Well I like the concept. Sometimes the beauty and cost-effectiveness along with safety is in its simplicity! The more complex a system, the more delicate, and thus more expensive it is. The Russians are a great example. Keep it simple and cost effective!
Well I like the concept. Sometimes the beauty and cost-effectiveness along with safety is in its simplicity! The more complex a system, the more delicate, and thus more expensive it is. The Russians are a great example. Keep it simple and cost effective!
With better facilities like these... the industrial laboratory sections can get to work in micro-gravity chemistry. The number of new kinds of drugs and more sensitive litmus tests that can be manufactured will justify the porfolio costs. These kind of modules will hopefully grow like mushrooms in LEO. How many modules will have to be up there before you need a full time human staff?
@CosmicDamian so you would rather they finish a terrestrial vehicle over a ballistic vehicle? Think about if they create something that can get you from 1 side of the earth to another within an hour or could get you to the moon easier, etc.. Isn't that better.
@hihosh1 I was just making a little joke. Honestly, I fear the time for much of this has passed. The big projects for the next few generations are going to be oil wars, and if we're lucky, diverting enough resoruces to power generation and transportation infrastructure to survive medium term. We can't flush any more money down the Boeing/Lockheed/Northrop toilet. Give the money to SpaceX, and we'll get essential LEO services. Moon-Mars? 2150, maybe.
Skylon will never be built. There is no way it can be funded without the British government getting involved and that won't happen. It's all a dream just like Dreamchaser another money pit. Both the CTS -100 and Dragon can fly beyond LEO something Skylon and Dreamchaser could never do. The age of reusable winged spacecraft is coming to an end with the move to beyond LEO applications.
@beatlefriend the point of skylon is to produce a vehicle which can climb to orbit without throw away rockets. its ability to enter orbit from a CTOL position cuts costs from $10,000 with the space shuttle or $4,500 with the Jules Verne to just $100/kg.
@fabianoasc - after watching the fabulous videos about the inspiring SKYLON project, which DOES demonstrate the way forward, without wasteful & polluting discard of modules (which in any case appears like a step backwards and potentially threatening for future space craft in orbit, I MUST say that I am very DISAPPOINTED with this BOEING/BIGELOW animation... I would strongly suggest to boeing to seek partnership and/or ideas from Skylon - THAT is the way forward - NOT THIS BACKWARD STEP
There is no reason why we can't have both. The ideas are not in competition with each other. When materials are finally available to build something like Skylon, it will be built. Until then, we can use Apollo-style capsules. Inflatable space stations, on the other hand, have many advantages, and I think they will be around for a long time.
@lithiumdeuteride Thanks for addressing my earlier remark. Firstly, I'd like to make clear that I have the greatest respect & admiration for Boeing's technology (the best aircraft available - far superior to Airbus) & its vision (in defense & space exploration); then I must also agree with your arguments vis-a-vis Boeing's solution which involves existing/proven technology while Skylon's requires research), YET Boeing's approach is not inspiring as it doesn't trigger "WOW" like Skylon's vision!
Since this can not handle 7 people the price per person is going to be ass expensive. I read upwards of 200 million, Yep the common man will never get to go. Just another toy for the rich like always we go without. Days like Star Trek and other movies are centuries away because of governments,greed et. al. Until that is taken care of and serious money is dumped into this by many companies to get the price down. The rich win again.
@hotdog2020 The rich always win, hotdog. They get everything first - cars, televisions, mobile phones. That's because if we waited for everything to be so cheap every schmoe can afford it nothing would *ever* get made. Check out the Tesla Roadster; the first actually viable electric car in the world - and it costs over $100,000. How were they supposed to start, by selling golf carts at $1000 a pop? Things are always expensive before they get cheaper - and the cheapness comes faster and faster.
@KillahMate I understand why things are the way they are. This industry frustrates me because it moves so slow. 1969 we landed on the moon then what? 41 years later......41 years and have we progressed? Have we done anything else amazing on par? A reuseable craft landed like a plane. An idea that started before we landed on the Moon. Look at any other industry, cell phones,game systems,computers,tvs Et. al. The progression in 10 years unreal. Nasa's budget in 1964 was 33B today 18.9B. That's why
@hotdog2020 Well, I think the landing on the Moon was more a political thing. Some researchers even say that if we hadn't been under pressure to 'beat the Commies' the Apollo project would have happened a decade later, but been an age ahead logistically. Can't say if it's true, but I understand where they're coming from. What we're seeing now is more of a natural progression of the space economy, I think.
@KillahMate Yes I can see what you are saying. You have it correct, it is just sad to watch. Thanks for the intelligent convo, a rare thing on youtube lol.
I hope that Bigelow can deliver on their timeline sooner. According to their construction plans, the Sundancer capsule will not launch until 2014. But I am sure that this capsule will be a lot safer and more efficient than the ISS.
Can anyone explain to me why they're looking to use inflatable modules on this space station? Apart from the obvious space savings on transporting it up there int he first place, it doesn't sound very safe.
Obviously they'd be made of Vectran, but surely metal structures would be safer & stronger?
@rockplannet1 Not at all. Bigelow already has two inflatable modules in orbit right now. There envelopes are "self-healing" for the most part so they won't completely vent with any punctures. and the radiation shielding is comparable. So the cost savings of light, inflatable structures makes then a very likely candidate technology. Even solid metal capsules are still vulnerable to micro-metorite or debris impacts. The inflatable structures may be that much easier to maintain and repair.
Designed to be launched on Atlas V, Delta IV or the SpaceX Falcon 9.
Bigelow wants multiple taxi's for delivering crews so he's also looking to SpaceX's Dragon, and a full version of it is scheduled for a late September or early October test flight for NSSA. Dragon has a common berthing mechanism with optional LIDS or APAS adapers.
@valcan321 Commercial manned spaceflight gets a second entry with a commercial space station and all you can do is whine about a concept animation? What are you? A ten year old? This is great stuff. Hope it flies.
I've always wondered about the mating process of crew vessel and space station. You have to use thrusters to slow or even control impact. Remember the station isn't static. It will be not just jostled, but accelerated during the process. This means you have to propel them TOGETHER in proportion calculating for angular thrust drag and mass right down to current masses including crew and level of current waste on board the station if you are to maintain orbit or position. Or reestablish later
@briansmobile 1 1: Usually, one object is significantly more massive than the other in space dockings (but see the Agena dockings in the Gemini program) Neither will 'rebound' significantly, if done right.
2: This is why you want contact to be made as slow as possible. There's no need for both objects to be thrust together. (After a 'soft' connection, the mechanism physically pulls both objects together into a 'hard' airtight dock.)
@stardolphin2 BTW, APAS requires a significant force to engage. Not a problem for Shuttle, but a lighter spaceraft like Soyuz or Orion has to slam it hard. It's possible and in fact Soyuz performed 2 dockings with APAS. However, not only such slamming is uncomfortable, but such docking requires a significant closure speed, which was deemed unsafe. This is why LIDS was develpped.
The future is here...
Darko2625 6 months ago
@Darko2625, is that future? You want to see technology of the future, this future... youtube search: "Virgin Galactic Space Tourist Animation"
whiteskullwhiteskull 3 months ago
@ChannelingusXIVC
You might be interested in checking out the Roton Rotary Rocket then. Vids of it on Youtube here in addition to various pages across the internet. :D
PlanckLimit 7 months ago
Well I like the concept. Sometimes the beauty and cost-effectiveness along with safety is in its simplicity! The more complex a system, the more delicate, and thus more expensive it is. The Russians are a great example. Keep it simple and cost effective!
Well done Boeing and Bigelow!
bryinusa 8 months ago
Well I like the concept. Sometimes the beauty and cost-effectiveness along with safety is in its simplicity! The more complex a system, the more delicate, and thus more expensive it is. The Russians are a great example. Keep it simple and cost effective!
Well done Boeing!
bryinusa 8 months ago
With better facilities like these... the industrial laboratory sections can get to work in micro-gravity chemistry. The number of new kinds of drugs and more sensitive litmus tests that can be manufactured will justify the porfolio costs. These kind of modules will hopefully grow like mushrooms in LEO. How many modules will have to be up there before you need a full time human staff?
granddad2002 9 months ago
that is cool
michaela162003 1 year ago
How about finish the 787 first?
CosmicDamian 1 year ago
@CosmicDamian haha
Neoli2300 1 year ago
@CosmicDamian so you would rather they finish a terrestrial vehicle over a ballistic vehicle? Think about if they create something that can get you from 1 side of the earth to another within an hour or could get you to the moon easier, etc.. Isn't that better.
hihosh1 11 months ago
@hihosh1 I was just making a little joke. Honestly, I fear the time for much of this has passed. The big projects for the next few generations are going to be oil wars, and if we're lucky, diverting enough resoruces to power generation and transportation infrastructure to survive medium term. We can't flush any more money down the Boeing/Lockheed/Northrop toilet. Give the money to SpaceX, and we'll get essential LEO services. Moon-Mars? 2150, maybe.
CosmicDamian 11 months ago
Skylon will never be built. There is no way it can be funded without the British government getting involved and that won't happen. It's all a dream just like Dreamchaser another money pit. Both the CTS -100 and Dragon can fly beyond LEO something Skylon and Dreamchaser could never do. The age of reusable winged spacecraft is coming to an end with the move to beyond LEO applications.
beatlefriend 1 year ago
@beatlefriend the point of skylon is to produce a vehicle which can climb to orbit without throw away rockets. its ability to enter orbit from a CTOL position cuts costs from $10,000 with the space shuttle or $4,500 with the Jules Verne to just $100/kg.
Neoli2300 1 year ago
@beatlefriend
Exactly. And what is the point of building a winged reentry capsule anyway? You can de-orbit roughly any place you want.
rampike74 11 months ago
@beatlefriend
Just looks like they leaped back 40 years, waste of time and money
kcwilsonii 10 months ago
@fabianoasc - after watching the fabulous videos about the inspiring SKYLON project, which DOES demonstrate the way forward, without wasteful & polluting discard of modules (which in any case appears like a step backwards and potentially threatening for future space craft in orbit, I MUST say that I am very DISAPPOINTED with this BOEING/BIGELOW animation... I would strongly suggest to boeing to seek partnership and/or ideas from Skylon - THAT is the way forward - NOT THIS BACKWARD STEP
AugustusAurelianus1 1 year ago
@AugustusAurelianus1
There is no reason why we can't have both. The ideas are not in competition with each other. When materials are finally available to build something like Skylon, it will be built. Until then, we can use Apollo-style capsules. Inflatable space stations, on the other hand, have many advantages, and I think they will be around for a long time.
lithiumdeuteride 1 year ago
@lithiumdeuteride Thanks for addressing my earlier remark. Firstly, I'd like to make clear that I have the greatest respect & admiration for Boeing's technology (the best aircraft available - far superior to Airbus) & its vision (in defense & space exploration); then I must also agree with your arguments vis-a-vis Boeing's solution which involves existing/proven technology while Skylon's requires research), YET Boeing's approach is not inspiring as it doesn't trigger "WOW" like Skylon's vision!
AugustusAurelianus1 1 year ago
Since this can not handle 7 people the price per person is going to be ass expensive. I read upwards of 200 million, Yep the common man will never get to go. Just another toy for the rich like always we go without. Days like Star Trek and other movies are centuries away because of governments,greed et. al. Until that is taken care of and serious money is dumped into this by many companies to get the price down. The rich win again.
hotdog2020 1 year ago
@hotdog2020 The rich always win, hotdog. They get everything first - cars, televisions, mobile phones. That's because if we waited for everything to be so cheap every schmoe can afford it nothing would *ever* get made. Check out the Tesla Roadster; the first actually viable electric car in the world - and it costs over $100,000. How were they supposed to start, by selling golf carts at $1000 a pop? Things are always expensive before they get cheaper - and the cheapness comes faster and faster.
KillahMate 1 year ago
@KillahMate I understand why things are the way they are. This industry frustrates me because it moves so slow. 1969 we landed on the moon then what? 41 years later......41 years and have we progressed? Have we done anything else amazing on par? A reuseable craft landed like a plane. An idea that started before we landed on the Moon. Look at any other industry, cell phones,game systems,computers,tvs Et. al. The progression in 10 years unreal. Nasa's budget in 1964 was 33B today 18.9B. That's why
hotdog2020 1 year ago
@hotdog2020 Well, I think the landing on the Moon was more a political thing. Some researchers even say that if we hadn't been under pressure to 'beat the Commies' the Apollo project would have happened a decade later, but been an age ahead logistically. Can't say if it's true, but I understand where they're coming from. What we're seeing now is more of a natural progression of the space economy, I think.
KillahMate 1 year ago
@KillahMate Yes I can see what you are saying. You have it correct, it is just sad to watch. Thanks for the intelligent convo, a rare thing on youtube lol.
hotdog2020 1 year ago
I hope that Bigelow can deliver on their timeline sooner. According to their construction plans, the Sundancer capsule will not launch until 2014. But I am sure that this capsule will be a lot safer and more efficient than the ISS.
depaulsto 1 year ago
Awesome, now we are talking, this is excellent.
LanceWinslow5 1 year ago
Can anyone explain to me why they're looking to use inflatable modules on this space station? Apart from the obvious space savings on transporting it up there int he first place, it doesn't sound very safe.
Obviously they'd be made of Vectran, but surely metal structures would be safer & stronger?
(regarding the station, not the space craft)
rockplannet1 1 year ago
@rockplannet1 do some research :)
chaos6575 1 year ago
@rockplannet1 Not at all. Bigelow already has two inflatable modules in orbit right now. There envelopes are "self-healing" for the most part so they won't completely vent with any punctures. and the radiation shielding is comparable. So the cost savings of light, inflatable structures makes then a very likely candidate technology. Even solid metal capsules are still vulnerable to micro-metorite or debris impacts. The inflatable structures may be that much easier to maintain and repair.
DarthSensate 1 year ago
Sounds like Terran Starcraft music :)
chaos6575 1 year ago
The music's great. I hope Bigelow is successful. The more competition the better.
TheRealNeill 1 year ago
куда уходят деньги налогоплательщиков? на это? ату их!
huevparolbla 1 year ago
Designed to be launched on Atlas V, Delta IV or the SpaceX Falcon 9.
Bigelow wants multiple taxi's for delivering crews so he's also looking to SpaceX's Dragon, and a full version of it is scheduled for a late September or early October test flight for NSSA. Dragon has a common berthing mechanism with optional LIDS or APAS adapers.
docmordrid 1 year ago
They got to fix the music
Craigthepope 1 year ago
Comment removed
valcan321 1 year ago
@valcan321 Commercial manned spaceflight gets a second entry with a commercial space station and all you can do is whine about a concept animation? What are you? A ten year old? This is great stuff. Hope it flies.
mduncan81 1 year ago
@mduncan81 LOL no i was responding to what someone said about the music. It is horrible the video is great HAHa
valcan321 1 year ago
@Craigthepope Go reupload it yourself with your own music then.
sirachman 1 year ago
I've always wondered about the mating process of crew vessel and space station. You have to use thrusters to slow or even control impact. Remember the station isn't static. It will be not just jostled, but accelerated during the process. This means you have to propel them TOGETHER in proportion calculating for angular thrust drag and mass right down to current masses including crew and level of current waste on board the station if you are to maintain orbit or position. Or reestablish later
briansmobile1 1 year ago
@briansmobile 1 1: Usually, one object is significantly more massive than the other in space dockings (but see the Agena dockings in the Gemini program) Neither will 'rebound' significantly, if done right.
2: This is why you want contact to be made as slow as possible. There's no need for both objects to be thrust together. (After a 'soft' connection, the mechanism physically pulls both objects together into a 'hard' airtight dock.)
stardolphin2 1 year ago
@stardolphin2 Sounds reasonable- thanks.
briansmobile1 1 year ago
@stardolphin2 BTW, APAS requires a significant force to engage. Not a problem for Shuttle, but a lighter spaceraft like Soyuz or Orion has to slam it hard. It's possible and in fact Soyuz performed 2 dockings with APAS. However, not only such slamming is uncomfortable, but such docking requires a significant closure speed, which was deemed unsafe. This is why LIDS was develpped.
zaitcev 1 year ago