I like how their test stands evolved. Initially they were in a flame trench. Then an engine bay. Then someone thought it would be cool to bulid a temporary building around one just to blow that up too. Now they have a designated, outdoor, purpose lit and specifically built test stand. Very impressive. Sierra really seems to mean it.
Wouldnt it be really funny if the one company who cant stop building bigger habitats partnered up with the one company that cant stop building bigger rockets?
@@tygerbyrn not a lot of stuff but if you watched the other videos from spacebucket you would know why, also Elon did a bunch of bad stuff, the entirety of Brazil is very mad bc Twitter was banned there since Elon didnt wanna pay for a app representative since its "too expensive"
it seems like they can be - the ability to hold the steel plate aka door or window with no problem is initially a surprize, but not really as they worked it out 🎉
I'll believe it when I see it. The list of failed space projects is much longer than the list of successful ones and it's often hard to predict which will work and which will fail. There's more to a space station than an expensive balloon.
Bigelow has had a test inflatable berthed to the ISS for some years now, and it is still in good shape, last I heard I think the company went under after COVID though...
What happens when those layers of material constantly exposed to open space environment and radiation over a long period of time? Have they figured out how long that material can last in such a harsh and unforgiving environment?
I think it'd be interesting if solar panels could be applied to the outside to collect power and give additional protection. Cool if someone can come up with a sleeve system which surrounds this in solar panels and which also collapses down to fit into a similar size rocket.
@@joythought Covering the station in panels isn't the best idea. Half of them would be in shadow all the time while most of them wouldn't reach their maximum efficiency since the round surface would increase the angle to the Sun. It's better to have flat, long solar panels attached somewhere else.
This looks awesome! The design is really elegant - huge volume, very modular (so it's easy to add additional modules) and relatively low cost. I was a fan of Bigelow Aerospace who also did inflatable habitats but they seem to have gone broke. Hopefully Sierra will do much better. I'd love to see inflatable habitats used on the Moon.
i love Sierra space really i do. but get something off the ground already. they say they are fast but at this pace it will be my great grandkids that get to see put into orbit.
Starship alone is 3200m^3 with tanks. And it can be outfitted with all the structures and equipment from the ground, no need to try to shove these in an inflatable from a tiny hole.
Starship would be great to just outfit for certain situations. But these inflatable modules are actually significantly better to use as habitats. The way they are built is ideal for shielding from micro meteorites etc.
@@admarsandbeyond you obviously can't outfit the inside of the Starship tanks with equipment on the ground, you can only pre-install equipment in the ~1000m^3 payload bay.
I like this technology, but I think the critical unstated part to make it useful is what the volume contains. The space station has to be filled with everything that is necessary to live and work in it. How will this be done?
Launching junk into space is the easy part. The hard part is launching habitable volume into space. Which is why ISS has so few modules and yet it's chock full of cargo.
There is currently a Bigelow expandable module connected to the ISS. It passed all the testing in situ, but Bigelow went out of business, hence the module is still connected to the ISS years later, and is currently used for storage.
I assume the rigid central core will be packed with stuff so that once inflated a crew can board the station and use all the stuff packed into the core for at least some of the interior fit-out. Then as already mentioned any additional fittings and equipment that couldn’t be packed into the central core for the initial launch can be taken up to LEO by one or more follow-on cargo launches.
This is seriously exciting stuff! I think LEO stations are the logical way to building and maintaining orbital commercial infrastructure and eventually moving beyond earth. This kind of tech is right on point.
Almost nothing can do that, if the part of debris is large enough. When it comes to small parts, I think a flexible hull may do better than a rigid one, maybe even close a tiny leckage on its own, at least for a short time until it can be repaired.
I've always been a huge fan of the inflatable module concept. I hope to see this type of design come into regular use and proves to be beneficial over the long term.
Taking a page out of the OceanGate disaster, SS has decided to build their enclosure out of concrete for that extra compression strength needed in space.
I remember when I was a kid we use to put a deflated balloon into a few stockings blow it up and then use them as seats, when I got a little older we did the same thing to jack up a car. They are strong but one sharp point, point loading and boom.
Typical pressure vessels on earth are designed to leak before burst. The desirability to this is obvious as a leak can release pressure slowly as opposed to explosively. Materials that achieve this typically have a high yield to ultimate strength ratio and also have high fracture toughness. Annealed steel is typically used here on earth. However the downside is that they are heavy. I see this woven fabric to be risky and problematic over a long period of time. I would feel much more comfortable using metals if my life depended on it.
Fly steel sheet coils up on starship, fill it max capacity. Slap some thrusters and comms gear on a spiral welder, send it up. Weld coke can habitats of any desired diameter.
Metal got used for pressure vessels because it was all that was available for that application when Steam Engines appeared. Composites and Plastics offer signifigant advantages in mass-to-strength. Combining both, as Carbon Overwrap Pressure Vessels, where Carbon Fiber is wrapped around the outside of a Steel vessel and held in tension the whole time, takes advantage of the characteristics of both, while achieving a lower mass overall. In the case of the TransHab/BEAM/LIFE module designes, several of the layers are composites, and several are a metal Mesh made from woven from Wire. (I don't recall if it's Steel or Titanium wire) The "Woven Fabric" description is woefully poor accuracy, as it makes the layman think these are Cotton, Wool or Polyester types of materials, rather then the advanced materials they really are. The advantage of these flexible materials over solid metal panels, is that during heat cycles they are able to change shape, rather then just flexing to the point of cracking in the way an aircraft shell currently does, or the way the ISS's current shells do. These materials age much slower because of that difference, making them signifigantly safer for longer durations.
@@Shrouded_reaperWhy fly a welder, when you can send a tube of bonding agent, same as modern automotive bodies are assembled with. Welding in Space will be reserved for the core structures, the backbones the LIFE habitats can be fitted over. Aluminium skeletons with composite volumes sleeved along them, bit like a Lotus car with metal backbone chassis and Fiberglass or Carbon Fiber tub and panels.
These are test to failure tests. You think they don't know about PRV's? Ignorance and uselessly ignorant opinions have been holding us back for decades. You're just another symptom of a growing disease. Stupid is the next ELE..
Does an aluminum shell unzip like this inflatable? I've never seen a test, but I'd think that aluminum is more likely to puncture locally without an overall failure.
I think you're making the badly flawed assumption that all failure modes are going to mimic the catastrophic over pressure event they tested. Think of the ACTUALL amount of pressure. 15psi. The only thing that unzips like that at those pressures are party balloons.
@@tsbrownieNo. Watch the video again. It burst at about 20% over NASA’s design target but NASA’s design target is to be able to withstand 4x nominal pressure so the burst was actually at almost 5 times expected nominal station pressure.
The smallest versions (285m^3 and 500m^3) are designed to fit into a 5m diameter fairing so they could fly on Falcon 9/Heavy or Vulcan Centaur. The large 1400m^3 version is designed for a 7m diameter fairing, meaning BlueOrigin's New Glenn rocket, and the extra large 5000m^3 version is designed for a 9m diameter fairing, so possibly Starship if/when it develops the ability to deploy large singular payloads (not just Starlink).
I read a book once that said the most efferent way to colonize the Kona, mars,etc was with MULTIPLE vechiles. Earth surface to earth orbit and back. Moon surface to moon orbit and back and finally ORBIT TO ORBIT and space stations can be u see for 5he last.
Ever since space X figured out they could increase their super heavy payloads by over 20% they started drawing up bigger ships, so this is a good thing. specially since Space X could send the whole thing up in one week by the time it's ready at this pace. Also they should look into resins or polymers they could infuse after deployment to make it last longer or be stronger..
I'd really some kind of semi rigid layer, like an expanding foam, or resin to go on the inside once it's inflated. I get that it's bulletproof, but worst case scenario, if it a micro-meteor does put a dime size hole in it, the burst potential turns it into an immediate catastrophe. on the ISS or Tiangong, they could conceivably evacuate the affected module and seal it off. if you're in a ballon and it pops... you're in the vacuum before anyone knows what happened. maybe all the outer layers will prevent that and give it some rigidity even if it loses pressure, but a thick balloon is still a balloon.
It is not clear to me if Sierra is working solely to be part of Orbital Reef or if they also want to launch their modules as separate, individual stations. Does anybody have any insight?
I may have missed it, but is there even a planned space station which would use these larger habitats? Orbital Reef is planned to use smaller ones. It's not clear what Sierra tries to achieve here concretely.
I'd like to see Sierra Space and SpaceX get together and work on this project. It could provide an inexpensive (relatively speaking) in space workshop for projects like upgrade Hubble or provide support for projects like the Polaris Dawn Spacewalk. It could even be used for the initial orbital Lunar Gateway while more durable NASA units are being finalized.
Sierra Space doesn't need SpaceX's help in developing these Space station modules. The largest version on their website may eventually fly on Starship, if SpaceX develops a Starship capable of deploying large payloads, but in the meantime Sierra Space is planning on launching on NewGlenn and contributing to BlueOrigin's Orbital Reef space station. As for use on Gateway, the initial PPE and HALO modules will be ready much sooner than Life.
@@plainText384 While I really want to see Blue Origin "fly", Spacex is already proven. I just think a collaborative effort will be more successful in the long run than either company on it's own. I also think Spacex could be ready to launch Tenacity long before Blue Origin has the New Glenn ready to go. Timing could be the make or break issue in this phase of the space race. Done correctly, all three companies win, no losers.
@oldgandy5355 Dream Chaser Tenacity is not waiting for New Glenn, nor is it planned to ever launch on New Glenn. Dream Chaser will fly on Vulcan Centaur. And it if Dream Chaser was ready, it already would have flown to the ISS. It is only because of delays on Sierra Space's side that they were moved from ULA's second launch of Vulcan Centaur to its fourth. As for collaboration with SpaceX, Sierra may very well launch a smaller version of their LIFE habitat on a Falcon 9. But SpaceX isn't really working on a space station concept of their own, they don't have an answer to BlueOrigin's work on Orbital reef. And SpaceX's Starship is no more proven than BlueOrigin's New Glenn.
In space I can see the harsh environment needing some kind of final external reflective lining so the fabric is protected from UV, and atomic particle infiltration. Something that looks like a mylar cover but better materials.
I believe the usual idea is to store some in the center part and they add anything extra you need later as you go. It is a empty volume, the idea is the customer has it outfitted to meet their needs.
Ultimate Burst Pressure Tests are dramatic and impressive. But, I'd like to see some "Leak" tests, which could be conducted on land or under water. Repairability of a leak from the inside is something I'd like to see. Thanks
I want to see them inflate one to 45 PSI, then fire a few high velocity rounds into it, see what a junk of space debris would do to it. I know they have many layers of protection, but lets see some realistic tests of what space debris and tiny meteorites could do.
@@genelane2243 As a comparison the debris in orbit that could collide with this inflatable space station travels at a much higher velocity than any high velocity rounds on earth.
Those insert plates are not just for windows. They allow hard points for equipment to be attached. Cameras, solar arrays, robotic arms, tether rings, etc. What they become is determined by the prelaunch configuration.
A single Starship is over 3200m^3 in total volume (w tanks) and can launch complete in one go, outfitted from the ground. No need to send the equipment after the inflatable and shove it in through a tiny hatch. It also has build in autonomous propulsion, it extremely easy to modify and repair (with just a welder) and is mass produced so will probably be considerably cheaper. As it will be considerably cheaper to maintain wih spacex huge fleet of spacecraft.
It is always best to have alternative technologies that develop over time. At some point the inflatable technology may give way to large rockets like Starship, but it is way too early to draw such conclusions. imo
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I agree, competition is nice to have. But Starship is almost here right now, modifying one as a space station will be relatively easy. Spacex is already developing advanced life support systems, radiation and micrometeorite protection for HLS, scaling these up will not be that hard with the enormous mass budget it has. Inflatables are tech developed for an old space paradigm were small rocket capability and extreme costs were the norm. Spacex is smashing that model with Starship.
@@admarsandbeyond It will be most interesting to see how far Space X has progressed with starship in five years. It is quite entertaining to watch the progress.
I think the biggest hurdle will be psychological. I can see the evidence and I can understand the engineering, but the animal part of my brain craves the strength and certainty of steel.
They're stronger, lighter and bigger. Plus no metal fatigue which is killing the ISS now. I don't know why NASA has imposed a much higher strength requirement than the ISS, the ISS is flimsy compared to these things, especially in impact resistance. But it hasn't been a problem anyway, so why not.
Assuming the big one is launched (on Starship) what size airlocks would it have and how will you get the furniture in? If it is damaged how will one make repairs in space and would how would NASA certify the repairs? How safe would the accommodation be if it were damaged or punctured how safe would the astronauts be ? I suppose the answer would be to launch and assemble 2 or 3 habitats but that would require at least 2 interconnecting docking assembles which i would assume for reasons of safety would be of metal construction. There ia a lot of design and thought going the have to go into this !
Everything would have to pass through whatever airlock system they use. That would be incorporated into the design of everything. How safe things are after a puncture has a thousand answers for the thousand different scenarios. It's 1 atm of pressure so most holes can be patched by a simple patch and glue, at least in the short term. Of course that depends on the size of the hole and how fast the hole maker was moving and what else it might have hit on it's way through the station.
If they say it'll protect against micro meteorites, then when are they going to inflate one and shoot it with a pellet from a coil or rail gun accelerated to hyper-sonic speeds to see if it bounces off or zips right on through?
these modules still cost a few million each so the tech isnt really practical for earth based housing though they might be useful for early lunar construction
The first thing I wondered is, with all those layers, how do you repair a puncture? I can see from the design that a puncture from a micrometeoroid or a small piece of space junk wouldn't cause catastrophic failure, but couldn't it go through several layers? And wouldn't the crew want to repair all of them? What about the layers you just can't get to?
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom - The same reason there are multiple layers in the first place: redundancy. In space, you always want it. Even the back-ups have back-ups.
@@racookster I’m not sure how thick the multi-layer material is but one option might be to have quick single-layer airtight patches to prevent atmosphere loss to be applied quickly while the “we have a leak” emergency is in effect and then once the situation is stabilised have a full multilayer patch applied on top of it but still on the inside. There would then be no need to fix the original layers because if by some unbelievable miracle another micrometeorite hit the station on exactly the same square mm of its surface and at exactly the same angle to take it through the hole caused by the previous hit it would then impact a whole new full multilayer structure in the form of the internal patch. If the material (I.e. the multilayer patch) is thick then that bit of the internal skin would look pretty ugly, as if it had a massive wart on it, but it would restore full multilayered protection to the area of the micrometeoroid strike.
Scott Manley did a video on this subject a while back. And explained that the space station would have to be well over one hundred meters across ( if memory serves) and rotating at the proper velocity to even begin to mitigate the effects of microgravity. If the unit is so small in diameter there would be a difference in the gravitational effect of a person's feet vs his head. In other words the development of such a system is far more complicated than you realize.
I hope these habitats are not a single large room layout but have pressure bulkheads so If explosive decompression occurs then crew have a safe place to go and suit up and survive.
It takes a big hole to decompress explosively. If something that big hits it, they have other problems. It's also likely that if something that big hits no part of any station would survive.
@TheEvilmooseofdoom well not precisely...the hole doesn't have to be that big. During the end of WWII and early cold war explosive decompression happened in pressurized bombers and early pressurized passenger airliners. And those aircraft were pressurized to only 8000 feet with flying at 35+thousand feet ASL. Reports of crewmen or passengers sucked out through small holes in a fuselage or blown out window were not uncommon. So hole size ain't necessarily an issue. My only point in space catastrophic decompression is not a good thing in any kind of space craft.
@TheEvilmooseofdoom You have a pressurized balloon in a near vacuum. What happens when the pressurized air inside the balloon finds a way towards the vacuum? Not only will it put additional stress on material around the puncture, but it might also cause damage inside the balloon due to the suction force that will be created. I am sure the research team must have thought of this scenario and how to avoid it. But yes, if this happens, not a lot of time in hand to save yourself.
I look forward to humans having larger space stations don't feel like living in a submarine. Even the Chinese space station looks a lot more spacious than the ISS! That could just be because it's newer and doesn't have wires running around all over the place though.
Vectran? Really? Its limitations seem like a deal killer to me. It is only good up to a bit over 200°C, *and it has big problems with UV radiation* making it weaker and brittle. Oh sure you can add even more extra weight by painting it, but what happens if that paint gets scraped or flaked off in just one little spot?? Are they going to check this daily? These are *major problems* in space, where 200°C and higher is very common at our distance from the Sun. An alternative that is far more durable is basalt fibers. Most variants have working temps up to 1000°C with some recipes maxxing out at 1200°C. Also UV radiation does nothing to basalt fibers. Basalt fiber is significantly stronger than even kevlar, which is even worse than vectran for melting and UV exposure. Basalt fiber exhibits the highest tensile strength among the three, with a value of 4,800 MPa. Kevlar fiber has a tensile strength of 3,620 MPa, which is significantly lower than Basalt but higher than Vectran. Vectran fiber has a tensile strength of approximately 2,300 MPa, which is lower than both Basalt and Kevlar.
The Vectran layer has several layers of insulation above it negating your objections. Also, do you not think that the engineers designing this have thought about that?
Gonna have to let go of the romanticism of looking out of a window, camers and screens is better than compromising the structure for the sake of a tiny window
We humans need romanticism, otherwise we wouldn't send humans to space in the first place. After all, robots, drones and space rovers don't need oxygen and are more economical!
These spaces would revolutionize the accommodations in a space station. People need space. Heck, do a running track to exercise. People need volume for our psychology. Just like ISS has astronauts retreat to their capsules during space debris "storms," so this works.
The whole point of developing an inflatable space station module like this INCLUDES the necessary testing for impacts from space debris. That is part of the reason for the many layers of varied material. In other words the project developers are way ahead of you in addressing concerns of it being punctured.
Cars can and do get in accidents and people die. Gas explosions happen in homes killing the residents. Technology is constantly being developed to improve the quality of life and in everything we do there is inherent risk. If you don't want to take on higher risk in the world then don't plan to become an astronaut. Stick with something more secure and with less risk.
