Note: Click on thumbnails for full-size images.
Jim Oberg has a nice feature article in the February IEEE Spectrum about his visit last year to Bigelow Aerospace's facility in Las Vegas. The article has lots of good detail, including the fact that Genesis I, Bigelow's first test module, has an outer skin of 6 inches (15 cm) thick, while the production module will have an outer skin of 16 inches (40 cm) thick. The Genesis I has one window that is 4 inches (10 cm) wide. Here is the amazing view from the Genesis I, which Bigelow released recently. You can click on the picture for a much larger version.
The view of Earth from the Bigelow Aerospace Genesis I module, released January 16, 2007.
Obviously, a 4-inch wide window isn't wide enough to do this view justice. But all of the Bigelow conceptual artwork that I have seen includes very few, very small windows on its big modules. Are large windows too much of a luxury on these big modules? Perhaps so. The International Space Station (ISS) module Destiny has a 20-inch diameter Earth observational window, which seems small to me.
A picture of the ISS module Destiny, with an arrow pointing to a 20-inch Earth oberservational window.
Maybe Bigelow is moving toward having specific modules for observation, while keeping windows out of the main modules. Perhaps these modules could also act as the intermodule connectors, with attached observatories. Here is Italy's ISS module Cupola, which has seven windows in a configuration reminiscent of Captain Nemo's submarine Nautilus.
Conceptual artwork for Italy's ISS module Cupola.
The module is 2 meters in diameter, 1.5 meter in length, and weighs in at about 2 metric tons -- light enough to be launched by a Dnepr rocket, for instance. The module's main window is a full 31 inches (80 cm) in diameter. The windows are protected by shutters and have individual window heaters. I can see myself star-gazing and Earth-gazing from this module all day long.
The inside of the ISS module Cupola.
This kind of module would seem big enough to cure any claustrophobia that visitors might develop.
The reason why I state that Bigelow might be moving toward this sort of approach is that Bigelow's conceptual artwork includes attached mini-modules from its intermodule connectors. Are these mini-modules actually observatories? Look closely.
Bigelow Aerospace conceptual artwork for a three BA 330-module space station.
If so, I can't wait to experience the view for myself!
"Cupola" is not the name of a module - that piece of hardware is CALLED the cupola, and it has been part the Space Station design since the Phase B studies in the '80s. There were to be cupola's on the + and - z ports of two nodes. They are intended to provide direct viewing in support of Station or Shuttle RMS ops, EVA and (originally) OMV prox-ops. The name comes from architecture - cupolas are common features of barns, old houses, churches and municipal buildings. We never considered the cupola a module and, in fact, in the SSF design, it was launched already mounted on the node (on flight MB-5).
On the other topic - yes, large windows are a HUGE issue in S/C design. They add weight, complexity and risk in a conventional aluminum structure, and I expect are even more challenging in an inflatable module.
The window in the US Lab module was not put there for sightseeing. It is made of UV-transparent quartz (or at least it still was when I left the program) to support remote sensing and solar science. It also has a history that illustrates the nature of government contracting -
during one of the periodic Space Station Freedom budget scrubs, NASA proposed deleting the window. Within a few days, this raised loud protests from the scientific community. We also found that Boeing projected that the cost saving would be minimal (IIRC, about $1M). NASA then reversed the decision. Boeing then asked for (IIRC) $10 - 15M to "add" the window back. Keep in mind that this was before CDR and no drawing changes could have been made in the few days that had elapsed.
Posted by: Paul in Brookline | February 07, 2007 at 02:14 PM