Although we're not quite ready to pony up for a ticket to space just yet, billionaire Robert Bigelow is thinking
way into the future by trialing a space
hotel. Dubbed Genesis II, the
inflatable module could eventually be used as a "hotel in space" or double as a manned space station, and considering that it only inflates once it settles in orbit, the cost of launching is substantially decreased. The experimental craft was successfully launched on board a Russian rocket, and has since established communications and "beamed back a series of images of its expanding
solar panels." This endeavor is just the beginning, however, as Bigelow envisions a "full-scale space hotel" to be named Nautilus, and if you're interested in helping out (and making $50 million on the side), you've got three years to "design a
craft capable of carrying five people to a height of 250 miles."
[Image courtesy of
Bigelow Aerospace]
posted Jun 29th 2007 2:35PM
"the cost of launching is substantially decreased."
... only to be offset by the cost of duct tape needed to fix all the leaks.
Can somebody tell me how exactly how "the cost of launching is substantially decreased" because it only inflates once settled in orbit?
That one is really getting by me.
Size & weight = $$$ when talking about launching things into space. Larger cargo means you need a larger rocket.
It costs less to shoot something the size of a car into space than it does to send something the size of a tractor trailer.
"Size & weight = $$$ when talking about launching things into space. Larger cargo means you need a larger rocket.
It costs less to shoot something the size of a car into space than it does to send something the size of a tractor trailer."
So can you explain to me how it will weigh any less? I dunno, I was thinking you'd have to haul the inflating air up there with it. Seems to me, it weighs the same.
Size is smaller, yes. But you are correct, weight=$$$$.
I promise you if the car and the tractor trailer were the same weight, the cost would be similar.
What weighs more? a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?
So, I ask again... how does it cost SUBSTANTIALLY less??? I could see it costing a LITTLE less... size DOES mean something, but weight -- or more appropriately MASS --- is king.
@halfeatenfish:
They don't "haul" air up there. They have a couple of different devices used to generate oxygen in space, either by recycling used water, or by igniting chemical reactions in a replaceable cartridge/canister. I'm guessing the latter was used in this case, but I'm certainly not an expert. Point is, the package really does weigh less when you launch it than when it's in orbit, so money is saved.
@halfeatenfish: Think about it this way, also. Suppose you wanted to ship a small one ton object. You could stick it in the bed of a pickup truck. Suppose that one ton object was thirty feet long and 6 feet wide and 10 feet tall. You'd have to get a semi to haul it. Which do you think is cheaper, a pickup or a semi? They both weigh the same, so why spend money on a big rocket when you can pack it on to a smaller, cheaper rocket?
@aaron: mass=mass=mass. doesn't matter how you convert it from one subastance to another... 1 kg H2O = 1 kg (H2 + O2). Only way around the conservation of mass is a nuclear reaction.
@tbone: I wasn't trying to say that the cost would be the same in both cases, just that mass is a more dominant parameter than size. I thought I was making it clear with my emphasis on substantial, but I'm nt paid to be a writer!
I would expect higher cost for the bigger ballon, just not a huge cost increase.
Anyway, have a beverage. We've beaten this one into the ground enough.
Besides, its a stupid idea anyway!!!
It's probably lighter because it doesn't have the extensive metallic frame most space vehicles do - it's just a big balloon?
The reason an inflatable costs less to launch, is because it requires a narrower launch vehicle. The mass of the outer 'flexible' shell may be a little less heavy than one machined out of aluminium, but I don't think it would be significant.
However, the cross-sectional area of the inflatable will be at least 1/4 (assuming expanded radius is twice uninflated). Most launch vehicles have very narrow payload fairings, and although it doesn't compare to the delta-V from gravity-loss and orbital velocity, air-drag can be fairly significant through the first 2 minutes of flight.
Wouldn't a meteor shower be catastrophic to this inflatable station?
Given the speed at which most meteorites are travelling once they get that close to Earth, I'm not sure it would matter if the hull was made of tissue paper or Titanium. If it's thin enough to put into orbit without breaking the bank, a meteorite could puncture it.
It might actually be beneficial if the outer hull is flexible. If it's done right, small holes might not propagate, so you're left with a leak instead of a widening, catastrophic rupture.
Well, thank goodness for that.
didn't they already establish that going into space is dangerous and can take years off your life? there is no "atmosphere" or "ozone layer" there to protect you... the radiation those normally help filter out still reaches you....
There are many ways to shield people from cosmic radiation - just the skin of the ship takes care of much of it. Dense materials, like metal, are much better at filtering out rays then the atmosphere.
Water is also a great shield against cosmic rays (works for us Earthlings: it's a major component of our atmosphere). Side benefit of a water-based shield? You can drink it if you really need to! There are many other benefits to using water/ice in this manner as well. Shaping is easier (much like filling a balloon). Good thermal aspects. Stuff of life in so many ways! (So, why do we drink so much soda/beer/coffee/garbage, then??)
I bet after they hurtled that they said, "Man I feel better."
Just make sure you secure it against Vermicious Knids, Charlie.
OK, so don't get me wrong, I like space as much as anyone, but what exactly is the point of a space "hotel"? Hotels down here are for having a place to stay that's nearby what you want/need to be doing. But in this hotel, you'd be stuck there, probably with very little to actually do. I bet they wouldn't even have that little room with the arcade games and vending machines. I wonder how long looking out the window is going to keep you occupied?
You've obviuously never seen a "hotel" that is the destination itself. The Atlantis Paradise Resort in Nassau is just such an example. It has a huge aquarium, casino, lagoon, and shopping center all on one tiny island.
I have seen that place, actually. But I'm talking hotels, not sprawling resorts. I don't think the inflatable space hotel is going to have an aquarium, casino, lagoon, and shopping center, do you? Seriously, besides looking out the window, reading a book, or screwing the person you came up there with, what are you going to do while you're there?
You're going to read a book in space? How boring! Stop thinking with your feet on the ground! In space, the floor is the ceiling and the ceiling is the floor. In fact, the ceiling is a wall and the walls are ceiling are floors. Then you've got all the space inbetween! I'm sure there will be plenty to do.
Well, I guess so. I really can imagine it being fun for a couple days. I just keep wondering what the alternative activity is going to be when you're "taking a break" from all the floaty space fun. Like when you go on vacation, the whole time isn't spent swimming or riding roller coasters or whatever, you know? What happens during the "downtime"? Ah, I dunno. Maybe you're right and it wouldn't be an issue.
Sex in space would keep me occupied for days!
I bet room service will still be inedible.
Expounding on the sex in space: A place like this, like having a mistress is not really designed to make you live longer. It really is for the experience. And really, who the hell are you going to run into?
No thanks. I don't feel like spending my vacation spinning out of control and motion sick. And pay millions for the privilege. Theres plenty of great things to see right here on earth thank you very much.
For a forum dedicated to generally forward looking technology-friendly people, I never seem to understand how the really big ideas always seem to have the majority of the people trying to put it down, detract from it, tell everyone why it won't work, with "it'll never happen," "this idea is terrible," "why would anyone," kind of thinking, as if they have any F---ING clue what the hell they're talking about.
I believe the "substantial savings in size and weight" are due to the fact that it's an inflatable structure as opposed to a rigid body. A latex/kevlar balloon pressurized with air will weigh significantly less than a steel box with girders and other structural pieces of the same volume.
Air or whatever will be used to inflate it will intrinsically be able to exist as a solid or liquid, both of which will have a smaller volume. YES, conservation of mass will dictate that it weighs the same.
Basically, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING A HABITABLE STRUCTURE IN SPACE: an inflatable will be lighter and less bulky during lift-off than one which was built to size on earth and lifted up there.
Reminds me of Cowboy Bebop... :)
"I'm not an astronaut, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night"
Very nice
What happens at the space hotel stayes at the space hotel