accomplish once the next generation of heavy-lift launch vehicles start to get implemented
Not Falcon 9 or Heavy though; their payload shrouds are too small, 3.5m, and the LIFE 1.0 Habitat requires 5m diameter. But, of course, this inflatable module is designed for Blue Origins "New Glenn". (Could fit inside ULAs Vulcan/ Centaur, too, BOs other Team) Oh dear, those Falcons ARE being left behind in the Heavy Lift Market, aren't they!
@@davidstevenson9517 If the contract comes up, SpaceX could easily design a larger fairing, the payload mass is certainly well inside the lifting power of the most used rocket currently flying. Once New Glen flies (hopefully sometime this decade) it will certainly add to the capabilities needed for heavy lift per flight, but with F9 and F9H having a higher launch cadence, it should be pretty easy to get all the equipment to go inside a BEAM, er, LIFE module up in to orbit and beyond.
@@luther0013 Well, that's capitalisim for ya, Customer Pays and all that. If I wanted to launch a big satelite that wouldn't fit the current fairings, I'd have to pay for the single use fairings to do so. The government is just another customer, and, SpaceX does those 'Fixed Price Contracts', where if they say it's $10million, you pay $10million, even if it cost them more, unlike Old Space where they say 'it'll cost $10million, but we really mean we'll tell you in 12 months we need another $15million...."
Sound wonderful but what about protection against the radiation from sun exposure? And the inflation surface would be protection and reflection from radiation ?
Isn't this like the 3rd time this has been done. Bigelow already had test articles on orbit and a small module on the station before aparently giving up or running out of time, now Sierra seems to just be duplicating all that. And the original idea was from the NASA transhab module which again had already validated the structural restraint layers of Vectran. Theirs litterally no new technology here.
Because the best way to build a space station is the same way they did Skylab you use the rocket itself as the fucking space station t That’s why Skylab was so huge. But no, that would cost five fucking trillion dollars now would it
No matter how hard Sierra has worked on this project, the truth of the matter is that flexible structures in space is always a poor choice and is not advisable by the orbital mechanics. Space is hard so Sierra Space has to much more harder but not this way. Inflatable module, this is wrong and will never work in space. My opinion is just a reflection what I have learned about space.
Did Bigelow go bankrupt? This is the same idea as Bigelow Aerospace had. Edit: Wiki says they laid off all workers in 2020. so yes... Good thing somebody else is continuing with this idea.
Yes, Sierra bought the assests from Bigelow, and Bigelow had licensed it from NASA, as the original engineer who started the work in the '70's was a NASA fellow.
And Bigelow itself was just continuing a NASA concept called TransHab, this idea has been 'developed' now 3 seperate times, so much wastefull duplication.
Bigelow is part of the military underworld, and mainly focuses on the investigation of advanced technologies and physics as well as its negative impacts on health. Bigelow is essentially the military underworld version of DARPA which is nothing more than a disclosure op. The public facing side of bigelow is to keep the company looking clean on paper. That said most of the pioneering we see done publicly, like the reusable rockets, were already done in the 50’s and made obsolete the same decade by the ‘UFO’ tech. Civilian is so far behind due to the break-away effect.
I'll wait for the pocket-sized graphene version that inflates into an O'Neill cylinder
Thankfully, others do not have your patience (our dear old Dr Gerrard must be turning in his grave)
My wife bought a tent once , set it up in the backyard. I told her to take it down and pack it away or the sunlight will destroy the material it is made of. She repeatedly explained to me that the material was indestructible. So the sunlight destroyed the material turning the tent to rubbish. Then i had to pull it down myself. The sunlight really bites into material over time.
That's not just sunlight destroying said tent, the influence of the weather is even greater.
My buddies 1998 rag top is still water proof and it is parked outside in Michigan. Sadly the metal parts are not doing as well. A cheap tent not surviving is not surprising!
Yes. My tent had a nylon fly and the instructions said it had a lifespan of one year if left erected in full sun. It lasted 20 years tho. A lot of material sciences go into this "stuff" and it's the first iteration so if a reliable rocket hits the market then SS will get another chance.
I'd hate to burst your bubble.
Dr. Pimple popper is more fun…😅
One little pebble moving at the speed of sound..
@@Nell_Hell You mean at orbital velocities. Recall a flake of paint was embedded into a Space Shuttle window on one mission. Not to mention the scads of nuts & bolts liable to be flying around up there.
That said, it looks like Sierra is doing some fine R & D to combat these kinds of things. Consider how many Kevlar body armor products can stop or reduce the impact of bullets. I’d be happy to visit one of the orbital habitats and feel safe.
😑
@@kevinmcgovern5110They should make it double wall and fill it with water so it freezes so it is easy to fix.
Just to add..... 77 PSI is 5 times the operational pressure. Sierra not only complied with the 4x requirement, they just topped it off with 5x. 27% over de already established safety margin doesn't really sound impressive, right until you compare it to the operational pressures.
But if your on the ground then the external pressure is 14.7 psi so the relative pressure would be effectivly 4 atmosphere. The ISS is pressurized to 1 atmosphere, so a 4 fold safety margin for an on orbit would be exactly what they tested to. Claiming they exceeded the requirement by an additional atmosphere would then just be an outright deception, unless the NASA specs are infact actually written for ground testing and a 3x margin on orbit is what NASA actually specified.
@@kennethferland5579 I'm fairly sure the smart cookies at nasa are like really smart (yes sarcasm). Well apart from the management side of NASA which has always been dodgy, but the engineering side of NASA always has been of top notch quality.
I'm fairly sure that the engineers specified 60 PSI with a double safety margin in mind. The amount of triple (or more) redundancies in every (critical) component is just crazy. The ISS has been flying up there for 30 years already and I can't think of that then any other way that the part that separates the astronauts from nothing is waaaaay overspec'd.
Keep in mind a 1% margin over the 60PSI limit was deemed acceptable. A 27% increase is massive, it just sounds not so massive. It's just how you convey the information and how to put it into scale. And that was my intention.
Exciting future ahead.
Being an engineer that build stuff. This blow up habitat would not be of much use besides being used as a store room. Building up the interior and the working structure would be more work and more complex than it is worth. The final effort, cost and weight would be higher.
Yea this is what most people fail to understand, Space stations arn't condos in NY that sell by the square foot. You need literal TONS of interior lifesupport, workstations, labs, computers, etc etc, unless your planned space activities are just zero-g accrobatics. The equipment pieces are bigger then American refrigerators and have to be brought into the station by attaching a large conventional aluminum can modules that have the modules securely attached to the walls and passage room for people in the middle so the modules can be detached and relocated. AKA the exact arrangment of conventional habitat modules, at which point you might as well just leave the equipment in place in the new module. So the 'get the same volume as ISS in 2 launches rather then 6' looks a lot less impressive when you need to launch 4 more conventional habitats to actually support the same crew and work output from them. We would likely be a lot better off improving the mass and volume and LABOR efficiency of the equipment modules so that half of crew time weren't consumed by maintence.
It would be interesting to know the weight of this structure compared to a standard cylinder. I expect it might weigh more. I feel like extra space is crucial in some situations like growing plants and general crew wellbeing.
if it means space stations going from hamster tubes to actual livable space for crew activities and experiments, I think it's worth the complexity and work.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Trust me
@@jeffsaxon3707 And you do? And do you even understand physics? Of a large chamber in zero gravity? Or the engineering and space inefficiency of making modular designs of one offs, in order to facilitate simplified assembly.
My only concern with this at all comes down to micrometeor impacts, given they are significantly more energy intensive than most firearms if you're unlucky, a structure like this would need to be carefully ensured to have proper evacuation options to ensure that in the event of a strike that people don't get trapped inside as it collapses.
well micro meteors will most likely self seal also this is just one layer they finished testing out of something like 7-8. One the section cut they showed at least 4 MMOD layers which are supposed to deal with that.
Honestly this technology will be much more useful in cargo transfer and storage than space structures. Being able to simply deflate your tanks is something any rocket/craft can gain from. Reducing stress during de/acceleration,more rigid structure(compact),reduce the need for pressuresing the tanks(partially).
It is definitely something that can be used in variety of ways. (Tires?)
Different layers. It's really interesting in how they deal with the smallest pieces. The foil you see in images of spacecraft is what usually does it. Micro meteors vaporize when they hit the foil. I don't know that they are planning exactly here but it's a solved problem. Besides, for the same mass, stuff like kevlar will be more puncture proof than the same mass of aluminum or steel.
They've been working on a defensive coating for the module
That's your only problem with it? Not the fact that the inefficiency of shipping water, food, oxygen and everything else up into space is comparable to loading up a 5 ton vehicle with 2.5 tons of fuel just to ship 40lbs of stuff? (Math based on starship weight and payload)
Help colonize and keep terraformed the Sarah first by planting a tree. Would be easier and better for humanity than dumping litteral tons of C02 into Earths atmosphere for every 40lbs of stuff you want to move up into space.
@@Chazulu2 if you are saying to terraform the sahara, liquid trees might be on of the best ways to do so because it has the benefits of a tree but the modularity and survivability necessary to do so.
So you will still have to put the interior equipment in? Or would these only be used for living quarters such as sleep, eating and gyms?
There’s currently a small version of this craft attached to the ISS, albeit built by a different company. It’s used for storage, which may not sound impressive, but is quite important for the overall ISS operation.
One of these stations,could be launched from the moon and orbit close to the asteroid belt.Humanoid Robots could be used for maintenance. This could be a relay station to mass for future tourists
So why could you not have another 9 layer hull making a double hull, then fill that void with polyurethane foam. This would make the hull ,9 layers, expansion foam,that becomes rigid, and another 9 layers, giving a total of 18 layers with about a foot of foam all the way around. Acting as a thermal barrier. This would take the concept too a much higher level.
So I wonder why Bigelow wasnt successful. Their module is still in service attached to the ISS and basically did the same thing as Sierra.
The owner ceo died
I think that Bigelow largely ran out of time, no one was buying cause no one was expanding ISS or making new stations when they were trying to sell. So maintaining a workforce without a customer bankrupted them.
@@kennethferland5579 Yeah thats too bad. Just a matter of timing it seems. Thanks for your reply.
It’s crazy how the burst is immediately destructive to all areas instead of a simple hole somewhere.
I wouldn’t want to be in one of those when this happens! 😮
You could pack a hell of a big inflatable module in a 9-meter Starship, with all that room on the long axis. I bet it could be twice the volume of the ISS in one launch.
The Starship already almost matches the ISS in possible pressurized volume; a starship sized LIFE module would be between 3 to 4 times as large.
But Starships explode far easier than LIFE Habitats! Still, considering that Elon Musk does apply too much pressure on everyone it should be no surprise..
@@davidstevenson9517Err, what? The burst pressure here was 70psi (or close enough to), where Starship was tested to well over 100psi - IIRC, Starship had to pass Six atmosphere's for use, and surpassed Nine for the Test-To-Destruction.
Everything else so far has been Flight Termination Systems, which means a Detonation, not a failure based explosion.
@@dalel3608Set the floors up right in a BEAM / LIFE module of that size, and Branson will book customers for flights to a hotel inside it.
@@davidstevenson9517Fire from a vent on IFT 2 partially caused the failure. It then caused FTS activation.
Please, for non american public, can you also give pressure in bar : this unit is almost equal to the atmospheric pressure and is far more intuitive than pound by square inch as pound and inch are almost unused outside USA and UK.
Simple math can answer that question which anyone interested in space science can and should learn for themselves. Basically one bar = one atm at sea level or 14.7 psi. Also in metric 1 atm is 760 mm. Thus if the NASA standard is 68 psi that works at 4.6 bar. And the burst test occured at 77 psi or 5.2 bar.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096a quick search in google solve the trouble.... As if I reply in french you'll have to put my answer in a translator !
For most of the people on Earth, French is an exotic language as PSI is an exotic unit.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096People interested in any scientific research at all will generally be thinking in metric...
As they attain greater sizes by this means, will it lend to experiments in creating artificial gravity systems?
Hey you know put enough of them up and start training space welders then build a giant ship around it like the Star destroyers please
Have they done the tests in vacuum chambers? Or at extreme temperatures?
I have no desire to watch these guys keep blowing things up
Oh,come now, it's not as if Sierra Space are drone pilots; this is for a GOOD cause!
(Astronauts aren't cowards)
Love seeing engineers blow things up like this - if gives them the absolute best data to assure the design is right, or show where it needs more work before it's ready to be used.
If Boeing worked like this more, they'd have less failures involving passengers.
What protects it from a micro rock moving at over 17000 mile per hour. Ever launch a dart at a balloon. Get the idea. When they can show it can withstand a hit from a 50 Cal rail gun, then we can think about it. What does it do for radiation. Bring up modules and assemble them like Lego’s.
Until they figure out gravity, space travel and living is a thing of the movies.
What component of the system does the inflating of the module? I mean, I know they have done a lot of work on the the material science and structural stability of the of the module itself, but do they already have a thing that can, once in space, inflate the thing too? Is it the cone looking thing at 5:05? Just curious.
Look. It's made for space. Any gas pressure over the outside pressure will "inflate" the structure (meaning all pressures over zero). It will hold 1bar of breathable air for human habitation (which is 1bar over space pressure). It is going to be "inflated" by the breathable life support systems, it's doesn't require anything else than normal air pressure.
How do you make "air" in space? No idea, I assume they ship liquid nitrogen and oxygen to the iss, you just them up and release.
Micro meteorite =hold my beer!
Awesome Video.
I have been keenly following this technology since the days of the TRANSHAB, intended for the ISS, as a test item for a manned Mars mission as a transfer module. The technology wasn't ready then, and NASA cancelled the project, but Bigelow picked up the technology and created 3 different modules which are on orbit now. One (very small one) being at the ISS.
I always thought they would be far superior to metal tin cans as on-orbit modules. And I was very sad to see Bigelow fold when Covid hit, firing all their employees. Sadly, today they remain defunct.
But it is good to see Sierra pick up where Bigelow was many many years ago.
I hope Bigelow can sell some of their IP to Sierra, to help speed up the deployment of man-rated modules on orbit.
Wonder if this would work for diving gear
All filled with Redwire equipment ❤
Wasn't Bigelow working on the same thing? What happened to them?
4:14 - Why do artists renditions always have the floor going along the long axis, when going across enables more living space, and makes it posible to 'hang' the module from a spinning structure to create floor where local down is Outwards from the center of spin.
Floors across also makes it easier to dig a circular hole, drop one in, then cover with regolith for radiation shielding - the central mounts at each end then make the top floor in to an airlock, and the lower opeing able to be hooked in to underground tunnels between modules.
Floors across also work as ribs and turn each floor in to a presurised bubble inside the main structure, meaning an incident blows out only one bubble.
Interesting comments!
Well first they don't ALWAYS show that. The original NASA concepts had the floors perpendicular to the long axis and the whole thing hanging 'vertical' from the ISS. The Horizontal flooring schemes you see mostly came from Bigelow and stemmed largely from mockups which were on the ground and thus had to conform to horizontal entry into the end caps onto a flat floors walkable under gravity. The configuration that is actually most likely, particularly for small modules will just be a floorless dohnut space and a central core, maybe with supplemental stuff attached to the outer wall, no one really needs a 'floor' in zero-G after all.
As for your proposed arangments with gravity, a classic spinning external wheel stations have all kind of problems and no one (serious) is planning any. The vertical burrial idea is I think terrible. First off need to dig a deeper hole to pace the module in vertical then if it's placed horizontally, and in the vertical configuration entry would be through a vertical hole at the top, an inherently dangerous and unessarily cumpersome configuration. Concepts for utilizing an inflatable on a planetary surface consist of a shallow trench which it can sit in such that the end caps are at ground level, then the displaced regolith is heaped up ontop of the hab either as a lose burm or by filling sandbags like tubes which stretch over the top.
Is it even possible to test this on the ground in a chamber? Inflating it to its size in a giant pressure chamber seems like a very bad idea. Do you send a small scale model that’s already at size to test strength and endurance against space debris? Do you install hard panels on the outside later or does it always stay soft materials? Actually does resin cure in space? It does in a vacuum chamber so could you have a plastic liner of some kind and injecting resin to fully coat the shell to make it hard.. I’m over thinking this, I’ve got no clue what I’m talking about.
Reminds me of HabiTrail
I wonder... would there be any difference considering that this test was conducted at atmospheric pressure whereas the environment in space is no pressure? There is also the relentless solar radiation. It does a lot of damage on earth, how about in space where it is unfiltered?
How well does it protect from radiation?
I'm more concerned about space debris piercing the fabric.
NEED a rotating habitat.
I am more worried about micrometeor punctures, those bad boys are traveling in many cases faster than bullets, and you are telling me that this balloon will be safe? IDK about that. I better see them testing it with 50 caliber guns to prove it can even handle that type of impact.
Does the air pressure needed inside have any effect on the crew?
The inflation of the module relies on a self-contained air bladder around the habitat itself, it's completely seperate from the actual atmosphere inside
The air pressure inside is +/-14.5 psi, just about that of sea level atmosphere on Earth.
Humans encounter problems above 14.7 PSI (1 ATM = sea level) but we haven't been informed of NASAs intended internal operating pressure; only the max. internal pressure the habitat can withstand before exploding. Space Stations (Salyuts 1-7, Mir and ISS) usually operate at 2/3 ATM = 10 PSI, EVAs even lower; maybe that is NASAs SOP.
(Gosh! Space lingo is chocker full of acronyms, isn't it?)
@@nipcoyote1140 Thanks, Nipper, I missed that one. So the "4 times max." that NASA demands actually refers to air-bladder pressure only?
@@davidstevenson9517
The ISS working pressure is about one bar, as are Dragon and Soyuz capsules.
Cool you can make Elysium for the super rich.
i wonder how they handle micro asteroid
So basically they tested blowing it up. got it.
As engineered, this will never be durable enough for the many impacts from microparticles and larger in space.
What you should consider is having a double-walled system that, after inflation, has a slow-setting resin injected via two veins built along the seamlines in the void between the two layers: one for resin, the other for fixative. Inflate, keep it under pressure, inject the liquids, allow double the required full-set period, then perform automated pressure tests (steady, pressure-hammering, etc) over a full week's time. Now you've got a SOLID shell that will provide at least as much protection as the metal craft in use today.
How does it perform when a "tiny" meteorite hits it? Or, when a big meteorite hits it? I would hate to be the astronauts inside!!!
Have to see if it can withstand long-term space radiation 🤔
There is no shortage of willing human guinea pigs.
what is the title of this scifi movie?
Wow, it's so amazing that there are many intelligent scientists and engineers here. Bravo!! 😆👏... I like these people in the comment section; they are so funny. They think they know more than the experts who spend a lifetime perfecting their work. Others are saying, "It would pop out or explode because of micro meteorites, etc." Come on!... Do you think they didn't know that? Hahaha, it's so funny to see so many geniuses here. I guess you should be the one making it.
I know it's just for test purposes, but showing dozens of those exploding is not a good ad :/
It looks like SpaceX will attach 2 (or more) Starships together and emulate artificial gravity by a cable between the 2 Starships swinging around. Along with Starship, they can attach habitats as the primary living areas. As long as they take this path, it is possible to house personnel inside the habitat on Earth as a full mission test. Come to think about it, I would suggest one test at sea-level (1 Bar). This sort of testing will expose so many areas of improvement and further engineering advancements.
small impact resilience...space debris
Is there anyway to invest in this company?
Micro☄️here, HELLO👋🏼💥
Space station? They just blowing shit up.
How about a shell that can cover over the hab once it’s inflated?
Why?
@@luther0013 lol peace of mind,i know I’ve been watching the burst tests too but im thinking more of that rotating in and out of hard sunlight after a few years,thats why
Your talking about alot of sunrise/sunsets on a full scale model,i dont exactly know where the one sits attached to the ISS but id imagine its not getting that full effect
@@mrscottygreenwood I’m sure the radiation tolerances of the materials were tested long before they got to the point of building test articles.
How is the internal structure put together and stowed diring 'pre-inlation'? Giant IKEA packages? 😉
It has a central rigid rod running between the rigid end caps, in that rod various equipment can be installed with basiclly dosn't have to ever move because the moduel only inflates in radius, not in length. All plumbing and electrical connections would also go through that rigid portion as well allowing connection to ther modules at the ends. Think of it like thouse camper tents which have a rigid floor and some basics furniture up to wasit height on them but a popup canvas walls and ceiling above waist level.
uhmmmmm, where does the air for these new "cabins" come from. Do they get inflated from the air in the other modules of the space station which just thins out the air. If they get inflated to quickly from the other station modules could that cause the other modules to implode.
Check out the ISS ECLSS wiki page for how the atmosphere inside is handled, and with the dangers of damaging other modules via loss of atmosphere the modules outright can't implode in space as there is no outside atmosphere to crush it in on loss of pressure, and the inflation of new modules would be done slowly while the air taken up by it's new interior volume is added via the life support system to keep the pressure at to normal operating pressure.
Though if you're talking about stuff in the single inflatable module, all of the rooms are likely just one big sealed chamber having no actual airtight seals between rooms
so if one deflated you have a bigger problem called a leak.
so will the central spine have foldable sections to form floors and walls inside and could mall "closets" be left for emergency safe rooms perhaps a computer sever room lined with gold or lead to protect from radiation?? and why not 3d print the panels for furniture , storage units, and other fixtures rather than launch premade a spool of filament would be more launhable than a chair or cabinet!!
Like the 3D printed furniture idea; consider lunar outposts, having an endless supply of lunar regolith as raw material for interior furnishings.
The Moon could offer endless opportunities for designers to have a field-day.
Imagine a station with decor styled after "2001: A Space Odessy", for filthy rich tourists to pose their fat carcasses on.
Just a question of available habitat space (as always...).
@@davidstevenson9517 a cool novel that used 3d printing is the delta - v series by daniel suarez
The central spin would largly contain the lifesupport equipment, that central spine is not really going to be a 'room' you can go into either, not unless your talking about the largest concivable versions of this concept. Also lead and other heavy elements are actually the WORST materials for pretection from the cosmic rays in space (per unit mass), heavy metal is good for Gamma-Ray shielding which is basically super high energy light, but Cosmic rays are large atoms moving near light speed, if they strike other large atoms then they will cause fission and a shower of secondary nuclear particles moving at high speed aka a 'shotgun' effect. Light elements like hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and thus water and plastic are best because incoming nuclei lose energy through collisions but can't actually break the small tightly bound nuclei apart to create secondary radiation. The light atoms ofcourse get thrown around violently but that is just heat. Because preserved plastic packaged space-food is mostly cargon, hydrogen and oxygen the ideal radiation shelter is the food and drinking water storage area.
i had read that water would be the best protector But it takes up a lot of space :) / area. maybe a whole hab designed for a safe room/ surrounded by water tanks?? according to the pic at6:22 the spine would be a kind of corridor earlier pic showed empty area for a room probably be lots of configurations tho . well we will see i guess have fun:)@@kennethferland5579
👍
Can we launch these already. Seems like testing is taking forever.
So what? If it can't take 2 barrels of buckshot from 40 yards.. you first.
I'll wait down here till then.
One question for all of this Achievement in how's it looks but how your getting though the Firmament 😮??
I honestly don't know why the design isn't 2 "Dual or tripled layered" spoked
wagon wheels, So that they can be spun against each other, Why multilayered?
So that if a puncture occurs there are pressurised layers left to
protect from total failure. Why a wagon wheel configuration? the outer ring
and it's sections "Rooms" if spun could provide some artificial gravity via the
wagon wheels opposing spin to each other. Just remember the spokes are
cables 20 meters or more and there can be two tunnels on each wheel going to
the Hub joined to the Axle leading to the opposing wheel..
Gravity does not have to be 1G it may be a mere 1/3 or less of a G..
Why are they never talking about production. I believe in-house production with short supply chains will be essential for real improvements in the habitat space.
Help! I'm a bug!
Well, there’s a disaster happen.
I bet Serra Space has one or more of their own stations, based on the LIFE habitat modules, before Blue Origin delvers the core module of Orbital Reef.
So in theory... if ESA want some kind of independant station... they can rapidly buy three of those and build an segment to attach on?
I still think this is a really bad idea.
Expandable Modules won't last a Month with Space rock flying twice as fast a Bullitt's. Not my ride 👩🏻🚀👍🏻🚀🛰️🪐🌌🤖🛸
Relying on New Glenn means it will 2080 before it sees orbit.
Grad to hear that it will be faster then relying on Starship.
So in a single Falcon launch we could launch a volume as large as the ISS. That should really improve quality of life up there. It will also open up the space station for more people, simply because they can avoid each other. I know Sierra still wants to launch using New Glenn, but it would be better for them to disconnect from amazon space and operate independently.
Falcon 9 and Heavy payload fairings are 3.5m diameter. LIFE modules require 5.0m diameter, and designed to fit onto New Glenn (you idiot!).
So neither Falcon can launch LIFE modules, ever.
No it was a single Starship/SLS launch. And keep in mind volume is not enough, crew needs massive equipment for lifesupport and work stations to actually DO anything other then play around bouncing off the walls. Suplemental launches to bring that equipment would largly wipe out the launch-count to crew-supported ratio differences.
@@kennethferland5579I'm just talking volume here, because that is what Sierra has created. With the current spacestation we routinely send equipment, quality of life equipment, support systems and experiments. But that wasn't the point here.
My point is that the 7 meter long (yet to be developed) tube can be send up to space using a falcon 9. As this is roughly the size of their fairing. This 7 meter tube creates the same volume as ISS. Nothing more, nothing less.
SpaceX also had designed an extended heavy fairing, but that one hasn't been developed/flown yet as far as I know. And won't be needed either, as starship will be in production soon enough.
Anyway. with this inflatable system you can create more breathing room if you will for the astronauts, allowing for better comfort and longer stays. A high quality of life improvement if you will.
Please, please, no more video of them blowing up the habitat.
funded by tax dollars... might as well send our money into space too, anywhere but in the us.
❤❤❤❤❤❤
While the content is good, you're talking too fast. Please slow down and narrate more loudly and clearly.
"One of the biggest challenges when it comes to creating a Space Station is the"... launch provider...
If it get's delayed then your staff are all in wheelchairs before bleeeep fly's.
The End
ok, so if they do it at 1 bar pressure (1 atmosphere) that's only 15 PSI, same as a bounce house. They've still never shown an internal skeleton providing extra rigidity. Flying bounce house?
As far as I know, it does not need an internal skeleton. None of the test units that flew to space had them, and they all worked fine.
It's the difference in pressure between the inside and outside that determines the stiffness. A bouncy castle inflated to 15 psia (absolute) would barely support itself here on the surface, while one inflated to 15 psig (differential) would be as stiff as a pro soccer ball. In space absolute and differential pressure are the same, so at 15 psia it would be stiff like the soccer ball
@@martythemartian99 the only one that went to space was 4 feet across and was used as a cupboard, and was made by a different (now extinct) company. The ones they keep showing in the renders have connectors at both ends, often with heavy looking things attached. For sure it's going to need a skeleton between ports, 15 PSI over something that big is still incredibly soft. I'd just be really interested in what their thoughts are about that.
@@somedudesstuff801 Yes I know it was a different company (Bigelow), but they did send two free flying test units into orbit before sending "the cupboard", as you call it. The fact remains that when the outside pressure is zero atmosphere, a pressure of 1 atmosphere (15 psi) is actually more than enough to keep the structure rigid.
Not on Earth of course, but yes in space.
@@somedudesstuff801
15 pounds per square inch inside and zero pounds per square inch outside.
How many square inches in the external containment layer?
A lot of force holding its shape.
Please upgrade my body to go to space and get off this planet of death, segregated Earth. I want offer inside this planet vav you help me
😮😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅 lordy bless their hearts.
If I had a choice between this and a metal shell I would easily pick the metal shell. From the above movie it is obvious if the habitat blows you have zero time to get to a safe area. In a metal shell a puncture would still allow a short time to move to another non affected area.
This is a burst test, well beyond the conditions they will ever encounter in normal useage.
The velocities involved, a metal shell would still puncture, and then zipper open faster then this does, as it's single piece sheets, rather then woven with shapes that support each other.
Actually the Aluminum shell of the ISS would pop like a ballon if it were to burst under that same pressure. And the inflatable system is belived to be MORE puncture resistent then aluminum because it has standoff layers and foam betfore the structural layer. All the enginering says it is safer.
🤣
Flat Earthers are right....
Satalloons! 😂
I'm sorry no astronaut would dare to step into something so foolish as a floating balloon in space. lmao! What the structure needs is braided stainless steel on the outside once it reaches a critical point air is released the outer stainless steel braid locks into place creating a much stronger structural integrity. The technology already exists in water lines on submarines. the way to go is to use this inflatable unit in conjunction with the braided stainless steel mesh where once it expands it can never be deflated or collapsed.
I do not trust such a bombe !
Humans don't need to go to space anymore. We did that already, like, 50 years ago. Now, a gigantic, unaffordable waste of money. Muh, growing plants in zero gravity so, well, uh, just, better, and, like, cool.
And when the apocalypse comes, the rest of us will make sure to trip over people with that attitude, so we can make it to the lifeboat Starships first.
Forest you could learn a lot about the 'Benefits of Space Exploration' by doing a search of that phrase. The benefits are virtually endless. Microminiturizing of electronics was driven by making everything small to send up in satellites and human vehicles. Understanding of space is increased. The public is inspired by exploration of space. There are economic benefits from land based technology derived from Space technology. And so on.
As a physicist who closely tacks space exploration, I have nothing to learn about space from Google. We're long past electronics and other discoveries from a bygone era. Space is now about marginal gains at huge expense. Communication satellites, telescopes and warfare are mostly what is left. Second world countries trying to land on the moon and their landers either crash or, get this, tip over. The last US effort had, get this, a fuel leak. It is all unproductive wasting of financial and human resources. IMHO.
@@ForestFelvey Also asteroid "mining" which will just be picking a nice flat or bowl shaped rock to use as a heat shield, tying or netting down some rare Earth metals to the back of it, attaching some parashoots, and gently pushing it back towards a designated crash landing spot on Earth in the middle of an empty desert.
Also probably AI probes to look for new (less advanced/developed) life. Lots of probes.
But yeah, biological life colonizing outer space is not economical enough at all.
There’s no air in space, so how do they inflate the thing?
they bring their own pressurized air, and since space is a vacuum you would need much less air to inflate it too
There's no air in space. So how do people breath in the ISS?
Yeah, same way. You bring breathable gas up there. And you have CO2 scrubbers and what not.
Those metal cans they're in are basically balloons also.
There’s no air in space, so how do I inflate my bicycle tyres? 😕
There is no air in Space... that's why no-one can hear you scream (forgive me, Ridley Scott!).
@@anomatoor I believe space stations operate at less than sea level ATM, about 2/3 = 10PSI. And for EVAs, the pressure is even less, about half the space station pressure; the astronauts must depressurize/repressurize in a "tank" (or risk "Space Bends").
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, anyone.
Wrong concept.
What CGI program is this? This is a joke right?😂😂😂😂😂😂
until that thing can take a .50 caliber armor piercing round and stay inflated i dont see this working out at all lmao
I still think the real relevant test they should do is not the high pressure burst test, but the shoot a bullet through test.
Yes I was going to post an exact same idea.
with the junk in orbit plus micro meteoroids that does sound like a good test.
I'm guessing it would go in one side and out the other then they would have to patch it like any other structure?
I wonder how they should stop all those tiny pieces of junk, are all the expensive equipment and astronauts just completely at the whims of random space junk?
This is a dumb comment…
Will they have inflatable furniture? Or ikea flat pack?
The TSB report suggested the furnishings would be solid but light, unfoldable, almost kitset (or is that a "ikea flat pack"?).
How about an inflatable effigy of Bill Nelson on each deck; keeping a simulated eye on the crew, remind them who's Boss?
🎈👤👀👩🚀👨🚀☝️
Flat Pack for Zero-G, Inflateable for any swinging on a structure to simulate internal gravity.
The size of the hatch is the limiting factor. Hope that the internal skin has built-in mounting points all over.
@@markweatherill Velcro and 3M double sided tape ;)
@@markweatherill It looks like they are using the standard CMB (Common Berthing Mechanism) of the ISS which produces a 1m x 1m doorway, thought that you can move the refrigerator sized racks that are the standard modules of all the ISS's internal components. Most of which are lifesupport and labs, the only thing that would really be called furniture are the sleeping cabins which are just hollow versions of the same standard rack modules.
they need to expose it to UV as well.
While costly such tests can be done on Earth.
Can’t wait to see how large future space stations will be able to get with these inflatable modules!
Sounds like these modules can get placed into orbit with existing rockets so I can’t imagine what we’ll be able to accomplish once the next generation of heavy-lift launch vehicles start to get implemented
Not Falcon 9 or Heavy though; their payload shrouds are too small, 3.5m, and the LIFE 1.0 Habitat requires 5m diameter.
But, of course, this inflatable module is designed for Blue Origins "New Glenn".
(Could fit inside ULAs Vulcan/ Centaur, too, BOs other Team)
Oh dear, those Falcons ARE being left behind in the Heavy Lift Market, aren't they!
@@davidstevenson9517 If the contract comes up, SpaceX could easily design a larger fairing, the payload mass is certainly well inside the lifting power of the most used rocket currently flying.
Once New Glen flies (hopefully sometime this decade) it will certainly add to the capabilities needed for heavy lift per flight, but with F9 and F9H having a higher launch cadence, it should be pretty easy to get all the equipment to go inside a BEAM, er, LIFE module up in to orbit and beyond.
@@PiDsPagePrototypes SpaceX literally refused to make a longer fairing for falcon heavy unless the government paid for it.
@@luther0013 Well, that's capitalisim for ya, Customer Pays and all that. If I wanted to launch a big satelite that wouldn't fit the current fairings, I'd have to pay for the single use fairings to do so. The government is just another customer, and, SpaceX does those 'Fixed Price Contracts', where if they say it's $10million, you pay $10million, even if it cost them more, unlike Old Space where they say 'it'll cost $10million, but we really mean we'll tell you in 12 months we need another $15million...."
@@davidstevenson9517 There is always starship my friend
That sing alone can function as a stand alone station with some modifications
Sound wonderful but what about protection against the radiation from sun exposure? And the inflation surface would be protection and reflection from radiation ?
The Bigelow module on the iss showed that radiation and sun exposure isn't an issue.
Isn't this like the 3rd time this has been done. Bigelow already had test articles on orbit and a small module on the station before aparently giving up or running out of time, now Sierra seems to just be duplicating all that. And the original idea was from the NASA transhab module which again had already validated the structural restraint layers of Vectran. Theirs litterally no new technology here.
Because the best way to build a space station is the same way they did Skylab you use the rocket itself as the fucking space station t That’s why Skylab was so huge. But no, that would cost five fucking trillion dollars now would it
No matter how hard Sierra has worked on this project, the truth of the matter is that flexible structures in space is always a poor choice and is not advisable by the orbital mechanics. Space is hard so Sierra Space has to much more harder but not this way. Inflatable module, this is wrong and will never work in space. My opinion is just a reflection what I have learned about space.
What you have learned which is exactly nothing?
Did Bigelow go bankrupt? This is the same idea as Bigelow Aerospace had.
Edit: Wiki says they laid off all workers in 2020. so yes...
Good thing somebody else is continuing with this idea.
Good ideas never die. This one has been around since the 1970s, I read about then, as a teen.
Yes, Sierra bought the assests from Bigelow, and Bigelow had licensed it from NASA, as the original engineer who started the work in the '70's was a NASA fellow.
And Bigelow itself was just continuing a NASA concept called TransHab, this idea has been 'developed' now 3 seperate times, so much wastefull duplication.
Bigelow is part of the military underworld, and mainly focuses on the investigation of advanced technologies and physics as well as its negative impacts on health. Bigelow is essentially the military underworld version of DARPA which is nothing more than a disclosure op. The public facing side of bigelow is to keep the company looking clean on paper.
That said most of the pioneering we see done publicly, like the reusable rockets, were already done in the 50’s and made obsolete the same decade by the ‘UFO’ tech. Civilian is so far behind due to the break-away effect.
@@NarasimhaDiyasena Did you take many different drugs to come up with that BS?
So no more Bigelow?
Radiation….??
I was wondering the same thing. What sort of radiation protection will be provided. Especially for missions outside of low earth orbit.
@@Darkspiracythey are literally just few hundred km above earth what radiation😭??
I stopped as You are talking only in fantasy units from “Lord of the Rings”.
According to Sierra Space, the size of Life 2.0 and 3.0 has been expanded greatly. 2.0 is now 2645 m^3 and 3.0 is now 5378 m^3.
Did they test what happens with a pice of space junk (Screw) hits it at about 200,000Mph? or how ever fast that space junk moves