Alex wrote:

> It's just like NASA having a flexible orbital structures program, that
> doesn't work, yet they are not interested in companies like the one I
> work for, who have existing technologies that do work, flexible space
> station modules are no different than flexible decompression chambers,
> except that decompression chambers are far stronger, in the region of
> 5 to 6 times stronger, I suppose they will waste a ton of cash on
> developing stuff that already exists. Just imagine how quickly and
> cheaply you could put an orbital station up if it was made of certain
> types of special fibre and plastic, I did the maths and costings of a
> module 10 meters in diameter and 50 meters long, well within the
> capabilities of an aryan rocket, and it would only cost the same as 3
> NASA space suites, of course this is existing technology and NASA
> doesn't own the patents to it, so I suppose it will cost a few hundred
> million dollars to get to the same point we are, we should all
> remember that the European Space Agency is no better, it chucks money
> away just like NASA, it's just not so blatant about it.

  Are you referring to transhab?