Page 1 of 1 |
[ 14 posts ] |
Inflateable foam/concrete habitats
Author | Message |
---|---|
Space Walker ![]() ![]()
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:23 am
Posts: 195 Location: Lincoln, England ![]() |
So, I was watching a program about tunnelling under rivers and more specifically small sea's etc. In it, they showed the workers spraying a rubbery concrete onto an supporting lattice. Nothing new I know, but I thought, "hey, could a similar technique be utilised in orbit?" So, here's my idea; inflate a huge balloon (any, shape you fancy), climb inside, and spray a layer of sticky foam to the inside. Maybe a layer to the outside if we're feeling brave. Perhaps if the balloon size were enough, we could just put a few layers inside. Each maybe a couple of feet thick. Allow the whole lot some time to cure, then spray a thinner tougher surface to it. Hey presto, the biginnings of a habitat. Something might have to be done about the radiation, but I'm sure that that could be easily solved by some material engineers. Openings could then simply be cut, and airlocks installed. The beauty would be the lightness of the materials used.
_________________ Sean Girling Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled. |
Back to top |
![]() |
Moon Mission Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104 Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA ![]() |
Spiffy, but I'm not sure it'd work...
First off, how're you going to inflate a balloon without using materials that are already strong enough to preclude the use of this spray concrete? If you need the spray concrete, it'd explode before you finished inflating it, and if it didn't then you didn't really need the spray except for finishing touches. Second, how're you going to climb inside? It'd have to be perfectly sealed to contain the atmosphere inside (No, I'm not talking about 78%N 21%O, any kind of gas is an atmosphere), and it'd be rather awkward to climb inside before you inflated it. So you have to cut the airlocks before you shore up the structure... It's like trying to build the Taj Mahal out of toilet paper: it doesn't work. Thirdly, you need all the little things that go into making a space station inhabitable: electrical and computer systems, life support, radiation shielding, etc., and all those things will be wasting space if they're not inside the walls. Cubic comes at a premium, and you have to design everything for maximum efficiency. Everything that can be put inside of a wall must be, otherwise your costs will skyrocket. Finally, how would you "cut" the airlock? Puncture the shell, it'll likely shatter (unless you put in structural support that will be absolutely worthless after you put the airlocks in). Not to mention the fact that you've just lost all your atmosphere, which cost you several million dollars to haul up there (assuming you're in earth orbit -- if you're around anything else, start counting in billions). _________________ American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering In Memoriam... Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107 |
Back to top |
![]() |
Space Walker ![]() ![]()
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:23 am
Posts: 195 Location: Lincoln, England ![]() |
Yeah yeah, but imagine the end has a hole the size of an airlock (perhaps already attached to this "balloon"), and you only have to let in enough gas (whatever you like) to fully inflate the balloon. It'd be low pressure for sure, so a pressure suit would still be required until the internal sprayed foam surfaces had hardened enough for a more substantial atmosphere to be used. Astronauts would enter via the airlocked end with spraying equipment. Once that's done, further facilities can be brought in to make it more useful. The difference is you could lift all of the equipment to make this inflated bubble in one shot, and it could be big, really big. I'm thinking about a balloon the size of your typical hot air balloon. Material wouldn't have to be special because it's just a surface to spray the real working material to.
Mmmm, the more I think about it, the more feasible it seems. _________________ Sean Girling Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled. |
Back to top |
![]() |
Moderator ![]() ![]()
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 766 Location: New Zealand ![]() |
I saw something NASA was doing along those lines... had all the vitals in a core with an airlock at both ends. The rest inflated around it.. looked like a big white pumpkin.
_________________ What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan. |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Space Walker ![]() ![]()
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:23 am
Posts: 195 Location: Lincoln, England ![]() |
Cool! Wonder what the technical issues are that have stopped it being used more.
_________________ Sean Girling Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled. |
Back to top |
![]() |
Space Walker ![]() ![]()
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:59 pm
Posts: 100 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark, Skandinavia, Europe, Blue planet ![]() |
Its called Transhab and was to be used for a maned mission to Mars..
And they also wanted to make a moduel for the ISS... Don't know why they didn't build it... Here are some links found on google...: http://www.ilcdover.com/SpaceInf/habitats/transhab.htm http://www.marssociety.org/bulletins/bulletin_050699_01.asp http://www.lunar-reclamation.org/transhab.htm http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat_files/space/space0204rocketscientist/slide01.html http://www.astronautix.com/craft/traodule.htm http://www.universetoday.com/html/special/transhab.html |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
Spaceflight Trainee ![]() ![]()
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:05 am
Posts: 31 ![]() |
You may have to use a donut shaped ballon. If you are going to shoot a concrete spray nozzle in 0g, You'll need some sort of an anchoring system, gyrotropism would be the cheapest, and the most efficient. It'll probabably need a centralized control station and tunnels extending to the balloon. Mainly to prevent the wobble of a possible station tangeant to the balloon.
_________________ I wonder how many of the serfs even remember that the founders intended to create a free country here. DO NOT ADJUST YOUR MIND: IT IS REALITY THAT IS MALFUNCTIONING |
Back to top |
![]() |
Launch Director ![]() ![]()
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 6:06 pm
Posts: 11 ![]() |
Voyager, thanks for the links. I read most of that.
Does anyone know if this has been rolled into the CEV program at NASA? I've noticed that they are using the inflatable idea in all of their promo animations of 'Mars Missions' to date. It seems that NASA is going to have their hands full developing the CEV. Hopefully, they'll quickly realize that they'll need more than one single ship to do all of the stuff they're claiming they want to do. |
Back to top |
![]() |
Launch Director ![]() ![]()
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 6:06 pm
Posts: 11 ![]() |
|
Back to top |
![]() |
Moderator ![]() ![]()
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 766 Location: New Zealand ![]() |
The guy owns budget hotels, but he does own hotels.
If anybody can sell crazy its the las Vegas big guns. _________________ What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan. |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Space Station Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297 Location: LI/NY - currently ![]() |
The real quest would be, does a spray on concrete structure offer more protection pound per pound than an inflatable structure that is using materials such as kevlar?
|
Back to top |
![]() |
Moon Mission Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104 Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA ![]() |
_________________ American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering In Memoriam... Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107 |
Back to top |
![]() |
Space Walker ![]() ![]()
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 4:25 pm
Posts: 122 ![]() |
TJ wrote: The real quest would be, does a spray on concrete structure offer more protection pound per pound than an inflatable structure that is using materials such as kevlar? with modern materials technology i'm not too sure it would. i don't think concrete is the right choice; metallic foam has been worked at/tested (but even that seemed less promising than other materials afaik) for habitats on the lunar/mars surface many proposals suggest a covering of soil or rock chippings to provide increased protection from radiation, as well as locating the habitat within hollow lava tubes |
Back to top |
![]() |
Space Station Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297 Location: LI/NY - currently ![]() |
n54 wrote: with modern materials technology i'm not too sure it would. i don't think concrete is the right choice; metallic foam has been worked at/tested (but even that seemed less promising than other materials afaik) for habitats on the lunar/mars surface many proposals suggest a covering of soil or rock chippings to provide increased protection from radiation, as well as locating the habitat within hollow lava tubes I would tend to agree myself, especially with the possibilities of carbon nano tubes looming on the horizon. I think multiple layers of various materials have been proven to be much better sheilding than concrete when it comes to micro meteorites and orbital debris. Concrete is great for some things but I don't see it getting used much for orbital habitats. Lunar and martian surface though would be a different story, especially if the concrete is made there using local materials. |
Back to top |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Page 1 of 1 |
[ 14 posts ] |
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests |