NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/sci/space/12105

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-21 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!eng.ufl.edu!gnv.ifas.ufl.edu!jrm
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:50:03 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rui Sousa) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>    Whatever became of the idea of inflatable space habitats/workstations ?
>>    The savings on initial cost and on launch weight should be very great.
>>    Add to that the large size and configurational possibilities and you
>>    have an incredibly good deal. Modern materials, esp tri-weave carbon
>>    fiber, could strengthen an envelope and protect against ripping or
>>    [...]

> Well, I think NASA has been doing some nice research on how several materials
> cope with LEO atomic oxygen and radiation. If it turns out those THIN walls
> can't do it, it would have been too soon to talk about inflatable structures
> ...
> Despite that possibility (I hope those materials can do it) the idea seems fascinating from the ecenomic point of view!

    I have heard a number of people claim that atomic oxygen would
    be a problem for inflatable space stations. While this is a
    very reactive substance, I cannot imagine that a suitible
    protective coating is unavailible. Even a few microns of
    vapor-deposited gold should supply considerable resistance
    to atomic oxygen. Vapor-deposition also allows stuff like
    silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide or other ceramics to be
    'painted' on. I have never seen any reports about how well
    stable plastics like teflon cope with O-1 ... though you
    would have to overcoat it with aluminum or gold to keep
    the UV away.

    If O-1 is such a stickie-wickie though, the obvious solution
    is to opt for a higher orbit. Proper disposition of equipment
    and water/fuel chambers around the exterior perimiter would
    give considerable radiation protection - probably better than
    for 'Freedom'. At a higher orbit, these large-volume
    structures would be ideal 'warehouses' for spare materials
    and could be used as a refuge in case some prob made it
    impossible to leave orbit in a shuttle - stuck doors, main
    engine failure, heavy tile damage etc..

    Anyway, this idea, or slightly armored versions of it, seem
    so incredibly economical and simple that only evil politics
    could be behind their suppression - not engineering probs.
    One poster claimed to me that Livermore Labs had claimed
    inflatables could supply all the functionality of 'Freedom'
    for 1/10 the cost ... and they were told to butt out. With
    money tight - it is obvious that there is a lot more interest
    by contractors in stealing every availible penny of govt
    money they can than there is a dream of a new frontier.
    Ten 'Freedom' equivalent stations instead of just one
    ultra-expensive, vibration-plagued, ultra-custom station
    would do a lot to further the utility of space.

    Write your congresspersons and senators ... tell them you
    have heard of this better way ... tell them you are
    disinclined to vote for people that spend ten times what
    is required for projects. The incumbents are more afraid
    for their jobs this year than in a very long time. Voter
    leverage is magnified. Take advantage.

-- Jim Mason