The next SpaceX launch isn’t just about the booster landing | Hacker News Reader

The next SpaceX launch isn’t just about the booster landing

arstechnica.com

64 pointsjseliger17 comments

I'm kind of disappointed by how small that module is based on the rendering. One of the big advantages of inflatables is that you can get really large structures for small launch mass and volume. In any case, it will be very interesting to see how this performs over time, especially with respect to blocking radiation for the hypothetical crew inside.

It's a proof of concept for testing. You don't need to launch a full size module for that. It would be too costly and probably too dangerous.

Well, it is a prototype. Hopefully if this works well we'll see full-sized modules soon. It's the obvious way to get large amounts of living space into a small spacecraft payload bay.

The article says that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are still operational; but the wikipedia pages for them contradict this. It looks like they've both suffered avionics failure and are just dead carcasses. (As expected. They both lasted well beyond their design lifetime.) It says they're going to decay and reorbit within a decade, but I'm a bit surprised they didn't have deorbit systems.

Incidentally, if you web search for "genesis 1" you get some really non-spacecraft-related results...

Likewise, the square-cube law could mean that the smaller versions are necessarily less impressive with repect to what you can squeeze into the uninflated volume of the module.

I think the problem with inflatables is you want a lot of stuff in the walls for heating and cooling etc. Plus, the ability to close a door in the event of a leak, fire ect and lower the pressure is huge from a safety standpoint.

PS: Also, if you willing to have seams you could build very large ridged structures, just ship walls vs completed modules.

They're surprisingly heavy. The 330 weights 20 tons.

I guess it's all the shielding etc.

Isn't any pressurized "capsule" in space a ballon effectively? This seems like it would work if it blocks radiation. Of course there are still tiny objects that could pierce right through, but a normal module probably wouldn't make much of a difference there anyway...?

They're lined with Kevlar and all kinds of stuff.

"Isn't any pressurized "capsule" in space a ballon effectively?"

No. The key property is that it expands.

The difference is that this capsule won't pop like a balloon.

The distinction between a ballon and a pressurized chamber might just be wether the material is flexible or stiff.

We're talking about a completely new set of building materials. In some respects it will behave similarly to the existing modules, but it's still well worth doing a full test of the radiation/thermal properties etc. which is what this is.

Sounds like all your questions would've been answered if you read the article.

Bigelow has been having some troubles lately but inflatable habitats are really exiting and I hope this works out.

https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Bigelow-Aerospace-Reviews-E...

Damn, losing holiday pay for taking PTO the day before or after holidays? That's just uncouth..

And probably illegal if it was taken for a documented health condition.

It's not just habitats that can benefit from this research. Amazon's health & personal hygiene dept is marketing a similar technology that can reduce the mass-to-orbit for a humanoid explorer up to 40% (including life support equipment).

http://www.amazon.com/Big-Mouth-Toys-INFLATABLE-JUDY/dp/B004...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com