Random thought while watching Cosmos.

Why don't we use Kevlar balloons as space ships?

We could create an air tight balloon, use it as the bulk of the structure of a module in the ISS, and shield it with additional material after its up there.

Be perfect for a green house or aeroponics bay as safety would not be as vital.

Take a step forward, and at some point we could 3d print these balloons already in orbit, with the cost to weight ratio being cheaper.

Also with materials like Nanocellulose the means of production of raw material in theory could also be done in orbit as it uses algae and can be used to create one of the best insulators of heat ever, Aerogel.

SO yea, just a random thought I had.

A good idea. The hard part would be getting the materials up there and setting it up. There would have to be a way for spacecraft to dock on the balloon so that its inhabitants could come and go. Plus the international space station is pretty useful already. I'm sure NASA scientists have considered anything and everything. Also Kevlar could be a risky material to use considering its vulnerability to space rocks which travel at thousands of miles per hour and often get pulled into the Earth's gravitational field. Not sure about its vulnerability to solar events either.

reply to post by ghostfacekilah00

Proper design could minimize risk, Kevlar is just one material.

The fittings for standard docks could be pre installed prelaunch.

The tensel strength if the material and vacuum of space would provide rigidity, also it could be made in a manner to minimize impact damage, say a layered membrain of cells in between skin so even if a section is punctured that section is compromised but the hole remains.

Much like a boat or modern air ship, weight would be reduced as it's cloth or meta materials, and compartments would add safety.

reply to post by benrl


I get what you're saying. The only thing I'm wondering is how they would get it up into space, especially if the fittings for standard docks were installed before launch. I mean it's already really dangerous just sending a missile-shaped space shuttle into space, remember the Challenger disaster. The Columbia blew apart on re-entry but that also shows how risky the space program is with current technology. That's the whole reason we cut back on the space program.

reply to post by benrl


Smart idea ... its being researched right now!

Inflatable space habitat

Inflatable habitats or expandable habitats are pressurized structures capable of supporting life in outer space whose internal volume increases after launch. They have frequently been proposed for use in space applications to provide a greater volume of living space for a given mass.

The first serious design and manufacture of an inflatable space habitat was in 1961 with a space station design produced by Goodyear (although this design was never flown). A proposal released in 1989 by Johnson Space Center's Man Systems Division outlined a 16 metres (52 ft) diameter spherical habitat lunar outpost which was partially buried in the lunar surface.

An inflatable module called TransHab (a portmanteau of Trans Habitation) was proposed for the International Space Station, and later the private company Bigelow Aerospace revived the design for use in a number of potential civil and commercial applications.

reply to post by benrl


I am amazed that you had any conscious thoughts at all while watching Cosmos. It has to be the worst documentary I have ever seen on the subject of space. It is so dumbed down, and history oriented,as opposed to being forward thinking and informative, that it is a miracle you did not suffer immediate brain atrophy and fall into a coma.

That said, I like the idea of inflatable habitats and so on. Good thinking Batman!

The truth is, that if the space age is to truly come into its own, the human race will have to start thinking a little more expansively, not only with regard to the technology it uses, but also toward the way space travel is placed in order of importance, when placed along side moronic concepts like defence (read : offence) budgets for example.

reply to post by benrl


Didn't the movie Gravity answer this question? Only it's not the debris of dozens of satellites required, it's just any speck of paint that would have the desired effect if you gave up a rigid hull.
There's very few fields of engineering like space that you can just trust that every decision that's gone into it has a reason for why it won out.

TrueBrit
reply to post by benrl

 

I am amazed that you had any conscious thoughts at all while watching Cosmos. It has to be the worst documentary I have ever seen on the subject of space. It is so dumbed down, and history oriented,as opposed to being forward thinking and informative, that it is a miracle you did not suffer immediate brain atrophy and fall into a coma.

That said, I like the idea of inflatable habitats and so on. Good thinking Batman!

The truth is, that if the space age is to truly come into its own, the human race will have to start thinking a little more expansively, not only with regard to the technology it uses, but also toward the way space travel is placed in order of importance, when placed along side moronic concepts like defence (read : offence) budgets for example.

i'm glad i'm not the only one that thought it was dumbed down, I felt like I was back in grade school...I turned it off after 10 minutes, good graphics kept me watching for that long.

reply to post by jimmyx


There is no question that it looked pretty, but somewhat like a date who spent more time on her make up, than on her conversational skills, was none the less unimpressive.

Kevlar has a limited lifespan even vests made from them are only good for so long so building objects that are to placed in space wouldn't be feasible not to mention the weight issue. There are resins that is stronger than steel but are effected by cold we should be working on a composite material that is lightweight and flexible enough to fit our needs.

reply to post by buster2010


I wonder what graphene would be like in this scenario? I know it is incredibly strong, but I do not know what its limitations are, with regard to temperature.

reply to post by ZonedOut


Seems im always late to the table with these Ideas lol.


TO all the people commenting on the rigid shell loss, the lem and apollo 13 survived with tissue paper.

An impact in space would be catastrophic no matter the material, the key is engineering it to minimize the impact, which means isolation not armor.

reply to post by benrl


Kind of reminds me of that old question
Why don't they build the whole plane out of the material they build the black box out of. You know the stuff that survives a crash?

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by benrl

 

Kind of reminds me of that old question
Why don't they build the whole plane out of the material they build the black box out of. You know the stuff that survives a crash?

Because a black box is small and rigid, with little empty space inside. A plane is more like a tin can or soda can, which you can crush in your hand.

reply to post by TrueBrit

I am amazed that you had any conscious thoughts at all while watching Cosmos. It has to be the worst documentary I have ever seen on the subject of space. It is so dumbed down, and history oriented,as opposed to being forward thinking and informative, that it is a miracle you did not suffer immediate brain atrophy and fall into a coma.

OK. Thanks for your opinion. here's mine:

'Cosmos' is not 'on the subject of space'. It is on the subject of humanity's understanding of the universe. That understanding has a history of change. The structure of the program pretty much follows that of the Carl Sagan original but with updated technology and most importantly, updated material. The show is intended to reach as wide an audience as possible, from school kids to adults, and on that level it succeeds extremely well; it is not a University course in astrophysics. The graphics were beyond gorgeous.

Having said that, I did find the use of cartoons to tell the story of Bruno distracting. I also wanted more 'pop' in the sound track - better use of my surround sound system. At least in Australia it was broadcast in decidedly inferior 2 channel stereo.

benrl
Why don't we use Kevlar balloons as space ships?

We could create an air tight balloon, use it as the bulk of the structure of a module in the ISS, and shield it with additional material after its up there.

Be perfect for a green house or aeroponics bay as safety would not be as vital.

Take a step forward, and at some point we could 3d print these balloons already in orbit, with the cost to weight ratio being cheaper.

Also with materials like Nanocellulose the means of production of raw material in theory could also be done in orbit as it uses algae and can be used to create one of the best insulators of heat ever, Aerogel.

SO yea, just a random thought I had.

edit on 17-3-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-3-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)

The real problem is it is so EASY to type ideas like this when you don't have to do any real problem solving, it took 13 years to build the ISS in controlled conditions on the ground and then get it assembled in orbit, it's great coming up with theories when you don't have to consider practicalities.

Would you feel safe in a space module that is not solid? I wouldn't.