NanoRacks Eyes Private Airlock on Space Station
NanoRacks is proposing to spend $12 to $15 million on a private airlock that would allow it to launch more satellites off the International Space Station.
NASA is interested, and it may give NanoRacks approval to proceed with developing the airlock as soon as next month. The agency and its primary station contractor, Boeing, are conducting a formal assessment to see if the airlock can be safely integrated into the station. “We’ve very intrigued by it, and we haven’t found any showstoppers so far,” Mike Read, manager of the space station National Lab Office at Johnson Space Center, told Ars.
If approved by NASA, the airlock, which NanoRacks has dubbed the “Doorway to Space,” could launch as early as 2018 inside the trunk of a SpaceX Dragon capsule. The company says it could use the airlock as many as 12 times a year.
NanoRacks is proposing to build a large, half-cylinder-shaped airlock about two meters in diameter and 1.8 meters long. The airlock would attach to the end of the station’s Node 3 module, near the cupola. It would connect via a common berthing mechanism, or CBM, and then be pressurized. After pressurization, the hatch could be opened and the airlock configured for various tasks.
For commercial opportunities, NanoRacks has a small satellite launcher, and it is also designing a “haybale” system to launch as many as 192 cubesats at a time. After the airlock is configured, it would be depressurized and sealed. Then a station robotic arm could grab it, move it away from the vehicle, and deploy its payloads.
NASA is also interested in the opportunity to potentially fix large, external components of the space station….With a larger airlock, damaged components could be brought inside the station, assessed, and possibly fixed, saving NASA the expense of building and delivering a new unit to the station—or losing a valuable spare. Finally, the space agency could use the airlock to dispose of trash that accumulates on station and can be difficult to get rid of.
Read the full story.
19 responses to “NanoRacks Eyes Private Airlock on Space Station”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Because…. we’re not creating orbital debris fast enough?
One of the nice things about that low orbit for small satellites, is the inherent and relatively rapid orbital decay, meaning they will de-orbit even if their control systems fail.
Bigelow BEAM would be ideal design as an airlock.
—
Editted.
Inflatable modules do not like variable pressure cycles. They derive their strength and stability from the hoop tension of constant pressure.
There is a reason while all of the airlocks on Bigelow’s models are rigid attachments on the hubs.
BA is the one suggesting using their BEAM can be used for an Airlock. Apparently, they have the ability to stiffen one of the layers, or will use an inner frame.
And to be honest, it actually makes sense. It would be one thing if the pressure reversed, but, it is not. It is simply pressure going down to zero and then back up to ISS pressure ( basically, sea level).
When did they suggest this?
BEAM is already built and it has no docking or berthing hatch where an IDA could be attached.
For their B330 and similar habitat modules, there’s a rigid central core, docking to that can be achieved at either end. BEAM lacks that supportive structure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
Sorry, my brain faded for a moment conflating “airlock” with “docking node.”
I would still like to see where Bigelow suggested this, as opposed to where someone who isn’t Bigelow claiming it on Wikipedia.
It does sound somewhat implausible, as the air pressure in BEAM is what gives it structure.
did you read the archived link that it pointed to?
It was bob bigelow saying that.
http://www.webcitation.org/…
And I am guessing that they can do like a tent and have an internal structure that pops-out on the inside.
However, IIRC, one of their layers is able to be stiffened/hardened.
I’m sure Bigelow would say that it slices bread and makes coffee if it got someone to listen to his pitch.
a lot of ppl said that same thing about Musk and Bezo.
And yet, there they are.
Bigelow is just waiting for a human launcher.
No doubt. Its the mark of a good salesman to “embellish” as much as you can get away with.. 😉
No, I just read the page you linked, rather than chasing other links.
That sounds like he’s not suggesting the BEAM module going to the ISS would do this, but rather another module, which makes a lot more sense.
Yes. I was not suggesting that BEAM was an airlock, just that it is the basis of one.
The BEAM could be used to dispose of large quantities of trash. Fill it up, disconnect and allow to deorbit.
I believe that is the plan.
ISS, with a $75 Billion price tag, has a finite life – 2024, maybe 2028. NASA should be hanging everything short of used Christmas trees on ISS at this point. Kudos to NanoRacks.
The more the ISS masses the more expensive and harder it gets to keep it together and in orbit. That is why it doesn’t look like a Christmas tree festooned with all resupply modules that have been sent up to it.
The life of the ISS is based mostly on how long the contractors would guarantee it. The structure will last for a long time, decades more. It is the systems and fittings, like the cooling system, solar panels, etc. that are going to wear out and jeopardize it first. But they would be cheap to refit compared to rebuilding from node zero again.
Unfortunately, putting their old used space station into the shop for repairs isn’t sexy enough for the space agencies, and so they want to trade it in (actually throw it away) for something shiny and new. It wasn’t their money after all.
Like an unwanted inherited house with a bunch of heirs, no one wants to take responsibility or figure out the way to split the cost/price of selling it to a third party, private or sovereign. So, yeah, it will be a epic waste when they let it return to Earth a molecule at a time.
The life time of ISS has less to do with physical longevity; yes, its infrastructure and not specifically the modules. The life expectancy is dependent on the NASA annual budgets over the next ten years and whether they can maintain it to 2028 and still take substantial steps towards Mars. Right now 2024 is a pretty sure thing. It provides time for further research (like it or not) and Commercial Crew flights providing revenue to contractors and experience – ROI.
There are physical limits such as power supply but ISS’s upgrades and research have been slow due to red tape – doing business with a human-rated vehicle, limits on delivering materials and the available man-hours in ISS. They created CASIS in 2011 to try to accelerate ISS utilization and it has helped some. I’d add that CASIS has to compete and evaluate proposals and just that takes time. With a budget of $15M, it seems like a shoestring operation.