Recommended Posts

I was watching the live feed this morning and got a little pale when he said he'd run into a problem when the command for the bolts to engage wouldn't respond ... I was like "oh crap" ... glad it was just him not running the procedure correctly. When they finally went (all but that last one, and he issued the command again and it went) I was like "phew!".

  • 1 month later...

HOUSTON (NASA PR) — The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) will be deployed to its full size Thursday, May 26, and begin its two-year technology demonstration attached to the International Space Station. 

 

NASA Television will provide coverage of the expansion beginning at 5:30 a.m. EDT.

 

Events begin Tuesday, May 24 when engineers and team members from NASA and Bigelow Aerospace answer questions about the module’s expansion during a 4 p.m. Facebook Live event and at 5 p.m. on Reddit.com. Anyone may submit questions during these events at:

https://www.facebook.com/NASA/

 

and

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/

 

NASA astronaut Jeff Williams will lead Thursday’s operations to expand the module. Designers need daylight and video communication to closely monitor the process starting at 6:10 a.m. Thursday.

 

Space station astronauts will first enter the habitat Thursday, June 2, through the station’s Tranquility module, and re-enter the module several times a year throughout the two-year test period to retrieve sensor data and assess conditions inside the module.

 

Expandable habitats are designed to take up less room on a spacecraft, but provide greater volume for living and working in space once expanded. This first test of an expandable module will allow investigators to gauge how well the habitat performs and specifically, how well it protects against solar radiation, space debris and the temperature extremes of space.

 

BEAM launched April 8 aboard a SpaceX Dragon cargo spacecraft from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, and is an example of NASA’s increased commitment to partnering with industry to enable the growth of the commercial use of space. The BEAM project is co-sponsored by NASA’s Advanced Exploration Systems Division and Bigelow Aerospace.

 

The International Space Station serves as the world’s leading laboratory for conducting cutting-edge microgravity research and is the primary platform for technology development and testing in space to enable human and robotic exploration of destinations beyond low-Earth orbit, including asteroids and Mars.

 

For NASA TV streaming video, schedule and downlink information, visit:


http://www.nasa.gov/nasatv

GAME ON! :yes: 


Article link | Engadget website

 

Inflatable space stations could orbit the Earth by 2020

Quote

Bigelow Aerospace believes its inflatable habitat can democratize space.

bigelow-b330-ed.jpg

The latest SpaceX launch ferried not just supplies for the ISS, but also aninflatable module designed to add a small living room on the space station. That module was made by Bigelow Aerospace, which has just announcedthat it teamed up with United Launch Alliance to send its much, much bigger inflatable stations called B330 to Low Earth Orbit. One B330 can add a 330-cubic-meter (or 12,000-cubic-foot) living space to the ISS -- that's 30 percent of its total size, whereas the model that piggybacked on Falcon 9 can only expand the station by five percent.

 

In order to fit inside an Atlas V rocket, a B330 will be folded when it takes off from Earth. Even then, the Atlas V is the only rocket with a big enough payload compartment to accommodate one. That likely played a huge part in Bigelow's decision to strike a deal with ULA.

 

Besides expanding the ISS, several B330s can be linked together to form an independent space station, as well. The companies can then rent them out to private corporations and institutions that want to perform non-government scientific research in microgravity. They also think that some companies like Disney could turn them into exciting and (quite literally) out of this world tourist destinations.

 

If NASA agrees to test the B330 on the ISS like it agreed to test out its smaller predecessor for the next two years, then it will be financing the first module's launch. Either way, the duo aims to send the first of the two inflatable habitats they're planning to space sometime in 2020.


Source: Bigelow AerospaceB330

OH YEAH. :D 

I was thinking about this, and it's perfect from a Space Politics point of view. Here we have Bigelow, who is pretty much the defacto #2 in the minds of everyone of us NewSpace fans right behind SpaceX in terms of thinking outside the box and pushing new technologies. We love Bigelow and everything they are striving to achieve. :yes:

 

So to be inclusive, fair, and "let's show OldSpace that we're willing to partner with anyone" in true olive branch and "let's get a latte" fashion, they've inked a deal with ULA to test what can only be described as "Bigelow's Moneymaker" Hab ...

 

And ya know what? It's a perfect scenario. I like it. :) It shows OldSpace that Bigelow (and by extension, NewSpace because that is how NewSpace rolls) is willing to work with OldSpace on something as critically important as this. It cannot be stressed how important the 330's testing phase and Orbital Shakedown really is. And they've hired ULA to tote it uphill.

 

Yeah ... handshakes, lattes', rockets and inflatable habs. It's a fantastic time for Space Fans. :yes: 

 

I don't get why all these media insist on the 'fact' that this is going to happen. They must have clearly been looking at another presser than I have!

 

BA has an agreement with ULA to reserve a slot for a launch in that 2020 timeframe, but that is about as far as it goes. If nobody pays for that rocket, then it won't fly... ULA certainly isn't going to pony it up, can tell you that much.

 

Bigelow just wants to warm up NASA on this idea and until they bite I do not forsee 330 going up... Yet!

Last I heard at the press release, or should I say, the way that I took it, it was just a "cooperative venture" with ULA. My impression was that it is an attempt to convince NASA of it's merits for near future ventures, and no money, at this time, has been allotted for anything...basically a PR event. In a few forums, speculation has it that SpaceX, with it's  full manifest, was probably not approached right away due to it's increasing workload at the moment.

 

I have no idea what is really planned, but have noticed "the usual suspects", with grand plans, appearing to gather for the "feeding trough", which usually means that something is up.

 

I'll wait this out and see who puts the cash down and who punches metal.

 

It would be great to see something, but I have seen too much vaporware and "power point" plans for my fill lately.

 

:D   Besides, I'm distracted by Mars goodies.

  • Like 1

My point exactly, now I believe that Bigelow is willing to field the money for building an actual flight worthy BA-330, but launching and operating it are a wholly different cookie and thats why they want NASA on board. They also literally said during their combined presser that it was more of an MOU between them (ULA and BA) with a reservation for a flight. But just as I said then, I will not buy it that ULA would actually field the booster without having somebody pony up the money for it. We're talking about a venture here that is under quarterly review for development and resource allocation on their new rocket! Do you really expect Boeing/LM would allow ULA to just 'give away' a rocket? I dont :p

  • Like 1

And the risk of something going massively wrong is higher, so the rate would obviously be highly reduced ...

 

Guess we'll just have to let this one play out. I was unaware that this was already known about. Heh.

  • Like 1
14 hours ago, Unobscured Vision said:

And the risk of something going massively wrong is higher, so the rate would obviously be highly reduced ...

 

Guess we'll just have to let this one play out. I was unaware that this was already known about. Heh.

Well, it is a tough unit as Doc has mentioned in the past. It may even be RUD proof....joking....:D

 

As well, reference Doc's upper post, it appears that some vendors are braver than others, and are willing to be on a few inaugural launches, why not the Vulcan. I think it's a great idea and a good PR move.

 

  • Like 1

origaBEAMi – An Origami Paper-Folding Activity to Create and Expand Your Own Miniature BEAM Module

 

Quote

To coincide with the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) technology demonstration for the International Space Station, here is a simple and fun activity called ‘origaBEAMi’ to enable you to quickly build and expand your own miniature BEAM module -- all by a series of simple folds of the paper model provided. 

You will want to first view or download the ‘crew procedures,’ which contain step by step instructions on how to print and fold your BEAM module. You can also view the video that shows the same process. Have fun, and be sure to learn more about BEAM and ISS research and technology!

beam-origami-origabeami-model02.jpg?inte

origaBEAMi paper model inflated upon completion of folding.
Credits: NASA

 

Pdf printout

 

Ground Crew assembly procedures, PDF

 

and a folding video if required.

 

How To Make an Origami BEAM – Fold your own space station module!

video is 5:43 min.

 

 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/origaBEAMi

 

http://www.space.com/32991-nasa-origami-beam-inflatable-space-habitat-model.html

 

:woot:

  • Like 1

Yep, looks like BEAM's got some pyros that didn't cut. Blah. :( Ohm values are all over the place, and those should be consistent if they'd fired. Some variation or straight open if they had. Darn it all.

 

[EDIT] Good grief, those are not the values I'd expect. Sheesh. Nail-biter.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!