/sci/ - Science & Math

What is the status of Bigelow Aerospace today? Inflatable space habitats have a lot of potential, I would hate to see the technology sidelined simply because of that company's mismanagement.

>>10732046

Great. How good of a protection would those bags provide?

>>10705564

Hurry up Robert.. I want something like this up there.

I want something like this up there.

>>10623674
imagine actually thinking this way
>commercial space stations
>space hotels
>private space labs
>space tourism
>Etc

I'm not saying restrict anything, I'm saying NASA's priority should be deep space not LEO, thats where all the funding should go, thats how we get shit like NTR engines and mars missions and venus flybys funded when theres no ISS to babysit anymore once its handed over to private companies or de-orbited or taken apart, whatever its fate.

Old thread fixed link:
>>10604438

>>10474283

OLDSPACE IS SEEETHING!!!

We need a station like this. Musk pls...

>>9713051

Because ISS is a pork barrel designed to milk taxpayer money, the station itself is just an afterthought. Also was launched by the Shuttle, the most expensive launch vehicle in history and also with severe limits on payload weight and size.

<< this is how a 21st century space station should look like

>>9618812
fuck yeah

this is how a 21st station should look like, not that shitty tin can

>>9538148

>over $100 billion for a few tin cans in space

What isnt.

>>9511296

>LEO is a fucking joke, there is no reason to do anything in LEO

propellant depots? space station?

>Direct to the moon or nothing at all

nope, direct to the moon makes no sense from orbital mechanics perspective

direct to the moon gets you Apollo, meaning a HUGE rocket that ultimately only lands a small lander

it is OK if you want mere footprints and flag missions but not for any sustainable settlement of the Moon

there is a reason why SpaceX based their architecture around copious refueling in Earth orbit

>>9500847

as long as it costs 5,000 to send a pound to LEO, it does not make sense to even talk about space colonization

if the price drops below $1,000 per kilogram due to reusable rockets we may see stuff like pic related tho

>This propellant plant will require the output of SEVERAL LARGE NUCLEAR REACTORS

It takes 25.9 GWh of energy to fuel a BFS Spaceship. Sorry for leddit link but it must be done

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/738c0j/i_calculated_the_energy_required_to_produce_the/?st=jcgibq8s&sh=c9aca020

This is the same as an energy output of a 3 MW power plant over one year.

An average nuclear plant is enough to fuel up hundreds of BFS per year.

>>9364865

One benefit of larger rockets is increased payload fraction. Especially important for reusable rockets because reusability decreases payload fraction.

A mature fully reusable launch system such as BFR or New Glenn should be able to cheaply put thousands of tons of cargo into orbit every year. 1-2 orders of magnitude more than current rockets.

>Deep Space Gateway

Good idea, finally building some permanent deep space infrastructur-

>in a crazy NRHO orbit instead of a cozy Largange point
>no propellant depot
>a shitty tiny tin can instead of actual space station

Just when you thought NASA got their head out of the ass this shit happens.