Author Topic: Bigelow and ULA Announce Agreement to Place a B330 Hab in Low Lunar Orbit  (Read 41197 times)

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 660
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 737
Lets do it new space style... either team up with Axion have them handle Logistics & Station Support... and also send one to DSG.... steal some underpants... fund BA-2100 and launch that to LEO & DSG... :D

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Could we get a kilo of whatever ULA/Bigelow are smoking?

It's grown in Hawthorne.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086

Bigelow probably can't get a User's Guide for BFR - a rocket that doesn't even yet have a name.
(fan)
It has a name. Just not one that you, or Elon, likes.

(mod)
Can we stay focused on this announcement and not turn this into a SpaceX thread?
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline LastStarFighter

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Europa
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 11
“The B330 would launch to Low Earth Orbit on a Vulcan 562 configuration rocket, the only commercial launch vehicle in development today with sufficient performance and a large enough payload fairing to carry the habitat.”

This is just blatantly false.
Vulcan fairing will be 5.4 meters diameter.  Falcon fairing is 5.2 meters diameter. NGL fairing will be 5.25 meters diameter.  New Glenn fairing was to be 5.1 meters diameter for the two-stage version, but that was just recently changed to 7 meters.

 - Ed Kyle

What about the height of the fairing? If I remember correctly the Atlas/vulcan fairing is significantly longer than the spacex fairing (35ft vs 22ft for the cylinder and 52ft vs 36ft with the cone). The BA330 seems pretty tall to me. I'm guessing that's the fairing part they refer to? I haven't seen how long the fairing for NG or SpaceX's next vehicle are. 

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
“The B330 would launch to Low Earth Orbit on a Vulcan 562 configuration rocket, the only commercial launch vehicle in development today with sufficient performance and a large enough payload fairing to carry the habitat.”

This is just blatantly false.
Vulcan fairing will be 5.4 meters diameter.  Falcon fairing is 5.2 meters diameter. NGL fairing will be 5.25 meters diameter.  New Glenn fairing was to be 5.1 meters diameter for the two-stage version, but that was just recently changed to 7 meters.

 - Ed Kyle
The recent change was the removal of the smaller fairing option, not the addition of a larger fairing. The fairing sizes and number of stages were never correlated, and either way, it would still count as in development.

Also, BFR.
All of the company's 2016 presentation materials that I've seen differentiated the fairing between the two-stage and three-stage versions. 

Bigelow probably can't get a User's Guide for BFR - a rocket that doesn't even yet have a name.

 - Ed Kyle
There has never been a single logical reason to think they would not ever put the larger fairing on the 2 stage version, and they never stated anything like that. Even if they did, the 3 stage version meets all of the conditions in the original statement anyway.

BFR having a name or not is irrelevant. I am pretty sure that they could in fact simply have called up Musk and asked if BFR could lift a B330, not that that is needed to know the answer, since it is obvious from public information.

Your statements are not just wrong, even if they were correct, they do not change the fact that the original statement from the press release is false.

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
What about the height of the fairing? If I remember correctly the Atlas/vulcan fairing is significantly longer than the spacex fairing (35ft vs 22ft for the cylinder and 52ft vs 36ft with the cone). The BA330 seems pretty tall to me. I'm guessing that's the fairing part they refer to? I haven't seen how long the fairing for NG or SpaceX's next vehicle are.

The internal length of Atlas V 5m long fairing is 16.5 meters, New Glenn's scales to about 21m externally.
Internal fairing length of F9/H fairing is 11.4m.
Bigelow's B330 is 16.88m long according to their website.
« Last Edit: 10/18/2017 03:54 am by GWH »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392

Bigelow probably can't get a User's Guide for BFR - a rocket that doesn't even yet have a name.

 - Ed Kyle

Might not have a name (that you like), but it has an engine.

--

This is a little like BO's "deal" with muSpace.

If ULA wants to show serious customers, Bigelow is not the way to go.
« Last Edit: 10/18/2017 03:10 am by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
What I find interesting is the description of the ACES stages carrying 35 tons of propellant to LEO.  That suggests to me that this "distributed launch" plan differs from the method described in the earlier ULA paper, which showed one launch carrying propellant in a tank stacked atop the stage that would transfer its propellant to a second stage orbited with a payload on top.  ACES is supposed to carry almost 70 tonnes of propellant fully loaded, so these two stages must be using some of their propellant for ascent, with one of them transferring its remaining propellant to the other.  I'm guessing.

 - Ed Kyle

The 2 stages would use all their propellant for ascent, carrying tanks that after boil off work out to 30mt each.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Extended_Duration/Distributed-Launch-2015.pdf
« Last Edit: 10/18/2017 04:18 am by GWH »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Apropos for ULA on Vulcan critical large payload deployment and ACES distributed launch. It also demonstrates with a mission several key capabilities that other customers would find interesting for different application. Smart.

Note also the soft capture mechanism in place of the payload adapter, and the fact that you could many times relocate an on orbit payload. Also, the demonstration of cost effectively replenishing on orbit assets with already operating, economic, rapid turnover COTS (and soon CC) vehicles should not be lost on various mission planners.

This nicely positions ULA as expert in difficult missions, with on orbit propulsion and specialized LV to accomplish them. Like a surgeon setting up a concise practice to deal with a high end practice that no one else could compete with.

Yes, this could insure ULA's survival. The irony is that many rival advocates completely miss the significance of where ULA wins, thinking that with a few tweaks another could pull off same, totally overlooking that bulk payloads on a commodity launch system would have to incorporate too much into the payloads to achieve the same effect, delaying them.

So the ULA aspects of this visualization as a system for complex payloads is very appealing.

The Bigelow side less so. While the LEO outfitting and shakedown make the concept viable (and desirable for possible refit), the difficulty is with the benefit of a hab in LLO.

And if you're "selling" a vision, generally there needs to be a desirable benefit - Musk's tend to fall short in like kind too.

Other than a difficult to reach space hotel (even for unmodified Orion/SLS Block 1B!) , there does not seem to be any facility for such a craft. In short, there appears to be no obvious point in the hab there.

In LLO / "frozen orbit" you want a lander and/or a means to logistically support (props, consumables) access to surface. Having a large hab delays travel to surface and costs to maintain, both of these subtracting from surface access/support/exploration. These are already too high to begin with, so the advantage of LLO in lowering them is immediately lost.

The only exception to this would be a exploration architecture that used minimalist, tiny landers for low cost/duration sorties, relying on an on orbit hab as an operating base to work from.

In the visualization, there are no landers, no distance communications array for Earth and surface operations. Nor enough docking ports for such operations. As well as other means to logistically support such in surface/other exploration.

Perhaps as an extension of the original Bigelow "space station per nation" concept, you could see the cislunar equivalent with this? Where they hang out waiting to participate with major nations lander explorations as "piggy backing" them?

Again, don't see the point.
« Last Edit: 10/18/2017 04:23 am by Space Ghost 1962 »

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
(snip)
Again, don't see the point.

On that we agree
What can only be done by people in LLO?
I can't think of anything.
How does this unknown activity drive the volume of Bigelow's 330?
He has had this same size module on the drawing board for over a decade, for many different purpose, for which it is always ideal according to RB.
Compare that with SpaceX, not their leaders:  Falcon keeps changing size, gaining and losing capacity, as it matures and plans change. Test, learn, and move on.
And if you think SpaceX and Boeing are having hard times convincing ASAP that their capsules are safe, imagine the Bigelow organization trying to work out approval for human rating of the keystone of the flagship American human spaceflight mission.
Hugely expensive, completely expendable, using hardware that is in early development at best, for nebulous goals beyond flag waving.
Not something that inspires confidence.
Maybe it will be the best Pence gets, close to the Moon if not on it, and it gets a few years of support.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline RossD

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The cartoon frames Chris posted and video at post 1342 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30850.1340 (ISS R&D 17) have Bigelow's answers to why. Mainly, political, as in beat or meet the Chinese; also, mine heavy metals, harvest 3He for nuclear energy, and build a casino. Not saying he's realistic...

As for docking landers and such, seems conceivable to rendezvous a node module akin to Unity or Harmony - but why need more than one dock?

The big question I see regarding an LLO station... what's the plan for rad hazard?  Yes, I'm aware of the idea of making the water tank a shelter for CME/solar flares, but with GCR we're not gonna have 8 month missions like we do inside the Van Allen belts (https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-barrier-in-space). Big incentive to keep crews on orbit as little as possible. Pressurize (part of?) a lunar lava tube ASAP? I'm not up to date on current thinking re: how much protection they'll actually offer.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
So this is being pitched as an alternative to the Deep Space Gateway?
No, it's carefully NOT pitched as a DSG alternative. It's pitched as a DSG pre-cursor.


Edit: spelling
« Last Edit: 10/19/2017 06:39 am by woods170 »

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Your statements are not just wrong, even if they were correct, they do not change the fact that the original statement from the press release is false.
"Blue Orgin "Enlarges" Payload Fairing" ...
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-enlarges-new-glenns-payload-fairing-preparing-to-debut-upgraded-new-shepard/

I'm not sure about the press release because I don't recall seeing any public information about the size of a cargo-only "BFR" fairing.  How do you know the size of the fairing?  BFR didn't even exist outside the walls of SpaceX until 18 days ago.  It was a much different animal previously that could not be said to be "under development" in the standard aerospace use of the phrase.  It was a "concept".   

Someone did this analysis on reddit last year.  Suggests that length a differentiator.
https://imgur.com/gi7vElO
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4eeobz/ba330_spacex_fairing_fit_analysis_oc/

 - Ed Kyle
This press release was not 18 days ago, and despite your refusal to accept it, BFR is under development. As is obvious to everyone who so much as looked at the first renders of New Glenn, it has always involved a 7m fairing. Now stop making excuses for ULA's false statement.

The length is something to consider but actually looking at the available information, such as measurements made off of renders, suggests that it shouldn't be an issue.

Offline fregate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 939
  • Space Association of Australia
  • Melbourne Australia
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 14
There are some technical challenges to be resolved:
- automatic rendezvous and side-by side docking of 2 ACES with 40+ tones of cryogenic propellant
- cryogenic fuel transfer
- automatic rendezvous and docking of HEAVIER active ACES with lighter passive B330. 
"Selene, the Moon. Selenginsk, an old town in Siberia: moon-rocket  town" Vladimir Nabokov

Offline TrevorMonty

This paper is from 2009 but still relevant today.
https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/
Exploration/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjF_
NKR9vnWAhXHQpQKHSypD0gQFgiGATAW&usg=AOvVaw3lEPA2KvBXZt9oOy8KG-lk

When written launch prices were $10k/kg now it is closer to $3k/kg, with BFR and NG or NA likely to go <$1k/kg even <$500/kg. Of cause L2 depot can be supplied from asteriod and lunar water.
While ULA would like to provide most of space transport using ACES derived vehicles, once this infrastucture is in place, there is no reason other companies will provide competiting vehicles.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

« Last Edit: 10/18/2017 11:22 am by Chris Bergin »

Offline tp1024

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 6
Why is everybody taking ACES as a given?

ULA timelines have very clearly and consistently stated, that the very first flight of ACES is expected "as early as" 2023 - which we all know is code for "yeah, but it's going to slip". Now they are saying a mission requiring at least three launches of ACES, including docking, cryogenic fuel transfer and storage, can easily be done in 2022. Folks, that would require ACES to already have been fully tested - which, at the very least, would require two launches of ACES to demonstrate docking and refuelling.

So now we are talking about five launches that must have occur one year before the very first flight was scheduled. All that on top of a rocket whose first stage engine still doesn't quite exist - and ULA has yet to decide between BE-4 and AR-1.

What is going on?

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48147
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81630
  • Likes Given: 36932
In response to Bigelow tweeting the announcement yesterday:

Quote
So .. it's a marketing campaign
https://twitter.com/DougonTech/status/920491547149459461

Quote
It is one of the many opportunities to begin created a CisLunar economic zone. Been working with Bigelow on this for a couple of years.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/920625985531281408

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/ula-bigelow-expand-association-lunar-depot-plan/
Hard to believe it's been 10 and 11 years since Bigelow launched those 2 modules into LEO.

Still there, still (AFAIK) pressurized.

Now NASA are talking extending BEAM on-orbit time and (maybe) an addition to ISS.

It's been a long time coming.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline TrevorMonty

BA330 needs commercial crew which has been a long time coming.


Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Yes, that was the original "Distributed Launch" concept, but I'm not sure the mission description given here matches the 2015 paper concept.  One stage has to dock to the payload, which would be difficult if a giant tank were stacked on top!

 - Ed Kyle
Watch the video, the tank gets tossed.
« Last Edit: 10/18/2017 05:57 pm by GWH »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1