NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Commercial Space Flight General => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 01/12/2013 11:20 PM

Title: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/12/2013 11:20 PM
Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15581.0

Thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26545.0

News articles with Bigelow references from this site:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=Bigelow

Latest article - by Pete Harding:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/expanding-on-bigelows-inflatable-module-iss/

Remember to keep it on topic at all times.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: IRobot on 01/13/2013 02:19 AM
Interesting. But how would it go from inside the HTV to outside the station?

It also raises another question: why not make it an expendable inflated trash can to be taken down with Dragon?
1- Dragon carries one empty BEAM in the trunk
2- The inflatable module is moved to a docking port
3- It stays there for as long as required, being loaded with high volume, low weight garbage
4- Another Dragon visiting the station would take it on its trunk to be disposed
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: IRobot on 01/13/2013 04:12 PM
Quote
It also raises another question: why not make it an expendable inflated trash can to be taken down with Dragon?
1- Dragon carries one empty BEAM in the trunk
2- The inflatable module is moved to a docking port
3- It stays there for as long as required, being loaded with high volume, low weight garbage
4- Another Dragon visiting the station would take it on its trunk to be disposed

Once it's full of garbage how do you plan to stuff it back into the Dragon trunk?
I was thinking of putting an adapter on the end of the trunk and BEAM is kept outside the boundaries of the trunk. But that would affect cog and would be in the way of the de-orbit burn.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 01/14/2013 02:18 AM
Quote
Quote from: Prober on December 27, 2012, 13:11:04
gaming revenue doesn't = profit.

lol. Yes, less overhead and expenses. I just had a laugh imagining the poor sop who must repair an on orbit keno (30+ years), Madagaskar sweeping below, swearing to himself they weren't paying him enough.   

There were a couple of questions in the old thread that I had been meaning to address.  Kind of falls under update, so without too much discussion:

The projectors were checked out successfully on orbit.  See Attached image.

Space Bingo kind of worked, but required much cajoling, and the results were not all that spectacular.  Therefore no pictures were released.

Not quite as bad, but it wasn't very much fun trying to get Space Bingo to work through a ground link either. 

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: go4mars on 01/14/2013 02:27 AM
I'm not sure which thread to put this on either:

End of life plan (BEAM) is similar to the disposal of the Early Ammonia Servicer.  Using the arm to release the BEAM in such a manner as to cause deorbit.  All portions would be expected to disintegrate on reentry. 
Have there been plans or serious thoughts toward using bigelow technology as something that could intentionally survive entry into Earth or Mars atmosphere (through materials choice or in-space coatings perhaps)?  Inflatable, strong, relatively light-weight multi-use structures also lend themselves to ballutes for example (conventional, doughnut, or sausage)...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 01/14/2013 12:55 PM
Quote
Quote from: Prober on December 27, 2012, 13:11:04
gaming revenue doesn't = profit.

lol. Yes, less overhead and expenses. I just had a laugh imagining the poor sop who must repair an on orbit keno (30+ years), Madagaskar sweeping below, swearing to himself they weren't paying him enough.   

There were a couple of questions in the old thread that I had been meaning to address.  Kind of falls under update, so without too much discussion:

The projectors were checked out successfully on orbit.  See Attached image.

Space Bingo kind of worked, but required much cajoling, and the results were not all that spectacular.  Therefore no pictures were released.

Not quite as bad, but it wasn't very much fun trying to get Space Bingo to work through a ground link either. 



this is wild ! thx for the pics.

Not sure If you remember but the big push for the last couple of years has been to establish interent Poker etc from Nevada and other states.  Can see this as an offshoot of this. 

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/14/2013 02:00 PM
Just to be mischievous:

As I understand it, the content of an internet site is regulated by the country that its server is based in.  What if you were to launch a Bigelow just as a floating data centre? Literally a part of the Internet that is not governed by any terrestrial law.  Have it regularly visited for maintenance (maybe a second BA-330 as the engineer's workshop and spares store).  I'm sure that there are some debatbly-ethical web-based businesses who would welcome such a facility and be willing to pay handsomely for the freedom it offers them to send an infinite amount of SPAM.

I'm sure that it would only last for a while before someone comes up with a way to regulate it, which is all the more reason to book your space on the drives now before the loophole closes!  ;D
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 01/14/2013 02:09 PM
Just to be mischievous:

As I understand it, the content of an internet site is regulated by the country that its server is based in.  What if you were to launch a Bigelow just as a floating data centre? Literally a part of the Internet that is not governed by any terrestrial law.  Have it regularly visited for maintenance (maybe a second BA-330 as the engineer's workshop and spares store).  I'm sure that there are some debatbly-ethical web-based businesses who would welcome such a facility and be willing to pay handsomely for the freedom it offers them to send an infinite amount of SPAM.

I'm sure that it would only last for a while before someone comes up with a way to regulate it, which is all the more reason to book your space on the drives now before the loophole closes!  ;D

1) Unless you send it to GSO, are you aware of the bandwidth cost of LEO relay networks?
2) A satellite has to have an owner. Among other things, it's about ultimate responsibility as space debris and in case it hits something when falling. If it has ITAR components, it's going to have some US jurisdiction. But for the particular case of Bigelow, it has to launch under US jurisdiction.
It's much cheaper to have a boat registered to a game friendly country. And then you can use whatever connection you want (and can afford).
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 01/14/2013 02:42 PM
I'm not sure which thread to put this on either:

End of life plan (BEAM) is similar to the disposal of the Early Ammonia Servicer.  Using the arm to release the BEAM in such a manner as to cause deorbit.  All portions would be expected to disintegrate on reentry. 
Have there been plans or serious thoughts toward using bigelow technology as something that could intentionally survive entry into Earth or Mars atmosphere (through materials choice or in-space coatings perhaps)?  Inflatable, strong, relatively light-weight multi-use structures also lend themselves to ballutes for example (conventional, doughnut, or sausage)...

Yes.

There may be some value in using inflatable structures to land on Mars.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: luksol on 01/15/2013 08:54 AM
I'm not sure which thread to put this on either:

End of life plan (BEAM) is similar to the disposal of the Early Ammonia Servicer.  Using the arm to release the BEAM in such a manner as to cause deorbit.  All portions would be expected to disintegrate on reentry. 
Have there been plans or serious thoughts toward using bigelow technology as something that could intentionally survive entry into Earth or Mars atmosphere (through materials choice or in-space coatings perhaps)?  Inflatable, strong, relatively light-weight multi-use structures also lend themselves to ballutes for example (conventional, doughnut, or sausage)...

Yes.

There may be some value in using inflatable structures to land on Mars.


It could be used on Earth as well.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 01/15/2013 04:57 PM
I'm not sure which thread to put this on either:

End of life plan (BEAM) is similar to the disposal of the Early Ammonia Servicer.  Using the arm to release the BEAM in such a manner as to cause deorbit.  All portions would be expected to disintegrate on reentry. 
Have there been plans or serious thoughts toward using bigelow technology as something that could intentionally survive entry into Earth or Mars atmosphere (through materials choice or in-space coatings perhaps)?  Inflatable, strong, relatively light-weight multi-use structures also lend themselves to ballutes for example (conventional, doughnut, or sausage)...

Yes.

There may be some value in using inflatable structures to land on Mars.


It could be used on Earth as well.

Yep. Lavochkin has some interesting designs in this regard. However, the Qualified Customer (NASA) is probably more interested in landing large structures on Mars rather than this planet.

I would imagine that some Super SkyCrane and an inflatable habitat would make a useful system for supporting humans on Mars.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 01/15/2013 04:59 PM
End of life plan (BEAM) is similar to the disposal of the Early Ammonia Servicer.  Using the arm to release the BEAM in such a manner as to cause deorbit.  All portions would be expected to disintegrate on reentry. 

Can the station arm reach BEAM if BEAM is installed on a hypothetical Node 4? If so, do the kinematics allow the arm to actually manipulate BEAM in he manner described above?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: IRobot on 01/15/2013 07:11 PM
Just to be mischievous:

As I understand it, the content of an internet site is regulated by the country that its server is based in.  What if you were to launch a Bigelow just as a floating data centre? Literally a part of the Internet that is not governed by any terrestrial law.  Have it regularly visited for maintenance (maybe a second BA-330 as the engineer's workshop and spares store).  I'm sure that there are some debatbly-ethical web-based businesses who would welcome such a facility and be willing to pay handsomely for the freedom it offers them to send an infinite amount of SPAM.

I'm sure that it would only last for a while before someone comes up with a way to regulate it, which is all the more reason to book your space on the drives now before the loophole closes!  ;D

Do you see datacenters in North Korea? The physical location is not all that matters. An individual or company can be sued even if the servers are in other countries. No need for new laws.
Also you can simply ban the ip/dns name.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: StephenB on 01/15/2013 07:28 PM
Space.com: Inflatable Private Space Stations: Bigelow's Big Dream (http://www.space.com/19260-private-space-stations-bigelow-aerospace.html)
Quote
Both Genesis habitats are 14.4 feet long by 8.3 feet wide (4.4 by 2.5 meters), with about 406 cubic feet (11.5 cubic m) of pressurized volume. The BEAM module that will be attached to the International Space Station in two years or so will likely be of similar size.
Is this part new info?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/16/2013 11:20 AM
Space.com: Inflatable Private Space Stations: Bigelow's Big Dream (http://www.space.com/19260-private-space-stations-bigelow-aerospace.html)
Quote
Both Genesis habitats are 14.4 feet long by 8.3 feet wide (4.4 by 2.5 meters), with about 406 cubic feet (11.5 cubic m) of pressurized volume. The BEAM module that will be attached to the International Space Station in two years or so will likely be of similar size.

Is this part new info?

Not really.  Every graphic I've seen of BEAM to date is a fairly small object, either spherical or a donut shape, that is only about the diameter of a Spacelab module at its widest point and is much shorter than even the MPLMs.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Occupymars on 01/16/2013 01:05 PM
"The first inflatable product designed to support crew will be launched in late 2015 aboard a Falcon 9 rocket made by SpaceX. The module, known as the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module, will travel in the cargo hold of a Dragon spacecraft, also made by SpaceX, according to Bigelow" this was posted by businessweek in their article about the BEAM >http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-16/nasa-goes-ikea-to-test-inflatable-annex-for-space-station (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-16/nasa-goes-ikea-to-test-inflatable-annex-for-space-station)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: GBpatsfan on 01/16/2013 01:29 PM
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-bigelow-nasa-space-station-20130115,0,3058452.story

Nice to see the current concept images
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/16/2013 02:05 PM
"The first inflatable product designed to support crew will be launched in late 2015 aboard a Falcon 9 rocket made by SpaceX. The module, known as the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module, will travel in the cargo hold of a Dragon spacecraft, also made by SpaceX, according to Bigelow" this was posted by businessweek in their article about the BEAM >http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-16/nasa-goes-ikea-to-test-inflatable-annex-for-space-station (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-16/nasa-goes-ikea-to-test-inflatable-annex-for-space-station)

Confirmation. This is by far the cheapest way to do it.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 01/16/2013 02:08 PM
Interesting that it can be transported in a Dragon Trunk.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Longhorn John on 01/16/2013 03:13 PM
Did you guys fail to read Chris and Pete's article? This has all been reported already.

Check out the news site, it'll help you.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Occupymars on 01/16/2013 03:43 PM
Did you guys fail to read Chris and Pete's article? This has all been reported already.

Check out the news site, it'll help you.
Chris and Pete's article speculates that the BEAM module will be transported by the dragons trunk. A reputable organization Bloomberg Businessweek in their article(16/01/12) claims that they were told by bigelow that this is indeed the case. If that's not worth reporting then I don't know what is.  (http://www.bloomberg.com/image/iSgm.4y8PLx0.jpg)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/16/2013 06:53 PM
Apparently, Bigelow plans to have two BEAM units ready by 2016.  One is the spare, of course, but that got me thinking.

Possible BEAM Application
HSF Mission Module

* Modified BEAM with Dragonrider- or CST-100-derived life support on the opposite side to the docking port;
* Base permanently attached to Falcon-9 upper stage, which will also provide RCS and, through Dragon-type solar arrays, electrical power;
* Dragon rides on top of BEAM or, if a Bigelow mission, the module will be enclosed with a SpaceX-standard 5.2m PLF.  Alternate launch vehicle is either EELV-M (Delta-IV (5,4) or Atlas-V-5x2);
* Central spine of module has five or six 'flower petal' work station mountings that fold out to the full width of the module from flush against the spine as the module inflates.

The module could fly underneath a Dragon when launched by Falcon Heavy for a single launch multi-week mission.  Application: Lower-cost space tourism or short-term science.  The module could also fly attached to a Golden Spike-style Centaur EDS as the hab module for a lunar fly-around or orbiter mission.

Reason for being: Possible Bigelow competitor to DragonLab.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Occupymars on 01/16/2013 07:23 PM
Bigelow Expandable Activity Module Installation Animation> :) http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/beam_feature.html (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/beam_feature.html) note: from the looks of this animation transportation of the BEAM to iss will not need an extended dragon trunk.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/16/2013 08:20 PM
Apparently, Bigelow plans to have two BEAM units ready by 2016.  One is the spare, of course, but that got me thinking.

Possible BEAM Application
HSF Mission Module

* Modified BEAM with Dragonrider- or CST-100-derived life support on the opposite side to the docking port;
* Base permanently attached to Falcon-9 upper stage, which will also provide RCS and, through Dragon-type solar arrays, electrical power;
* Dragon rides on top of BEAM or, if a Bigelow mission, the module will be enclosed with a SpaceX-standard 5.2m PLF.  Alternate launch vehicle is either EELV-M (Delta-IV (5,4) or Atlas-V-5x2);
* Central spine of module has five or six 'flower petal' work station mountings that fold out to the full width of the module from flush against the spine as the module inflates.

The module could fly underneath a Dragon when launched by Falcon Heavy for a single launch multi-week mission.  Application: Lower-cost space tourism or short-term science.  The module could also fly attached to a Golden Spike-style Centaur EDS as the hab module for a lunar fly-around or orbiter mission.

Reason for being: Possible Bigelow competitor to DragonLab.

If you are going to modify the BEAM you could simply fly a Genesis II.  It already has solar arrays.
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-2-specs.php (http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-2-specs.php)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: rklaehn on 01/16/2013 08:49 PM
Looks like it is roughly spherical and about 3 to 3.5m outer diameter, which would give a pressurized volume of about 14m^3.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 01/16/2013 10:02 PM
Very interesting article on Bigelow's Alpha Station plans with prices:
http://www.space.com/19291-inflatable-alpha-station-bigelow-aerospace.html

Quote
That pricing is being categorized as:

•Astronaut Flight Costs: $26.25 - $36.75 million for a 60-day stay, depending on taxi selected.
•Lease Block Cost: $25 million for exclusive use of and control over 110 cubic meters of volume for a two-month period.
•Naming Rights: Full Alpha Station yearly for $25 million; half of Alpha Station (one BA 330 module) yearly for $12.5 million.
[...]
Bigelow Aerospace would be able to transport an astronaut to Alpha Station for $26.25 million for countries, companies or even visiting individuals that wish to utilize SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule. Using Boeing’s CST-100 capsule and the Atlas 5 rocket, astronauts can be launched to Alpha Station for $36.75 million per seat, company officials said.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 01/16/2013 10:08 PM
High res images have been released
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Space Pete on 01/16/2013 10:19 PM
High res images have been released

That bottom image confirms Node 3 Aft will be the berthing port.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 01/16/2013 10:22 PM
High res images have been released

That bottom image confirms Node 3 Aft will be the berthing port.
It's also in the press release

"Following the arrival of the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft carrying the BEAM to the station, astronauts will use the station's robotic arm to install the module on the aft port of the Tranquility node." (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/beam_feature.html)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: catdlr on 01/16/2013 10:55 PM
NASA to Test Expandable Habitat on ISS

Published on Jan 16, 2013
NASA TV

NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver announced Wednesday a newly planned addition to the International Space Station that will use the orbiting laboratory to test expandable space habitat technology.

NASA has awarded a $17.8 million contract to Bigelow Aerospace to provide a Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM), which is scheduled to arrive at the space station in 2015 for a two-year technology demonstration.

The BEAM is scheduled to launch aboard the eighth SpaceX cargo resupply mission to the station contracted by NASA, currently planned for 2015.

After the module is berthed to the station's Tranquility node, the station crew will activate a pressurization system to expand the structure to its full size using air stored within the packed module. Astronauts periodically will enter the module to gather performance data and perform inspections. Following the test period, the module will be jettisoned from the station, burning up on re-entry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU8H9CcziL0


My 1,000's post  :D
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: 8900 on 01/17/2013 04:44 AM
It is funded and it will be launched. Good news, congrat Bigelow!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Occupymars on 01/17/2013 12:02 PM
http://www.8newsnow.com/category/28259/8-news-now-video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8198764 can't embed ???
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/17/2013 12:09 PM
If you are going to modify the BEAM you could simply fly a Genesis II.  It already has solar arrays.
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-2-specs.php (http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-2-specs.php)

I think Genesis 2 is smaller than BEAM, isn't it?  It also doesn't come with pre-designed end plates for the docking interface and the connection to the launcher's U/S.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Valerij on 01/17/2013 12:12 PM
This is really good news!
I join in the congratulations!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 01/17/2013 01:37 PM
In the video Bigelow confirms they have spent $250m, will spend $250m more & have 2 BA-330's flight ready in 2016.
When has SpaceX said Dragonrider will be ready?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/17/2013 01:47 PM
In the video Bigelow confirms they have spent $250m, will spend $250m more & have 2 BA-330's flight ready in 2016.
When has SpaceX said Dragonrider will be ready?

The first LAS tests are due for 2013/2014.  I, personally, wouldn't be surprised if the first crew flight occurs some time in 2015 but I doubt NASA will use them before 2016 as that is when the Soyuz contract expires.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Comga on 01/17/2013 02:35 PM
In the video Bigelow confirms they have spent $250m, will spend $250m more & have 2 BA-330's flight ready in 2016.
When has SpaceX said Dragonrider will be ready?

The first LAS tests are due for 2013/2014.  I, personally, wouldn't be surprised if the first crew flight occurs some time in 2015 but I doubt NASA will use them before 2016 as that is when the Soyuz contract expires.

The question is not about NASA.  It is not about ISS and Soyuz. It is about SpaceX and Bigelow, DragonRider and BA-330.

SpaceX says that they would have the first DragonRider ready about the same time as Bigelow says he would have the BA-330 spacecraft ready.  That's just what they say, not a prediction or a promise.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: dcporter on 01/17/2013 03:27 PM
The first LAS tests are due for 2013/2014.  I, personally, wouldn't be surprised if the first crew flight occurs some time in 2015 but I doubt NASA will use them before 2016 as that is when the Soyuz contract expires.

The question is not about NASA.  It is not about ISS and Soyuz. It is about SpaceX and Bigelow, DragonRider and BA-330.
[/quote]

No need for that, he was providing some additional contextual information.

SpaceX says that they would have the first DragonRider ready about the same time as Bigelow says he would have the BA-330 spacecraft ready.

I may have misread in passing but I thought that he was gonna have two BEAMs ready by then (one as a backup), not two BA-330s? Anyway you're definitely right that Bigelow is ramping up his efforts again just in time for DragonRider & CST-100 – not a coincidence! =)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 01/17/2013 03:31 PM
In the video Bigelow confirms they have spent $250m, will spend $250m more & have 2 BA-330's flight ready in 2016.
When has SpaceX said Dragonrider will be ready?

According to Forbes, Bigelow's net worth is about $750 million. Another $250 million is a large part of his net worth.   
I suspect that Bigelow could easily delay the launch of the BA-330 if necessary.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 01/17/2013 04:14 PM
What Bigelow's NET Worth is depends on who is calculating it & when they say it. I know he took a beating when the real estate market tanked, but I suspect he's in the $1b range in assets & cash.
I also suspect he needs somebody else to pay for the multiple launches of the 2 BA-330's & associated stuff to get them operational. Whether that's one entity or several remains to be seen.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: jabe on 01/17/2013 04:40 PM
so from the video it seems BEAM will inflate in all directions.  Does this mean the BEAM won't have a solid "beam" going down middle?   I always thought it would have to minimize torque.  But since nothing is on other side of BEAM after it is docked it seems to make sense it doesn't really need one.
jb
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: guckyfan on 01/17/2013 05:17 PM
so from the video it seems BEAM will inflate in all directions.  Does this mean the BEAM won't have a solid "beam" going down middle?   I always thought it would have to minimize torque.  But since nothing is on other side of BEAM after it is docked it seems to make sense it doesn't really need one.
jb

I saw that too in the animation. I imagine there could be a telescopic core that would extend when the module is inflated.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: mr. mark on 01/17/2013 05:32 PM
Not sure if the BEAM module's specs were reported. Here is some more data.

"BEAM is a cylindrical module, like all other ISS modules, and is about somewhat similar in size to the US Harmony module, as BEAM is about 4 meters (13 feet) long and 3.2 meters (10.5 feet) wide; Harmony 7.2 meters (24 ft) in length, and it has a diameter of 4.4 meters (14 ft). But weight is where the two vastly differ: Harmony weighs in 14,288 kilograms (31,500 lb), while BEAM weighs roughly 1,360 kg (3,000 pounds). And that is the big advantage of inflatable structures for use in space: their mass and volume are relatively small when launched, reducing launch costs".

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/99486/nasa-to-beam-up-inflatable-space-station-module/#ixzz2IG72NNi1

 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/17/2013 05:38 PM
Does that count all the equipment inside Harmony? If not, then it's not a fair comparison, except perhaps for crew quarters.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: e of pi on 01/17/2013 06:27 PM
I think Harmony's a poor point of comparison anyway--it's a node, and thus contains 6 CBMs, to BEAM's one. I think an MPLM would make a better comparison.

MPLM: 6.4m long, 4.6m diameter, essentially cylindrical. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Purpose_Logistics_Module#Specifications)
BEAM: 4m long, 3.3m diameter, but very "pumpkin shaped."

An MPLM masses 4,082 kg, and has a volume of about 109 cubic meters. BEAM is maybe 25ish: an ellipsoid 4m long by 3.2 by 3.2 would be 21, BEAM has a bit more volume than that would. So, the MPLM masses about 40.8 kg/m^3, while BEAM masses 54/m^3. Obviously, treating this like a density isn't the most valid method, since there's the old square-cube law at work but...I dunno. Not incredibly impressed.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/17/2013 06:42 PM
If you are going to modify the BEAM you could simply fly a Genesis II.  It already has solar arrays.
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-2-specs.php (http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-2-specs.php)

I think Genesis 2 is smaller than BEAM, isn't it?  It also doesn't come with pre-designed end plates for the docking interface and the connection to the launcher's U/S.

Mr Mark - "BEAM is about 4 meters (13 feet) long and 3.2 meters (10.5
feet) wide"

Genesis II from web page - length 4.4 meters and diameter 2.54 meters.
11.5 cubic meters usable volume and skin shell is 6 inches thick.

So BEAM is shorter but wider.

The Genesis II must have had some connection to the LV to permit the Russians to launch it.

Docking ports are needed, possibly one of the reasons Bigelow has gone on to the BA-330.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Nathan on 01/17/2013 06:57 PM
I think Harmony's a poor point of comparison anyway--it's a node, and thus contains 6 CBMs, to BEAM's one.

Furthermore, five of Harmony's six CBM's are active CBMs, much heavier than the passive CBM on BEAM. I  agree it's a silly comparison.
I don't think it is worth comparing to any of the other main modules. Maybe the small Russian pirs would be better. If it must be done.
But this is purely a test module that NASA wants in order to evaluate the concept. Being able to pack a module into a smaller space allows better use of the launch vehicles capacity if nothing else.
I like that the module essentially could expand dragons crew volume - kinda like zubrins mars mission architecture using a dragon rider.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/17/2013 07:04 PM
Inflatable structures clearly become more efficient the larger the volume is. A smaller module will have less weight advantages than a larger would. Just saying.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/17/2013 07:07 PM
Inflatable structures clearly become more efficient the larger the volume is. A smaller module will have less weight advantages than a larger would. Just saying.
It's likely to be true, but it isn't totally clear. Remember, if you're limited by material strength, the mass per volume of a pressure vessel is essentially independent of the size of the pressure vessel for the same shape.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: rklaehn on 01/17/2013 07:13 PM
Inflatable structures clearly become more efficient the larger the volume is. A smaller module will have less weight advantages than a larger would. Just saying.
It's likely to be true, but it isn't totally clear. Remember, if you're limited by material strength, the mass per volume of a pressure vessel is essentially independent of the size of the pressure vessel for the same shape.

If you make some reasonable assumptions about tensile strength, the mass of such a small module is absolutely dominated by the shielding mass, which scales with surface area. Only for really large diameters does the pressure vessel mass (which scales with volume) become relevant.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/17/2013 07:14 PM
Inflatable structures clearly become more efficient the larger the volume is. A smaller module will have less weight advantages than a larger would. Just saying.
It's likely to be true, but it isn't totally clear. Remember, if you're limited by material strength, the mass per volume of a pressure vessel is essentially independent of the size of the pressure vessel for the same shape.

If you make some reasonable assumptions about tensile strength, the mass of such a small module is absolutely dominated by the shielding mass, which scales with surface area. Only for really large diameters does the pressure vessel mass (which scales with volume) become relevant.
That is true about shielding mass. Except shielding mass isn't that great, either, unless you're talking about GCR, which I suspect you are.

Also, I'm not sure you're including the large factor of safety you might want for a permanently occupied vessel.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: rklaehn on 01/17/2013 07:42 PM
Inflatable structures clearly become more efficient the larger the volume is. A smaller module will have less weight advantages than a larger would. Just saying.
It's likely to be true, but it isn't totally clear. Remember, if you're limited by material strength, the mass per volume of a pressure vessel is essentially independent of the size of the pressure vessel for the same shape.

If you make some reasonable assumptions about tensile strength, the mass of such a small module is absolutely dominated by the shielding mass, which scales with surface area. Only for really large diameters does the pressure vessel mass (which scales with volume) become relevant.
That is true about shielding mass. Except shielding mass isn't that great, either, unless you're talking about GCR, which I suspect you are.

Also, I'm not sure you're including the large factor of safety you might want for a permanently occupied vessel.

Even with a large safety factor, the mass of a pure pressure vessel is very low. The specific mass (mass per volume) of a spherical pressure vessel according to wikipedia is

mass/volume = 3/2*pressure*material_density/material_tensile_strength

Assume a material with a tensile strength of 1GPa and a density of 1000kg/m^3. Then the specific mass of a spherical pressure vessel would be 3/2*100000*1000/1e9 = 0.15kg/m^3. Even if you add a very generous safety factor of 20, that is only 3kg/m^3 or 60kg for a bigelow beam module.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: JasonAW3 on 01/17/2013 08:16 PM
Apparently, Bigelow plans to have two BEAM units ready by 2016.  One is the spare, of course, but that got me thinking.

Possible BEAM Application
HSF Mission Module

* Modified BEAM with Dragonrider- or CST-100-derived life support on the opposite side to the docking port;
* Base permanently attached to Falcon-9 upper stage, which will also provide RCS and, through Dragon-type solar arrays, electrical power;
* Dragon rides on top of BEAM or, if a Bigelow mission, the module will be enclosed with a SpaceX-standard 5.2m PLF.  Alternate launch vehicle is either EELV-M (Delta-IV (5,4) or Atlas-V-5x2);
* Central spine of module has five or six 'flower petal' work station mountings that fold out to the full width of the module from flush against the spine as the module inflates.

The module could fly underneath a Dragon when launched by Falcon Heavy for a single launch multi-week mission.  Application: Lower-cost space tourism or short-term science.  The module could also fly attached to a Golden Spike-style Centaur EDS as the hab module for a lunar fly-around or orbiter mission.

Reason for being: Possible Bigelow competitor to DragonLab.

Nice idea.

     Add an inflatable heat shield and a parachute pack at the end of the mission and it could be recovered and reused.  (Heck, might even be usable as an emergency Lifeboat for the ISS or other stations).

Just a thought.

Jason
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: JasonAW3 on 01/17/2013 08:24 PM
Interesting. But how would it go from inside the HTV to outside the station?

It also raises another question: why not make it an expendable inflated trash can to be taken down with Dragon?
1- Dragon carries one empty BEAM in the trunk
2- The inflatable module is moved to a docking port
3- It stays there for as long as required, being loaded with high volume, low weight garbage
4- Another Dragon visiting the station would take it on its trunk to be disposed

So....

     They are essentially using it as a big Hefty Trash Bag...

Hmmmm...


Jason
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: jabe on 01/17/2013 09:25 PM
So....

     They are essentially using it as a big Hefty Trash Bag...

Hmmmm...
Jason
seems like a good start..get all parties comfortable with the idea of using inflatables.  keeping door closed allows for leak checks etc.  then go to next phase whichever that is..for ~$18 million a cheap deal
jb
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: mr. mark on 01/18/2013 09:25 PM
BEAM also planned for Bigelow station.

“BEAM would be excellent for EVA [extra-vehicular activity],” Bigelow told TPM, referring to the technical term for activities conducted by humans outside of space craft and habitations like BEAM. “You could accomodate three people in space suits in there very easily. From a practical standpoint, you’d be able to move more people outside of the station at once to do whatever it is they need to do.

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/inflatable-spacecrafts-other-goal-space-walks-for-tourists.php
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: go4mars on 01/18/2013 09:46 PM
“BEAM would be excellent for EVA” Bigelow told TPM, ..“You could accomodate three people in space suits in there very easily.
I assume he means put 3 astros in there in their fancy dress, hang on to beam with the robot arm, then vent and unlatch the whole thing? 

Quote
would allow for less nitrogen and oxygen to escape into the vacuum of outer space — which happens every time a current airlock door is opened.
  Is he talking about this specific one?  Or a new one that has an airlock in the side of it (or does he mean the whole thing is the airlock)? 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: mr. mark on 01/18/2013 09:50 PM
No, Bigelow is planning to use BEAM as a spacious airlock that can accommodate up to 3 astronauts. Also the current BEAM will not have this feature so no to the ISS beam. It would be used on Bigelow's station.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: go4mars on 01/18/2013 09:57 PM
No, Bigelow is planning to use BEAM as a spacious airlock that can accommodate up to 3 astronauts.
It wasn't clear to me whether he means that BEAM is the airlock, or has a door in the side of it. 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: mr. mark on 01/18/2013 10:00 PM
Yes, he's saying BEAM would be the airlock. I'm not sure how effective this would be.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/18/2013 10:02 PM
Yes, he's saying BEAM would be the airlock. I'm not sure how effective this would be.
How would that work? It does not seem to have a hatch at the other end?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: mr. mark on 01/18/2013 10:03 PM
I would assume that. This would be a modified BEAM for Bigelow station.
"The goal is to then use the smaller attached balloon-like BEAM to function as the world’s most spacious airlock, allowing for up to three space tourists to simultaneously spacewalk outside the station simultaneously".
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/18/2013 10:10 PM
I would assume that. This would be a modified BEAM for Bigelow station.
"The goal is to then use the smaller attached balloon-like BEAM to function as the world’s most spacious airlock, allowing for up to three space tourists to simultaneously spacewalk outside the station simultaneously".

A BEAM like module with hatches at both ends would make a good airlock, providing you can pump the air out of it.  People are questioning this because the current BEAM proposal has only a single berthing port.  The back has something for the arm to grab onto.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 01/19/2013 01:56 AM
Should have known RTB wouldn't mention anything new he hadn't applied for patent on first -

http://www.google.com/patents/US20120318926
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: 360-180 on 01/19/2013 03:18 AM
WOW! Leonov gate
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/19/2013 03:35 AM
It'd be handy for bring large parts in or out for disposal or repair. Sounds like he is talking about sucking the air out of it using pumps instead of just venting.

Neat idea to have such a large airlock. You could transfer entire full-sized ISS racks through this kind of airlock, conceivably.

If you captured a small asteroid to Station, you could use an airlock this big to prepare it for return inside Dragon. Possibly up to a few tons!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: HMXHMX on 01/19/2013 03:52 AM
Should have known RTB wouldn't mention anything new he hadn't applied for patent on first -

http://www.google.com/patents/US20120318926

I think Bob is about fifty years too late.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: jedsmd on 01/19/2013 04:08 AM
Should have known RTB wouldn't mention anything new he hadn't applied for patent on first -

http://www.google.com/patents/US20120318926

I think Bob is about fifty years too late.

Also, The Advanced Inflatable Airlock

http://papers.sae.org/2003-01-2449/ (http://papers.sae.org/2003-01-2449/)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 01/19/2013 04:24 AM
BEAM also planned for Bigelow station.

“BEAM would be excellent for EVA [extra-vehicular activity],” Bigelow told TPM, referring to the technical term for activities conducted by humans outside of space craft and habitations like BEAM. “You could accomodate three people in space suits in there very easily. From a practical standpoint, you’d be able to move more people outside of the station at once to do whatever it is they need to do.

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/inflatable-spacecrafts-other-goal-space-walks-for-tourists.php
It sounds like someone grossly misinformed Mr. Bigelow with respect to the amount of room required by EVA suits.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: 360-180 on 01/19/2013 04:36 AM
176690789.jpg (88.82 KB, 800x600)
http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault/All%20kinds%20of%20Soviet%20space%203./Voskhod1.JPG
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_sovietique/vostok_voskhod/voskhod%20airlock1.jpg
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: 360-180 on 01/19/2013 05:05 AM
Also, The Advanced Inflatable Airlock http://papers.sae.org/2003-01-2449/ (http://papers.sae.org/2003-01-2449/)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 01/19/2013 06:10 AM
I would assume that. This would be a modified BEAM for Bigelow station.
"The goal is to then use the smaller attached balloon-like BEAM to function as the world’s most spacious airlock, allowing for up to three space tourists to simultaneously spacewalk outside the station simultaneously".

A BEAM like module with hatches at both ends would make a good airlock, providing you can pump the air out of it.  People are questioning this because the current BEAM proposal has only a single docking port.  The back has something for the arm to grab onto.
Well technically it only has a berthing port.

Should have known RTB wouldn't mention anything new he hadn't applied for patent on first -

http://www.google.com/patents/US20120318926
Great find!  :)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/19/2013 07:06 AM
If Bigelow is looking for work then a proper docking system is needed between rovers and Moon base buildings.  Something that permits a rover, like the wheeled version of the MMSEV, to park next to the building allowing the passengers to walk into the building within 2 minutes.

As they are on the ground the vehicles do not need bolts to be screwed into the building, just a flexible airtight corridor that locks on.  People prefer to walk upright when going through doors.  In space they may need to carry a standard sized experimental rack through the doorway.

The same design can be used on Mars.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/19/2013 09:31 AM
I think Bob is about fifty years too late.

Heh, that looks suspiciously like a jack-in-the-box!  ;D
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2013 12:27 PM
1.  If Bigelow is looking for work then a proper docking system is needed between rovers and Moon base buildings.

2.  The same design can be used on Mars.

1.  Huh?  Who is going to pay him for it?

2.  No, these are not designed to be walked on.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/19/2013 02:40 PM

I think Bob is about fifty years too late.

Great find, Gary!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2013 03:12 PM

I think Bob is about fifty years too late.

Great find, Gary!

What do you mean "Great find"?  Gary was being sarcastic.  It is common knowledge in these circles than Voshod 2 used an inflatable airlock. 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: 360-180 on 01/19/2013 03:58 PM
Also, Leonov's airlock did not have MMOD.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/19/2013 05:02 PM
1.  If Bigelow is looking for work then a proper docking system is needed between rovers and Moon base buildings.

2.  The same design can be used on Mars.

1.  Huh?  Who is going to pay him for it?

2.  No, these are not designed to be walked on.

1. Desert RATS.

2. Gangplanks for walking on are a well proven technology.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/19/2013 05:39 PM
So a BEAM sized item stored in a CCV unpresurized cargo space or on the top of the US that the CCV then docks to, can be used for an airlock and additional crew space. The $10-20M cost for such a one use item is looking to be very cost effective for increaseing CCV mission applications.

One of the problems that CCV's had in being used to do sat repair was no airlock.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2013 05:43 PM

1. Desert RATS.


They are simulation teams and not flight hardware development groups. And so where is the money coming from?  Or are you going to pull another wrong answer out of your arse?  Nobody is working detailed design for rovers and Moon base buildings.  There is no budget, money or direction for such.  Bring a little reality to the conversation and talk about the here and now.  Nobody is going to spend money on something that is not needed for decades, when the budget limited.  This thread is about Bigelow, which is inflatable modules.   They are finally going to fly only their 3rd module. Rovers and Moon base buildings are way outside the scope of their near term work.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 01/19/2013 06:06 PM
Institutional inertia is no excuse for not developing concepts in case funding appears, as it did with BEAM. This looks like a viable one with a relatively modest cost. As others have said, nothing stops one from flying as a secondary payload and Dragon (w/extended trunk?) or CST-100 from separating, turning about and docking with it as Apollo did with the LM.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/19/2013 06:13 PM
Bigelow airlocks are inflatable modules.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 01/19/2013 06:20 PM
Should have known RTB wouldn't mention anything new he hadn't applied for patent on first -

http://www.google.com/patents/US20120318926

I think Bob is about fifty years too late.



It was used in Science Fiction even earlier, a quick Google found http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1104

Quote
"The net and the plastic sidewalls were, of course, the method by which a really large airlock was made practical. When this ship was about to take off again, pumps would not labor for hours to pump the air out. The sidewalls would inflate and closely enclose the ship's hull, and so force the air in the lock back into the ship. Then the pumps would work on the air behind the inflated walls—with nets to help them draw the wall-stuff back to let the ship go free. The lock could be used with only fifteen minutes for pumping instead of four hours."
From Space Tug, by Murray Leinster 1953

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: mr. mark on 01/19/2013 06:21 PM
Jim is thankfully bringing a dose of reality to the conversation. What we can look forward to is Bigelow finally developing a module for ISS. This is a good test bed for future Bigelow work and provides the groundwork for a future LEO Bigelow station.   
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2013 06:26 PM
Bigelow airlocks are inflatable modules.

See you don't even know how to have a discussion.  We were not talking about airlocks, we were talking about nonsensical idea of Bigelow developing a "docking system .... between rovers and Moon base buildings" at this juncture.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2013 06:27 PM
Institutional inertia is no excuse for not developing concepts in case funding appears, as it did with BEAM. This looks like a viable one with a relatively modest cost. As others have said, nothing stops one from flying as a secondary payload and Dragon (w/extended trunk?) or CST-100 from separating, turning about and docking with it as Apollo did with the LM.

No, BEAM was works for quite awhile.  Anyways, there has to funding to develop concepts in the first place.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: mr. mark on 01/19/2013 06:40 PM
Unless the contracts and funding is there, Bigelow as well as SpaceX won't be developing anything. SpaceX and Bigelow do not have a space program. They are in the business of supplying parties with goods and services for those parties needs. So Bigelow and SpaceX won't be going out of their way to develop architecture for a program that does not exist.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/19/2013 08:50 PM

What do you mean "Great find"?  Gary was being sarcastic.  It is common knowledge in these circles than Voshod 2 used an inflatable airlock. 
Then tell that to Bob and not me! I am not the one who filed a frakking patent for this! It is not the first time that Gary has noted that Bigelow has filed a patent for things with prior art. I was simply thinking that he intended to do the same. I originally intended to comment on this more elaborately, but I decided not to. What was left then was the "good find".
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 01/20/2013 02:52 AM
As others have said, nothing stops one from flying as a secondary payload and Dragon (w/extended trunk?) or CST-100 from separating, turning about and docking with it as Apollo did with the LM.
How would BEAM be removed from Dragon's trunk?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: HMXHMX on 01/20/2013 03:00 AM

What do you mean "Great find"?  Gary was being sarcastic.  It is common knowledge in these circles than Voshod 2 used an inflatable airlock. 
Then tell that to Bob and not me! I am not the one who filed a frakking patent for this! It is not the first time that Gary has noted that Bigelow has filed a patent for things with prior art. I was simply thinking that he intended to do the same. I originally intended to comment on this more elaborately, but I decided not to. What was left then was the "good find".


I think my previous criticisms of people filing obvious patents were directed at Blue Origin, not Bigelow, just to be clear.  Or at least, that's what I recall; these days memory fails...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 01/20/2013 03:34 AM
As others have said, nothing stops one from flying as a secondary payload and Dragon (w/extended trunk?) or CST-100 from separating, turning about and docking with it as Apollo did with the LM.
How would BEAM be removed from Dragon's trunk?

Never said it was in the trunk, it would be a secondary payload - attached to the 2nd stage and extracted like the LM was, but I intended to imply it may need the extended trunk for clearance.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: 360-180 on 01/20/2013 06:20 AM
Never said it was in the trunk, it would be a secondary payload
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html
Bigelow Expandable Activity Module Installation Animation

Now for berthing Dragon and relocation modules use Canadarm. What equipment do you need to put on the launch vehicle for maneuvering as Apollo?


Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 01/20/2013 07:13 AM
IIRC, the LM was attached to S-IVB via the SLA at 4 points and charges released it for extraction, but today I would imagine an SLA type platform but with pushers & latches could do that job.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: 360-180 on 01/20/2013 03:50 PM
Elon uses one-piece cylinders as spacers, without segments.
How unmanned Dragon will make a turn and dock?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/20/2013 06:11 PM
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html
Bigelow Expandable Activity Module Installation Animation
{snip}

Is this the link you wanted?
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=158539341 (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=158539341)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: sanman on 01/20/2013 06:53 PM
NASA to Test Expandable Habitat on ISS
...
After the module is berthed to the station's Tranquility node, the station crew will activate a pressurization system to expand the structure to its full size using air stored within the packed module. Astronauts periodically will enter the module to gather performance data and perform inspections. Following the test period, the module will be jettisoned from the station, burning up on re-entry.

So is structural integrity of the Bigelow modules dependent upon internal air pressure?
What if this thing is successfully punctured by a micrometeoroid or space debris - does it lose structural integrity and shape? Will it sort of crumple like a deflated beachball?

When they say it gets inflated, are we talking about inflating the interior cavity space, or about inflating the insides of the walls themselves?

If it's the walls being inflated, then why inflate with air? Why not inflate with some kind of UV-curable foam?

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 01/20/2013 07:05 PM
I was under the impression that Bigelow modules had a rigid metal core and expanded in circumference only, not length. The NASA video of BEAM installation seems to show an increase in length as well. How do they do this, through a telescoping inner core?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 01/20/2013 07:30 PM
Can any one explain the difference in the docking adapters from each end of Bigelow's tation Alpha

(not an update but couldn't find a Bigelow discussion thread. There must be one somewhere)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/20/2013 07:40 PM
I was under the impression that Bigelow modules had a rigid metal core and expanded in circumference only, not length. The NASA video of BEAM installation seems to show an increase in length as well. How do they do this, through a telescoping inner core?
Not all modules are the same. This is the danger in taking assumptions too far.

There isn't a core for BEAM, from all the public information we've been given (and info from former Bigelow employees).
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 01/20/2013 07:40 PM
There isn't a difference.  Just one end of the station has a service module
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 01/20/2013 07:47 PM
Can any one explain the difference in the docking adapters from each end of Bigelow's tation Alpha

(not an update but couldn't find a Bigelow discussion thread. There must be one somewhere)
I don't think there is a difference.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 01/20/2013 08:30 PM
I was under the impression that Bigelow modules had a rigid metal core and expanded in circumference only, not length. The NASA video of BEAM installation seems to show an increase in length as well. How do they do this, through a telescoping inner core?

The Bigelow expandable airlock patent application seems to show a telescoping structure between the bulkheads, and Bigelow has hinted that such a module could be based on BEAM, so I guess the answer is quite possibly.

http://www.google.com/patents/US20120318926
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/20/2013 08:31 PM

I think my previous criticisms of people filing obvious patents were directed at Blue Origin, not Bigelow, just to be clear.  Or at least, that's what I recall; these days memory fails...
Oh yes, stupid me... It is my memory that failed me there. That and the fact that I am constantly doing 10 things at the same time. Gotta stop doing that. Sorry. Yes, anyway you had previously called out people on these things. That was the point I was trying to make anyway.
Not that it really mattered, but Jim had to give me a hard time for some reason.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: catdlr on 01/20/2013 11:52 PM
[ISS] Inflatable Bigelow Module for Station Announced

Published on Jan 20, 2013

NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver announced Wednesday a newly planned addition to the International Space Station that will use the orbiting laboratory to test expandable space habitat technology.

NASA has awarded a $17.8 million contract to Bigelow Aerospace to provide a Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM), which is scheduled to arrive at the space station in 2015 for a two-year technology demonstration.

The BEAM is scheduled to launch aboard the eighth SpaceX cargo resupply mission to the station contracted by NASA, currently planned for 2015. After the module is berthed to the station's Tranquility node, the station crew will activate a pressurization system to expand the structure to its full size using air stored within the packed module. Astronauts periodically will enter the module to gather performance data and perform inspections. Following the test period, the module will be jettisoned from the station, burning up on re-entry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VLdBSB7XmQ
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/21/2013 12:41 AM
I was under the impression that Bigelow modules had a rigid metal core and expanded in circumference only, not length. The NASA video of BEAM installation seems to show an increase in length as well. How do they do this, through a telescoping inner core?
Not all modules are the same. This is the danger in taking assumptions too far.

There isn't a core for BEAM, from all the public information we've been given (and info from former Bigelow employees).
On second thought, there may be a core, but I'm still leaning on the side of no core for this.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Eric Hedman on 01/21/2013 12:50 AM
I was under the impression that Bigelow modules had a rigid metal core and expanded in circumference only, not length. The NASA video of BEAM installation seems to show an increase in length as well. How do they do this, through a telescoping inner core?
Not all modules are the same. This is the danger in taking assumptions too far.

There isn't a core for BEAM, from all the public information we've been given (and info from former Bigelow employees).
On second thought, there may be a core, but I'm still leaning on the side of no core for this.
Does this model help?

http://english.pravda.ru/photo/album/7094/2/ (http://english.pravda.ru/photo/album/7094/2/)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 01/21/2013 01:01 AM
Does this model help?

http://english.pravda.ru/photo/album/7094/2/ (http://english.pravda.ru/photo/album/7094/2/)
None of the pix in that link show the inside of BEAM. I've seen animations that show a partial core in BEAM.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/21/2013 01:27 AM
I was under the impression that Bigelow modules had a rigid metal core and expanded in circumference only, not length. The NASA video of BEAM installation seems to show an increase in length as well. How do they do this, through a telescoping inner core?
Not all modules are the same. This is the danger in taking assumptions too far.

There isn't a core for BEAM, from all the public information we've been given (and info from former Bigelow employees).
On second thought, there may be a core, but I'm still leaning on the side of no core for this.
Does this model help?

http://english.pravda.ru/photo/album/7094/2/ (http://english.pravda.ru/photo/album/7094/2/)
No, that's not BEAM.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: JSz on 01/21/2013 05:39 PM
Is that BA-330?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: SpacexULA on 01/21/2013 06:18 PM
Is that BA-330?

Nope that's the BA-2100, it was designed with SLS in mind. It's 2-3 times the internal volume of the ISS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: JBF on 01/21/2013 06:40 PM
Is that BA-330?

Nope that's the BA-2100, it was designed with SLS in mind. It's 2-3 times the internal volume of the ISS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100


The first picture was of a BA-330. Here is a comparison shot.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHscyZMOR9IQEciw5VMrtFzF1dz7vh51aiWJwPUCYxCDsa2S543Q)

330 on the left 2100 on the right.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/21/2013 07:10 PM
Is that BA-330?

Nope that's the BA-2100, it was designed with SLS in mind. It's 2-3 times the internal volume of the ISS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100



I highly doubt that Bigelow has designed any modules that require the SLS to put it into orbit.

There was picture of the "BEAM" ball on stage with Bigelow and Lori Garver. It reminded me a little of the ball that came out of the water in the "Prisoner", only smaller. If that ball was actual size, there is no way 3 astronauts would fit in that space, unless they were VERY friendly (and that's thinking in 3D)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lars_J on 01/21/2013 07:13 PM
Is that BA-330?

Nope that's the BA-2100, it was designed with SLS in mind. It's 2-3 times the internal volume of the ISS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100



I highly doubt that Bigelow has designed any modules that require the SLS to put it into orbit.

Did you not read the above about the BA-2100? Unless you are getting nit picky about the word "designed", the proposed BA-2100 would indeed require an SLS-class launcher to put it in orbit. It would mass 70-100 tons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 01/22/2013 04:08 AM
Mr. Bigelow stated on an interview that he went to ULA and asked what could they build for 800M (or a Billion, can't remember). ULA said 65tonnes to LEO and an 8.4m fairing (I guess some wide body Delta IV derivative). That's what he used for the BA-2100. Then came SLS (which seems to be closer to 90 tonnes, than 70tonnes with 8.4m and 10m fairings) and Falcon Heavy (with, may be, 53 tonnes and 5m fairing).
Since BA-2100 is nothing more than a concept (everything save BEAM, actually), I would treat it as notional.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/22/2013 04:14 AM
Mr. Bigelow stated on an interview that he went to ULA and asked what could they build for 800M (or a Billion, can't remember). ULA said 65tonnes to LEO and an 8.4m fairing (I guess some wide body Delta IV derivative). That's what he used for the BA-2100. Then came SLS (which seems to be closer to 90 tonnes, than 70tonnes with 8.4m and 10m fairings) and Falcon Heavy (with, may be, 53 tonnes and 5m fairing).
Since BA-2100 is nothing more than a concept (everything save BEAM, actually), I would treat it as notional.
You probably could fit a 7+m fairing on Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy if you really needed it. It'd cost more (more analysis, payload processing mods) and would eat into your payload (more drag and gravity losses, since you'd probably have to throttle-down while in the atmosphere near max-Q), but it's about proportionally what ULA's analysis says Atlas V can do.

I think BA-330 is significantly less notional than BA-2100, though. Even just ground transportation would be a significant issue with BA-2100.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 01/22/2013 04:33 AM
Mr. Bigelow stated on an interview that he went to ULA and asked what could they build for 800M (or a Billion, can't remember). ULA said 65tonnes to LEO and an 8.4m fairing (I guess some wide body Delta IV derivative). That's what he used for the BA-2100. Then came SLS (which seems to be closer to 90 tonnes, than 70tonnes with 8.4m and 10m fairings) and Falcon Heavy (with, may be, 53 tonnes and 5m fairing).
Since BA-2100 is nothing more than a concept (everything save BEAM, actually), I would treat it as notional.
You probably could fit a 7+m fairing on Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy if you really needed it. It'd cost more (more analysis, payload processing mods) and would eat into your payload (more drag and gravity losses, since you'd probably have to throttle-down while in the atmosphere near max-Q), but it's about proportionally what ULA's analysis says Atlas V can do.

I think BA-330 is significantly less notional than BA-2100, though. Even just ground transportation would be a significant issue with BA-2100.
Read the threads. BA-330 can't be transported out of the current Bigelow factory. Apparently there's a lot of armwaving within the company. That's why this BEAM is so important. It will be a clash of cultures.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 01/23/2013 01:25 AM
NASA to Test Expandable Habitat on ISS
...
After the module is berthed to the station's Tranquility node, the station crew will activate a pressurization system to expand the structure to its full size using air stored within the packed module. Astronauts periodically will enter the module to gather performance data and perform inspections. Following the test period, the module will be jettisoned from the station, burning up on re-entry.

So is structural integrity of the Bigelow modules dependent upon internal air pressure?
What if this thing is successfully punctured by a micrometeoroid or space debris - does it lose structural integrity and shape? Will it sort of crumple like a deflated beachball?

When they say it gets inflated, are we talking about inflating the interior cavity space, or about inflating the insides of the walls themselves?

If it's the walls being inflated, then why inflate with air? Why not inflate with some kind of UV-curable foam?



Well, I've posted the info in a couple of places, but the questions keep coming up.  I'll put some the information here.

BEAM won't have an internal core. The somewhat spherical shape of the Bigelow cartoons indicate that.   If anything it will have a small amount of structure at one end to house the inflation system. 

In general, Bigelow modules take their shape by inflation of an internal air barrier, supported by a restraint layer to take the pressure load.  Therefore the rigidity is dependent on pressure of the occupied area.  It might not necessarily crumple, but would loose structure rigidity if it lost internal pressure.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 01/23/2013 01:48 AM
The models: at far left, the ISS destiny lab for scale, the upright module is a 2100 stowed in an 8m fairing.  The complex model at center is two sundancers and a BA-330 with a couple of early design Boeing CTS-100 transport vehicles docked, in the center of the complex is a docking node-bus combo.  At center in the far back is an inflated (to a few psi) full size Genesis restraint layer with the MMOD stripped off, and no end caps.  I call it 'the thumper', it is there so that people can touch it and feel the rigidity of an inflated restraint layer.  At right in the background is a mockup of the BEAM.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 01/25/2013 02:04 PM
Some decent pics from the local paper the Las Vegas Review journal.

Chris would need to contact them for copies of the pics.

http://www.lvrj.com/multimedia/Bigelow-Aerospace-land-NASA-contract-187211231.html

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 02/01/2013 02:55 PM
Bigelow has added a new section to their site.

Opportunities and Pricing (http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/opportunity-pricing.php)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 02/01/2013 04:47 PM
Thanks. Unlike Soyuz, you are allowed to re-sell your seat on a flight. I imagine that you would have to sell it ahead of time in order for the purchaser to have enough time to train for the flight.

The price of a flight of $26.25M (on Dragon) or $36.75M (on the CST-100) includes a 10 to 60 days non-exclusive right to the Bigelow station. 

You can get exclusive rights for 60 days for a third of a Bigelow station for an extra $25M. I wonder how Bigelow will enforce these exclusive rights.

On the issue of astronauts trainings, they say this:

Quote
Our space station leases will include training for our clients’ designated astronauts. Training will include qualification screening for mental and physical health, acclimation to physical forces including microgravity, operation of space station daily living systems, and mission specific training.

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/training-astronauts.php
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jason1701 on 02/01/2013 04:56 PM
They've also added a BEAM section to their website.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/01/2013 10:32 PM
I noticed they added their BA330 ready for launch schedule of 2016 (quantity 2) in the words at the end of the BEAM pages. That presumes a pair of FH launches (DIVH is 3 times the cost) in 2016 or 2017. I imagine the launch would be waiting on commercial crew to be operational which is of about that time, be it DragonRider, CST-100 or Dreamchaser.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: rayleighscatter on 02/04/2013 02:07 AM
Has Bigelow given any indication how they would handle communication to an independent station? Lease bandwidth from other satellites? Launch their own constellation of satellites? An expansive ground network?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 02/04/2013 03:29 AM
Back in 2007 is sounded like they were building their own telemetry network

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21039277/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/bigelow-aerospace-does-rocket-reality-check/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: beancounter on 02/05/2013 12:37 AM
New article from Parabolic Arc regarding leasing Bigelow Space Station and seat costs:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/02/04/bigelow-offering-private-space-station-at-a-fraction-of-iss-cost/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/05/2013 01:42 PM
Has Bigelow done much work at all on their version of the "Node" module ?
Unless they get some structure into space that has multiple docking ports, and the ability to connect multiple BA-330s together with multiple sets of solar arrays, I don't see it as a viable station for doing much research.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/05/2013 02:08 PM
Has Bigelow done much work at all on their version of the "Node" module ?
Unless they get some structure into space that has multiple docking ports, and the ability to connect multiple BA-330s together with multiple sets of solar arrays, I don't see it as a viable station for doing much research.

The current idea seems to be two BA-330s connected end-to-end rather the old 'T' formation of Alpha.  That said, they'll still need the node's hypergolic monoprop engines for orbital reboosts so they can't hold off for too long.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 02/05/2013 02:41 PM
New article from Parabolic Arc regarding leasing Bigelow Space Station and seat costs:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/02/04/bigelow-offering-private-space-station-at-a-fraction-of-iss-cost/

Looks like the article is just parroting what's already on the BA webpage.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jason1701 on 02/05/2013 03:43 PM
Has Bigelow done much work at all on their version of the "Node" module ?
Unless they get some structure into space that has multiple docking ports, and the ability to connect multiple BA-330s together with multiple sets of solar arrays, I don't see it as a viable station for doing much research.

The current idea seems to be two BA-330s connected end-to-end rather the old 'T' formation of Alpha.  That said, they'll still need the node's hypergolic monoprop engines for orbital reboosts so they can't hold off for too long.

What about using commercial crew vehicles for reboost?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/05/2013 03:57 PM
Has Bigelow done much work at all on their version of the "Node" module ?
Unless they get some structure into space that has multiple docking ports, and the ability to connect multiple BA-330s together with multiple sets of solar arrays, I don't see it as a viable station for doing much research.

The current idea seems to be two BA-330s connected end-to-end rather the old 'T' formation of Alpha.  That said, they'll still need the node's hypergolic monoprop engines for orbital reboosts so they can't hold off for too long.

But there still needs to be some piece of hardware that connects the modules together and provides some sort of structure for the solar arrays. That needs to be some sort of space between modules, so that the module doesn't "shade" the arrays. Of course, I haven't seen any mockups of radiators for disposing of excess heat either, but that's a minor detail, right ?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/05/2013 04:21 PM
Has Bigelow done much work at all on their version of the "Node" module ?
Unless they get some structure into space that has multiple docking ports, and the ability to connect multiple BA-330s together with multiple sets of solar arrays, I don't see it as a viable station for doing much research.

The current idea seems to be two BA-330s connected end-to-end rather the old 'T' formation of Alpha.  That said, they'll still need the node's hypergolic monoprop engines for orbital reboosts so they can't hold off for too long.

But there still needs to be some piece of hardware that connects the modules together and provides some sort of structure for the solar arrays. That needs to be some sort of space between modules, so that the module doesn't "shade" the arrays. Of course, I haven't seen any mockups of radiators for disposing of excess heat either, but that's a minor detail, right ?

Yeah, the central spine extends beyond the module ends and is the mounting point for the solar arrays, radiators and one axial LIDS port.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Occupymars on 02/14/2013 04:53 AM
Jesse Ventura Exposing Robert Bigelow and his Alien Cronies. ;) http://www.youtube.com/v/zKq667cEUkA?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 02/14/2013 06:06 AM
Good ole Jesse, his 15 minutes are SO over....
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 02/14/2013 11:40 AM
Jesse Ventura Exposing Robert Bigelow and his Alien Cronies. ;)
I really don't want to suffer through 45 minutes of a has been. Can you summarize?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 02/14/2013 12:39 PM
More or less -

billionaire RTB is an alien collaborator who has an ITAR exemption, so therefore he wants to launch and rain down space weapons from his space city to enslave us all!!!

 ::)

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/14/2013 12:45 PM
Jesse Ventura Exposing Robert Bigelow and his Alien Cronies. ;)

I really don't want to suffer through 45 minutes of a has been. Can you summarize?

I have heard that Bigelow is convinced that there's an alien base on the lunar far side and that's why he's so determined to get a foothold there.

Of course, he can believe said celestial body is made of green cheese if he likes.  So long as his company creates an alternate use for commercial crew, then it's all sins forgiven.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Nomadd on 02/14/2013 12:54 PM
 I can't believe the entire state of Minnesota hasn't died of embarrassment. At least he made Bigelow's kookism look mild by comparison.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/14/2013 01:29 PM
I can't believe the entire state of Minnesota hasn't died of embarrassment. At least he made Bigelow's kookism look mild by comparison.
He was a pretty fun governor, actually. A joke, sure, but a funny one. He humiliated the Democrats and Republicans.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 02/14/2013 02:11 PM
More or less -

billionaire RTB is an alien collaborator who has an ITAR exemption, so therefore he wants to launch and rain down space weapons from his space city to enslave us all!!!

 ::)


(http://gifs.gifbin.com/1237977238_pineapple-express-laughing.gif)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 02/15/2013 03:17 AM
The truth is stranger than fiction.  Maybe not stranger than Jesse's fantasy, but strange nonetheless.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 02/15/2013 05:17 PM
Local bit on the Beam contract:
 
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20609189/nasa-makes-17m-deal-with-north-las-vegas-bigelow-aerospace (http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20609189/nasa-makes-17m-deal-with-north-las-vegas-bigelow-aerospace)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Comga on 02/15/2013 05:32 PM
Local bit on the Beam contract:
 
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20609189/nasa-makes-17m-deal-with-north-las-vegas-bigelow-aerospace (http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20609189/nasa-makes-17m-deal-with-north-las-vegas-bigelow-aerospace)

Quote
"I would think that on board the International Space Station privacy is difficult to find and they're always complaining about having some place to sleep where they're not bothered by other people," said Bigelow.

I thought that astronauts wouldn't be going into BEAM except to retrieve data.

Quote
Bigelow is also working on another project which involves leasing space service stations to NASA.

I think there are multiple errors in this one statement.

Quote
"One of the reasons I am studying mechanical engineering is because I had one day hoped to work for NASA or for a NASA contractor," Lopez told FOX5.

I wish him luck, but hope he exapnds his search parameters when looking for work in aerospace.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/16/2013 07:17 AM
Local bit on the Beam contract:
 
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20609189/nasa-makes-17m-deal-with-north-las-vegas-bigelow-aerospace (http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20609189/nasa-makes-17m-deal-with-north-las-vegas-bigelow-aerospace)

"The spacecraft will act as a new room on the International Space Station. More than likely the inflatable structure will be used for storage and additional sleeping quarters."

If people are going to be sleeping in the BEAM it will need some life support.  They may get away with lights and fans to blow air around.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 02/16/2013 12:07 PM
Local bit on the Beam contract:
 
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20609189/nasa-makes-17m-deal-with-north-las-vegas-bigelow-aerospace (http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20609189/nasa-makes-17m-deal-with-north-las-vegas-bigelow-aerospace)

"The spacecraft will act as a new room on the International Space Station. More than likely the inflatable structure will be used for storage and additional sleeping quarters."

If people are going to be sleeping in the BEAM it will need some life support.  They may get away with lights and fans to blow air around.

That is not a legitimate source.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 02/16/2013 01:36 PM
Jesse Ventura Exposing Robert Bigelow and his Alien Cronies. ;) http://www.youtube.com/v/zKq667cEUkA?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0

That was really funny! Highly entertaining! They include SpaceX in the conspiracy as they will provide transportation to the habitats. Bigelow and his cronies want to use his habitats to escape when the aliens invade us...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 02/16/2013 01:44 PM
Local bit on the Beam contract:
 
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20609189/nasa-makes-17m-deal-with-north-las-vegas-bigelow-aerospace (http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20609189/nasa-makes-17m-deal-with-north-las-vegas-bigelow-aerospace)

"The spacecraft will act as a new room on the International Space Station. More than likely the inflatable structure will be used for storage and additional sleeping quarters."

If people are going to be sleeping in the BEAM it will need some life support.  They may get away with lights and fans to blow air around.

That is not a legitimate source.

Their source is Bigelow. But I think that Bigelow is trying to say that it could be used for that (not that it will). But regardless of what Bigelow says, NASA said that it's more of a technology test module that will not be used for anything. It will be closed most of the time.

Quote
"I would think that on board the International Space Station privacy is difficult to find and they're always complaining about having some place to sleep where they're not bothered by other people," said Bigelow.[équote]
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: R7 on 02/16/2013 01:45 PM
Drive-by trollX originated BA330 discussion in SpaceX general so thought I'd divert it to here.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31025.msg1013490#msg1013490 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31025.msg1013490#msg1013490)

by info there and rereading this thread I have couple questions, sorry if rehashing old faqs.

Bigelow had interesting wording in the BEAM announcement:

Quote
By the end of 2016 we will have two 330s ready to fly

Is the plan to find somebody else to pay for launching them?

Bigelow pages give $25M quote for 110m3 two month lease and say

Quote
Also, potential clients should note that as opposed to the ISS, where astronauts dedicate the lion's share of their time to supporting station operations and maintenance, astronauts aboard the Alpha Station will be able to focus exclusively on their own experiments and activities

Even if all three sections (I presume there are three) fully occupied it's $37.5M/month for Bigelow. Is that enough for all the maintenance, and who is going to do it on the station? Does food/water cost extra or is customer supposed to provide those themselves?

$25M per year for "naming rights", really? If I lease a section and start calling it "Frank" without paying for naming rights do I get litigated?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 02/16/2013 01:55 PM
My understanding from their website is that the $26.25M includes a 10 to 60 day (non-exclusive) stay on the station. I am assuming that the price includes food.

I am not sure if the cargo would be brought separately or if it would fit on the Dragonrider or CST-100.

The naming rights are for the entire station or for one of the two modules.

Bigelow will have to pay for getting the BA-330 to space. It's not clear what rocket would be contracted to do so. Bigelow has a deposit with SpaceX. So probably SpaceX.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: R7 on 02/16/2013 02:00 PM
My understanding from their website is that the $26.25M includes a 10 to 60 day (non-exclusive) stay on the station

I understood $26.25M as the flight cost per seat (and that goes to SpaceX alone). If you want to stay, you have to lease a section for $25M. Does not say though how many people can/is allowed to stay in one section. Or maybe I just missed that.

edit: now I get it, $26.25M for non-exclusive stay, in some 'public section'. But if SpaceX takes Dragon Rider cut from that what's left for Bigelow?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 02/16/2013 02:08 PM
My understanding from their website is that the $26.25M includes a 10 to 60 day (non-exclusive) stay on the station

I understood $26.25M as the flight cost per seat (and that goes to SpaceX alone). If you want to stay, you have to lease a section for $25M. Does not say though how many people can/is allowed to stay in one section. Or maybe I just missed that.

No the extra $25M is if you want exclusive rights to a third of the station. If you don't want to pay for the exclusive rights, you only get access to the shared research facilities. 

Quote
Astronaut Flights: For countries, companies, or even visiting individuals that wish to utilize SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule, Bigelow Aerospace will be able to transport an astronaut to the Alpha Station for only $26.25 million. Using Boeing's CST-100 capsule and the Atlas V rocket, astronauts can be launched to the Alpha Station for $36.75 million per seat. In stark contrast to the short stays of a week or so aboard the ISS that we have seen wealthy individuals pay as much as $40 million for, astronauts visiting the Bigelow station will enjoy 10 - 60 days in orbit. During this time, visiting astronauts will be granted access to the Alpha Station's shared research facilities. Examples of available equipment include a centrifuge, glove-box, microscope, furnace, and freezer. Also, potential clients should note that as opposed to the ISS, where astronauts dedicate the lion's share of their time to supporting station operations and maintenance, astronauts aboard the Alpha Station will be able to focus exclusively on their own experiments and activities, ensuring that both nations and companies can gain full value from their investment in a human spaceflight program.

P.S. I have updated my post above for your other questions.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 02/16/2013 02:19 PM
My understanding from their website is that the $26.25M includes a 10 to 60 day (non-exclusive) stay on the station

I understood $26.25M as the flight cost per seat (and that goes to SpaceX alone). If you want to stay, you have to lease a section for $25M. Does not say though how many people can/is allowed to stay in one section. Or maybe I just missed that.

edit: now I get it, $26.25M for non-exclusive stay, in some 'public section'. But if SpaceX takes Dragon Rider cut from that what's left for Bigelow?

I don't know. I am guessing that Bigelow gets part of the cut on the transportation. I would also guess that Bigelow will give priority to clients that rent a module for 60 days. The other clients would be the excess seats if any and their stay would probably be shorter than 60 days (likely 10 days). 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 02/16/2013 02:26 PM
Local bit on the Beam contract:
 
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20609189/nasa-makes-17m-deal-with-north-las-vegas-bigelow-aerospace (http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20609189/nasa-makes-17m-deal-with-north-las-vegas-bigelow-aerospace)

"The spacecraft will act as a new room on the International Space Station. More than likely the inflatable structure will be used for storage and additional sleeping quarters."

If people are going to be sleeping in the BEAM it will need some life support.  They may get away with lights and fans to blow air around.

That is not a legitimate source.

http://bcove.me/9jaktfbw (http://bcove.me/9jaktfbw)   video story   http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/187216761.html (http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/187216761.html)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: R7 on 02/16/2013 02:47 PM
http://bcove.me/9jaktfbw (http://bcove.me/9jaktfbw)   video story   http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/187216761.html (http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/187216761.html)

Especially the written article seems to confuse BEAM with BA330.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: guckyfan on 02/16/2013 02:50 PM

Could you be more vague, I almost know what you're talking about.. okay, I don't, what "NASA presentation" are you talking about?

Moved here from the SpaceX rational thread.

I was referring to the NASA Bigelow announcement of the BEAM module.

http://www.8newsnow.com/category/28259/8-news-now-video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8198764

At 2:20 Bigelow announces that he will spend another 250 Million $ to build two BA 330 modules.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/16/2013 05:43 PM
So if to build a BA330 costs $125M and then to launch it on an FH costs an additional $80M+ then each module will have a capitol cost of $205M. If each section is rented for $25M for 2 months then a BA330 module total max revenue would be ~$450M per year. If 3 cargo flights are needed to resupply the module (at ~$100M each) and other operation support costs per module per year of $50M then $100M above operation costs is made each year. If the module has a 5 year lifespan then total available after paying off the capital investment for profit is ~$300M per module on just a $200M investment, a 150% ROI.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/16/2013 05:55 PM
Local bit on the Beam contract:
 
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20609189/nasa-makes-17m-deal-with-north-las-vegas-bigelow-aerospace (http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20609189/nasa-makes-17m-deal-with-north-las-vegas-bigelow-aerospace)

"The spacecraft will act as a new room on the International Space Station. More than likely the inflatable structure will be used for storage and additional sleeping quarters."

If people are going to be sleeping in the BEAM it will need some life support.  They may get away with lights and fans to blow air around.

That is not a legitimate source.

http://bcove.me/9jaktfbw (http://bcove.me/9jaktfbw)   video story   http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/187216761.html (http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/187216761.html)

With life support the BEAM is just a cupboard.  It is not a good idea to sleep in a cupboard.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 02/16/2013 05:55 PM
So if to build a BA330 costs $125M and then to launch it on an FH costs an additional $80M+ then each module will have a capitol cost of $205M. If each section is rented for $25M for 2 months then a BA330 module total max revenue would be ~$450M per year. If 3 cargo flights are needed to resupply the module (at ~$100M each) and other operation support costs per module per year of $50M then $100M above operation costs is made each year. If the module has a 5 year lifespan then total available after paying off the capital investment for profit is ~$300M per module on just a $200M investment, a 150% ROI.

But that assumes an occupancy rate of 100%.  How likely that you can rent the whole module for 2 months?  That is not a lot of money - people are currently spending $30 millions for days on ISS.  That is not including the 6 - 12 months needed for training in Russia.  Now if training was only 3 months in the US and the patron gets a month+ on the station--I think demand would go up.  Especially if you don't have to wait years for a chance to do an experiment or go on a trip.  If you could book it like a airline ticket and longest that you would have to wait was 12 -18 months that may also increase demand.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/16/2013 06:12 PM
So if to build a BA330 costs $125M and then to launch it on an FH costs an additional $80M+ then each module will have a capitol cost of $205M. If each section is rented for $25M for 2 months then a BA330 module total max revenue would be ~$450M per year. If 3 cargo flights are needed to resupply the module (at ~$100M each) and other operation support costs per module per year of $50M then $100M above operation costs is made each year. If the module has a 5 year lifespan then total available after paying off the capital investment for profit is ~$300M per module on just a $200M investment, a 150% ROI.

But that assumes an occupancy rate of 100%.  How likely that you can rent the whole module for 2 months?  That is not a lot of money - people are currently spending $30 millions for days on ISS.  That is not including the 6 - 12 months needed for training in Russia.  Now if training was only 3 months in the US and the patron gets a month+ on the station--I think demand would go up.  Especially if you don't have to wait years for a chance to do an experiment or go on a trip.  If you could book it like a airline ticket and longest that you would have to wait was 12 -18 months that may also increase demand.

The break even point looks to be at ~33% occupancy rate between operational costs and revenue. But this rate will not pay off the capital investment so actually it is not a good occupancy rate to run at. An occupancy rate of 66% will make an ROI after 5 years of just ~25%. $250M(clearing $50M per year above operational costs) - $200M capital costs = $50M ROI.

PS. Remember that these are estimates "WAGs" based on other estimates. Do not construe them as gospel. It is a model of what to expect and to determine if Bigelow can possibly actually make money at operating these modules.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 02/18/2013 11:52 AM

The break even point looks to be at ~33% occupancy rate between operational costs and revenue. But this rate will not pay off the capital investment so actually it is not a good occupancy rate to run at. An occupancy rate of 66% will make an ROI after 5 years of just ~25%. $250M(clearing $50M per year above operational costs) - $200M capital costs = $50M ROI.

PS. Remember that these are estimates "WAGs" based on other estimates. Do not construe them as gospel. It is a model of what to expect and to determine if Bigelow can possibly actually make money at operating these modules.
Rental Real Estate looks for 80 to 90% occupancy. I'll make a WAG that we'll see between 25 & 75% occupancy during the first 5 years on station.
Genesis I & II have been on station for 7 & 6 years respectively. Do we know what their condition is?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Kryten on 02/18/2013 01:46 PM
 We have absolutely no idea. BA doesn't even track them at this point.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: R7 on 02/18/2013 02:13 PM
Genesis I & II have been on station for 7 & 6 years respectively. Do we know what their condition is?

http://moonandback.com/2011/12/01/moonandback-interview-with-robert-bigelow-part-4-highlights-and-plans/ (http://moonandback.com/2011/12/01/moonandback-interview-with-robert-bigelow-part-4-highlights-and-plans/)

At three minute mark Bigelow states that design life for avionics was six months, they decayed and failed after two and a half years.

About oldAtlas_Eguy's analysis; a good start but assumes many costs that may not pan out. $125M for bona fide space station with proper airlock, ECLSS, attitude control and what not sounds very low. FH/Dragon Rider still unproven. What if more customers prefer the $26.25M option with Dragon seat and nonexclusive stay up to two months? And will there be a Bigelow 'janitor' on board doing the maintenance?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 02/18/2013 05:03 PM
will there be a Bigelow 'janitor' on board doing the maintenance?
I once applied for the Chef's position on any future station or BA-330 based ship. ;D
While I got no response at the time, maybe it’s time to reapply. ;)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 02/18/2013 05:53 PM
will there be a Bigelow 'janitor' on board doing the maintenance?
I once applied for the Chef's position on any future station or BA-330 based ship. ;D
While I got no response at the time, maybe it’s time to reapply. ;)

yes do so, might be good just for the information you obtain.
 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 03/02/2013 02:34 AM
For some reason the bigelow aerospace home page redirects to their mail server right now? 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: tigerade on 03/02/2013 02:41 AM
For some reason the bigelow aerospace home page redirects to their mail server right now? 


Yep.  That's pretty bad.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 03/02/2013 01:23 PM
For some reason the bigelow aerospace home page redirects to their mail server right now? 


Yep.  That's pretty bad.
They seem to have had a problem all week. My old link to the now defunct message boards still sends me to the Bigelow site.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: dcporter on 03/03/2013 03:52 PM
The Bigelow Aerospace site is back up and ready to ask if I want to install flash on my iPhone.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 03/03/2013 05:31 PM
^ rant_mode_on:

sites (and not just Bigelow) really need to wean themselves of that plugin (I have other words for it) and make themselves portable-friendly.

rant_mode_off
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Occupymars on 03/03/2013 08:11 PM
ready to ask if I want to install flash on my iPhone.
  ;D
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 03/23/2013 01:05 AM
The latest word is that Bigelow has hired a chemist and fluid analyst, ostensibly to work on ECLSS.  They put them on redesigning the toilet for the umpteenth time. 

On other projects, they are doing burst test on the restraint layers for BEAM.  However, they are having difficulty achieving their goals for burst pressure.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/23/2013 01:13 AM
The latest word is that Bigelow has hired a chemist and fluid analyst, ostensibly to work on ECLSS.  They put them on redesigning the toilet for the umpteenth time. 

On other projects, they are doing burst test on the restraint layers for BEAM.  However, they are having difficulty achieving their goals for burst pressure.

Ah!  That is why NASA went for BEAM instead of Sundancer.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 03/23/2013 01:48 AM

Ah!  That is why NASA went for BEAM instead of Sundancer.

No, it was for upmass and launch volume.  It is a technology demo and NASA has no use for a larger module.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/24/2013 02:38 PM

Ah!  That is why NASA went for BEAM instead of Sundancer.

No, it was for upmass and launch volume.  It is a technology demo and NASA has no use for a larger module.

A technological demonstration of what?
Genesis I and II took expandable spacecraft to TRL 9.  CBM are not exactly a new invention.

The Bigelow technology that needs flight testing are things like the ECLSS but BEAM does not contain them.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/24/2013 03:16 PM

Ah!  That is why NASA went for BEAM instead of Sundancer.

No, it was for upmass and launch volume.  It is a technology demo and NASA has no use for a larger module.

A technological demonstration of what?
Genesis I and II took expandable spacecraft to TRL 9.  CBM are not exactly a new invention.

The Bigelow technology that needs flight testing are things like the ECLSS but BEAM does not contain them.

NASA chauvinism of sorts - basically a technology isn't proven until it is proven on their terms, no matter how many times it has been successfully used before.

Basically, BEAM is a test to see if Bigelow can build to NASA specifications and standards and then if that technology can be interfaced with other NASA technology.  FWIW, given that Bigelow are reported to be having issues with burst pressures, building to NASA human-rating standards is the sort of challenge they need.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 03/24/2013 03:59 PM

A technological demonstration of what?
Genesis I and II took expandable spacecraft to TRL 9.  CBM are not exactly a new invention.

The Bigelow technology that needs flight testing are things like the ECLSS but BEAM does not contain them.

I guess it needs to slowly spelled out for some people.  BEAM is for NASA to test inflatable technology because, Genesis I and II did NOT take expandable spacecraft to TRL 9, it was 6/7.  BEAM is not a Bigelow testbed nor is NASA testing Bigelow outfitting hardware.  NASA has no need for Bigelow ECLSS. 

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Borklund on 03/24/2013 09:54 PM

A technological demonstration of what?
Genesis I and II took expandable spacecraft to TRL 9.  CBM are not exactly a new invention.

The Bigelow technology that needs flight testing are things like the ECLSS but BEAM does not contain them.

I guess it needs to slowly spelled out for some people.  BEAM is for NASA to test inflatable technology because, Genesis I and II did NOT take expandable spacecraft to TRL 9, it was 6/7.  BEAM is not a Bigelow testbed nor is NASA testing Bigelow outfitting hardware.  NASA has no need for Bigelow ECLSS. 


I think he meant that Bigelow would want to flight test ECLSS for their own benefit, not for NASA's. NASA obviously already has experience with ECLSS in space, Bigelow doesn't. Genesis I and II were designed to last for 6 months and they functioned flawlessly for 2,5 years. Is the only reason they're at TRL 6/7 with expendable spacecraft because Genesis I and II weren't NASA missions? It sounds awfully illogical to suggest that the tech isn't quite ready yet when it proved itself, and then some, twice, just because some guy at NASA wasn't involved.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 03/24/2013 10:51 PM
1.  I think he meant that Bigelow would want to flight test ECLSS for their own benefit, not for NASA's. NASA obviously already has experience with ECLSS in space, Bigelow doesn't. Genesis I and II were designed to last for 6 months and they functioned flawlessly for 2,5 years.

2.  Is the only reason they're at TRL 6/7 with expendable spacecraft because Genesis I and II weren't NASA missions? It sounds awfully illogical to suggest that the tech isn't quite ready yet when it proved itself, and then some, twice, just because some guy at NASA wasn't involved.

1.  That is the point of BEAM.
2.  No, look at the definition of TRL's

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/25/2013 12:21 AM
At the end of the experiment BEAM only gets to TRL 6 because NASA is unlikely to have a large requirement for modules that are basically cupboards without either windows or internal life support.  Although cheap garbage disposal space may be useful.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 03/25/2013 12:56 AM

Ah!  That is why NASA went for BEAM instead of Sundancer.

No, it was for upmass and launch volume.  It is a technology demo and NASA has no use for a larger module.

Upmass and launch volume is correct.  Additionally, BEAM is very simplified, which keeps integration costs down. 

SunDancer is dead anyway.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/26/2013 01:20 AM
Upmass and launch volume is correct.  Additionally, BEAM is very simplified, which keeps integration costs down. 

SunDancer is dead anyway.


I know that the SunDancer is dead but I am far from convinced that we could get a BA 330 to the ISS in the next 3-4 years.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 03/26/2013 02:01 AM
Upmass and launch volume is correct.  Additionally, BEAM is very simplified, which keeps integration costs down. 

SunDancer is dead anyway.


I know that the SunDancer is dead but I am far from convinced that we could get a BA 330 to the ISS in the next 3-4 years.
Without Node 4 it doesn't have anywhere to go.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lurker Steve on 03/26/2013 03:36 PM
Upmass and launch volume is correct.  Additionally, BEAM is very simplified, which keeps integration costs down. 

SunDancer is dead anyway.


I know that the SunDancer is dead but I am far from convinced that we could get a BA 330 to the ISS in the next 3-4 years.

Bigelow needs to build an independant station, and not rely on the NASA/ISS for support.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 04/11/2013 06:24 PM
Biglow and NASA agreement for a Bigelow moon module:
http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/bigelow-aerospace-and-nasa-said-to-have-lunar-project-agreement.html

http://lasvegascitylife.com/sections/opinion/knappster/george-knapp-infinity-%E2%80%94-and-beyond.html
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/11/2013 06:28 PM
Biglow and NASA agreement for a Bigelow moon module:
http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/bigelow-aerospace-and-nasa-said-to-have-lunar-project-agreement.html

http://lasvegascitylife.com/sections/opinion/knappster/george-knapp-infinity-%E2%80%94-and-beyond.html

Wow............... of all things I have thought of Bigelow would offer to NASA and reaching the agreement phase, this is the last one to happen.

What does that mean for NASA's lunar plans?  ???
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 04/11/2013 06:33 PM
I am guessing that it's for landing an unmanned test module on the moon. It can't be more than that.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/11/2013 07:18 PM
Or could it be related to what George Knapp believes is a big and imminent announcement of a new deal between NASA and Bigelow Aerospace: http://lasvegascitylife.com/sections/opinion/knappster/george-knapp-infinity-—-and-beyond.html (http://lasvegascitylife.com/sections/opinion/knappster/george-knapp-infinity-—-and-beyond.html)

Quote from: George Knapp
An official announcement is still a few days away and will likely happen during a news conference at NASA headquarters. In the meantime, I have a draft copy of what could be an historic contract, one that reads like a Kubrick screenplay or an Arthur C. Clarke story. It is flat-out otherworldly.

[...] The agreement will formalize a series of strategic goals and timetables for the next Space Race. Bigelow’s company would become a clearinghouse of sorts. Its first assignment: to identify which other companies would be most valuable for NASA’s long-range goals, including permanent bases on other celestial bodies, the exploration of the most distant parts of our solar system, and commercial projects that could stimulate the U.S. economy.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lar on 04/11/2013 07:21 PM
Or could it be related to what George Knapp believes is a big and imminent announcement of a new deal between NASA and Bigelow Aerospace: http://lasvegascitylife.com/sections/opinion/knappster/george-knapp-infinity-—-and-beyond.html (http://lasvegascitylife.com/sections/opinion/knappster/george-knapp-infinity-—-and-beyond.html)

Quote from: George Knapp
An official announcement is still a few days away and will likely happen during a news conference at NASA headquarters. In the meantime, I have a draft copy of what could be an historic contract, one that reads like a Kubrick screenplay or an Arthur C. Clarke story. It is flat-out otherworldly.

[...] The agreement will formalize a series of strategic goals and timetables for the next Space Race. Bigelow’s company would become a clearinghouse of sorts. Its first assignment: to identify which other companies would be most valuable for NASA’s long-range goals, including permanent bases on other celestial bodies, the exploration of the most distant parts of our solar system, and commercial projects that could stimulate the U.S. economy.

Check the dates,... the annoucement this thread is referring to is 2007, this would be another announcement. But not a bad place to hang discussion maybe?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/11/2013 07:53 PM
Or could it be related to what George Knapp believes is a big and imminent announcement of a new deal between NASA and Bigelow Aerospace: http://lasvegascitylife.com/sections/opinion/knappster/george-knapp-infinity-—-and-beyond.html (http://lasvegascitylife.com/sections/opinion/knappster/george-knapp-infinity-—-and-beyond.html)

Quote from: George Knapp
An official announcement is still a few days away and will likely happen during a news conference at NASA headquarters. In the meantime, I have a draft copy of what could be an historic contract, one that reads like a Kubrick screenplay or an Arthur C. Clarke story. It is flat-out otherworldly.

[...] The agreement will formalize a series of strategic goals and timetables for the next Space Race. Bigelow’s company would become a clearinghouse of sorts. Its first assignment: to identify which other companies would be most valuable for NASA’s long-range goals, including permanent bases on other celestial bodies, the exploration of the most distant parts of our solar system, and commercial projects that could stimulate the U.S. economy.

Check the dates,... that was 2007, this would be another announcement. But not a bad place to hang discussion maybe?
I see 2013. Interesting, if true.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lurker Steve on 04/11/2013 08:04 PM
And where would NASA get the funding for such a project ??
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 04/11/2013 08:21 PM
Whatever this is. don't discount the source. Knapp is what's known as an investigative reporter.  So this could be something.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/11/2013 08:24 PM
Oops! Sorry about the date mix up. The year obviously didn't register :(. If the announcement proves real then I imagine a new thread will be started.

As for funding, in the shortish-term I imagine little is necessary. Longer-term is obviously a very different matter, but the politics could be very interesting if more concrete proposals emerge that need heavy-lift and operations BEO.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 04/11/2013 08:33 PM
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21885657/author-to-discuss-ufo-technology (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21885657/author-to-discuss-ufo-technology)
 
 
Knap has a TV tie in with Channel 8 in Las Vegas NV.  The story above is all I could finda atm.
 
Btw: he broke the Area 51 story.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 04/11/2013 11:34 PM
I am guessing that it's for landing an unmanned test module on the moon. It can't be more than that.

well seeing as we're guessing, how about a DSH (aka ISS-2), M/NEA-TV, or a MCTV ;D

of course it CAN be more than that... but problem is, we don't know, and educated guesses will only get us chopped by the BIG MOD!! I am going to hold off on optimism, but the possibilities are intriguing to say the least...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 04/11/2013 11:39 PM
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21885657/author-to-discuss-ufo-technology (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21885657/author-to-discuss-ufo-technology)
 
 
Knap has a TV tie in with Channel 8 in Las Vegas NV.  The story above is all I could finda atm.
 
Btw: he broke the Area 51 story.

He has also done some stories on Bigelow in the past.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 04/11/2013 11:43 PM
As much as I would love to hear an announcement of funding (and that goes for just about every space company out there), I'll believe it when I see it.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: dcporter on 04/12/2013 01:58 AM
What's the Vegas odds on this being real based on the content and nature of the above? Like, 70%? 95? 10?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 04/12/2013 02:43 AM
I think that it likely has some basis in truth. But reporters aren't usually very good at reading contracts and Bigelow has a tendency to exaggerate.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: mr. mark on 04/12/2013 03:05 PM
Bigelow comments on two BA-330's to be completed and shipped out by Bigelow Aerospace in 2016. I am guessing for the first private space station?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycj-0duSAxY&feature=player_embedded#!

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 04/12/2013 03:22 PM
What's the Vegas odds on this being real based on the content and nature of the above? Like, 70%? 95? 10?

Find the radio program (if saved), you will have more answers.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/12/2013 03:35 PM
Bigelow comments on two BA-330's to be completed and shipped out by Bigelow Aerospace in 2016. I am guessing for the first private space station?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycj-0duSAxY&feature=player_embedded#!


Fixed your link above. Where in the video are the Bigelow comments? I'm not sure I want to listen to Coast to Coast that long... ;)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lurker Steve on 04/12/2013 03:43 PM
Bigelow comments on two BA-330's to be completed and shipped out by Bigelow Aerospace in 2016. I am guessing for the first private space station?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycj-0duSAxY&feature=player_embedded#!



Is this the same as SpaceX noting when the vehicle arrives at the pad instead of when it actually launches ?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 04/12/2013 05:06 PM
Bigelow comments on two BA-330's to be completed and shipped out by Bigelow Aerospace in 2016. I am guessing for the first private space station?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycj-0duSAxY&feature=player_embedded#!


Fixed your link above. Where in the video are the Bigelow comments? I'm not sure I want to listen to Coast to Coast that long... ;)

It starts at the 6 minute mark but the first 40 minutes of the show is devoted to this topic. The article is based on the Bob Bigelow interview from the radio show. It's a space act agreement for short-term phased activities. It seems to involve some preliminary work/studies on a BLEO Bigelow module (not necessarily on the moon). It should be announced by NASA either April 17th or 18th. 

Here is a direct link to the show:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2013/03/31
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 04/12/2013 06:07 PM
100 day asset identification
120 day mission development with partners



Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 04/12/2013 06:42 PM
100 day asset identification
120 day mission development with partners

That's at 14 minutes into the interview (on the Youtube link above). But if you listen to the rest of the interview, these commercial assets and capabilities would be used in order to give SLS/MPCV some missions and payloads. Bigelow uses his Olympus module (BA-2100) as an example.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 04/12/2013 06:44 PM
I've been keeping my eyes on Channel 8, should be a story around soon.
 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 04/14/2013 03:28 AM
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21885657/author-to-discuss-ufo-technology (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21885657/author-to-discuss-ufo-technology)
 
 
Knap has a TV tie in with Channel 8 in Las Vegas NV.  The story above is all I could finda atm.
 
Btw: he broke the Area 51 story.

He has also done some stories on Bigelow in the past.
That's putting it mildly.  George Knapp has been RTB's buddy for many years, so he views everything Bigelow does with rose colored glasses.  He seemed like a nice enough guy when I met him, but I would be skeptical of his journalism.  Google his books and you will see what I mean.
He has done quite a few of the 'something big is coming soon' articles over the years, so I wouldn't hold your breath. 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 04/14/2013 04:07 PM
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21885657/author-to-discuss-ufo-technology (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21885657/author-to-discuss-ufo-technology)
 
 
Knap has a TV tie in with Channel 8 in Las Vegas NV.  The story above is all I could finda atm.
 
Btw: he broke the Area 51 story.

He has also done some stories on Bigelow in the past.
That's putting it mildly.  George Knapp has been RTB's buddy for many years, so he views everything Bigelow does with rose colored glasses.  He seemed like a nice enough guy when I met him, but I would be skeptical of his journalism.  Google his books and you will see what I mean.
He has done quite a few of the 'something big is coming soon' articles over the years, so I wouldn't hold your breath. 

He still has to deal with sweep weeks with Tv stations that kinda embellish the envelope
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/14/2013 04:29 PM
But if you listen to the rest of the interview, these commercial assets and capabilities would be used in order to give SLS/MPCV some missions and payloads. Bigelow uses his Olympus module (BA-2100) as an example.

I think this is quite politically astute by NASA. It furthers the commercial space agenda, whilst arguably being supportive of SLS etc beloved by some in congress.

Jeff Foust has posted a summary of the radio interview, including some Bigelow quotes: http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/04/14/whats-robert-bigelow-up-to-now-with-nasa/ (http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/04/14/whats-robert-bigelow-up-to-now-with-nasa/)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 04/14/2013 10:04 PM
So, we get a couple of studies with project options at the end. Seems to me this is at the least to cut middle ground between the commercial and SLS camps, which now are at war because of the limited funding issue.

If such a middle ground could be reached both sides could benefit; SLS would have something besides pork as a purpose (sending habs & exploration bits to L2 etc), and commercial goes BEO (resupply & crew.)

If that's what it takes to get things out of LEO, make it so.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: kicaj on 04/19/2013 08:26 PM
Some new information.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/04/19/bigelow-nasa-explore-lunar-private-public-partnerships/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/19/2013 08:33 PM
Some new information.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/04/19/bigelow-nasa-explore-lunar-private-public-partnerships/

Ah so this is what the previous "Bigelow Moonbase" rumor is - a non-payment Space Act for more studies....... so all ado about nothing.....  ::)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: kicaj on 04/19/2013 08:47 PM
yes i feel a little disappointment, i think everyone was waiting for something more...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/19/2013 11:12 PM
I hope the study answers questions about long term life support systems.

A way of landing the modules is needed.  Last time I checked landing engines had to be below the modules rather than beside them.  Although a module can be laid on its side after landing.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 04/20/2013 12:49 PM
Here is an update by Alan Boyle of NBC News on the commercial exploration space act agreement:
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/19/17829546-to-the-moon-bigelow-aerospace-and-nasa-look-at-private-exploration?lite
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/21/2013 12:16 AM
As the SAA is unfunded, what do people think Bigelow are getting from NASA under the SAA? Is it 'just' about publicity/increased credibility?

Also interesting quote from Mike Gold in the NBC article:

Quote
The BA330 will be ready prior to commercial crew, so that’s roughly the timeframe [2017] we're looking at
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 04/21/2013 12:41 AM
Could they be getting access to Plum Brook to test half & full scale prototypes?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: joek on 04/21/2013 12:55 AM
Could they be getting access to Plum Brook to test half & full scale prototypes?

Certainly if Bigelow is willing to pay for use of the facilities(aka, "reimbursable SAA"), but that's not how the story seems to read and there would be nothing exceptional if they did so.  Pretty much anyone can contract for the use of NASA facilities via a reimbursable SAA if they're willing to pay and the facilities are available.  That doesn't appear to be the case here.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 04/23/2013 12:08 AM
Here is the unfunded Bigelow exploration SAA:
http://spaceref.biz/2013/04/text-of-the-nasabigelow-space-act-agreement.html
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/23/2013 05:42 AM
Here is the unfunded Bigelow exploration SAA:
http://spaceref.biz/2013/04/text-of-the-nasabigelow-space-act-agreement.html

Many thanks for posting this. It answers my earlier question about what Bigelow gets from NASA:

Quote
NASA will use reasonable efforts to:

1. Engage in outward facing communications intended to highlight the importance of the work being conducted under this Agreement and to encourage broad participation.

2. Actively participate in meetings and discussions when requested by Bigelow Aerospace.

3. Provide in-kind support to supplement Bigelow Aerospace's. financial and logistics contributions under this Agreement.

It also confirms Bigelow's view on BA 330 completion:

Quote
Bigelow Aerospace has continued to mature the BA 330 and is currently on schedule to finish construction of its first privately developed habitat in 2016 ready for flight.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 04/26/2013 04:50 PM
Article 3 of the SAA says this:

Quote
the Parties will further determine how expandables and private sector investment can play a critical role in enabling NASA to implement a human space development and exploration strategy that enables bold national objectives and stimulates economic expansion in an affordable manner.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 04/28/2013 10:27 PM
Article 3 of the SAA says this:

Quote
the Parties will further determine how expandables and private sector investment can play a critical role in enabling NASA to implement a human space development and exploration strategy that enables bold national objectives and stimulates economic expansion in an affordable manner.

It sounds like they have created an SAA so that NASA will help Bigelow  write their brochures without factual and spelling errors. 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Gordon Widera on 05/03/2013 03:04 AM
Bloomberg Businessweek Tech

"Robert Bigelow Plans a Real Estate Empire in Space"

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-02/robert-bigelow-plans-a-real-estate-empire-in-space#p1

Not a much new information but good over all view of what Mr. B. wants us to know.. ;)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 05/21/2013 02:12 AM
See this thread on the upcoming Bigelow-NASA press conference:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31974.0


MEDIA ADVISORY: M13-084

NASA, BIGELOW TO DISCUSS PRIVATE SECTOR HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

WASHINGTON -- NASA and Bigelow Aerospace of Las Vegas are holding a
media availability at 1:30 p.m. EDT, Thursday, May 23, to discuss the
agency's Space Act Agreement with the company for its insight on
collaborating with commercial industry on exploration beyond Earth
orbit. Journalists can participate in-person or by teleconference.

The media availability participants are:
-- William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator, human exploration
and operations, NASA
-- Robert Bigelow, founder and president, Bigelow Aerospace

Journalist who want to attend in-person at NASA Headquarters, 300 E
St. SW in Washington, or dial-in to ask questions should contact
Rachel Kraft at [email protected] or 202-358-1100 by 11 a.m.
May 23.

Under the agreement, Bigelow will work with a variety of commercial
space companies to assess and develop options for innovative and
dynamic private and public investments to create infrastructure to
support domestic and international governmental exploration
activities alongside revenue generating private sector enterprises.
Bigelow will deliver its analysis by the end of this year.

The agreement includes a two-phased approach that will help NASA
assess potential opportunities for collaboration. During the first
phase, Bigelow will leverage its existing relationships with other
private companies and its expertise from continuing operations in
space to form common objectives between the private sector and NASA.
In the second phase, Bigelow will create a series of options for
public-private collaboration that lower costs and takes advantage of
rapid implementation.

For more information on Bigelow Aerospace, visit:

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com

For more information on NASA's exploration goals, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration

       
-end-
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 05/23/2013 08:49 PM
Here is the (zipped) mp3 file of the NASA and Bigelow press conference:
http://www.gamefront.com/files/23338469/Bigelow+and+NASA+Press+Conference.zip

See the (zipped) mp3 file of the Bigelow and NASA press conference above.

See the thread dedicated to the press conference here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31974.msg1056038#msg1056038
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 05/23/2013 09:25 PM
Thanks yg1968.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: sanman on 05/25/2013 03:43 AM
Bigelow's Moonbase Goal:

http://news.discovery.com/space/private-spaceflight/bigelow-aerospace-moon-habitat-130524.htm
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 05/26/2013 11:23 PM
Here is the (zipped) mp3 file of the NASA and Bigelow press conference:
http://www.gamefront.com/files/23338469/Bigelow+and+NASA+Press+Conference.zip

See the (zipped) mp3 file of the Bigelow and NASA press conference above.

See the thread dedicated to the press conference here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31974.msg1056038#msg1056038

The audio of the press conference is now available on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkVEGGLYNN4&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 05/26/2013 11:35 PM
Didnt someone here insist that Bigelows habitats are unsuitable for the moon?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/26/2013 11:46 PM
Didnt someone here insist that Bigelows habitats are unsuitable for the moon?

The habitat would need a floor but that is not hard to provide.

The other problem with the Moon is that a BA330 weighs 20 tonne.  We do not have any lunar landers that can take payloads that big.  Developing such a lander would be a major project.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ClaytonBirchenough on 05/27/2013 12:18 AM
Could a BA330 be used on Mars too? What modifications would be necessary for a Mars BA330?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 05/27/2013 05:02 AM
Didnt someone here insist that Bigelows habitats are unsuitable for the moon?

The habitat would need a floor but that is not hard to provide.

The other problem with the Moon is that a BA330 weighs 20 tonne.  We do not have any lunar landers that can take payloads that big.  Developing such a lander would be a major project.

You're forgetting Bigelow's plan is to berth three BA-330's and four propulsion busses in LLO or at L1 then land them under their own steam - no separate lander necessary unless you count the legged propulsion busses.

Google Patents.... (https://www.google.com/patents/US7469864?dq=bigelow+land+lunar+base+patent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VemiUZ7zF8rhqQGm44GQDg&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAg)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: sanman on 05/27/2013 09:43 PM
Wouldn't it be better to inflate them after touching down on luna firma?

They could also change the geometry to hemispherical, giving them flat bottoms to sit on the regolith.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 05/27/2013 10:49 PM
I would think in the case of a failed inflation etc. it would be far easier to replace a module in LEO, LLO, or L1 than after it's landed.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robert Thompson on 05/28/2013 01:58 AM
They could also change the geometry to hemispherical, giving them flat bottoms to sit on the regolith.

Not mass efficient. You'll produce strain at the angles for/per the materials Bigelow is working with. (Air pressure being isotropic, atmosphere is most mass efficiently contained by Gaussian equipotentials.) You'll produce strain on the flat, non-hemispherical floor, which is to say, your hemispherical Bigelow half-hab will try to raise itself up with that flat floor bowing out, trying to return to the natural efficiency of the round azimuth. I'll dig up a white paper on lunar habitat trade space if you need. With some robotic excavation, the Bigelow hab can be half-buried. Then wrap enough of those regolith sand bags.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/28/2013 03:07 AM
Didnt someone here insist that Bigelows habitats are unsuitable for the moon?

The habitat would need a floor but that is not hard to provide.

The other problem with the Moon is that a BA330 weighs 20 tonne.  We do not have any lunar landers that can take payloads that big.  Developing such a lander would be a major project.

You're forgetting Bigelow's plan is to berth three BA-330's and four propulsion busses in LLO or at L1 then land them under their own steam - no separate lander necessary unless you count the legged propulsion busses.

Google Patents.... (https://www.google.com/patents/US7469864?dq=bigelow+land+lunar+base+patent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VemiUZ7zF8rhqQGm44GQDg&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAg)

That just makes it harder.  Now he needs a 60+ tonne lander.  Or 3-4 off 20 tonne landers.

There are similarities between inspace propulsion modules and landers but there are major differences like 1 : 10 throttling.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: john smith 19 on 05/28/2013 12:13 PM
The audio of the press conference is now available on YouTube:

A very interesting recording. The document that Bigelow have been working on sounds a very interesting snapshot of available (more or less off the shelf) space hardware.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: newpylong on 05/29/2013 03:33 AM
Definitely very interesting. This sounds like the synergistic private/public type relationship we have been looking for.

Also, interesting to hear Bob elude to the Falcon X Heavy and, "you have the SLS, which has an advertised 70 metric ton capability, and we have been told privately it might even be more than that."
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robert Thompson on 05/29/2013 04:36 AM
I thought the most salient exchange was at 48:35 with Keith Cowing to Gerstenmaier, "Is this what you're sort of quietly looking for here: is how you Really get to do this out there, as opposed to Think about it?"
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 05/29/2013 04:39 AM
I thought the most salient exchange was at 48:35 with Keith Cowing to Gerstenmaier, "Is this what you're sort of quietly looking for here: is how you Really get to do this out there, as opposed to Think about it?"

Yeah, it's pretty sad that someone has to point out, once again, that the industry knows how to do this stuff better than the guys sitting at the top of the ivory tower.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: notsorandom on 05/29/2013 05:35 PM
Definitely very interesting. This sounds like the synergistic private/public type relationship we have been looking for.

Also, interesting to hear Bob elude to the Falcon X Heavy and, "you have the SLS, which has an advertised 70 metric ton capability, and we have been told privately it might even be more than that."
My read of that is that he is saying SLS might be able to lift more. There have been some on this forum who have crunched the publicly available data for SLS and have concluded that there is significantly more lift mass than 70mt. That is of course for Block I and not any of the follow on upgrades like advanced boosters or an upper stage.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: newpylong on 05/29/2013 07:56 PM
Definitely very interesting. This sounds like the synergistic private/public type relationship we have been looking for.

Also, interesting to hear Bob elude to the Falcon X Heavy and, "you have the SLS, which has an advertised 70 metric ton capability, and we have been told privately it might even be more than that."
My read of that is that he is saying SLS might be able to lift more. There have been some on this forum who have crunched the publicly available data for SLS and have concluded that there is significantly more lift mass than 70mt. That is of course for Block I and not any of the follow on upgrades like advanced boosters or an upper stage.

That was my understanding as well, but it was interesting to hear it other than on here.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: newpylong on 05/29/2013 07:57 PM
Yeah, it's pretty sad that someone has to point out, once again, that the industry knows how to do this stuff better than the guys sitting at the top of the ivory tower.

What does this statement even mean?  ???
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robert Thompson on 05/29/2013 08:45 PM
Yeah, it's pretty sad that someone has to point out, once again, that the industry knows how to do this stuff better than the guys sitting at the top of the ivory tower.

What does this statement even mean?  ???
It means a lot of impolite, ungracious, inconvenient realities that color the journey from early NASA to recent. NASA is anchor tenant. There won't be a public sector of space until commercial space integrates enough infrastructure to appeal to a very broad array of tourism, communication, science, etc. Commercial has to crest that hill, and likely cannot do it based solely on present market forces. This is very like activation energy in chemical processes: you must put in a lot of energy to unleash a lot lot more energy. But NASA is not commodity space. It is a geopolitical set piece that must be shown in best light, when it shows at all, and it cannot be allowed to fail. Whereas American exceptionalism derived from the compounding interest of bravery to fail. (I'm composing in haste here.) It has fallen to the lean and mean to do what the right stuff did in yesteryear.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 05/29/2013 10:56 PM
Yeah, it's pretty sad that someone has to point out, once again, that the industry knows how to do this stuff better than the guys sitting at the top of the ivory tower.

What does this statement even mean?  ???
It means a lot of impolite, ungracious, inconvenient realities that color the journey from early NASA to recent. (unintelligible ramble removed.)

Actually, it means that if you ask ULA how to get stuff to the Moon you get a completely different answer to what all the experts at NASA say.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: kicaj on 05/30/2013 06:43 AM
Definitely very interesting. This sounds like the synergistic private/public type relationship we have been looking for.

Also, interesting to hear Bob elude to the Falcon X Heavy and, "you have the SLS, which has an advertised 70 metric ton capability, and we have been told privately it might even be more than that."

Falcon X Heavy?? Maybe you mean Falcon Heavy?
On SpaceX web site, price for Falcon Heavy is 128mln $.
How much single SLS rocket would cost, i think few time more then Falcon Heavy.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 05/30/2013 07:07 AM
Per L2 the talk of a Falcon X / X Heavy or even an XX may be back on the table, generally connected to pad 39A.  See appropriately named non-L2 threads too. These "X" designations are based on old, denied, artwork but are useful for naming the as yet officially un-named.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robert Thompson on 05/30/2013 01:32 PM
Well, newpylong. Keith Cowing questioned Gerstenmaier on risk. (47:00- ; risk 48:44). I attempted to address differences in cultures of risk through the lens of 'those who must survive on profit versus those who can gorge on tax money to perpetuate infallibility'. QG is talking about the technical near-TRL capabilities of a profit-seeking regime versus the wagon-circling Cold War-TRL of the tax-gorging, can't-fail regime. You decide if these causes are correlated. :)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/30/2013 03:47 PM
New big feature article now on site, from Chris Gebhart and Yves-A. Grondin.

From Space Station to Moon Base – Bigelow expands on inflatable ambitions
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/space-station-moon-base-bigelows-expands-inflatable-ambitions/

Use the specific thread if responding to the article's content:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32038.0
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: newpylong on 05/30/2013 09:22 PM

Falcon X Heavy?? Maybe you mean Falcon Heavy?
On SpaceX web site, price for Falcon Heavy is 128mln $.
How much single SLS rocket would cost, i think few time more then Falcon Heavy.

No, as I said, he eluded to something (around 40 minutes in) beyond the Falcon Heavy, "a super heavy" along with SLS as options for them in the future.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 05/31/2013 09:26 AM
Space News article on the report.

Also: the subscale landed hab testbeds name is "Guide", and Bigelow is hiring and expects to be back up to 125 employees by Christmas this year.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/35527nasa-banking-on-bigelow-study-to-break-big-contractor-bias#.UahqoL-9LTo
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/04/2013 02:19 PM
My read of that is that he is saying SLS might be able to lift more. There have been some on this forum who have crunched the publicly available data for SLS and have concluded that there is significantly more lift mass than 70mt. That is of course for Block I and not any of the follow on upgrades like advanced boosters or an upper stage.

I should hope so. I've never heard of an LV designed by a team with any serious experience that did not have margin for growth in the payload build in, if only to allow for the structures being heavier than expected.

I think the industry norm is about 15% so >10 tones should be possible.

It would be great to discover that the Block 1 could do 100 tonnes from 1st launch (or 2nd) but I doubt anyone will have put in that much margin.  :)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: newpylong on 06/04/2013 03:36 PM
I think someone did the math and it wasn't shy of 100 metric tons by much from the start...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 06/13/2013 08:27 PM
Sierra Nevada Corp. To Build ISS Berthing Hardware for Bigelow Module:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/35757sierra-nevada-corp-to-build-iss-berthing-hardware-for-bigelow-module#.Uboq7vlJ6L-
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: AnalogMan on 06/13/2013 08:42 PM
Sierra Nevada Corp. To Build ISS Berthing Hardware for Bigelow Module:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/35757sierra-nevada-corp-to-build-iss-berthing-hardware-for-bigelow-module#.Uboq7vlJ6L- (http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/35757sierra-nevada-corp-to-build-iss-berthing-hardware-for-bigelow-module#.Uboq7vlJ6L-)

See also:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30797.msg1058743#msg1058743
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Space Pete on 08/07/2013 02:20 PM
From Page 10 of the following recent NAC presentation:

› Status of Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate - Mr. William Gerstenmaier (13.5 MB PDF)
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/HEOC_HEOStatus_July2013(2).pdf

Suppose this explains what Bigelow use that pool for!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 08/08/2013 02:46 AM
From Page 10 of the following recent NAC presentation:

› Status of Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate - Mr. William Gerstenmaier (13.5 MB PDF)
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/HEOC_HEOStatus_July2013(2).pdf

Suppose this explains what Bigelow use that pool for!

Indeed.  The test tank (shown in the attachment from google maps) has been used for burst tests for Genesis and Sundancer size restraint layers, as well as water testing the Boeing CST 100 boilerplate, which can be seen in some of the CST100 promotional photos.  The test tank is about 35 feet deep.  In the above picture it appears the red hose attached is the pressure supply of water.  Normally the burst test are done in the test tank by pressurizing a internal bladder to test the loading of the restraint layer. 

It is interesting to note that when you pull up the google maps view of the Bigelow plant, the higher view has the pool empty, but it is filled in the zoomed view.  They have difficulty keeping the pool full due to leaks and evaporation.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: beancounter on 08/08/2013 02:59 AM
From Page 10 of the following recent NAC presentation:

› Status of Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate - Mr. William Gerstenmaier (13.5 MB PDF)
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/HEOC_HEOStatus_July2013(2).pdf

Suppose this explains what Bigelow use that pool for!

Indeed.  The test tank (shown in the attachment from google maps) has been used for burst tests for Genesis and Sundancer size restraint layers, as well as water testing the Boeing CST 100 boilerplate, which can be seen in some of the CST100 promotional photos.  The test tank is about 35 feet deep.  In the above picture it appears the red hose attached is the pressure supply of water.  Normally the burst test are done in the test tank by pressurizing a internal bladder to test the loading of the restraint layer. 

It is interesting to note that when you pull up the google maps view of the Bigelow plant, the higher view has the pool empty, but it is filled in the zoomed view.  They have difficulty keeping the pool full due to leaks and evaporation.
Both could be easily addressed and don't cost much.  Pool liner and pool blanket.  Commonly used here DownUnder.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lars_J on 08/08/2013 05:56 AM
It is interesting to note that when you pull up the google maps view of the Bigelow plant, the higher view has the pool empty, but it is filled in the zoomed view.  They have difficulty keeping the pool full due to leaks and evaporation.

Different zoom level imagery for Google maps can be taken at very different times. Are you sure the answer isn't as simple as the pool being drained when not used?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 08/09/2013 05:12 PM
It is interesting to note that when you pull up the google maps view of the Bigelow plant, the higher view has the pool empty, but it is filled in the zoomed view.  They have difficulty keeping the pool full due to leaks and evaporation.

Different zoom level imagery for Google maps can be taken at very different times. Are you sure the answer isn't as simple as the pool being drained when not used?
Yes, you can tell the zoom levels were at different times, because the building expansion to the south is different, and the outer portion has been complete for some time now.
Quite sure about what it takes to keep it full.  The test tank is over 300,000 gallons, so it is not trivial to fill. 
This is kind of a cross post from CST-100, but the Bigelow test tank takes a starring role in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ESAwzJklEvM

Although this was published 7/31/13, it must be over six months old, because one of the folks in it no longer works there.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 08/19/2013 09:23 PM
S.T.E.M. for the Classroom project (http://www.stemfortheclassroom.com/2013/07/the-city-in-sky.html). Launch & assemble a Bigelow/Hercules Space Station.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 08/21/2013 01:30 PM
It is interesting to note that when you pull up the google maps view of the Bigelow plant, the higher view has the pool empty, but it is filled in the zoomed view.  They have difficulty keeping the pool full due to leaks and evaporation.

Different zoom level imagery for Google maps can be taken at very different times. Are you sure the answer isn't as simple as the pool being drained when not used?
Yes, you can tell the zoom levels were at different times, because the building expansion to the south is different, and the outer portion has been complete for some time now.
Quite sure about what it takes to keep it full.  The test tank is over 300,000 gallons, so it is not trivial to fill. 

Although this was published 7/31/13, it must be over six months old, because one of the folks in it no longer works there.

a very large tank cover would be a good investment.  Water might be hard to come by in 2014.  A lot of hints being throw out atm.
 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: grythumn on 08/29/2013 03:34 PM
Didn't see a general Bigelow thread, so... picture of the Bigelow station model in the Air and Space museum in DC, in the incomplete "Moving Beyond Earth" exhibit. Apologies for the quality... it was very poorly lit, and behind plexi, so no flash.

-Bob
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: dcporter on 08/29/2013 05:09 PM
Nice pic, thanks for posting!

I can't wait until Bigelow has anything other than snazzy models to show off...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 08/30/2013 12:47 PM
Didn't see a general Bigelow thread, so... picture of the Bigelow station model in the Air and Space museum in DC, in the incomplete "Moving Beyond Earth" exhibit. Apologies for the quality... it was very poorly lit, and behind plexi, so no flash.

-Bob
I'm glad they have an exibit there. Too bad it includes the canceled Sundancer.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: JBF on 08/30/2013 01:21 PM
Has there been any word at all out of Bigelow recently?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 08/31/2013 01:09 PM
Has there been any word at all out of Bigelow recently?
I traded a few emails with a couple people there recently, trying to get them involved here. All they really did was direct me to a couple publicly available news articles.
 While they may have had somebody check us out here, I have my doubts that they'll participate in any meaningful way.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 11/06/2013 11:49 PM
Quote
NASA, Bigelow Aerospace to Hold Media Availability

Representatives of NASA and Bigelow Aerospace will discuss the North Las Vegas, Nev., company's completed and upcoming projects for the agency in a media availability Tuesday, Nov. 12, in Washington.

William Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations, and Robert Bigelow, founder and president of Bigelow Aerospace, will meet members of the news media at 2:30 p.m. EST at the Phoenix Park Hotel, 520 N. Capitol St. NW.

Under a Space Act Agreement with NASA, Bigelow recently assessed and developed options for commercial sector involvement in space exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2013/november/nasa-bigelow-aerospace-to-hold-media-availability/#.UnrigKweenk
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 11/07/2013 12:17 AM
Is it going to be a teleconference? Is the audio going to be streamed?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: newpylong on 11/07/2013 11:34 AM
Sounds promising...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 11/10/2013 02:52 AM
Is it going to be a teleconference? Is the audio going to be streamed?
I looked around and I couldn't find out so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 11/10/2013 01:59 PM
Has there been any word at all out of Bigelow recently?

Bigelow got that NASA contract they were looking for, so those commercial space stations are in hibernation.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 11/10/2013 03:45 PM
Has there been any word at all out of Bigelow recently?

Bigelow got that NASA contract they were looking for, so those commercial space stations are in hibernation.
Their commercial space stations have been in hibernation for a while (before they got the NASA contract), because they currently have no way to get the stations and their crews into orbit!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Vultur on 11/11/2013 01:03 AM
Bigelow got that NASA contract they were looking for

Does this mean BEAM for the ISS, or is there something else as well?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 11/11/2013 01:41 AM
Has there been any word at all out of Bigelow recently?

Bigelow got that NASA contract they were looking for, so those commercial space stations are in hibernation.

BEAM only provides Bigelow $21M.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 11/11/2013 02:16 AM
I understand that BEAM is a relatively small contract, but it is important, and is sufficient for the announcements of commercial space platforms to slide into the background.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 11/12/2013 03:05 PM
It's a little late in the day to ask, but I sent them an email asking if the conference would be telecast. I'll let everybody know if they answer.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: newpylong on 11/12/2013 04:26 PM
Has there been any word at all out of Bigelow recently?

Bigelow got that NASA contract they were looking for, so those commercial space stations are in hibernation.
Their commercial space stations have been in hibernation for a while (before they got the NASA contract), because they currently have no way to get the stations and their crews into orbit!

BA330 could be orbited by a Delta-IV Heavy or soon a Falcon Heavy. If they ever build the 2100 SLS could launch it in one shot.

Crew access not too far out.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 11/12/2013 04:48 PM
I did get a reponse, the Press Conference will not be telecast but it might be recorded & that will be released if it becomes available.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 11/12/2013 05:19 PM
BA330 could be orbited by a Delta-IV Heavy or soon a Falcon Heavy. If they ever build the 2100 SLS could launch it in one shot.

Crew access not too far out.
No question about that, but they have been in hibernation for a couple of years or so now and they will be until they can actually put people on their space stations. There is no point in launching a habitat that can not be inhabited. In order to do that, you require a frequent stream of people going back and forth. That requires at least one, better two commercial operators. So far none are available and wont be until at least 2015, or later.
So they have to wait. The NASA thing is only going to provide some minor interim funding until then.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: JasonAW3 on 11/12/2013 05:46 PM
I get the feeeling that as soon as someone has a commercial vehicle that can reliably get cargo and crew into orbit, Bigelow will be contracting with them.

     I figure SpaceX in about 5 years or The Dreamchaser crew in 7 years.

     I figure that Bigelow et al, would like a few manned flights under the belts of anyone he plans to contract with before he commits.

Jason
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 11/12/2013 05:49 PM

     I figure SpaceX in about 5 years
Jason
I'd say within 3 at the max.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 11/12/2013 05:58 PM
I get the feeeling that as soon as someone has a commercial vehicle that can reliably get cargo and crew into orbit, Bigelow will be contracting with them.

     I figure SpaceX in about 5 years or The Dreamchaser crew in 7 years.

     I figure that Bigelow et al, would like a few manned flights under the belts of anyone he plans to contract with before he commits.

Jason
They already have a deal of sorts with Boeing for their CST100, IIRC and I believe to remember them talking about rides on Dragon as well.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lurker Steve on 11/12/2013 06:14 PM
BA330 could be orbited by a Delta-IV Heavy or soon a Falcon Heavy. If they ever build the 2100 SLS could launch it in one shot.

Crew access not too far out.
No question about that, but they have been in hibernation for a couple of years or so now and they will be until they can actually put people on their space stations. There is no point in launching a habitat that can not be inhabited. In order to do that, you require a frequent stream of people going back and forth. That requires at least one, better two commercial operators. So far none are available and wont be until at least 2015, or later.
So they have to wait. The NASA thing is only going to provide some minor interim funding until then.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like they will have any sort of habitat ready to launch. All they've done lately is build models.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 11/12/2013 06:21 PM
Well, they did fire most of their team back then, from what I understand... I guess they will have to hire back some people (if they can get them back) for that NASA contract.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/12/2013 06:33 PM
How the spacestations are progressing depends on how crafty Bigelow is with his NASA contracts.

BEAM gives him a proven flexible habitat skin and Common Berthing Module (CBM).  The communications equipment may also be usable in future Bigelow spacestations.

If Bigelow gets the BEAM2 contract for a module with life support then he has parts that are very useful for future spacestations.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Occupymars on 11/12/2013 07:26 PM
Jeff Foust is at the event, follow him on twitter to see whats going on https://twitter.com/jeff_foust

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BY5PuC8CMAALtSJ.jpg:small)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: JBF on 11/12/2013 07:29 PM
How the spacestations are progressing depends on how crafty Bigelow is with his NASA contracts.

BEAM gives him a proven flexible habitat skin and Common Berthing Module (CBM).  The communications equipment may also be usable in future Bigelow spacestations.

If Bigelow gets the BEAM2 contract for a module with life support then he has parts that are very useful for future spacestations.
I am hopeful he will have something up before/if he gets contracted for BEAM2.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 11/12/2013 07:31 PM
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust 11m Bigelow: we financial capacity to develop 2 BA 330 modules by end 2016, plus 2 transit tugs.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: newpylong on 11/12/2013 07:33 PM
I fairly sure the last conference Bigelow spoke at they said they have two 330's under construction...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Occupymars on 11/12/2013 07:51 PM
Jeff Foust "Here's a preview of the event, based on advance copy of the report: http://bit.ly/1eIEngT"

Jeff mentions that Bigelow are working on a version of the BA330 called the BA 330-DS it will have rad-hardened avionics and additional shielding, as well as a larger inventory of spare parts for deep space missions, and it would be capable of landing on a planetary body.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Occupymars on 11/12/2013 07:57 PM
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust 47m
Bigelow: mocking up a next-gen s/c with 3,250m^3 volume, needs an 8-meter fairing; would be interested in using SLS for that.

3,250m^3 volume that's over 3 times that of the iss  :o
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 11/12/2013 09:19 PM
Bigelow Aerospace is the only space company that I know of that gets more vague in their plans after winning contracts with NASA.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 11/12/2013 09:28 PM
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust 47m
Bigelow: mocking up a next-gen s/c with 3,250m^3 volume, needs an 8-meter fairing; would be interested in using SLS for that.

3,250m^3 volume that's over 3 times that of the iss  :o
Thats bigger than the Olympus Module Bigelow introduced a while back.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 11/13/2013 01:13 AM
Here is an article by Jeff Foust on the content of the Bigelow report:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/11/12/bigelow-report-calls-for-use-of-cots-model-for-cislunar-transportation/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 11/13/2013 01:18 AM

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like they will have any sort of habitat ready to launch. All they've done lately is build models.

Build buildings, mockups and subscale modules. Now BA will have a full scale functional module at ISS (albeit not full scale as envisioned for their large modules).

For BA to actually build one of their giant platforms, they need customers. Apart from NASA, there is no customer. Therefore, the NASA contract is supremely important.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 11/13/2013 01:31 AM
Video report on the press conference:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000217546

Here is another one:
http://bcdownload.gannett.edgesuite.net/brevard-mobile/201311/3930/38321750001_2833026415001_IMG-0537.mp4
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: dcporter on 11/13/2013 03:11 AM

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like they will have any sort of habitat ready to launch. All they've done lately is build models.

Build buildings, mockups and subscale modules. Now BA will have a full scale functional module at ISS (albeit not full scale as envisioned for their large modules).

For BA to actually build one of their giant platforms, they need customers. Apart from NASA, there is no customer. Therefore, the NASA contract is supremely important.

True although it sounds like he's claiming to be able to self-fund two rounds of "build it and they will come"?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 11/13/2013 04:01 AM
True although it sounds like he's claiming to be able to self-fund two rounds of "build it and they will come"?

I was involved in an effort to run a space station on a commercial basis, and I can tell you that the costs far exceed Mr. Bigelow's potential budget.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: dcporter on 11/13/2013 04:19 AM
True although it sounds like he's claiming to be able to self-fund two rounds of "build it and they will come"?

I was involved in an effort to run a space station on a commercial basis, and I can tell you that the costs far exceed Mr. Bigelow's potential budget.

I 100% believe you even without a pertinent resume. Costs exceed expectations even when one isn't starting a space company with hotelier experience. Thoughts on whether his declared ability to fund two significantly up the odds that he'll be able to fund one?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lars_J on 11/13/2013 04:25 AM

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like they will have any sort of habitat ready to launch. All they've done lately is build models.

Build buildings, mockups and subscale modules. Now BA will have a full scale functional module at ISS (albeit not full scale as envisioned for their large modules).

For BA to actually build one of their giant platforms, they need customers. Apart from NASA, there is no customer. Therefore, the NASA contract is supremely important.


Indeed. And the experience of providing a working module at ISS will be invaluable for them - and get a real foot in the door for future NASA contracts.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 11/13/2013 04:29 AM
Thoughts on whether his declared ability to fund two significantly up the odds that he'll be able to fund one?

The real number is zero.

Let me review the bidding. BA has been at it since about 1998, predicting mid-term space platforms. BA has launched a couple of subscale modules, and has been awarded a NASA contract for  a larger base-bones module.

Extrapolate the trend.


Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: dcporter on 11/13/2013 04:30 AM
Thoughts on whether his declared ability to fund two significantly up the odds that he'll be able to fund one?

The real number is zero.

:(

Thanks for the insights.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 11/13/2013 04:36 AM
True although it sounds like he's claiming to be able to self-fund two rounds of "build it and they will come"?

I was involved in an effort to run a space station on a commercial basis, and I can tell you that the costs far exceed Mr. Bigelow's potential budget.

No offense, but maybe he's just smarter than you?

I mean, he is a billionaire and all.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: guckyfan on 11/13/2013 05:03 AM
Thoughts on whether his declared ability to fund two significantly up the odds that he'll be able to fund one?

The real number is zero.

Let me review the bidding. BA has been at it since about 1998, predicting mid-term space platforms. BA has launched a couple of subscale modules, and has been awarded a NASA contract for  a larger base-bones module.

Extrapolate the trend.

No point to launch a space station when there is no commercial provider for manned flights. There is no trend in those data for that reason.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 11/13/2013 06:23 AM
Here is an article by Jeff Foust on the content of the Bigelow report:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/11/12/bigelow-report-calls-for-use-of-cots-model-for-cislunar-transportation/
I agree with this part.

“Without property rights, any plan to engage the private sector in long-term beyond LEO activities will ultimately fail.”
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: IRobot on 11/13/2013 07:39 AM
Here is an article by Jeff Foust on the content of the Bigelow report:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/11/12/bigelow-report-calls-for-use-of-cots-model-for-cislunar-transportation/
I agree with this part.

“Without property rights, any plan to engage the private sector in long-term beyond LEO activities will ultimately fail.”
I don't, nobody owns the Moon and attempts to enforce that will lead to future wars.
Nobody owns international waters and still there are commercial and cruising ships.
IMO that is the worst way to promote private sector access to BEO.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 11/13/2013 07:58 AM
Here is an article by Jeff Foust on the content of the Bigelow report:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/11/12/bigelow-report-calls-for-use-of-cots-model-for-cislunar-transportation/
I agree with this part.

“Without property rights, any plan to engage the private sector in long-term beyond LEO activities will ultimately fail.”
I don't, nobody owns the Moon and attempts to enforce that will lead to future wars.
Nobody owns international waters and still there are commercial and cruising ships.
IMO that is the worst way to promote private sector access to BEO.
It's the only way to encourage colonization. The issuing of property rights has been highly successful in colonizing other territories.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: IRobot on 11/13/2013 08:09 AM
Here is an article by Jeff Foust on the content of the Bigelow report:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/11/12/bigelow-report-calls-for-use-of-cots-model-for-cislunar-transportation/
I agree with this part.

“Without property rights, any plan to engage the private sector in long-term beyond LEO activities will ultimately fail.”
I don't, nobody owns the Moon and attempts to enforce that will lead to future wars.
Nobody owns international waters and still there are commercial and cruising ships.
IMO that is the worst way to promote private sector access to BEO.
It's the only way to encourage colonization. The issuing of property rights has been highly successful in colonizing other territories.
Yeah, and property rights were not acknowledge by other countries and wars were started. This sounds like a couple that label items with a label machine before they even get married.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 11/13/2013 08:14 AM
Here is an article by Jeff Foust on the content of the Bigelow report:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/11/12/bigelow-report-calls-for-use-of-cots-model-for-cislunar-transportation/
I agree with this part.

“Without property rights, any plan to engage the private sector in long-term beyond LEO activities will ultimately fail.”
I don't, nobody owns the Moon and attempts to enforce that will lead to future wars.
Nobody owns international waters and still there are commercial and cruising ships.
IMO that is the worst way to promote private sector access to BEO.
It's the only way to encourage colonization. The issuing of property rights has been highly successful in colonizing other territories.
Yeah, and property rights were not acknowledge by other countries and wars were started.
But it worked, didn't it. How would you colonize the solar system without property rights?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 11/13/2013 01:22 PM
I was involved in an effort to run a space station on a commercial basis, and I can tell you that the costs far exceed Mr. Bigelow's potential budget.

No offense, but maybe he's just smarter than you?

I mean, he is a billionaire and all.


He is showing that he is smarter by not actually trying to operate an orbital commercial space station.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 11/13/2013 01:26 PM
Well, he is not trying to do so before the circumstances are in his favor. The lack of affordable transportation is a big problem. What is the point of a space hotel, when you cant get there?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/13/2013 03:00 PM
Here is an article by Jeff Foust on the content of the Bigelow report:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/11/12/bigelow-report-calls-for-use-of-cots-model-for-cislunar-transportation/
I agree with this part.

“Without property rights, any plan to engage the private sector in long-term beyond LEO activities will ultimately fail.”
I don't, nobody owns the Moon and attempts to enforce that will lead to future wars.
Nobody owns international waters and still there are commercial and cruising ships.
IMO that is the worst way to promote private sector access to BEO.

The deep seas may be international waters but the coastal areas and the ports have owners.

The British and US navies have long policed international waters.  More than one country has found out that their ships can no longer go on international waters when at war with Britain.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Garrett on 11/13/2013 03:46 PM
I don't, nobody owns the Moon and attempts to enforce that will lead to future wars.
It's precisely because nobody owns the Moon that every effort should be made to work out charters and conventions regarding occupation of lunar surface area, before commercial companies and nations begin landing permanent bases on the Moon in the very near future (next decade or two).
Also, it's not necessarily about enforcement, but rather a clearing up of the murky legal waters that are inevitably ahead of the private space industry.

One place to start might be by making a distinction between the various solar system bodies. Most earthlings will expect some sort of protection of the Moon's surface, because we can see it and because it's so near. A national park type legislation may be one path.
Very few people will care about the future of Mars. I have a feeling it will become new territory, independent of current Earth nations. And yes, humans being humans, there will be scuffles and "wars" of some type on Mars. In a century or two that is.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: bad_astra on 11/13/2013 04:09 PM
Governance occurs, or should occur, when its needed. The Vikings did not need to file a European claim on Greenland or Iceland. They just went. 

 Bristol fisherman did not requre some sort of coast guard when they started poking around the Grand Banks, possibly as easly as the 15th century and predating Cabot.

It has to first be proven that there is any kind of economic case for utilizing mineral resources in those locations, or else no one, beyond government science operations, a few wealthy adventurers, and perhaps isolated religious communities, will be interested in them.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/13/2013 04:46 PM
True although it sounds like he's claiming to be able to self-fund two rounds of "build it and they will come"?

I was involved in an effort to run a space station on a commercial basis, and I can tell you that the costs far exceed Mr. Bigelow's potential budget.

No offense, but maybe he's just smarter than you?

I mean, he is a billionaire and all.
You're hilarious.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: IRobot on 11/13/2013 04:53 PM
Governance occurs, or should occur, when its needed. The Vikings did not need to file a European claim on Greenland or Iceland. They just went. 

 Bristol fisherman did not requre some sort of coast guard when they started poking around the Grand Banks, possibly as easly as the 15th century and predating Cabot.

It has to first be proven that there is any kind of economic case for utilizing mineral resources in those locations, or else no one, beyond government science operations, a few wealthy adventurers, and perhaps isolated religious communities, will be interested in them.
Exactly my point! Putting politics and property law in front of exploration is counterproductive at this stage.
 
If there is a spot on the Moon with valuable resources, first to get there owns it. How can you beat that in terms of private initiative? Owning a property does not ensure that the owner will invest on it. You could end up with a owner that did not want to invest on it at the moment, in fact blocking colonization.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lars_J on 11/13/2013 05:28 PM
Governance occurs, or should occur, when its needed. The Vikings did not need to file a European claim on Greenland or Iceland. They just went. 

 Bristol fisherman did not requre some sort of coast guard when they started poking around the Grand Banks, possibly as easly as the 15th century and predating Cabot.

It has to first be proven that there is any kind of economic case for utilizing mineral resources in those locations, or else no one, beyond government science operations, a few wealthy adventurers, and perhaps isolated religious communities, will be interested in them.
Exactly my point! Putting politics and property law in front of exploration is counterproductive at this stage.
 
If there is a spot on the Moon with valuable resources, first to get there owns it. How can you beat that in terms of private initiative? Owning a property does not ensure that the owner will invest on it. You could end up with a owner that did not want to invest on it at the moment, in fact blocking colonization.

Ok, so you are for property rights (if you are there) but against property rights (if you aren't there)? Your position seems to be confusing. I think your use of the term "property rights" is confusing everyone. Is it a language issue?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 11/13/2013 06:30 PM
To own something you must first be able to utilize it. Even ownership of a domain name on the internet has value only insofar as people can transfer ownership. Or build their own website.
    To own pieces of extra-terrestial property, one has to have control of that property, whether by legal writ or by physical possession. Anything else is a lot of hot air. And at the moment there is no legal writ, so physical possession is the only means of ownership.

Gramps
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 11/14/2013 12:30 AM
Well, he is not trying to do so before the circumstances are in his favor. The lack of affordable transportation is a big problem. What is the point of a space hotel, when you cant get there?

I have the same problem, there just isn't any affordable transportation  to my planned interstellar hotel.  As soon as someone invents affordable starships, my Alpha Centauri Hilton will be open.



Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: dcporter on 11/14/2013 01:47 AM
Well, he is not trying to do so before the circumstances are in his favor. The lack of affordable transportation is a big problem. What is the point of a space hotel, when you cant get there?

I have the same problem, there just isn't any affordable transportation  to my planned interstellar hotel.  As soon as someone invents affordable starships, my Alpha Centauri Hilton will be open.

I'm confused about your point. You don't have a nine digits of money committed to the project.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 11/14/2013 06:01 AM
If there is a spot on the Moon with valuable resources, first to get there owns it. How can you beat that in terms of private initiative?
We should move this into a new topic. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits ownership of a celestial body by any country. The Moon Treaty of 1979 prohibits ownership of the Moon by essentially anyone and anything; luckily not many countries signed the moon treaty so it may not have any power. Currently there is no avenue to legally acquire exterrestrial land and have that ownership recognized by any of the space powers (USA, Russia, China, etc).

"Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. " - Outer Space Treaty of 1967


Owning a property does not ensure that the owner will invest on it. You could end up with a owner that did not want to invest on it at the moment, in fact blocking colonization.
Which is why you wouldn't sell without strings attached. The American Homestead Act of 1862 allowed individuals to lay claim to 160 acres of unsettled land on the condition that they would live there and improve the territory for five years, after then the land would be theirs. I think a similar act should be used to encourage the colonization of the Moon and Mars but there are legal barriers that need to be overcome.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 11/14/2013 09:10 AM
Use the Antarctic Treaty System as a model. It seems to have worked pretty well. Just extend it to permit commercialisation under regulation of the governing body, modeled on the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat.

Moon treaty parties:  Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Uruguay have ratified,  France, Guatemala, India and Romania have signed but not ratified.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 11/14/2013 03:02 PM
Well, he is not trying to do so before the circumstances are in his favor. The lack of affordable transportation is a big problem. What is the point of a space hotel, when you cant get there?

I have the same problem, there just isn't any affordable transportation  to my planned interstellar hotel.  As soon as someone invents affordable starships, my Alpha Centauri Hilton will be open.

I'm confused about your point. You don't have a nine digits of money committed to the project.

Regardless of how much money Bob Bigelow invests in his projects, as long as the economics don't work, there will be no space hotels. It is more than an issue of transportation, the end-to-end lifetime costs of a space platform have to be less than the revenues. Right now, revenues would work out to zero, which is a problem.

I should add that BA indeed has launched things into space, and so the company is not a hoax like some others mentioned here. On the other hand, the prospects for BA to do much beyond its current NASA project, and marketing for future NASA contracts are not great. I consider discussions by BA of large orbital platforms "real soon now" as marketing for future NASA contracts.

Also, I don't have any inside information, but I would imagine that the investment by Bob Bigelow in the company has probably dwindled down to close to zero now that NASA is providing funding.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 11/14/2013 03:58 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/video/moon-condo-view-160000847.html

Moon condo with a view? Video
"Billionaire Robert Bigelow of Bigelow Aerospace hopes private property rights on the Moon will motivate private investment to work with NASA and beat China to the Moon."
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Vultur on 11/15/2013 12:25 AM
Use the Antarctic Treaty System as a model. It seems to have worked pretty well. Just extend it to permit commercialisation under regulation of the governing body, modeled on the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat.

Why create a bureaucracy-ridden international governing body to interfere with economic development of the Moon?

The Moon has no ecosystem to damage, unlike (parts of) Antarctica. There is no reason to preserve anything except a few historical sites miniscule on the scale of the whole Moon.

I personally think a "who gets there first owns it" model should apply, with a limit of X many miles around the site that's actually occupied.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 11/15/2013 03:17 AM
As a conflict prevention /  resolution mechanism. Absent that its the a wild west where conflicts could start from corporate rivalries.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: eriblo on 11/15/2013 03:27 PM
I personally think a "who gets there first owns it" model should apply, with a limit of X many miles around the site that's actually occupied.

Even that would definitely need an international governing body, because if (as soon as...?) any economic interests are present there are going to be arguments about "who", "first", "owns", "it", "limit", "X", "around", "site" and "occupied"...  ::)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Vultur on 11/16/2013 04:34 AM
I personally think a "who gets there first owns it" model should apply, with a limit of X many miles around the site that's actually occupied.

Even that would definitely need an international governing body, because if (as soon as...?) any economic interests are present there are going to be arguments about "who", "first", "owns", "it", "limit", "X", "around", "site" and "occupied"...  ::)

Yes, but only at a very minimal level. What I don't want is any implication that the Moon is really property of the UN or the international community or whatever and nations/corporations are only allowed to exploit it at their sufferance. It needs to be really and genuinely national and/or private property.

And I don't think an international governing body is the only option - nations could divvy up the Moon among themselves, with treaties between the individual nations yes -- but realistically this is probably going to be 2-3 nations at best, so it doesn't need to be an international organization as such.

And it's still quite possible that one nation (quite possibly China) could end up having the Moon pretty much to itself, because no one else is pushing in that direction, in which case the international legalities might become rather irrelevant in practice.

I don't think you'd get wars on the Moon as you did on Earth over borders, because Moon colonies would be so fragile to attack, and the motivation to do so is probably small -- it might be easier to go exploit the slightly-less-choice regions  if somebody else got the best parts of the Moon, rather than fight over the absolute best parts, given how small any colonies are likely to be for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 11/16/2013 04:43 AM
Can we please take the Moon Police discussion to another thread?

This thread is about what Bigelow Aerospace is not going to do.

Seriously, there is a significant amount of information about BEAM, for example, that has not yet been released - are there going to be any subsystems inside BEAM, apart from inflation hardware, what kind of avionics will be used? Will it carry any scientific equipment?


Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: JBF on 11/16/2013 12:15 PM
Can we please take the Moon Police discussion to another thread?

This thread is about what Bigelow Aerospace is not going to do.

Actually if all you want to talk about is what they are not going to do please take your discussion elsewhere. This topic is supposed to be about what they are doing.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Occupymars on 11/16/2013 06:22 PM
Can we please take the Moon Police discussion to another thread?

This thread is about what Bigelow Aerospace is not going to do.
This is an UPDATE thread!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Malderi on 12/27/2013 08:36 PM
http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/hea/4260682849.html

Anyone in Vegas want to be an ECLSS guinea pig?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/27/2013 09:03 PM
http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/hea/4260682849.html

Anyone in Vegas want to be an ECLSS guinea pig?
We live in the future.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: dcporter on 12/28/2013 03:07 AM
http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/hea/4260682849.html

Anyone in Vegas want to be an ECLSS guinea pig?
We live in the future.

The future should be launching in 18-24 months.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 12/28/2013 03:42 AM
The implication being that the ISS BEAM would carry Bigelow ECLSS.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jason1701 on 12/28/2013 03:51 AM
The implication being that the ISS BEAM would carry Bigelow ECLSS.


I thought it was known that BEAM wouldn't have any ECLSS.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: JBF on 12/28/2013 12:39 PM
The implication being that the ISS BEAM would carry Bigelow ECLSS.


I thought it was known that BEAM wouldn't have any ECLSS.

I think this is probably aimed more at the BA 330 then BEAM.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 12/28/2013 07:45 PM
http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/hea/4260682849.html

Anyone in Vegas want to be an ECLSS guinea pig?

hmmm been wanting to get the tour...

on another note Bigelow is part of another story..
Scientists Petition U.S. Congress for Return to the Moon
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-petition-u-congress-return-moon-191838421.html

Mike Gold, director of Wash., D.C. Operations and Business Growth for Bigelow Aerospace

“The success of this mission was yet another victory for long-term Chinese aerospace planning, progress, and execution,” Gold said. “Chinese leadership clearly understands the importance and potential benefits of lunar activities and we here at home ignore the moon at our own peril.”
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/06/2014 10:51 PM
From : http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20121210_HEONAC_Crusan_TAGGED.pdf
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 02/02/2014 02:37 AM
Jeff Foust "Here's a preview of the event, based on advance copy of the report: http://bit.ly/1eIEngT"
Does anyone have a copy of the report?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lars_J on 02/03/2014 06:19 AM
From : http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20121210_HEONAC_Crusan_TAGGED.pdf

A better quality version of the image:
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/03/2014 06:49 AM
Thoughts on whether his declared ability to fund two significantly up the odds that he'll be able to fund one?

The real number is zero.

Let me review the bidding. BA has been at it since about 1998, predicting mid-term space platforms. BA has launched a couple of subscale modules, and has been awarded a NASA contract for  a larger base-bones module.

Extrapolate the trend.

Next Bigelow needs to sell NASA a module with ECLSS.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: WmThomas on 02/05/2014 08:05 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but what good does it do to test a space pressure vessel under water? It will face less external, not more, when it is in space.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: sublimemarsupial on 02/05/2014 08:15 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but what good does it do to test a space pressure vessel under water? It will face less external, not more, when it is in space.

You can just pressurize the inside of the pressure vessel such that the overall pressure difference between the internal and external environments is the same as it'll see in space, that gets the loading correct. Testing in the water helps mitigate the energy release if the pressure vessel fails.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: mheney on 02/06/2014 01:31 AM
Plus, if it leaks, you see bubbles ...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/06/2014 03:34 PM
When testing the life support on a spacecraft you have to ensure that any air being breathed is not coming from the Earth's atmosphere.  In addition the seals around the hatches have to be tested as well as the carbon dioxide scrubbers.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jason1701 on 02/06/2014 03:37 PM
Plus, if it leaks, you see bubbles ...

Perhaps not, they may be pressurizing it with water. In that case it's done in a pool because of the buoyancy.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: JasonAW3 on 02/07/2014 09:07 PM
Didnt someone here insist that Bigelows habitats are unsuitable for the moon?

The habitat would need a floor but that is not hard to provide.

The other problem with the Moon is that a BA330 weighs 20 tonne.  We do not have any lunar landers that can take payloads that big.  Developing such a lander would be a major project.

You're forgetting Bigelow's plan is to berth three BA-330's and four propulsion busses in LLO or at L1 then land them under their own steam - no separate lander necessary unless you count the legged propulsion busses.

Google Patents.... (https://www.google.com/patents/US7469864?dq=bigelow+land+lunar+base+patent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VemiUZ7zF8rhqQGm44GQDg&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAg)

If you were to replace the docking node module with a cre cabin of sorts, you'd have a fairly decent horizontal lunar lander.  If it has enough fuel after landing, it could even be reusable.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Comga on 02/11/2014 07:11 PM
Plus, if it leaks, you see bubbles ...

Perhaps not, they may be pressurizing it with water. In that case it's done in a pool because of the buoyancy.

Doesn't it have to be mostly full of water because it is not floating?
sublimemarsupial has it right.  Just like testing SCUBA tanks, there is very little stored energy if most of the volume is filled with water, leaving only a small pocket of compressed gas with which the pressure is regulated.  If the vessel bursts there is little energy to dissipate, as opposed to a full tank of (8X!) full pressure gas.  Plus if it does burst it does so into water, so fragments don't fly away.

edit: Does anyone have isight into how they are doing with the schedule for a June 2015 launch?
Is the system being tested the flight system or a development unit?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 02/18/2014 12:54 AM
Bigelow: Manned missions from Wallops?

http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20140217/NEWS/302170016/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/18/2014 01:35 AM
Bigelow: Manned missions from Wallops?

http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20140217/NEWS/302170016/

To be easily accessible from Wallops the Bigelow space stations would have to be in a similar orbit to the ISS.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: JBF on 02/18/2014 02:42 AM
What would they use for a launch vehicle and spacecraft?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Comga on 02/18/2014 03:59 AM
Bigelow: Manned missions from Wallops?

http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20140217/NEWS/302170016/ (http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20140217/NEWS/302170016/)

To be easily accessible from Wallops the Bigelow space stations would have to be in a similar orbit to the ISS.

It depends on what you mean by "similar"

Wallops (http://www.astronautix.com/sites/walsland.htm) is at 37.9 deg N.   Orbits directly accessible from there can be up to 13 deg lower inclination than the 51.6 deg inclination of the ISS.

A 2007 NSF article by Braddock Gaskill (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/01/human-rated-atlas-v-for-bigelow-space-station-details-emerge/) said
"ULA has recommended to Bigelow that it place their space station in a 264 nmi (428 km) circular repeating ground track orbit at 41 degrees inclination that would provide daily launch opportunities.
The repeating ground track would bring the station over the same locations on the Earth every day, and would provide crew landing opportunities four times per day at the Utah Test Range or Edwards AFB with minimal cross-range requirement."

This orbit would be compatible with Wallops and not very similar to the ISS.
edit:  This says nothing about using Atlas at Wallops.  It is quoted for the qualities of the proposed orbit
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/18/2014 10:02 AM
Bigelow: Manned missions from Wallops?

http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20140217/NEWS/302170016/ (http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20140217/NEWS/302170016/)

To be easily accessible from Wallops the Bigelow space stations would have to be in a similar orbit to the ISS.

It depends on what you mean by "similar"
{snip}

Not 0 degrees and not 90 degrees.  The two obvious orbits for a space station.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/18/2014 01:31 PM
What would they use for a launch vehicle and spacecraft?
Probably a CST-100 on top of an upgraded and crew-rated Antares.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/18/2014 01:34 PM
What would they use for a launch vehicle and spacecraft?
Probably a CST-100 on top of an upgraded and crew-rated Antares.
That seems unlikely to me. CST-100 already requires a dual-RL-10, dual-SRB Atlas V. Antares would need to at least double its performance.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/18/2014 01:39 PM
@Robotbeat,

It's the only thing even remotely close to the right size that can launch from WFF without investing in a whole new pad and infrastructure. Maybe wrap-around Castor-120s and a larger or even liquid-fuelled U/S?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/18/2014 01:56 PM
@Robotbeat,

It's the only thing even remotely close to the right size that can launch from WFF without investing in a whole new pad and infrastructure. Maybe wrap-around Castor-120s and a larger or even liquid-fuelled U/S?
I think he's just keeping his options open. You probably want the space station at around 40 degrees or more anyway, because otherwise you don't get to pass over the visitors' home country much.

I mean, much of the reason to build a space station is for Earth observation. Originally, when the first space station concepts were around, that was their primary purpose (for military space stations).
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: clongton on 02/18/2014 08:09 PM
My money's on SpaceX.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Go4TLI on 02/18/2014 08:44 PM
My money's on SpaceX.

Why?  At what point do the become to thinly spread for even the internet to accept as credible? 

In my opinion, none of this makes sense and very well could be just lip service.  Bigelow is not in the earth-to-space or space-to-earth transportation business.  In fact, he needs others to be in that business for his business to function.  He basically needs them to be a supplier that he can go contract with on a task order by task order basis. 

So, why, would he develop his own vehicle - now - when others are actively in development?  He wouldn't and hasn't in the past when perhaps it made more sense then.  So mentioning Wallops makes no sense. 

Why would he want to incur the expense of paying Boeing, SNC or SpaceX by levying a requirement to launch from Wallops when none of them are planning on it and when none of them have a need to do so?  He wouldn't, because there is no RoI on this or even a business case. 

So, again, my vote is lip service. 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/18/2014 09:13 PM
My money's on SpaceX.

Ask for a refund
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 02/18/2014 10:21 PM
I believe that the orbit is compatible with Wallops, nothing more. This would allow Orbital to compete for cargo, for example. Bit that's it. Bigelow wants to buy a product on the market.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: clongton on 02/18/2014 11:31 PM
My money's on SpaceX.

Why?
My money's on SpaceX.

Why?  ... So, why, would he develop his own vehicle - now - when others are actively in development?  He wouldn't and hasn't in the past when perhaps it made more sense then.  So mentioning Wallops makes no sense.

Wallops makes perfect sense. With an orbital inclination of 41 degrees he can launch and recover daily. No waiting for orbital phasing windows.

As to the comment about "developing his own vehicle" - that's why I mentioned SpaceX. Bigelow doesn't do that; he wants to contract with a transportation company for that. The BA-330 crew size is 6. The Antares can't lift a manned spacecraft that size. CST-100 rides only on the Atlas. That costs tons of money. The Dragon however can carry 7, and at a fraction of the cost of anybody else. The only question is will Elon put a Falcon launch pad there? It depends. If Bigelow can show a good business case for sustained operations he just might. It's exactly the kind of thing he started his company to do in the first place.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 02/18/2014 11:43 PM
The Antares can't lift a manned spacecraft that size.

Weren't they talking about upgrades at a recent conference?  Here we go:

Quote from: Stephen Clark
The October cargo launch will also mark the first flight of the Antares rocket's more powerful Castor 30XL upper stage motor provided by ATK. The Castor 30XL is a lengthened version of the Antares rocket's flight-proven Castor 30 motor, boosting the launcher's maximum load to the space station by more than 1,000 pounds.

from http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1401/14orbital/

It's not inconceivable that they've got more upgrade plans beyond that.

CST-100 rides only on the Atlas.

I wouldn't be surprised if ATK threw 'em some money to study if it could fly on Liberty back when they were trying to bid for CCDev. Antares could be another option.

SNC have also said repeatedly that they designed Dreamchaser to fly on a variety of launch vehicles.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 02/19/2014 01:40 AM
this came up today on the news

http://finance.yahoo.com/video/private-space-market-takes-off-204700442.html?soc_src=copy
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/19/2014 02:27 AM
Not SpaceX, but ULA's Atlas V

Quote
Gold specifically mentioned the Atlas V — a launch system owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin conglomerate, United Launch Alliance — as a possibility. ULA launches from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Some of its operations, such as Atlas V, could shift to Wallops, Gold said. Such a move could create hundreds of high-paying jobs on the Eastern Shore.[\quote]

http://articles.dailypress.com/2010-04-10/news/dp-local_bigelow-wallops_0410apr10_1_bigelow-aerospace-wallops-boeing-and-lockheed-martin
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: dante2308 on 02/19/2014 04:36 AM
Wait, why are people suggesting a brand new manned launch system on top of the three being produced? Does that really make sense? Any rational business case would not hinge on the creation of unfunded, brand new launch vehicles and manned pace programs lifting out of launch sites that can't even support it.

Why would one suggest that Bigelow is counting on Orbital for manned spaceflight? I really don't understand this. This will happen with Falcon 9 or Atlas if it happens at all and Bigelow will have to suck it up and launch from wherever those two systems are set up. If he wants to launch from his own ideal location then he'll need to put in a whole lot more than a measly $250 million.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 02/19/2014 04:46 AM
This will happen with Falcon 9 or Atlas if it happens at all and Bigelow will have to suck it up and launch from wherever those two systems are set up.

Because we actually read the article?

Why do you think Bigelow will be any less happy with three providers than he would be with two?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 04/06/2014 06:45 PM
Not sure if this was covered, sure is interesting.

http://www.dynetics.com/services/space/space-propulsion/bigelow-aerospace-sundancer-forward-propulsion-system

"Dynetics designed, qualified, produced, and delivered the forward propulsion system (FPS) for Sundancer, the world's first commercial space habitat. Our innovative, "green" FPS operates on hydrogen and oxygen generated from water, sweat, and wastewater from Bigelow's proprietary Environmental Control Life Support System (ECLSS). This eliminates toxic propellants such as hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide that are costly to use and harmful to the environment and creates a safer, cleaner work environment for humans on Earth and in space."

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/07/2014 02:18 AM
Pity the Sundancer got cancelled.  The BA-330 will need either a bigger forward propulsion system, two of them or a much longer burn.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: JBF on 04/07/2014 03:19 AM
Clustering shouldn't be an issue.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 04/07/2014 12:42 PM
Not sure if this was covered, sure is interesting.

http://www.dynetics.com/services/space/space-propulsion/bigelow-aerospace-sundancer-forward-propulsion-system

"Dynetics designed, qualified, produced, and delivered the forward propulsion system (FPS) for Sundancer, the world's first commercial space habitat. Our innovative, "green" FPS operates on hydrogen and oxygen generated from water, sweat, and wastewater from Bigelow's proprietary Environmental Control Life Support System (ECLSS). This eliminates toxic propellants such as hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide that are costly to use and harmful to the environment and creates a safer, cleaner work environment for humans on Earth and in space."


This was announced in the first half of 2011. Sundancer was cancelled in or before July 2011.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Star One on 04/07/2014 01:05 PM

Not SpaceX, but ULA's Atlas V

Quote
Gold specifically mentioned the Atlas V — a launch system owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin conglomerate, United Launch Alliance — as a possibility. ULA launches from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Some of its operations, such as Atlas V, could shift to Wallops, Gold said. Such a move could create hundreds of high-paying jobs on the Eastern Shore.[\quote]

http://articles.dailypress.com/2010-04-10/news/dp-local_bigelow-wallops_0410apr10_1_bigelow-aerospace-wallops-boeing-and-lockheed-martin

Thanks for that. Puts pay to people whose answer to every question regarding a launcher seems to be The Falcon.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lurker Steve on 04/07/2014 01:45 PM

Not SpaceX, but ULA's Atlas V

Quote
Gold specifically mentioned the Atlas V — a launch system owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin conglomerate, United Launch Alliance — as a possibility. ULA launches from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Some of its operations, such as Atlas V, could shift to Wallops, Gold said. Such a move could create hundreds of high-paying jobs on the Eastern Shore.[\quote]

http://articles.dailypress.com/2010-04-10/news/dp-local_bigelow-wallops_0410apr10_1_bigelow-aerospace-wallops-boeing-and-lockheed-martin

Thanks for that. Puts pay to people whose answer to every question regarding a launcher seems to be The Falcon.

Rule 1: Don't trust a lawyer.

Atlas is NOT moving to Wallops to support Bigelow launches.

If Bigelow is only willing to commit another 300 million or so, he might as well give up now, or at least spend significant more time fund raising for this project. That's not enough funding to get a working space station off the ground.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 04/07/2014 05:31 PM
Pity the Sundancer got cancelled.  The BA-330 will need either a bigger forward propulsion system, two of them or a much longer burn.

The BA-330 will be launched by a FH or an Atlas V 552.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/affordable-habitats-more-buck-rogers-less-money-bigelow/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/07/2014 09:12 PM
Pity the Sundancer got cancelled.  The BA-330 will need either a bigger forward propulsion system, two of them or a much longer burn.

The BA-330 will be launched by a FH or an Atlas V 552.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/affordable-habitats-more-buck-rogers-less-money-bigelow/

Probably but the forward propulsion system is not the launch vehicle it is the spacestation's RCS (Reaction Control System).
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 04/11/2014 01:46 AM
Not sure if this was covered, sure is interesting.

http://www.dynetics.com/services/space/space-propulsion/bigelow-aerospace-sundancer-forward-propulsion-system

"Dynetics designed, qualified, produced, and delivered the forward propulsion system (FPS) for Sundancer, the world's first commercial space habitat. Our innovative, "green" FPS operates on hydrogen and oxygen generated from water, sweat, and wastewater from Bigelow's proprietary Environmental Control Life Support System (ECLSS). This eliminates toxic propellants such as hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide that are costly to use and harmful to the environment and creates a safer, cleaner work environment for humans on Earth and in space."


This was announced in the first half of 2011. Sundancer was cancelled in or before July 2011.

for testing just wondering if Bigelow might be able to bring to ISS this system when beam ships.   Seam to recall Zarya dumping hydrogen overboard.  Hate to see anything wasted. 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/11/2014 08:34 AM
Somewhere along the line Bigelow will want to space test the thrusters (and life support) of the BA-330.  The BEAM is only up there for 2 years, so BEAM2 could be outfitted with all sorts of things.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lurker Steve on 04/11/2014 01:18 PM
Somewhere along the line Bigelow will want to space test the thrusters (and life support) of the BA-330.  The BEAM is only up there for 2 years, so BEAM2 could be outfitted with all sorts of things.

Bigelow thrusters and life support systems will NOT be tested at the ISS.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: francesco nicoli on 04/19/2014 11:28 PM
Looks like Bigelow has found the first customer for its services.

http://www.eaglestarflash.com/2014/04/eiast-and-bigelow-aerospace-sign-agreement-to-create-next-generation-commercial-human-spaceflight-program/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lar on 04/19/2014 11:53 PM
Looks like Bigelow has found the first customer for its services.

http://www.eaglestarflash.com/2014/04/eiast-and-bigelow-aerospace-sign-agreement-to-create-next-generation-commercial-human-spaceflight-program/

A story from 2011 about a MOU (which Bigelow have signed a lot of, I think). And off topic for the thread it came from, so moved...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: MP99 on 04/20/2014 12:42 PM
Not sure if this was covered, sure is interesting.

http://www.dynetics.com/services/space/space-propulsion/bigelow-aerospace-sundancer-forward-propulsion-system

"Dynetics designed, qualified, produced, and delivered the forward propulsion system (FPS) for Sundancer, the world's first commercial space habitat. Our innovative, "green" FPS operates on hydrogen and oxygen generated from water, sweat, and wastewater from Bigelow's proprietary Environmental Control Life Support System (ECLSS). This eliminates toxic propellants such as hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide that are costly to use and harmful to the environment and creates a safer, cleaner work environment for humans on Earth and in space."


This was announced in the first half of 2011. Sundancer was cancelled in or before July 2011.

for testing just wondering if Bigelow might be able to bring to ISS this system when beam ships.   Seam to recall Zarya dumping hydrogen overboard.  Hate to see anything wasted.

I presume the hydrogen is excess, because the associated oxygen is reserved for life support?

If so, the hydrogen cannot be burnt in a thruster.

However, I believe ULA's depot plans called for using GH2 in a cold gas thruster, which could still achieve ~300s Isp.

This seems to be a better use of that H2, though I wonder if there would be sufficient to impart much in the way of total dV?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/20/2014 06:02 PM
Somewhere along the line Bigelow will want to space test the thrusters (and life support) of the BA-330.  The BEAM is only up there for 2 years, so BEAM2 could be outfitted with all sorts of things.

Bigelow thrusters and life support systems will NOT be tested at the ISS.

If NASA decides to by a Bigelow spacestation NASA will long term inspace testing of critical systems.  If anything goes wrong the test astronauts will have to evacuate to either a capsule or a second spacestation.  There are a limited number of existing spacestations that NASA has control of.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: IRobot on 04/20/2014 07:23 PM
Somewhere along the line Bigelow will want to space test the thrusters (and life support) of the BA-330.  The BEAM is only up there for 2 years, so BEAM2 could be outfitted with all sorts of things.
Personally I would fill BEAM with with Veggie like modules.

Veggie modules expand (like BEAM) and the volume would be enough for a complementary food production, as well as CO2 conversion.

The problem I see is that BEAM has no ECLSS, so either the module would be open regularly or the extra functions had to be added.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/20/2014 07:37 PM
{snip}
The problem I see is that BEAM has no ECLSS, so either the module would be open regularly or the extra functions had to be added.

NASA is just trying to see if the box works in space.  Anything else will have to wait for a future launch and will probably form part of a different BEAM.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 04/21/2014 02:29 AM
{snip}
The problem I see is that BEAM has no ECLSS, so either the module would be open regularly or the extra functions had to be added.

NASA is just trying to see if the box works in space.  Anything else will have to wait for a future launch and will probably form part of a different BEAM.
As far as I know there's only one BEAM planned to go the ISS.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 04/21/2014 02:35 AM

NASA is just trying to see if the box works in space.  Anything else will have to wait for a future launch and will probably form part of a different BEAM.

BEAM is a one off test and not a recurring program
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: dcporter on 04/21/2014 02:41 AM

NASA is just trying to see if the box works in space.  Anything else will have to wait for a future launch and will probably form part of a different BEAM.

BEAM is a one off test and not a recurring program

Reasonable to assume that if it succeeds, NASA may be interested in other modules for actual use?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 04/21/2014 02:42 AM
Reasonable to assume that if it succeeds, NASA may be interested in other modules for actual use?

What resources are there that it can use?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: StealerofSuns on 04/21/2014 02:56 AM
Reasonable to assume that if it succeeds, NASA may be interested in other modules for actual use?

What resources are there that it can use?

More cubic feet of pressurized space?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 04/21/2014 04:53 AM

Reasonable to assume that if it succeeds, NASA may be interested in other modules for actual use?

What resources are there that it can use?
Validation for a commercial follow up?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/21/2014 07:15 AM
Reasonable to assume that if it succeeds, NASA may be interested in other modules for actual use?

What resources are there that it can use?

Habitat module for BEO missions.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 04/21/2014 11:16 AM

NASA is just trying to see if the box works in space.  Anything else will have to wait for a future launch and will probably form part of a different BEAM.

BEAM is a one off test and not a recurring program

Reasonable to assume that if it succeeds, NASA may be interested in other modules for actual use?
Besides Node 3 aft, there really isn't anywhere to put them. Node 3 aft also has some clearance limitations so I'm unsure how much larger of a module can be placed there.

Bigelow may not have any interest in flying another BEAM payload.

Reasonable to assume that if it succeeds, NASA may be interested in other modules for actual use?

What resources are there that it can use?

Habitat module for BEO missions.
BEAM is too small to serve as a habitat module. A habitat sized module can't fit in Dragon's trunk (diameter is too narrow).
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 04/21/2014 11:36 AM
No, not what resources will it provide, what can it use?   The ISS has limited resources.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/21/2014 03:20 PM
The main resource ISS required by a BEAM2 is a docking or berthing port.  If placed in sunlight the module can test its solar panels but if placed in the shade it will need electrical power.  In theory its thrusters can be used for station keeping but in practice I suspect that the ISS team will choose to use the ISS's own thrusters to perform station keeping for both.

A BEAM sized module can go up in the trunk of a Dragon.  A BA-330 sized module (45 ft long by 22 ft diameter) would need its own launch that rendezvous with the ISS.  The modules own thrusters would have to perform the docking or berthing manoeuvres.

Sticking an extra module on the side of the ISS will add an extra room.  This can be used for storage space or living space.  By default the extra room is likely to have its own galley and radios.  Extra experimental racks filled on Earth could be brought up.

The independent ECLSS system includes lavatory and hygiene facilities.

A version with a docking port at both ends would allow continuing access to the ISS by CCDev spacecraft.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 04/21/2014 03:40 PM
The main resource ISS required by a BEAM2 is a docking or berthing port.  If placed in sunlight the module can test its solar panels but if placed in the shade it will need electrical power.  In theory its thrusters can be used for station keeping but in practice I suspect that the ISS team will choose to use the ISS's own thrusters to perform station keeping for both.

A BEAM sized module can go up in the trunk of a Dragon.  A BA-330 sized module (45 ft long by 22 ft diameter) would need its own launch that rendezvous with the ISS.  The modules own thrusters would have to perform the docking or berthing manoeuvres.

Sticking an extra module on the side of the ISS will add an extra room.  This can be used for storage space or living space.  By default the extra room is likely to have its own galley and radios.  Extra experimental racks filled on Earth could be brought up.

The independent ECLSS system includes lavatory and hygiene facilities.

A version with a docking port at both ends would allow continuing access to the ISS by CCDev spacecraft.

typical nonsense. There isn't power for it nor room for solar arrays or radiators.  It can't have independent ECLSS.

Jeesh
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/21/2014 04:12 PM
The main resource ISS required by a BEAM2 is a docking or berthing port.  If placed in sunlight the module can test its solar panels but if placed in the shade it will need electrical power.  In theory its thrusters can be used for station keeping but in practice I suspect that the ISS team will choose to use the ISS's own thrusters to perform station keeping for both.

A BEAM sized module can go up in the trunk of a Dragon.  A BA-330 sized module (45 ft long by 22 ft diameter) would need its own launch that rendezvous with the ISS.  The modules own thrusters would have to perform the docking or berthing manoeuvres.

Sticking an extra module on the side of the ISS will add an extra room.  This can be used for storage space or living space.  By default the extra room is likely to have its own galley and radios.  Extra experimental racks filled on Earth could be brought up.

The independent ECLSS system includes lavatory and hygiene facilities.

A version with a docking port at both ends would allow continuing access to the ISS by CCDev spacecraft.

typical nonsense. There isn't power for it nor room for solar arrays or radiators.  It can't have independent ECLSS.

Jeesh

It does have them.  Getting them to work with the ISS may be a problem, similar to visiting vehicles having to work with the ISS's ECLSS.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 04/21/2014 04:48 PM
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/04_BIGELOW_Expanding_Future.pdf

https://ac.arc.nasa.gov/p5uwr8gcebb/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal&archiveOffset=2510000
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 04/21/2014 04:51 PM
It does have them.  Getting them to work with the ISS may be a problem, similar to visiting vehicles having to work with the ISS's ECLSS.

There are exceptions for visiting vehicles which are not applicable to permanent additions.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 04/21/2014 11:25 PM
I would note that a few months ago Bigelow advertised for ECLSS test subjects. and that every depiction of BA-330 has its own solar arrays for power.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 04/22/2014 02:10 AM
I would note that a few months ago Bigelow advertised for ECLSS test subjects. and that every depiction of BA-330 has its own solar arrays for power.

A BA-330 is not going to be mated to the ISS
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 04/22/2014 03:00 AM
Didn't say it was, just stating that it has solar power and ECLSS in "the plan" -  meaning it doesn't have to be parasitic.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: IRobot on 04/22/2014 05:56 AM
I would note that a few months ago Bigelow advertised for ECLSS test subjects. and that every depiction of BA-330 has its own solar arrays for power.

A BA-330 is not going to be mated to the ISS
Of course it won't, it would ridicule the people that canceled Transhab. And as Transhab was a viable addition to the ISS until 2000, I'm pretty sure that ISS could technically have one.

But pointing out that congress does some bad decisions is not an option, so let's keep BA-330 away from ISS.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Lurker Steve on 04/22/2014 01:02 PM
I would note that a few months ago Bigelow advertised for ECLSS test subjects. and that every depiction of BA-330 has its own solar arrays for power.

A BA-330 is not going to be mated to the ISS
Of course it won't, it would ridicule the people that canceled Transhab. And as Transhab was a viable addition to the ISS until 2000, I'm pretty sure that ISS could technically have one.

But pointing out that congress does some bad decisions is not an option, so let's keep BA-330 away from ISS.

Transhab was only 1 option for a new US Hab module. It was cancelled at the same time as the CRV. Since we decided not to add those modules back then, why do you think we would change our mind to add new US modules to the ISS now, when the station is nearing the end of it's life ?

I thought Bigelow's business model was to build a standalone station in LEO ? Why are you discussing adding modules to the ISS ? Perhaps Bigelow should help fund NASA's commercial crew and cargo development, since he will be relying on the same providers as NASA.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: mikes on 04/22/2014 01:23 PM

It can't have independent ECLSS.
Why not, technical or policy? If tech, what are the issues?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 04/22/2014 01:26 PM

It can't have independent ECLSS.
Why not, technical or policy? If tech, what are the issues?
Thanks.

the two systems would work against each other. 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/22/2014 02:17 PM
{snip}
I thought Bigelow's business model was to build a standalone station in LEO ? Why are you discussing adding modules to the ISS ? Perhaps Bigelow should help fund NASA's commercial crew and cargo development, since he will be relying on the same providers as NASA.


This is the start of the replacement spacestation.

Modern NASA is very safely conscious.   It does not like using a thing until the item has been fully tested, preferably to TRL 9.  The obvious backup to a new spacestation is an existing spacestation.  NASA has only one existing spacestation the ISS.

Or if you prefer using the ISS as the LON to the experimental Bigelow spacestation.
(That should be something like DON - Dock On need.)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 04/22/2014 02:46 PM

This is the start of the replacement spacestation.

Modern NASA is very safely conscious.   It does not like using a thing until the item has been fully tested, preferably to TRL 9.  The obvious backup to a new spacestation is an existing spacestation.  NASA has only one existing spacestation the ISS.

Or if you prefer using the ISS as the LON to the experimental Bigelow spacestation.
(That should be something like DON - Dock On need.)

NASA is not and has not been working any follow-ons or backups to the ISS
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 04/22/2014 03:33 PM
I would note that a few months ago Bigelow advertised for ECLSS test subjects. and that every depiction of BA-330 has its own solar arrays for power.

A BA-330 is not going to be mated to the ISS

How about Modules as part of an ISS continuing upgrade; use the current ISS framework beam structure curren on station, or expand it?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 04/22/2014 05:11 PM
I would note that a few months ago Bigelow advertised for ECLSS test subjects. and that every depiction of BA-330 has its own solar arrays for power.

A BA-330 is not going to be mated to the ISS

How about Modules as part of an ISS continuing upgrade; use the current ISS framework beam structure curren on station, or expand it?

At this point, I believe this discussion could well deserve it's own thread, as it is veering into the realm of speculation, seeing as Jim has categorically stated that NASA/Gov't have no plans in the works to do an ISS 2...

as for Bigelow using the ISS as a test site for a BA330, agree with Jim, for different reasons... I don't see it as a step forward, but a step to the side, status quo.... better to start their own station(s) and architecture as per the steps outlined in the report last year...

Gramps
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 04/22/2014 05:20 PM

This is the start of the replacement spacestation.

Modern NASA is very safely conscious.   It does not like using a thing until the item has been fully tested, preferably to TRL 9.  The obvious backup to a new spacestation is an existing spacestation.  NASA has only one existing spacestation the ISS.

Or if you prefer using the ISS as the LON to the experimental Bigelow spacestation.
(That should be something like DON - Dock On need.)

NASA is not and has not been working any follow-ons or backups to the ISS

Bigelow wants NASA to rent space on his LEO BA-330. Gesrt said that NASA was open to it in the spring of 2013.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 04/22/2014 05:22 PM
NASA is not and has not been working any follow-ons or backups to the ISS

Active work no, but on their heads - yes,

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-hoping-for-private-sector-successors-to-iss

Quote
NASA Hoping for Private Sector Successors to ISS

Posted: 24-Feb-2014

NASA may have gotten the White House’s blessing to keep the International Space Station (ISS) operating until at least 2024, but it won’t last forever.  Speaking to a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) subcommittee today, Bill Gerstenmaier expressed hope that private sector space stations will materialize for the longer term future.
>

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 04/22/2014 05:37 PM
NASA is not and has not been working any follow-ons or backups to the ISS

Active work no, but on their heads - yes,

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-hoping-for-private-sector-successors-to-iss

Quote
NASA Hoping for Private Sector Successors to ISS

Posted: 24-Feb-2014

NASA may have gotten the White House’s blessing to keep the International Space Station (ISS) operating until at least 2024, but it won’t last forever.  Speaking to a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) subcommittee today, Bill Gerstenmaier expressed hope that private sector space stations will materialize for the longer term future.
>



Private stations and not NASA constructed or managed.  NASA would buy services from such stations.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/22/2014 05:50 PM
NASA and DoD like at least 3 flights before they on ramp a launch vehicle.  What is the equivalent test for a new design of spacestation?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 04/22/2014 05:58 PM
NASA is not and has not been working any follow-ons or backups to the ISS

Active work no, but on their heads - yes,

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-hoping-for-private-sector-successors-to-iss

Quote
NASA Hoping for Private Sector Successors to ISS

Posted: 24-Feb-2014

NASA may have gotten the White House’s blessing to keep the International Space Station (ISS) operating until at least 2024, but it won’t last forever.  Speaking to a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) subcommittee today, Bill Gerstenmaier expressed hope that private sector space stations will materialize for the longer term future.
>

Private stations and not NASA constructed or managed.  NASA would buy services from such stations.

Now you're playing semantics. If NASA uses a commercial station post-ISS it is its functional successor. Also, the level of oversight and other requirements could well amount to management by proxy.
 
Title: Re; Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Lar on 04/22/2014 06:19 PM
Thread renamed to clarify that discussion is OK here...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 04/22/2014 06:36 PM
NASA is not and has not been working any follow-ons or backups to the ISS

Active work no, but on their heads - yes,

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-hoping-for-private-sector-successors-to-iss

Quote
NASA Hoping for Private Sector Successors to ISS

Posted: 24-Feb-2014

NASA may have gotten the White House’s blessing to keep the International Space Station (ISS) operating until at least 2024, but it won’t last forever.  Speaking to a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) subcommittee today, Bill Gerstenmaier expressed hope that private sector space stations will materialize for the longer term future.
>



Private stations and not NASA constructed or managed.  NASA would buy services from such stations.

Right, and you use the existing backbone framework to build a new station or just to add modules.  Basically what Russia is doing.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 05/01/2014 02:01 AM
Bigelow Aerospace is now at 125 employees.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25395862/nlv-company-get-closer-to-building-space-stations
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 05/01/2014 02:05 AM
Local news story on Bigelow & Boeing
http://www.jrn.com/ktnv/positively-lv/In-North-Las-Vegas-a-sneak-peek-at-the-future-of-space-travel--257427871.html
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ClaytonBirchenough on 05/01/2014 02:16 AM
Local news story on Bigelow & Boeing
http://www.jrn.com/ktnv/positively-lv/In-North-Las-Vegas-a-sneak-peek-at-the-future-of-space-travel--257427871.html

"That's why companies like Boeing are designing the CST-100 Spacecraft that can fit up to nine passengers and a pilot." That's not right...?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: collectSPACE on 05/01/2014 04:17 AM
That's not right...?

That is right, sort of. Boeing is still designing CST-100 to fly four or five crew members for NASA missions, but for future commercial flights, their new commercial interior design can seat upwards of nine passengers and one pilot (but with no, or very limited, cargo).

Bigelow can accommodate six crew members per BA-330 habitat. The company is planning to have two habs ready to fly in late 2016.

Ultimately, the number of crew members will depend on the needs of the customers for both companies.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/01/2014 05:47 AM
9 passengers + pilot makes sense for 3-6hr trip with few orbits of earth.   
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ClaytonBirchenough on 05/01/2014 08:04 AM
Wow. Thanks. Was not aware CST-100 could potentially take 10 to orbit!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 05/01/2014 08:23 AM
That's not right...?

That is right, sort of. Boeing is still designing CST-100 to fly four or five crew members for NASA missions, but for future commercial flights, their new commercial interior design can seat upwards of nine passengers and one pilot (but with no, or very limited, cargo).

Bigelow can accommodate six crew members per BA-330 habitat. The company is planning to have two habs ready to fly in late 2016.

Ultimately, the number of crew members will depend on the needs of the customers for both companies.
Can you link me to a source. Because I have no-idea how ten people could fit in the CST-100.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/01/2014 08:46 AM
Can you link me to a source. Because I have no-idea how ten people could fit in the CST-100.

It's no problem, as long as 8 of those people are five years old or under.  It's great for first grade field trips to space.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: collectSPACE on 05/01/2014 03:10 PM
Can you link me to a source.

Boeing and Bigelow held a press briefing in Las Vegas yesterday where they showed off the new design (and the BA-330). I was there. Article forthcoming on Space.com.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: sghill on 05/01/2014 05:59 PM
Aerospace writer, Jeff Foust, has some drool-worthy photos on his twitter feed from April 30 of the BA-330 and the CST-100 interiors from Vegas: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust

The CST-100 photo in particular showcases a 7-person layout that has the Boeing "dreamliner" treatment.

The second photo is of the BA-330 interior as a panorama.  Mr. Foust took this shot, Boeing provided the first one. (and yes, I know it's posted on some of the other threads, but not everyoen sees every thread).

First class indeed!  Until the capsule pressure is lowered, and everyone gets gas in that little room.....



Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/01/2014 06:17 PM
{snip}
Bigelow can accommodate six crew members per BA-330 habitat. The company is planning to have two habs ready to fly in late 2016.

That would give a launch date in 2 to 3 years time.  The launches should be manifested soon, depending on sales and how long the prototype BA-330 needs ground testing.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Jarnis on 05/01/2014 08:34 PM
{snip}
Bigelow can accommodate six crew members per BA-330 habitat. The company is planning to have two habs ready to fly in late 2016.

That would give a launch date in 2 to 3 years time.  The launches should be manifested soon, depending on sales and how long the prototype BA-330 needs ground testing.

From SpaceX manifest:

2015    Bigelow Aerospace    Cape Canaveral    Falcon 9

Of course BA-330 is supposedly 20 tons, so beyond capabilities of Falcon 9. Anyone know what they're launching on this one? I thought it was going to be Sundancer (8.5 tons), but that was cancelled...

BA-330... Atlas V?


Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: collectSPACE on 05/01/2014 08:45 PM
2015    Bigelow Aerospace    Cape Canaveral    Falcon 9

That is BEAM, the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module, to be installed on ISS for two years and launching on SpX-8 in July 2015.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Dappa on 05/01/2014 09:15 PM
2015    Bigelow Aerospace    Cape Canaveral    Falcon 9

That is BEAM, the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module, to be installed on ISS for two years and launching on SpX-8 in July 2015.
Nope, BEAM will hitch a ride on a Dragon. That Bigelow launch was originally intended for a Sundancer, but that's obviously not going to happen. If I recall correctly, the launch was just never taken off the manifest because Bigelow still intends to launch with SpaceX at some point in time.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ClaytonBirchenough on 05/01/2014 09:40 PM
If I recall correctly, the launch was just never taken off the manifest because Bigelow still intends to launch with SpaceX at some point in time.

What and when??? BA330 cannot is too heavy to be launched on a Falcon 9. This really isn't making sense to me...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: JBF on 05/01/2014 09:43 PM
Actually 2015 from Florida makes a lot of sense if you are talking about the FH.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/01/2014 09:44 PM
{snip}
Bigelow can accommodate six crew members per BA-330 habitat. The company is planning to have two habs ready to fly in late 2016.

That would give a launch date in 2 to 3 years time.  The launches should be manifested soon, depending on sales and how long the prototype BA-330 needs ground testing.

Unfortunately, Bigelow's operational station has been launching in 2-3 years time for the last decade.  I'm eager to see them launch, but its hard to keep up the optimism while watching the schedule move right by one year every year.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: collectSPACE on 05/01/2014 10:13 PM
Nope, BEAM will hitch a ride on a Dragon.

Okay, its been a while since I've look at SpaceX's manifest and thought perhaps they were referencing Bigelow on the SpX-8 Dragon flight.

Unfortunately, Bigelow's operational station has been launching in 2-3 years time for the last decade.

Bigelow's Jay Ingham addressed this at Wednesday's event. Up until now, they have been waiting for a commercial launch provider to materialize before setting a hard date to have the BA 330 ready to fly. Now they have decided that they have waited long enough and with commercial crew proceeding as it is, they've decided internally to be ready to ship flight-ready modules to whatever launch site by late 2016.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 05/02/2014 12:20 AM
2015    Bigelow Aerospace    Cape Canaveral    Falcon 9

That is BEAM, the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module, to be installed on ISS for two years and launching on SpX-8 in July 2015.

thx for the reminder.....some http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25395862/nlv-company-gets-closer-to-building-space-stations

"Boeing plans to be the shuttle company, launching people in nine-person pods."

Not sure if I'd like to launched in a pod ;D

"A North Las Vegas company is moving towards the final frontier at a rocket's pace. Bigelow Aerospace plans to build two space stations by 2016."


Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 05/02/2014 12:29 AM
9 passengers + pilot makes sense for 3-6hr trip with few orbits of earth.

Believe they said the trip would take 12 hrs.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 05/02/2014 02:54 AM
Can you link me to a source.

Boeing and Bigelow held a press briefing in Las Vegas yesterday where they showed off the new design (and the BA-330). I was there. Article forthcoming on Space.com.
Cool. I look forward to the article.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 05/02/2014 03:12 AM
2015    Bigelow Aerospace    Cape Canaveral    Falcon 9

That is BEAM, the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module, to be installed on ISS for two years and launching on SpX-8 in July 2015.
Nope, BEAM will hitch a ride on a Dragon. That Bigelow launch was originally intended for a Sundancer, but that's obviously not going to happen. If I recall correctly, the launch was just never taken off the manifest because Bigelow still intends to launch with SpaceX at some point in time.

Yes that it. Bigelow was asked about it in an interview. He explained that it was a deposit that he had on the Falcon 5. But when that LV was cancelled, SpaceX asked him if he wanted to transfer the deposit to a Falcon 9, Bigelow said yes. But I suspect that the deposit will eventually be transfered to a FH.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 05/02/2014 03:14 AM
2015    Bigelow Aerospace    Cape Canaveral    Falcon 9

That is BEAM, the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module, to be installed on ISS for two years and launching on SpX-8 in July 2015.
Nope, BEAM will hitch a ride on a Dragon. That Bigelow launch was originally intended for a Sundancer, but that's obviously not going to happen. If I recall correctly, the launch was just never taken off the manifest because Bigelow still intends to launch with SpaceX at some point in time.
Here's the reason why it's on the manifest.

In 2003, Bigelow was in talks with SpaceX about launching Genesis on a Falcon 5. The Falcon 5 was supposed to be ready by around late 2004, so Bigelow put down a $500,000 deposit for the rocket. SpaceX decides not to build the Falcon 5, so that amount may go towards a future rocket.

@1:10 http://moonandback.com/2011/11/30/moonandback-interview-with-robert-bigelow-part-3-pluses-and-minuse/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 05/02/2014 03:17 AM
Nope, BEAM will hitch a ride on a Dragon.

Okay, its been a while since I've look at SpaceX's manifest and thought perhaps they were referencing Bigelow on the SpX-8 Dragon flight.

Unfortunately, Bigelow's operational station has been launching in 2-3 years time for the last decade.

Bigelow's Jay Ingham addressed this at Wednesday's event. Up until now, they have been waiting for a commercial launch provider to materialize before setting a hard date to have the BA 330 ready to fly. Now they have decided that they have waited long enough and with commercial crew proceeding as it is, they've decided internally to be ready to ship flight-ready modules to whatever launch site by late 2016.

The key word is that it will be "ready" for launch in late 2016. But it won't actually launch in 2016. It has to wait for the upgraded (53mt and a taller fairing) FH to be ready in 2017. It could also launch on an Atlas 552 but that would be more expensive. Incidentally, the first FH will use same fairing as the F9. But the upgraded FH will have a much taller fairing (15' taller).
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 05/02/2014 03:27 AM
Nope, BEAM will hitch a ride on a Dragon.

Okay, its been a while since I've look at SpaceX's manifest and thought perhaps they were referencing Bigelow on the SpX-8 Dragon flight.

Unfortunately, Bigelow's operational station has been launching in 2-3 years time for the last decade.

Bigelow's Jay Ingham addressed this at Wednesday's event. Up until now, they have been waiting for a commercial launch provider to materialize before setting a hard date to have the BA 330 ready to fly. Now they have decided that they have waited long enough and with commercial crew proceeding as it is, they've decided internally to be ready to ship flight-ready modules to whatever launch site by late 2016.

Yes that has been mentionned before. But the key word is that it will be ready for launch in late 2016. But it won't launch in 2016. It has to wait for the upgraded (53mt, taller fairing) FH to be ready in 2017. It could also launch on an Atlas 552 but that would be more expensive.
The BA-330 is only 19,500 kg so it doesn't need a crossfed Falcon Heavy.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 05/02/2014 03:36 AM
The BA-330 is only 19,500 kg so it doesn't need a crossfed Falcon Heavy.

The BA-330 needs a taller fairing than the one that will be used by initial version of the FH (which will be the same fairing as the F9). The upgaded FH will have a fairing that is 15' taller. But the upgraded FH will only be ready in 2017.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: dror on 05/02/2014 03:53 AM
It becomes rather silly,
The Ba330 is launched within a faring that is as big as the module in it's expanded form. There is no advantage to expandable over hard shell modules.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/02/2014 04:30 AM
It becomes rather silly,
The Ba330 is launched within a faring that is as big as the module in it's expanded form. There is no advantage to expandable over hard shell modules.

The claim from Bigelow is that they get more volume per unit mass.

Also, your hard-shell module would also have a fairing, so it doesn't really make sense to compare the size of the BA 330 with fairing to the hard shell without the fairing.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Lars_J on 05/02/2014 05:00 AM

The BA-330 is only 19,500 kg so it doesn't need a crossfed Falcon Heavy.

The BA-330 needs a taller fairing than the one that will be used by initial version of the FH (which will be the same fairing as the F9). The upgaded FH will have a fairing that is 15' taller. But the upgraded FH will only be ready in 2017.

I must have missed the news about a bigger FH fairing option. When was that revealed?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 05/02/2014 05:11 AM
It becomes rather silly,
The Ba330 is launched within a faring that is as big as the module in it's expanded form. There is no advantage to expandable over hard shell modules.
When expanded the BA-330 has a diameter of 6.7 meters, the fairing has a diameter of 5.2 meters.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: go4mars on 05/02/2014 05:18 AM
The BA-330 is only 19,500 kg so it doesn't need a crossfed Falcon Heavy.
Depends where it's going, what supplies are pre-stocked, etc.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/02/2014 05:40 AM
The BA-330 is only 19,500 kg so it doesn't need a crossfed Falcon Heavy.
Depends where it's going, what supplies are pre-stocked, etc.

Unless they get NASA to buy BA-330 for a station farther away, the plan has always been to make it an LEO station with space rented to multiple governments and other organizations.  So it isn't going anywhere the first version of Falcon Heavy can't put it.

As to pre-stocked supplies, they could be brought up on cargo logistics flights later.  Having them pre-stocked might be a nice-to-have extra if the launch vehicle has the excess performance, but it's not a blocker if Bigelow wants to launch and only non-crossfeed Falcon Heavy is available.  They're going to have to have logistics flights indefinitely anyway, so the cost of the logistics flights to supply the first year of service won't be any higher than those of the second year and so on that they'd have to pay in any case.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 05/02/2014 11:12 AM

The BA-330 is only 19,500 kg so it doesn't need a crossfed Falcon Heavy.

The BA-330 needs a taller fairing than the one that will be used by initial version of the FH (which will be the same fairing as the F9). The upgaded FH will have a fairing that is 15' taller. But the upgraded FH will only be ready in 2017.

I must have missed the news about a bigger FH fairing option. When was that revealed?

The information is from the Bigelow Gate 2 report (the charts in the report are dated August 1 2013). According to the report, there is two versions of the FH: the regular version (first launch expected in 2015) and the upgraded version (the first launch of the upgraded version is expected to be in 2017). The regular version of the FH uses the same fairing as the F9. The upgraded FH uses the 15' taller fairing.

I beleive this is why there is two prices for the FH on SpaceX's website: one for less than 6.4 tons to GTO and one for more than 6.4 tons to GTO.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: MP99 on 05/02/2014 12:43 PM
Nope, BEAM will hitch a ride on a Dragon.

Okay, its been a while since I've look at SpaceX's manifest and thought perhaps they were referencing Bigelow on the SpX-8 Dragon flight.

Unfortunately, Bigelow's operational station has been launching in 2-3 years time for the last decade.

Bigelow's Jay Ingham addressed this at Wednesday's event. Up until now, they have been waiting for a commercial launch provider to materialize before setting a hard date to have the BA 330 ready to fly. Now they have decided that they have waited long enough and with commercial crew proceeding as it is, they've decided internally to be ready to ship flight-ready modules to whatever launch site by late 2016.

That is big news. Thanks for sharing.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 05/02/2014 01:42 PM
This item is Bigelow related and is encouraging for the company.

One of the most important thing that Bolden said during the May 1 CJS Senate appropriation hearing is that NASA will always need LEO. He said that eventually, LEO will only be serviced by the private sector through commercial transportation and habitats.

Gerst had already said this during the Bigelow press conferences. But I think that it is important that Congress realizes this. Bigelow has an important role to play in NASA's future LEO activities.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 05/02/2014 03:26 PM


The BA-330 is only 19,500 kg so it doesn't need a crossfed Falcon Heavy.

The BA-330 needs a taller fairing than the one that will be used by initial version of the FH (which will be the same fairing as the F9). The upgaded FH will have a fairing that is 15' taller. But the upgraded FH will only be ready in 2017.

I must have missed the news about a bigger FH fairing option. When was that revealed?
I'm getting a suspicion but if I'm right, I would question its validity as to post it here.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: collectSPACE on 05/02/2014 03:43 PM
Article forthcoming on Space.com.

And here it is...

Boeing Unveils Cabin Design for Commercial Spaceliner
http://www.space.com/25734-boeing-commercial-spaceliner-cabin-design-unveiled.html

(The article focuses more on CST-100 than it does the BA 330 but has a couple of images from Bigelow's full-scale mockup and a follow-up article will go into more detail on the plans for the space habitat.)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 05/02/2014 04:08 PM
It becomes rather silly,
The Ba330 is launched within a faring that is as big as the module in it's expanded form. There is no advantage to expandable over hard shell modules.
When expanded the BA-330 has a diameter of 6.7 meters, the fairing has a diameter of 5.2 meters.

What about the folding?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 05/02/2014 04:55 PM

It becomes rather silly,
The Ba330 is launched within a faring that is as big as the module in it's expanded form. There is no advantage to expandable over hard shell modules.
When expanded the BA-330 has a diameter of 6.7 meters, the fairing has a diameter of 5.2 meters.
Actually, a 5.2fairing has an internal 4.6m. And modules also need some clearance for handles and such. That's why ISS modules are 4.1m to 4.4m.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 05/03/2014 09:07 AM

It becomes rather silly,
The Ba330 is launched within a faring that is as big as the module in it's expanded form. There is no advantage to expandable over hard shell modules.
When expanded the BA-330 has a diameter of 6.7 meters, the fairing has a diameter of 5.2 meters.
Actually, a 5.2fairing has an internal 4.6m.
I could have sworn 5.2 meters was the internal diameter, I guess I was wrong.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 05/03/2014 01:47 PM
Popular Mechanics article

Step Inside the Inflatable Space Station (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/step-inside-the-inflatable-space-station#slide-1)
Ten minutes from the Las Vegas Strip, at the fenced-off headquarters of Bigelow Aerospace, PopMech got permission to walk through a full-scale mockup of the inflatable space hotel.

Las Vegas Review-Journal article

Travel to the moon — and beyond — may go through North Las Vegas (http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/travel-moon-and-beyond-may-go-through-north-las-vegas)
Representatives of Bigelow Aerospace and aircraft designer Boeing, partners in the development of the next generation of space vehicles, on Wednesday unveiled models of the vehicles they hope will someday be used for those missions.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/03/2014 08:33 PM
In space the astronauts may not need a ladder to change floors but a rope or poll would allow them to control the changes in direction.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/04/2014 08:52 AM
One use I thought about recently for Bigelow Olympus was for scrapping space junk eg satellites and upper stages.
These could be brought inside and cut up into scrap metal which could transported to moon surface for use in build lunar bases. The Olympus could be based L1 or L2 in low DV range of GEO satellites. One of biggest issues with scrapping space junk is littles bits of metal and other materials that invariably escape and float around. If the hanger of Olympus was slightly pressurised an air circulation system could filter this debris out.

All operations could be done with robot arms which would be operated remotely from personnel inside the station or from moon or earth.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/affordable-habitats-more-buck-rogers-less-money-bigelow/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Mader Levap on 05/04/2014 10:49 AM
One use I thought about recently for Bigelow Olympus was for scrapping space junk eg satellites and upper stages. These could be brought inside and cut up into scrap metal which could transported to moon surface for use in build lunar bases.
Economic nonsense.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/04/2014 01:15 PM
@TrevorMonty there are plenty of raw materials on the Moon, so that is the Moon base does not need.  Next calculate an approximate cost of moving things from LEO to the lunar surface.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: dror on 05/05/2014 09:19 PM
It becomes rather silly,
The Ba330 is launched within a faring that is as big as the module in it's expanded form. There is no advantage to expandable over hard shell modules.

The claim from Bigelow is that they get more volume per unit mass.
Volume per mass depands on wall thickness or wall mass and could be achieved with hard composites rather than streached kevler.
Quote
Also, your hard-shell module would also have a fairing,
Not sure. Isn't dragon a hard shell module in a way? DC? CST100? Can they be extended? Why cant a module be built in the same way as any of those and exactly the same size of a fairing?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: dror on 05/05/2014 09:23 PM
It becomes rather silly.
When expanded the BA-330 has a diameter of 6.7 meters, the fairing has a diameter of 5.2 meters.
But the extanded fairing gets about 18 meters long so it's total volume is bigger than the BA330's.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: dror on 05/05/2014 09:34 PM

It becomes rather silly...
When expanded the BA-330 has a diameter of 6.7 meters, the fairing has a diameter of 5.2 meters.
Actually, a 5.2fairing has an internal 4.6m. And modules also need some clearance for handles and such. That's why ISS modules are 4.1m to 4.4m.
Thats good to know.
But the BA330 will have no handles so the Biglow station can handle a flat module. If any, a hard shell could support aditions more easily.
I really want to see a private space station but I dont understand why they are so keen on these baloons.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/05/2014 10:00 PM
It becomes rather silly,
The Ba330 is launched within a faring that is as big as the module in it's expanded form. There is no advantage to expandable over hard shell modules.

The claim from Bigelow is that they get more volume per unit mass.
Volume per mass depands on wall thickness or wall mass and could be achieved with hard composites rather than streached kevler.

Bigelow's web site lists numbers for ISS station nodes versus their modules that show higher volume per unit mass.  That seems more persuasive to me than your vague claim that the same "could be achieved with hard composites".  Where's your evidence for that claim?

Quote
Also, your hard-shell module would also have a fairing,
Not sure. Isn't dragon a hard shell module in a way? DC? CST100? Can they be extended? Why cant a module be built in the same way as any of those and exactly the same size of a fairing?

Yes, and Dragon, Dream Chaser, and CST-100 all have much higher mass per unit pressurized volume in part because they have aeroshells.  Those vehicles need the aeroshells anyway since they need to survive re-entry.  Station nodes don't normally need to survive re-entry, so they normally don't need the aeroshells.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: clongton on 05/06/2014 12:44 AM
I really want to see a private space station but I don't understand why they are so keen on these balloons.

These "balloons" as you call them provide larger interior volume for equal mass than aluminum cylinders, better mmod protection than aluminum cylinders and better GCR protection than aluminum cylinders.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: dror on 05/06/2014 01:41 PM
I really want to see a private space station but I don't understand why they are so keen on these balloons.

These "balloons" as you call them provide larger interior volume for equal mass than aluminum cylinders, better mmod protection than aluminum cylinders and better GCR protection than aluminum cylinders.
Than obviously aluminium cylinders are not the way to go.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: dror on 05/06/2014 02:22 PM
"
Bigelow's web site lists numbers for ISS station nodes versus their modules that show higher volume per unit mass.  That seems more persuasive to me than your vague claim that the same "could be achieved with hard composites".  Where's your evidence for that claim?
"
Bigelow's BEAM:
Mass = 1.36 ton
Volume = 16m3
Volume/mass =11.8 m3/ton
(Wiki)

Cygnus CPM:
Mass = 1.5 ton
Volume = 18.9m3
Volume/mass =12.6 m3/ton

Cygnus enhenced CPM:
Mass = 1.8 ton
Volume = 27m3
Volume/mass =15 m3/ton

Shows that higher V/M ratios can be achieved with hard modules on the same volume range.

I dont know the radiation shielding of either, but I know astronauts are allowed to enter the CPM. Also, ThalesAlania have stated that the CPM can be made into a permanent module with the adition of only some plumbing. Sorry, I dont have the link for that.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Borklund on 05/06/2014 02:27 PM
I really want to see a private space station but I don't understand why they are so keen on these balloons.

These "balloons" as you call them provide larger interior volume for equal mass than aluminum cylinders, better mmod protection than aluminum cylinders and better GCR protection than aluminum cylinders.
Than obviously aluminium cylinders are not the way to go.
They're *a* way to go. Inflatable habitats hadn't ever been tried in space before Genesis I and II. Pressurised metallic cylinders were all there was before then (not counting space suits or Echo satellite balloons).

I dont know the radiation shielding of either, but I know astronauts are allowed to enter the CPM. Also, ThalesAlania have stated that the CPM can be made into a permanent module with the adition of only some plumbing. Sorry, I dont have the link for that.
It hasn't been proven yet, but Bigelow claim that their inflatable modules will offer the same or better radiation shielding compared to ISS modules. BEAM will help provide data on this.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 05/06/2014 03:48 PM
"
Bigelow's web site lists numbers for ISS station nodes versus their modules that show higher volume per unit mass.  That seems more persuasive to me than your vague claim that the same "could be achieved with hard composites".  Where's your evidence for that claim?
"
Bigelow's BEAM:
Mass = 1.36 ton
Volume = 16m3
Volume/mass =11.8 m3/ton
(Wiki)

Cygnus CPM:
Mass = 1.5 ton
Volume = 18.9m3
Volume/mass =12.6 m3/ton

Cygnus enhenced CPM:
Mass = 1.8 ton
Volume = 27m3
Volume/mass =15 m3/ton

Shows that higher V/M ratios can be achieved with hard modules on the same volume range.

I dont know the radiation shielding of either, but I know astronauts are allowed to enter the CPM. Also, ThalesAlania have stated that the CPM can be made into a permanent module with the addition of only some plumbing. Sorry, I dont have the link for that.
Beam is not a fair comparison. For obvious reasons, the weight to volume ratio of expandable habitats grows with the size of the habitat. Beam is only a very small test module.
BA330 already has a 1:15 mass to volume ratio and that is for a fully outfit module, with environmental control and life support systems, as well as solar panels, thrusters and avionics, etc.
And the even larger BA 2100 has a mass to volume ratio of 1:35.
All that while providing superior protection compared to the hard modules of the ISS.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: dror on 05/06/2014 05:39 PM

Bigelow's BEAM:
Mass = 1.36 ton
Volume = 16m3
Volume/mass =11.8 m3/ton
(Wiki)

Cygnus CPM:
Mass = 1.5 ton
Volume = 18.9m3
Volume/mass =12.6 m3/ton

Cygnus enhenced CPM:
Mass = 1.8 ton
Volume = 27m3
Volume/mass =15 m3/ton

Shows that higher V/M ratios can be achieved with hard modules on the same volume range.

Beam is not a fair comparison. For obvious reasons, the weight to volume ratio of expandable habitats grows with the size of the habitat. Beam is only a very small test module.
BA330 already has a 1:15 mass to volume ratio and that is for a fully outfit module, with environmental control and life support systems, as well as solar panels, thrusters and avionics, etc.
And the even larger BA 2100 has a mass to volume ratio of 1:35.
All that while providing superior protection compared to the hard modules of the ISS.
BEAM IS a fair comparison to a module of the same volume like the CPM. It is not a fair comparison to a module of a bigger volume like BA330.
the weight to volume ratio of any habitat grows with the size of the habitat.
Claimed superior protection yet to be proven and it is not depended on the wall material's flexability.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Bob Shaw on 05/06/2014 05:49 PM
They're *a* way to go. Inflatable habitats hadn't ever been tried in space before Genesis I and II. Pressurised metallic cylinders were all there was before then (not counting space suits or Echo satellite balloons).



Voskhod 2 Airlock.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/07/2014 02:55 AM

Bigelow's BEAM:
Mass = 1.36 ton
Volume = 16m3
Volume/mass =11.8 m3/ton
(Wiki)

Cygnus CPM:
Mass = 1.5 ton
Volume = 18.9m3
Volume/mass =12.6 m3/ton

Cygnus enhenced CPM:
Mass = 1.8 ton
Volume = 27m3
Volume/mass =15 m3/ton

Shows that higher V/M ratios can be achieved with hard modules on the same volume range.

Beam is not a fair comparison. For obvious reasons, the weight to volume ratio of expandable habitats grows with the size of the habitat. Beam is only a very small test module.
BA330 already has a 1:15 mass to volume ratio and that is for a fully outfit module, with environmental control and life support systems, as well as solar panels, thrusters and avionics, etc.
And the even larger BA 2100 has a mass to volume ratio of 1:35.
All that while providing superior protection compared to the hard modules of the ISS.
BEAM IS a fair comparison to a module of the same volume like the CPM. It is not a fair comparison to a module of a bigger volume like BA330.
the weight to volume ratio of any habitat grows with the size of the habitat.
Claimed superior protection yet to be proven and it is not depended on the wall material's flexability.

Bigelow likes to compare BA-330 to the ISS Destiny module.  They claim BA-330 has only 33% more mass but 210% more habitable volume.  That seems close enough in size for a reasonably fair comparison.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: dror on 05/07/2014 11:26 AM
Than obviously Destiny is not a better module by mass/volume.
But CPM is.
The only theoretical advantage to inflatables is the ability to lunch a bigger diameter or a more complex structure in one piece, and that becomes minor when the difference in diameter between the fairing to the module is 1.5 meter and the volume is more or less the same.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: JBF on 05/07/2014 12:14 PM
I'm not sure the CPM is a valid comparison.  It's primary function is a cargo carrier and as such it's design is maximized for that; maximum interior volume. 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 05/07/2014 12:57 PM
Than obviously Destiny is not a better module by mass/volume.
But CPM is.
The only theoretical advantage to inflatables is the ability to lunch a bigger diameter or a more complex structure in one piece, and that becomes minor when the difference in diameter between the fairing to the module is 1.5 meter and the volume is more or less the same.
First, the rigid pressure vessels are bounded by the fairing inner dynamic diameter (4.6m for commercial), inflatables can do at least +50% that diameter. Second, I agree that CPM and BEAM are sort of similar. But it's at the bigger scales that you have better relationships. While it's true that all benefit from scaling laws, inflatables have minimum gauge measured in feet. It has to do with MMOD protection, insulation and leak resistance. In particular, the inflatables work a bit like fiber wrapped air tanks. Thus, the pressure carrying layer (I believe they use kevlar), is the only part that you have to scale to increase the diameter. Thus, while BEAM is very heavy, it's walls are sized for at least BA330 width. CPM is optimized for weight and has as little material as possible.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 05/07/2014 02:35 PM
First, the rigid pressure vessels are bounded by the fairing inner dynamic diameter (4.6m for commercial), inflatables can do at least +50% that diameter. Second, I agree that CPM and BEAM are sort of similar. But it's at the bigger scales that you have better relationships. While it's true that all benefit from scaling laws, inflatables have minimum gauge measured in feet. It has to do with MMOD protection, insulation and leak resistance. In particular, the inflatables work a bit like fiber wrapped air tanks. Thus, the pressure carrying layer (I believe they use kevlar), is the only part that you have to scale to increase the diameter. Thus, while BEAM is very heavy, it's walls are sized for at least BA330 width. CPM is optimized for weight and has as little material as possible.
Yepp baldusi has it right!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 05/07/2014 07:03 PM
Regarding radiation shielding,

this PDF is a 2000 study done by NASA JSC and Boeing. Bigelow has improved the TransHab tech, including the addition of a water envelope which would greatly increase its shielding.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100033236.pdf

Quote
Conclusions

1.) There is approximately a 20% variation in BFO dose equivalent between the 9 locations in the TransHab with the. maximum value being about 30 rem/yr, which is well below the 50 rem/yr crew limit.

2.) Crew exposures vary by about a factor of 2-2.5 from solar minimum and solar maximum.

3.) The TransHab module provides sufficient shielding to protect the crew during the largest solar particle events on record.

4.) Except for the less shielded locations in the wardroom and at the treadmill, the TransHab is slightly better shielded than the ISS Lab and Hab modules.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 05/07/2014 09:26 PM
One of the interesting things that happen when you get into >7.5m diameters is that a single aisle isn't enough. There's a paper on the Use of SLS tanks as habitats pressure vessels. And the conclusion is that the best arrangement is the one Bigelow currently shows: with three or four deck that go along the longitude of the module. This arrangement optimizes volume use, airflow, access and launching stresses. It also happens that equipment and systems are on the outer walls and the center gets much better protection. Thus, one of the advantages of inflatables is that you can get to. Very efficient distribution with current launchers. Of course that if SLS was available, rigids would get those benefits. On the other hand, it would enable a 15m inflatable that's on a whole different class of module.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 05/08/2014 06:32 AM
The same could be said for a SpaceX BFR, and in 2012 they signed a cooperation agreement. It sounded like a crew transport deal at the time, but with reusability, FH and eventually a BFR in the pipeline....price matters.

http://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19/spacex-and-bigelow-aerospace-join-forces-offer-crewed-missions-private-space
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: dror on 05/08/2014 06:41 PM
Thus, one of the advantages of inflatables is that you can get to very efficient distribution with current launchers. Of course that if SLS was available, rigids would get those benefits. On the other hand, it would enable a 15m inflatable that's on a whole different class of module.

That also shows that the only advantage of inflatable modules is the diameter.
Rigids have other advantages as the ability to support external instruments and the ability to launch with the interior equipment mounted and with supplies allready inside.
All I'm saying is that if a paralel-univers-Bigelow was investing in a next generation, rigid, no-fairing habitats instead of inflatable habitats he might have a better product.
Do you know someone who might take to that chalange?
Jon?

Anyway,
Do you have a link to the ET paper? Wet launch is my seconed favorite concept.
Do you have a link to the water insulatin layer on the BA330? I didnt know that they plan to use water for shielding. It sounds very intresting.
Thanks!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 05/08/2014 06:46 PM
That also shows that the only advantage of inflatable modules is the diameter.
No.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: dror on 05/08/2014 08:54 PM
BA330's 6.9m diameter doesnt allow for three or four decks configuration. Instead they offer a cylindrical truss inside of a cylindrical module. So the ET paper's conclusion doesn't apply to it. The BA gets only the bigger diameter, not the better arrangement.
If sls comes with a bigger possible fairng it could have the better arrangement and so would the bigger expandable. So again only bigger diameter, no better arrangement.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 05/08/2014 09:20 PM
Thus, one of the advantages of inflatables is that you can get to very efficient distribution with current launchers. Of course that if SLS was available, rigids would get those benefits. On the other hand, it would enable a 15m inflatable that's on a whole different class of module.

That also shows that the only advantage of inflatable modules is the diameter.
Rigids have other advantages as the ability to support external instruments and the ability to launch with the interior equipment mounted and with supplies allready inside.
All I'm saying is that if a paralel-univers-Bigelow was investing in a next generation, rigid, no-fairing habitats instead of inflatable habitats he might have a better product.
Do you know someone who might take to that chalange?
Jon?

Anyway,
Do you have a link to the ET paper? Wet launch is my seconed favorite concept.
Do you have a link to the water insulatin layer on the BA330? I didnt know that they plan to use water for shielding. It sounds very intresting.
Thanks!
STUDY (PDF) (http://spacearchitect.org/pubs/AIAA-2013-5433.pdf)
Couple of points. They planned to use a tank as the pressure vessel, but it would be built and retrofitted here on Michaud and the Cape. It's cheap because they need no new tooling, it's already flight rated for the launch environment and pressure margins. But it's a new article manufactures explicitly for the habitat. Thus no wet works. It doesn't works.
Water insulation was disclosed by Mr. Bigelow himself. Only issue is that nothing prevents the same use on a rigid pressure vessel. It's a technique, not an inherent advantage of inflatables. Good idea if you don't have your module already outfitted in the walls. But if you make the calculation on gross mass for an inflatable you can get scared very fast. Say that you want the same protection as in Earth. That's 1m of water. Thus, you'd need 334tonnes of water for a BA330.
Having just 10cm, or 10% of the radiation protection of Earth, means 34tonnes. For a module that you'd expect to launch under 20 tonnes. You'd need 10 Dragon missions just sending water bags. Say that you can do each mission for 100M (NASA paid 132M for 12 launches), that's still a Billion just to get the water on the module.
The issue of outfitting, is different. There's a reason that projected inflatable stations have a rigid inner structure. That's fully outfitted and where all the ECLSS and equipment is installed. Thus, you can add to the extra volume more equipment. But that's it. If you wanted to fill the extra volume with equipment you'd increase your cost and weight, to the point where they are no longer comparable.
Please don't underscore the importance of big diameter, by the way. The one fundamental research that the ISS dropped was the centrifuge for artificial gravity research. The fact that no engineer cried to much was mostly because it was considered almost impossible to achieve. Both because of vibration and microgravity problems and because of the extremely limited diameter available. Obviously the 150% fairing multiplier is a nice thing. To generate 0.37G on an 8m diameter you need 15RPM, while on 14m you can do 11.3. But inflatables allow you to do things better. What if you inflate a 21m diameter torus? It doesn't needs to be so big. You could have a 2m diameter tube forming the torus. With support guys and some rotation you could keep it pretty stable and a lot lighter for the diameter. And you could lower your RPM to 8.8 for the same weight.
The beauty of inflatables is not only volume, is flexibility of design. Rigid pressure vessels is really difficult to do when you get out of traditional sphere and cylinder. But inflatables lend themselves to get creative.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/08/2014 09:50 PM
Having just 10cm, or 10% of the radiation protection of Earth, means 34tonnes. For a module that you'd expect to launch under 20 tonnes. You'd need 10 Dragon missions just sending water bags. Say that you can do each mission for 100M (NASA paid 132M for 12 launches), that's still a Billion just to get the water on the module.

And that just shows that Dragon is not the right way to take huge amounts of water to space!

Instead, make a cheap expendable tank for the water.  The LOX and RP-1 tanks in the Falcon 9 first and second stages can withstand all the forces of launch and they have a very low mass of the tank compared to the mass of the contents, and they're already sized right to go on top of Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy.  One Falcon Heavy flight, even without cross-feed, will give you your 34 tonnes of water.  Or three Falcon 9 flights will do it.  All for far less than $1 billion -- closer to $200 million.

Or, wait until F9 is fully and rapidly reusable and then those 10 Dragon missions will be even cheaper than $200 million.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: dror on 05/08/2014 09:55 PM
Thanks for the info and insights!
About water insulation, it gives hope through and to utilizing astreroid water in space as a building material. If it saves a bilion than it worth a bilion.
Second, water becomes ice in space, and that is the closest thing I can think of to a self healing micrometeorite shield. I think of the surface of Europa and how it got so round.
Artificial gravity ring like the Nautilus gravity ring concept is just what I had in mind when I wrote that the advantage of inflatables is diameter and the abilty to launch complex structures in a single launch. But the fact that it has other posible uses doesn't reflect on the first possible use.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: dror on 05/08/2014 09:58 PM
"
While it's true that all benefit from scaling laws, inflatables have minimum gauge measured in feet.
"
Can you please explain that
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 05/08/2014 10:00 PM


That also shows that the only advantage of inflatable modules is the diameter.
Rigids have other advantages as the ability to support external instruments and the ability to launch with the interior equipment mounted and with supplies allready inside.



No not really. The interior of the Bigleow module is not hollow. It contains an core that you could put interior equipment in already. The service module of the station would not be inflatable and could support external instruments.

Having supplies in already is a bit overrated. Without resupply an station will simply run out of them. Skylab only had enough supply to support 3 crews for about 3 months each. There was only about 20 days of supply left when the station was lost. Without the ability to resupply the station both the science and the ability for long term duration are greatly compromised.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: clongton on 05/08/2014 10:04 PM
That also shows that the only advantage of inflatable modules is the diameter.

That is not correct.
The inflatables provide superior mmod and BCR protection than a metal cylinder.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 05/09/2014 12:40 AM

"
While it's true that all benefit from scaling laws, inflatables have minimum gauge measured in feet.
"
Can you please explain that
The way that you have to layer material to get the necessary thermal, MMOD and radiation protection means that the walls are about 30cm wide. The layer that actually handles the pressure, is a couple of Kevlar layers that must be below 0.5cm. For a 30m diameter you would need, may be, 2.5cm of Kevlar. But the rest would be the same. In the particular case of the BEAM module they want to validate the wall construction and material. Thus, they'll still have those 30cm wide wall. Thus, the scaling is better for inflatables.
Regarding water, you can't keep it in ice form on the exterior side. Temperatures are, I think, +150C/-60C at LEO. But polypropylene, has about the same density, better tensile strength, can be made into composites for better MMOD protection and can be folded and then easily applied on the outside. Again, same can be done with a rigid structure.
Btw, the better protection lays in the secondary radiation. When a high energy particle hits a metal, it emits a metal ion, which is much worse for human ADN than when it hits carbon, oxygen, nitrogen or (even better) hydrogen.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: dror on 05/09/2014 11:58 AM

"
While it's true that all benefit from scaling laws, inflatables have minimum gauge measured in feet.
"
Can you please explain that
The way that you have to layer material to get the necessary thermal, MMOD and radiation protection means that the walls are about 30cm wide. The layer that actually handles the pressure, is a couple of Kevlar layers that must be below 0.5cm. For a 30m diameter you would need, may be, 2.5cm of Kevlar. But the rest would be the same. In the particular case of the BEAM module they want to validate the wall construction and material. Thus, they'll still have those 30cm wide wall. Thus, the scaling is better for inflatables.
For this to be true you need to assume that the CPM wall thickness is designed for strength only, and dont get the necessary thermal, MMOD and radiation protection, which I'm not sure is the case.
Quote
Regarding water, you can't keep it in ice form on the exterior side. Temperatures are, I think, +150C/-60C at LEO. But polypropylene, has about the same density, better tensile strength, can be made into composites for better MMOD protection and can be folded and then easily applied on the outside. Again, same can be done with a rigid structures as well.
[/qoute]
But it cant be found and harvested in space.
[qoute]
Btw, the better protection lays in the secondary radiation. When a high energy particle hits a metal, it emits a metal ion, which is much worse for human ADN than when it hits carbon, oxygen, nitrogen or (even better) hydrogen.
One more reason why aluminium cylinders are not the best way to go.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 05/09/2014 06:43 PM
The way that you have to layer material to get the necessary thermal, MMOD and radiation protection means that the walls are about 30cm wide. The layer that actually handles the pressure, is a couple of Kevlar layers that must be below 0.5cm. For a 30m diameter you would need, may be, 2.5cm of Kevlar. But the rest would be the same. In the particular case of the BEAM module they want to validate the wall construction and material. Thus, they'll still have those 30cm wide wall. Thus, the scaling is better for inflatables.
For this to be true you need to assume that the CPM wall thickness is designed for strength only, and dont get the necessary thermal, MMOD and radiation protection, which I'm not sure is the case.
Quote
Regarding water, you can't keep it in ice form on the exterior side. Temperatures are, I think, +150C/-60C at LEO. But polypropylene, has about the same density, better tensile strength, can be made into composites for better MMOD protection and can be folded and then easily applied on the outside. Again, same can be done with a rigid structures as well.
But it can't be found and harvested in space.
Hydrogen is much better and more abundant, too. But if you are going that route silica might be a good choice. In any case, nothing of it can be found from LEO to GEO, on the moon you just cover everything with regolith and on Mars with martian soil. Polypropylene is going to be it for a while.

Quote
Quote
Btw, the better protection lays in the secondary radiation. When a high energy particle hits a metal, it emits a metal ion, which is much worse for human ADN than when it hits carbon, oxygen, nitrogen or (even better) hydrogen.
One more reason why aluminium cylinders are not the best way to go.
There are not many choices, to say the truth. Al is the lightest and easiest of the metals for space.
The other options are carbon fiber composites and inflatable composites. Problem with carbon fiber is that it's very difficult to inspect and repair. And also because doing perforations and including attachment points is a real problem. Worse yet, it is very brittle and sensitive to things like falling sharp objects during integrations, and other handling and integration accidents. When you take into consideration the difficulty in inspecting and repairing, at least for Orion, there was no cost nor weight benefit, and it added a lot of risk. Eventually experience and technology will improve enough to make it a no brainier. But, regrettably it doesn't.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/12/2014 04:42 PM
If you're just using it for radiation shielding and nothing else, then lithium hydride is about twice as effective as water, so you could use a 16ton payload on a fully expendable Falcon 9 to deliver a bunch of bulk pallets of lithium hydride, then install them on the outside of the hab module. You'd need to dock and rendezvous with the package, though (but maybe a simple tether could allow cheap gravity gradient stabilization, making docking easier for the space tug). So if you had a space tug available, that's just a single launch of about $55m.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 05/12/2014 07:39 PM
If you're just using it for radiation shielding and nothing else, then lithium hydride is about twice as effective as water, so you could use a 16ton payload on a fully expendable Falcon 9 to deliver a bunch of bulk pallets of lithium hydride, then install them on the outside of the hab module. You'd need to dock and rendezvous with the package, though (but maybe a simple tether could allow cheap gravity gradient stabilization, making docking easier for the space tug). So if you had a space tug available, that's just a single launch of about $55m.
You rightly talk about placing it outside, because you don't want it to react. And clearly don't want it nearly any flame. The problem would be that you'd have to install it, and then place a thermal blanket and an MMOD protection on top of it. The beauty of polypropylene is that it would be a single layer that does all that (rad and MMOD protection and thermal insulator). Personally, if you had enough diameter, it could, conceivably be installed on the inside. For example in the radiation shelter (quarters and gantry).
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: JasonAW3 on 05/16/2014 06:40 PM
Ok, dumb questions here...

In many illustrations, the station shows an additional structure docked with the Habs at the far ends.  Assuming these are for maneuvering, two questions;

One, am I correct in my assumption and how close are they to being built?

Two, Could they be adapted to be used on the ISS instead of the Russian maneuvering module?

Bonus round question;  How many of his Hab Modules are actually flight ready now?  (Assuming that they are the BG-330's).
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 05/16/2014 07:05 PM
Ok, dumb questions here...

In many illustrations, the station shows an additional structure docked with the Habs at the far ends.  Assuming these are for maneuvering, two questions;

One, am I correct in my assumption and how close are they to being built?

Two, Could they be adapted to be used on the ISS instead of the Russian maneuvering module?

Bonus round question;  How many of his Hab Modules are actually flight ready now?  (Assuming that they are the BG-330's).
1) yes, of several types including tugs and landing modules. We we don't know how far out they are but not likely close. Bigelow has been waiting for commercial crew to go live to conserve funds.

2) unknown. No specs etc.

3) none, see 1), plus the environmental controls and life support are still in testing. They advertised for test subjects late  last year. Full size mockups of BA-330's though, and the tech is based on NASA's TransHab.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 05/23/2014 02:37 PM
Popular Mechanics article;

How Soon Can We Check in to a Space Hotel? (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/how-soon-can-we-check-in-to-a-space-hotel-16798533)

[snip]
We’ve got a full BA330 vehicle with functional life-support hardware that we’ve had people in for hours or days at a time, and they give off humidity and CO2 and stink and everything else. We clean that all out of the atmosphere and add oxygen back in, and monitor the atmosphere, and make sure that it’s a livable environment.
[snip]
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Burninate on 05/26/2014 06:06 AM
If wall thickness remains the same at ~30cm, then module mass per cubic meter volume should go down as the inflatable gets larger, and this is great.  But I have a secondary question that seems to follow.

Does the ratio of inflated diameter to packed diameter get larger?  This is directly relevant to considerations of the SpaceX BFR, which was first calculated to have an aerodynamically/structurally optimized diameter of about 9.8m, but whose constituent rocket engines have gained somewhere between 50% and 150% thrust in that time;  There are also secondary benefits to a wider, squatter form, like the difficulty of very tall vertical integration, the difficulty of landing a tall and pointy MCT stably, and lightly loading a heat shield.  The most intriguing one is extremely large diameter (12m? 15m?) payloads, such as this.  So far the scaling on the concepts for these modules seems to imply a 50% diameter increase on inflation, and I'm wondering if you could get more than that for a very large module.

Secondarily: Due to square to cube ratio, a very large module is substantially easier per volume to shield the exterior.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 05/26/2014 08:47 PM
Well, if you keep the aspect ratio, and the wall width doesn't increases proportionally, you should be able to have a wider inflatable. The BA2100 was supposed to launch on an 8.4m fairing (7.5m internal), which would mean about a 168% of the fairing ID. Since the BA330 is 6.7m on a 4.7m internal fairing, and thus just a 143%, it would seem that yes there is some superscalling with fairing diameter.
Of course if you pack the whole volume the weight increases cubically, thus, you'd need a lot more powerful LV. A 10m fairing should be able to do 15m to 15.5m diameter, internal.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 05/29/2014 04:20 PM
Robert Bigelow Explains His Inflatable Space Module (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/robert-bigelow-explains-his-inflatable-space-module-cghgVgHWRhmGh7NA_QxOJg.html)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Blackjax on 05/31/2014 03:18 PM

One of the things that surprised me a bit about the recent Dragon V2 unveil was that Bigelow was there and went on record enthusiastically about it.

Quote
"This is going to be a fabulous machine," Robert Bigelow, the billionaire founder of Bigelow Aerospace, told NBC News after trying out the Dragon's seats. "SpaceX deserves all the credit in the world. ... This is really a fork in the road for space exploration."

My impression has been that he has consistently taken a fairly reserved stance towards SpaceX and has demonstrated a much stronger willingness to talk about and endorse the CST-100/Atlas V combination.  In fact, I can't recall hearing of him attending an event that was specifically for SpaceX before.

I have to wonder if this is representative of him now perceiving the Dragon as his most likely vehicle in the foreseeable future.  The shakeup with the Atlas related to the RD-180 has to have him rethinking some of his assumptions about who is likely to come out on top of the Commercial Crew competition and who would subsequently be able to support the volume of launches he'll need in the 2017-2020 timeframe.

Strongly openly supporting the CST-100 was always a good bet for him in the past, because up until the last couple of years it was unclear that SpaceX would deliver, whereas Boeing undoubtedly could if the money was there to do it.  Moreover Boeing would always be the frontrunner in Washington for winning commercial crew due to their long history of government contracting and lobbying.

Furthermore, he could expect SpaceX to try to do it anyway (even if on an extended timeline) whether they won or lost commercial crew due to Elons personal motivation, and consequently give Bigelow redundant access to his stations.  However if SpaceX won commercial crew, it would most likely mean that Boeing would scrap CST-100 and Bigelow would be left with a monopoly provider.  So the logic of his past history of endorsement of CST-100 seems to make sense.

What I am curious to see is whether that endorsement continues unabated or if you see him a lot more publicly aligned with SpaceX than we've seen in the past.

As an aside, for those of you who might be inclined to take issue with the fact that I did not mention SNC, they personally get my vote for who should win the Commercial Crew award (we need multiple providers and they need the support), but they have been the long shot and I doubt he'd plan around them unless they actually won.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: cartman on 05/31/2014 03:52 PM
In the video Bigelow said that SpaceX had quoted him a $26M per seat price, while Boeing was at $36M per seat. He also said that these prices could go down with volume. That is in contrast with $20M that Elon Musk mentioned as the price for NASA, so i can guess that the $26M price is for a lower volume than Commercial Crew, or that they are carrying more cargo in the same flight.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: InfraNut2 on 05/31/2014 05:10 PM

One of the things that surprised me a bit about the recent Dragon V2 unveil was that Bigelow was there and went on record enthusiastically about it.

Quote
"This is going to be a fabulous machine," Robert Bigelow, the billionaire founder of Bigelow Aerospace, told NBC News after trying out the Dragon's seats. "SpaceX deserves all the credit in the world. ... This is really a fork in the road for space exploration."

My impression has been that he has consistently taken a fairly reserved stance towards SpaceX and has demonstrated a much stronger willingness to talk about and endorse the CST-100/Atlas V combination.  In fact, I can't recall hearing of him attending an event that was specifically for SpaceX before.

I have to wonder if this is representative of him now perceiving the Dragon as his most likely vehicle in the foreseeable future.  The shakeup with the Atlas related to the RD-180 has to have him rethinking some of his assumptions about who is likely to come out on top of the Commercial Crew competition and who would subsequently be able to support the volume of launches he'll need in the 2017-2020 timeframe.

Strongly openly supporting the CST-100 was always a good bet for him in the past, because up until the last couple of years it was unclear that SpaceX would deliver, whereas Boeing undoubtedly could if the money was there to do it.  Moreover Boeing would always be the frontrunner in Washington for winning commercial crew due to their long history of government contracting and lobbying.

Furthermore, he could expect SpaceX to try to do it anyway (even if on an extended timeline) whether they won or lost commercial crew due to Elons personal motivation, and consequently give Bigelow redundant access to his stations.  However if SpaceX won commercial crew, it would most likely mean that Boeing would scrap CST-100 and Bigelow would be left with a monopoly provider.  So the logic of his past history of endorsement of CST-100 seems to make sense.

What I am curious to see is whether that endorsement continues unabated or if you see him a lot more publicly aligned with SpaceX than we've seen in the past.

As an aside, for those of you who might be inclined to take issue with the fact that I did not mention SNC, they personally get my vote for who should win the Commercial Crew award (we need multiple providers and they need the support), but they have been the long shot and I doubt he'd plan around them unless they actually won.

I am not surprised. I know Bigelow has not publicly supported SpaceX to the same degree as Boeing, but I do not think that is because he sees them as inferior or has anything against them.

I think it is quite the opposite. Let me explain.

Despite have a dreamer side to his personality Bigelow is a pragmatic and smart man when it comes to business, like he has demonstrated with his budget suites developments and more. He has strived to have redundant suppliers in his other developments. He want redundant suppliers of crew transport to LEO very much, both because it is very important to have reliable access for his customers and because thats the way he has learned the hard way to do business.

At the start of the Commercial Crew process, SpaceX was already in the lead both with respect to accomplishments and speed and affordability of development. They were likely to be both the first and the most cost-effective even then (unless they screwed up significantly). There was not much Bigelow could do to improve things for them, so he did leave well enough alone I presume. He has shown some concepts with dragons and has a marketing agreement with them.

At the time Boeing was perceived to be far ahead of SNC (although the distance has lessened a lot since then -- enough so that they may loose 2nd place if they do not become more willing to put "skin in the game" financially), so Boeing was the obvious runner-up and could be first if SpaceX run into big problems. Boeing had excellent space technology experience and resources and had chosen a compatratively low-risk approach that possibly could outweigh or at least match SpaceX advantage of a head start on development, but their development culture had to be significantly transformed to be able to come close to the other competitors cost-effectiveness and speed. so Bigelow offered his help in order to increase his chance of a second crew transport supplier and the chance of any supplier at all if SpaceX failed. He helped advise Boeing on cost-effectivity and time-effectivity, gave them some public support, helped them make inexpensive mock-ups, perform inexpensive pressure-tests and other tests and maybe more since the details are scarce.

I think he is delighted with any progress of any of the competitors for commercial crew, and hopes as many of them succeeds as possible. And I think that there is a high probability that he perceive SpaceX as the leader today and likely even from early on as I have explained about my beliefs above, and that he has nothing significant against them.

Thats my perception of the situation for what it is worth...



edit: minor clarifications plus addition below:

BTW: I do not think that politics will influence the coming down-select significantly when it comes to who is chosen -- only the resources and maybe to some degree the rules. Both because the meddling at such an internal level will make them look bad and also because the relevant parts of NASA will strongly resist it.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 06/03/2014 07:57 AM
A friend of mine was at JSC's Space Vehicle Mockup Facility yesterday and snapped these. (c)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: BrianNH on 06/03/2014 12:14 PM
In the video Bigelow said that SpaceX had quoted him a $26M per seat price, while Boeing was at $36M per seat. He also said that these prices could go down with volume. That is in contrast with $20M that Elon Musk mentioned as the price for NASA, so i can guess that the $26M price is for a lower volume than Commercial Crew, or that they are carrying more cargo in the same flight.

This $26M price may take into account a need to have 1 or 2 SpaceX pilots (thus only 5 or 6 passengers).  It may also include some training.  NASA would provide it's own pilots and training may be a separate contract. I'm speculating, but it would make sense.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Blackjax on 06/04/2014 12:38 AM
In the video Bigelow said that SpaceX had quoted him a $26M per seat price, while Boeing was at $36M per seat. He also said that these prices could go down with volume. That is in contrast with $20M that Elon Musk mentioned as the price for NASA, so i can guess that the $26M price is for a lower volume than Commercial Crew, or that they are carrying more cargo in the same flight.

In point of fact, he did not say that SpaceX quoted him that price.  The statement is about 5 minutes in and what he actually said was that the price would be $26 million, without specifying whether that was SpaceX\Boeing prices to him, or the prices he would be charging his own customers with some unstated markup.

My personal opinion is that he'd be more likely to advertise his own prices than his own costs.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/04/2014 04:23 AM
Strongly openly supporting the CST-100 was always a good bet for him in the past, because up until the last couple of years it was unclear that SpaceX would deliver, whereas Boeing undoubtedly could if the money was there to do it.  Moreover Boeing would always be the frontrunner in Washington for winning commercial crew due to their long history of government contracting and lobbying.

That's in the eye of the beholder.  To me, SpaceX always seemed like a far better bet than Boeing.  Boeing is only going to proceed if they think they can make money on it in the near term.  Without NASA funding, it's very unlikely Boeing will proceed.  SpaceX, on the other hand, is driven by other motivations.  They would do anything it takes to make crew Dragon a reality.

That willingness of SpaceX to put so much of their own skin in the game has also always seemed likely to push them to give the government a better deal, as has the SpaceX focus on efficiency.  These factors always made it look like they're the favorite for commercial crew, from where I'm sitting.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: InfraNut2 on 06/04/2014 07:46 AM
In the video Bigelow said that SpaceX had quoted him a $26M per seat price, while Boeing was at $36M per seat. He also said that these prices could go down with volume. That is in contrast with $20M that Elon Musk mentioned as the price for NASA, so i can guess that the $26M price is for a lower volume than Commercial Crew, or that they are carrying more cargo in the same flight.

In point of fact, he did not say that SpaceX quoted him that price.  The statement is about 5 minutes in and what he actually said was that the price would be $26 million, without specifying whether that was SpaceX\Boeing prices to him, or the prices he would be charging his own customers with some unstated markup.

My personal opinion is that he'd be more likely to advertise his own prices than his own costs.

Agree. He has always before quoted package prices, including both space station use and crew transport (usually including some basic cargo too). I cannot remember him EVER quoting his costs. So based on that history it is very likely his prices rather than SpaceX/Boeing prices, even though the way it is said in the interview might somewhat favor the opposite interpretation to some ears.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 06/26/2014 12:56 PM
Not much new news. Great pix though.


Touring the Bigelow Aerospace BA-330 Space Habitat Mock Up (http://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/06/touring-the-bigelow-aerospace-ba-330-space-habitat-mock-
up/)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: bubbagret on 06/26/2014 01:20 PM
Not much new news. Great pix though.


Touring the Bigelow Aerospace BA-330 Space Habitat Mock Up (http://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/06/touring-the-bigelow-aerospace-ba-330-space-habitat-mock-
up/)

You're link is broken.
http://www.airlinereporter.com/?s=Touring+the+Bigelow+Aerospace+BA-330 (http://www.airlinereporter.com/?s=Touring+the+Bigelow+Aerospace+BA-330)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 06/26/2014 01:25 PM
Strongly openly supporting the CST-100 was always a good bet for him in the past, because up until the last couple of years it was unclear that SpaceX would deliver, whereas Boeing undoubtedly could if the money was there to do it.  Moreover Boeing would always be the frontrunner in Washington for winning commercial crew due to their long history of government contracting and lobbying.

That's in the eye of the beholder.  To me, SpaceX always seemed like a far better bet than Boeing.  Boeing is only going to proceed if they think they can make money on it in the near term.  Without NASA funding, it's very unlikely Boeing will proceed.  SpaceX, on the other hand, is driven by other motivations.  They would do anything it takes to make crew Dragon a reality.

That willingness of SpaceX to put so much of their own skin in the game has also always seemed likely to push them to give the government a better deal, as has the SpaceX focus on efficiency.  These factors always made it look like they're the favorite for commercial crew, from where I'm sitting.

care to explain your thinking on this?    If 80% of the dev costs of Dragon V2 are picked up by NASA, and Elon says he needs 4-500 million to finish where is the  "skin in the game" coming from?

Even if launch rates get to say 10-12 per year x 70 mil, less costs;  it doesn't allow alot for development funds.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 06/26/2014 02:51 PM

care to explain your thinking on this?    If 80% of the dev costs of Dragon V2 are picked up by NASA, and Elon says he needs 4-500 million to finish where is the  "skin in the game" coming from?

Because SpaceX said they would continue without NASA if they had to. Plus they are paying the F9 1.1/ F9R out of their own pocket.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Kryten on 06/27/2014 09:35 AM

care to explain your thinking on this?    If 80% of the dev costs of Dragon V2 are picked up by NASA, and Elon says he needs 4-500 million to finish where is the  "skin in the game" coming from?

Because SpaceX said they would continue without NASA if they had to.
ATK said the exact same thing about Liberty.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 06/27/2014 01:16 PM
ATK said the exact same thing about Liberty.
Well in their case everyone knew that was BS ;)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 06/27/2014 03:03 PM
At the NAC meeting, there was discussion of a deep space habitat prototype to eventually be used for Mars exploration (the Mars Transit Habitat). The image shows an inflatable habitat. Bigelow could probably bid on that. See slide 13:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20140623-Crusan-NAC-Final.pdf
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: sghill on 07/01/2014 03:14 PM
One BA-330 costs an estimated $800 million (according to Marotta Space Reasearch).
The Destiny module alone cost $1.8 billion (in 1980's dollars).

As Bigelow is fond of saying, their space station protects occupants from the greatest danger of all- budget cuts.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Tomness on 07/01/2014 04:19 PM
One BA-330 costs an estimated $800 million (according to Marotta Space Research).
The Destiny module alone cost $1.8 billion (in 1980's dollars).

What I like about this statement is BA-330 will have 210% more habitable space and with two of them have 420% habitable space for the price of one destiny (1980 $) which now is like > 5 billion
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Burninate on 07/01/2014 06:56 PM
One BA-330 costs an estimated $800 million (according to Marotta Space Research).
The Destiny module alone cost $1.8 billion (in 1980's dollars).

What I like about this statement is BA-330 will have 210% more habitable space and with two of them have 420% habitable space for the price of one destiny (1980 $) which now is like > 5 billion

They did not estimate $800M.   They estimated $100M, multiplied by 8 units, for one of their studies, and $100M, multiplied by 28 units, for another: http://marottaspaceresearch.com/tag/ba330/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: sghill on 07/02/2014 05:48 PM
One BA-330 costs an estimated $800 million (according to Marotta Space Research).
The Destiny module alone cost $1.8 billion (in 1980's dollars).

They did not estimate $800M.   They estimated $100M, multiplied by 8 units, for one of their studies, and $100M, multiplied by 28 units, for another: http://marottaspaceresearch.com/tag/ba330/

My bad.  That's even more jaw dropping when you think about it! :>
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/02/2014 06:42 PM
Add another $135m for FH to put it in space, but even at $235m it is still cheap compared to ISS.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Owlon on 07/02/2014 08:22 PM
Add another $135m for FH to put it in space, but even at $235m it is still cheap compared to ISS.

Maybe less, since the BA-330's mass should be well within the payload range of a FH with at least some degree of reusability.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Burninate on 07/03/2014 01:10 AM
Add another $135m for FH to put it in space, but even at $235m it is still cheap compared to ISS.

Maybe less, since the BA-330's mass should be well within the payload range of a FH with at least some degree of reusability.
Two of them should be well within the payload range of an FH to LEO, though I think one 40-ton Bigelow module is likely to have a lot more than 660m^3

I'm still unclear on whether FH and F9's quoted payload ranges incorporate reusable first stage fuel margins.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 07/03/2014 01:49 AM
Add another $135m for FH to put it in space, but even at $235m it is still cheap compared to ISS.

Maybe less, since the BA-330's mass should be well within the payload range of a FH with at least some degree of reusability.
Two of them should be well within the payload range of an FH to LEO, though I think one 40-ton Bigelow module is likely to have a lot more than 660m^3

I'm still unclear on whether FH and F9's quoted payload ranges incorporate reusable first stage fuel margins.

F9 performance is given with first stage reuse, 4850kg GTO. FH performance, is not given with reuse, but it will attempt reuse for boosters and first stage with payloads less than 7000kg to GTO.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/falcon-9-performance-mid-size-geo (http://aviationweek.com/blog/falcon-9-performance-mid-size-geo)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Burninate on 07/03/2014 02:38 AM
Add another $135m for FH to put it in space, but even at $235m it is still cheap compared to ISS.

Maybe less, since the BA-330's mass should be well within the payload range of a FH with at least some degree of reusability.
Two of them should be well within the payload range of an FH to LEO, though I think one 40-ton Bigelow module is likely to have a lot more than 660m^3

I'm still unclear on whether FH and F9's quoted payload ranges incorporate reusable first stage fuel margins.

F9 performance is given with first stage reuse, 4850kg GTO. FH performance, is not given with reuse, but it will attempt reuse for boosters and first stage with payloads less than 7000kg to GTO.
How about LEO?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/03/2014 02:59 AM
I'm guessing a FH could deliver a BA330 to LEO and recover the outer boosters.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 07/03/2014 11:40 AM
And you think that BA330 has all the same capabilities as Destiny? And that those numbers are correct?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: su27k on 07/03/2014 12:28 PM
They did not estimate $800M.   They estimated $100M, multiplied by 8 units, for one of their studies, and $100M, multiplied by 28 units, for another: http://marottaspaceresearch.com/tag/ba330/

Where did they get the $100M number? It doesn't fit well with what we know: a. BEAM price (16m^3 for $17M); b. BA330 rent price ($25M for 60 day lease of 1/3 of the station, which means Bigelow will get $450M per year in most optimistic estimate, get back investment in 0.5 year? I don't think hotel business works like this)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 07/03/2014 02:02 PM
And you think that BA330 has all the same capabilities as Destiny? And that those numbers are correct?

that was my question as well.   Can't be for a fully outfitted model, more like an BA330 shell?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/03/2014 11:33 PM
They did not estimate $800M.   They estimated $100M, multiplied by 8 units, for one of their studies, and $100M, multiplied by 28 units, for another: http://marottaspaceresearch.com/tag/ba330/

Where did they get the $100M number? It doesn't fit well with what we know: a. BEAM price (16m^3 for $17M); b. BA330 rent price ($25M for 60 day lease of 1/3 of the station, which means Bigelow will get $450M per year in most optimistic estimate, get back investment in 0.5 year? I don't think hotel business works like this)

Mr. Bigelow has said he expects to have fund Bigelow Aerospace for about $500 million by 2015.  That money with interest will have to be repaid from sales.  Depending on how many modules he expects to sell that will add $100 - $200 million to the cost of each module.  Manufacturing and operating costs then have to be included.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 07/03/2014 11:43 PM
Mr. Bigelow has said he expects to have fund Bigelow Aerospace for about $500 million by 2015.  That money with interest will have to be repaid from sales.

That assumes he's rational (in the economic sense I mean *cough*UFOs*cough*). It's pretty clear he's not.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/03/2014 11:59 PM
Mr. Bigelow has said he expects to have fund Bigelow Aerospace for about $500 million by 2015.  That money with interest will have to be repaid from sales.

That assumes he's rational (in the economic sense I mean *cough*UFOs*cough*). It's pretty clear he's not.

He is a successful businessman.  He knows how to cost things.  If he gets the price wrong the he will have to give up his hobby so assume rationality.

With an unknown but small number of sales his accountants will push Mr Bigelow to recover the development costs on the first sale.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 07/04/2014 12:10 AM
With an unknown but small number of sales his accountants will push Mr Bigelow to recover the development costs on the first sale.

If that was even possible, everyone would be doing it. Space projects of this scale are few and far between because you need a sugar daddy who doesn't ever expect to get his money back.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 07/04/2014 12:24 AM
Bigelow has indicated that the cost of developing his habitats are on him. Having said that I doubt the $100M price tag for a BA-330 module would include any kind of maintainance.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 07/04/2014 12:32 AM
At the NAC meeting, there was discussion of a deep space habitat prototype to eventually be used for Mars exploration (the Mars Transit Habitat). The image shows an inflatable habitat. Bigelow could probably bid on that. See slide 13:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20140623-Crusan-NAC-Final.pdf

Bingo.

All this talk about a commercial space platform ignores the reality that there is no current or near term market for such a large and expensive platform.

On the other hand, NASA may be a significant customer for pressurized volume beyond LEO Real Soon Now.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 07/04/2014 02:14 AM
At the NAC meeting, there was discussion of a deep space habitat prototype to eventually be used for Mars exploration (the Mars Transit Habitat). The image shows an inflatable habitat. Bigelow could probably bid on that. See slide 13:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20140623-Crusan-NAC-Final.pdf

Bingo.

All this talk about a commercial space platform ignores the reality that there is no current or near term market for such a large and expensive platform.

On the other hand, NASA may be a significant customer for pressurized volume beyond LEO Real Soon Now.

NASA can be part of the commercial market if it acts as an anchor tenant. With NASA as an anchor tenant, Bigelow is then able to provide services to other governments such as Japan.

I think that there could be a market for a LEO BA-330 and a Lagrange point BA-330 under these circumstances.   
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Burninate on 07/04/2014 02:30 AM
They did not estimate $800M.   They estimated $100M, multiplied by 8 units, for one of their studies, and $100M, multiplied by 28 units, for another: http://marottaspaceresearch.com/tag/ba330/

Where did they get the $100M number? It doesn't fit well with what we know: a. BEAM price (16m^3 for $17M); b. BA330 rent price ($25M for 60 day lease of 1/3 of the station, which means Bigelow will get $450M per year in most optimistic estimate, get back investment in 0.5 year? I don't think hotel business works like this)

Mr. Bigelow has said he expects to have fund Bigelow Aerospace for about $500 million by 2015.  That money with interest will have to be repaid from sales.  Depending on how many modules he expects to sell that will add $100 - $200 million to the cost of each module.  Manufacturing and operating costs then have to be included.
I've been digging, but I can't find the precise quote, everyone seems to attribute it to him since ~2010.  Anyone else have better luck?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 07/04/2014 02:37 AM
I've been digging, but I can't find the precise quote, everyone seems to attribute it to him since ~2010.  Anyone else have better luck?

http://www.space.com/5762-bigelow-aerospace-advances-work-full-scale-space-habitat.html

Quote
"We're trying to offer to folks, for multiple kinds of uses, a reliable environment that can be used for varying types of purposes. So we're kind of the wholesalers of space," Bigelow Aerospace President Robert Bigelow said July 30 in an exclusive interview with Space News.

"This is a little bit like 'if you build it, they will come,'" Bigelow said. And they are coming. During the course of the next three months, prospective users from the biotech, pharmaceutical and medical research fields are all slated to visit the company's Las Vegas facilities for a look at the progress the company is making on Sundancer, Bigelow said.

Drawing on the cash generated by other companies in his large suite of enterprises - such as his hotel and real estate businesses - Bigelow said he had put $150 million into Bigelow Aerospace as of April. In 1999, the entrepreneurial Bigelow said he was prepared to spend $500 million by 2015. That remains a valid number, he said July 30.

August 2008.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/04/2014 03:25 AM
With an unknown but small number of sales his accountants will push Mr Bigelow to recover the development costs on the first sale.

If that was even possible, everyone would be doing it. Space projects of this scale are few and far between because you need a sugar daddy who doesn't ever expect to get his money back.



It is standard practice in the space and defence businesses.  Governments pay for development separately from manufacturing.

NASA may find it gets a better deal if it buys 3-4 modules in the same contract rather than as separate contracts.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Mader Levap on 07/04/2014 10:51 AM
That assumes he's rational (in the economic sense I mean *cough*UFOs*cough*). It's pretty clear he's not.
That he believes in UFO does not impact his skills as businessman. At most, I can see his interests getting him into space business. Compartmentalization and double-think are pretty powerful stuff.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 07/04/2014 11:13 AM
That he believes in UFO does not impact his skills as businessman. At most, I can see his interests getting him into space business. Compartmentalization and double-think are pretty powerful stuff.

I never said it did.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/04/2014 09:31 PM
At the NAC meeting, there was discussion of a deep space habitat prototype to eventually be used for Mars exploration (the Mars Transit Habitat). The image shows an inflatable habitat. Bigelow could probably bid on that. See slide 13:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20140623-Crusan-NAC-Final.pdf
Also mentioned here:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-14-14/Raftery_5-14-14.pdf
Explicitly it was said that the Transit hab is about the same size as a BA-330 (may have even used it as a reference):
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-14-14/Raftery.mp3
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 07/04/2014 10:30 PM
At the NAC meeting, there was discussion of a deep space habitat prototype to eventually be used for Mars exploration (the Mars Transit Habitat). The image shows an inflatable habitat. Bigelow could probably bid on that. See slide 13:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20140623-Crusan-NAC-Final.pdf

Bingo.

All this talk about a commercial space platform ignores the reality that there is no current or near term market for such a large and expensive platform.

On the other hand, NASA may be a significant customer for pressurized volume beyond LEO Real Soon Now.

NASA can be part of the commercial market if it acts as an anchor tenant. With NASA as an anchor tenant, Bigelow is then able to provide services to other governments such as Japan.

I think that there could be a market for a LEO BA-330 and a Lagrange point BA-330 under these circumstances.   

Not going to happen. NASA won't be buying commercial pressurized volume services in LEO any time soon; for NASA to do so would require a new program.

NASA is focused on Exploration, and may be interested in Bigelow's services as a contractor for a medium sized habitat. That is the end game for BA, everything else is just talk.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 07/04/2014 10:31 PM
That assumes he's rational (in the economic sense I mean *cough*UFOs*cough*). It's pretty clear he's not.
That he believes in UFO does not impact his skills as businessman. At most, I can see his interests getting him into space business. Compartmentalization and double-think are pretty powerful stuff.

If he were a crazy guy, he would be spending hundreds of millions of $$ on an operational space platform with no customers.

He's not crazy.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 07/04/2014 10:42 PM
If he were a crazy guy, he would be spending hundreds of millions of $$ on an operational space platform with no customers.

What would be the point of that?

Quote from: Danderman
He's not crazy.

If you've spoken to anyone who has worked with him, you'll know he is quite. So was Howard Hughes. Sometimes a little abnormal psychology can be a good thing. I don't know why so many people have trouble appreciating that.
 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Nomadd on 07/04/2014 11:21 PM
 He might be the sanest, most savvy businessman on the planet. That doesn't change the fact that some people might be a little nervous dealing with someone they perceive as a kook.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/05/2014 03:57 AM
Without Bigelow's vision the outlook for CC besides ISS would be very limited. Bigelow is giving commercial HSF a destination.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 07/05/2014 02:12 PM
If he were a crazy guy, he would be spending hundreds of millions of $$ on an operational space platform with no customers.

What would be the point of that?

Quote from: Danderman
He's not crazy.

If you've spoken to anyone who has worked with him, you'll know he is quite. So was Howard Hughes. Sometimes a little abnormal psychology can be a good thing. I don't know why so many people have trouble appreciating that.
 

I have talked to Bob Bigelow many times.

Getting back to my point, since there are no customers for his large LEO orbital platform, I am sure that he is really focused on NASA's requirements for pressurized habitat volume for Exploration. Everything else is just "marketing".
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 07/05/2014 02:42 PM
Getting back to my point, since there are no customers for his large LEO orbital platform, I am sure that he is really focused on NASA's requirements for pressurized habitat volume for Exploration. Everything else is just "marketing".

Gerst has indicated that NASA is interested in renting a commercial habitat in LEO. See this article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/space-station-moon-base-bigelows-expands-inflatable-ambitions/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 07/05/2014 06:03 PM
If he were a crazy guy, he would be spending hundreds of millions of $$ on an operational space platform with no customers.

What would be the point of that?

Quote from: Danderman
He's not crazy.

If you've spoken to anyone who has worked with him, you'll know he is quite. So was Howard Hughes. Sometimes a little abnormal psychology can be a good thing. I don't know why so many people have trouble appreciating that.
 

I have talked to Bob Bigelow many times.

Getting back to my point, since there are no customers for his large LEO orbital platform, I am sure that he is really focused on NASA's requirements for pressurized habitat volume for Exploration. Everything else is just "marketing".

right he's said as much in some interviews that he was focused on "governments"  (his business man hat on)

doesn't bode well for a commercial tourist type station (his marketing hat).
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 07/05/2014 10:43 PM
The "commercial tourist type station" is not Bigelow's at all. It's the uneducated media's take. If he made his money raising chickens they'd be calling it a Space Coop.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/05/2014 11:22 PM
NASA would like smooth transition from ISS to a commercial station the question is when do they start that transition. If ISS doesn't get backing from the international partners for the 2024 extension then NASA needs to start that transition ASAP. Leasing some of a Bigelow station would start them in right direction.

A Bigelow station should be able to duplicate ISS internal functions. The external facilities that ISS provides for experiments will be more expensive to duplicate.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/06/2014 12:55 AM
The "commercial tourist type station" is not Bigelow's at all. It's the uneducated media's take. If he made his money raising chickens they'd be calling it a Space Coop.

The press also call it a hotel because we have not come up with a word for a group of short term rent-a-workshops.  A hotel is a group of short term rent-a-bedrooms.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/06/2014 01:06 AM
NASA would like smooth transition from ISS to a commercial station the question is when do they start that transition. If ISS doesn't get backing from the international partners for the 2024 extension then NASA needs to start that transition ASAP. Leasing some of a Bigelow station would start them in right direction.

A Bigelow station should be able to duplicate ISS internal functions. The external facilities that ISS provides for experiments will be more expensive to duplicate.

A new truss that can hold external experiments will need designing.  It will have to interface to the habitat section using a pair of NDS docking systems or Common Berthing Mechanisms.

Standardised connectors for power, data, control, air fresh, air return, heating, cooling, water clean and water used need specifying.  Preferably ones that fit themselves together, or can be done with an Arm.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: MP99 on 07/06/2014 05:26 PM
The "commercial tourist type station" is not Bigelow's at all. It's the uneducated media's take. If he made his money raising chickens they'd be calling it a Space Coop.

The press also call it a hotel because we have not come up with a word for a group of short term rent-a-workshops.  A hotel is a group of short term rent-a-bedrooms.
Industrial estate?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/06/2014 06:40 PM
The "commercial tourist type station" is not Bigelow's at all. It's the uneducated media's take. If he made his money raising chickens they'd be calling it a Space Coop.

The press also call it a hotel because we have not come up with a word for a group of short term rent-a-workshops.  A hotel is a group of short term rent-a-bedrooms.
Industrial estate?

Cheers, Martin

 ;D

Close but the BA-330 is not that big.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: rpapo on 07/06/2014 06:52 PM
Think zero-g industrial or office space for rent.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 07/09/2014 10:34 PM
Here we go.....

Link.... (http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/41194bigelow-aerospace-begins-hiring-round-by-adding-former-astronauts-ham-zamka)

Quote
Bigelow Aerospace Begins Hiring Round by Adding Former Astronauts Ham, Zamka

WASHINGTON — Bigelow Aerospace has hired former NASA astronauts Kenneth Ham and George Zamka to form the cornerstone of the private astronaut corps the North Las Vegas, Nevada, company will need to maintain and operate the inflatable space habitats it plans to launch some time after 2017.

Zamka comes to Bigelow Aerospace from the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation,
>
Ham, currently chairman of the Aerospace Engineering Department at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, pace’s orbital habitats.
>
Zamka and Ham are part of a broader hiring push by Bigelow Aerospace. There are about 135 people in the North Las Vegas factory now, and “we’re hoping to be by Christmas time somewhere in the vicinity of 175,” Bigelow said. In addition, he said, “we will expand, substantially, our Washington representation,” which is led by attorney Mike Gold, an export control specialist who helped arrange the launch of Bigelow’s Genesis test habitats aboard Russian Dnepr rockets in 2006 and 2007.
>
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: swervin on 07/23/2014 06:52 PM
Here is a picture I took today @ JSC!

Splinter
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 07/23/2014 07:27 PM
Here is a picture I took today @ JSC!

Splinter
Doesn't look like much has changed.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30850.msg1208862#msg1208862
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: kerlc on 07/26/2014 11:16 AM
I stumbled across this in my Twitter feed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8TxgqNc5eU

Bigelow aerospace promotional vid. Neat.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: PerW on 07/26/2014 12:52 PM
Seams to focus on countries as customers.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/26/2014 07:24 PM
Great find.

Bigelow lease system allows a country to develop a human space presence for hundreds of millions a year. There is no massive entry fee, annual costs a fixed and the exit plan is as simple as not renewing the lease.

Once a few countries use it to start a space program I can see a new space race starting where no country wants to be left behind. Unlike the last space race most countries in the world can avoid the entry fee.
A group of small countries could lease a section between themselves reducing cost even more to less than $100m each.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: MP99 on 07/27/2014 10:59 AM
I stumbled across this in my Twitter feed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8TxgqNc5eU

Bigelow aerospace promotional vid. Neat.
"Be the envy of other major governments." (h2g2)

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: sghill on 07/28/2014 05:28 PM
NASA would like smooth transition from ISS to a commercial station the question is when do they start that transition. If ISS doesn't get backing from the international partners for the 2024 extension then NASA needs to start that transition ASAP. Leasing some of a Bigelow station would start them in right direction.

A Bigelow station should be able to duplicate ISS internal functions. The external facilities that ISS provides for experiments will be more expensive to duplicate.

IMHO, the most likely scenario is that when the time comes, NASA and its international partners will divest themselves of the ISS to a commercial operator who operates, expands, consolidates, etc. the station's remaining capabilities depending on customer needs at the time.

There is certainly precedent.  KSC (and other spaces centers) is going through asset divestiture right now.  Also, MIRCorp tried to do exactly this with MIR.

P.S. A note to anyone interested in MIRCorp's colored past: the company was scuttled by great nation politics, the absolutely astounding criminality of its CEO-Walt Anderson, and questions of its own honesty.  Nevertheless, the company accomplished a bunch of largely forgotten space firsts, and I hope history remembers it more fondly.  There's a movie in here somewhere!  Think "The Wolves of Wall Street" in space....
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: mrmandias on 07/28/2014 05:35 PM
"Infulence"

Good that Bigelow isn't spending all his money on PR.   :)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/28/2014 07:30 PM
NASA would like smooth transition from ISS to a commercial station the question is when do they start that transition. If ISS doesn't get backing from the international partners for the 2024 extension then NASA needs to start that transition ASAP. Leasing some of a Bigelow station would start them in right direction.

A Bigelow station should be able to duplicate ISS internal functions. The external facilities that ISS provides for experiments will be more expensive to duplicate.

Unless NASA gets permission to continue from the Russians the ISS splash date is probably 2020.  About 5 and a half years away.

Bigelow are advertising $25 million for 1/3 of a BA-330 for 2 months, which is $25M * 12 / 2 = $150 Million a year.
That sort of money will probably need Congressional approval.  I do not remember seeing it in Obama's Budget Request.

SpaceX is having fun getting its Falcon 9 certified for DOD flights.  Bigelow may therefore need to put the BA-330 through NASA's equivalent bureaucracy.  Possibly based on rules written for new ISS modules and Commercial Crew vehicles.

If the no spacestation gap is not managed then people working on the ISS may suffer a similar fate to the ex-Shuttle people.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 07/28/2014 10:17 PM
I stumbled across this in my Twitter feed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isQU84Kc0Y0

Bigelow aerospace promotional vid. Neat.
You can see a docking mechanism sitting on a table.

EDIT: Changed now broken url to a working one.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: matthewkantar on 07/30/2014 06:20 PM
"this video has been removed by the user"

Nice to have a screen shot of the docking gear though.

Matthew
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/30/2014 07:11 PM
"this video has been removed by the user"

Nice to have a screen shot of the docking gear though.

Matthew

It was weird to have an advert that starts and stops with warnings about showing it.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 07/30/2014 09:01 PM
"this video has been removed by the user"

Nice to have a screen shot of the docking gear though.

Matthew

It was weird to have an advert that starts and stops with warnings about showing it.

Agreed.  And then it ended with a telephone number for "contact".  Bigelow Aerospace, pushing backforward into the 20th Century!

Unfortunately, the warnings and the absence of an email address are indicative of some of the, shall we say, peculiarities of the founder.  He doesn't do email, nor accept them in his office.   ???   Reads through a stack of daily faxes printed out by his secretary however.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: mfck on 07/30/2014 09:57 PM
"this video has been removed by the user"

Nice to have a screen shot of the docking gear though.

Matthew

It was weird to have an advert that starts and stops with warnings about showing it.

Agreed.  And then it ended with a telephone number for "contact".  Bigelow Aerospace, pushing backforward into the 20th Century!

Unfortunately, the warnings and the absence of an email address are indicative of some of the, shall we say, peculiarities of the founder.  He doesn't do email, nor accept them in his office.   ???   Reads through a stack of daily faxes printed out by his secretary however.
Oldschoolness is such an adorable thing
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 08/04/2014 12:43 AM
NASA would like smooth transition from ISS to a commercial station the question is when do they start that transition. If ISS doesn't get backing from the international partners for the 2024 extension then NASA needs to start that transition ASAP. Leasing some of a Bigelow station would start them in right direction.

A Bigelow station should be able to duplicate ISS internal functions. The external facilities that ISS provides for experiments will be more expensive to duplicate.

IMHO, the most likely scenario is that when the time comes, NASA and its international partners will divest themselves of the ISS to a commercial operator who operates, expands, consolidates, etc. the station's remaining capabilities depending on customer needs at the time.

There is certainly precedent.  KSC (and other spaces centers) is going through asset divestiture right now.  Also, MIRCorp tried to do exactly this with MIR.

P.S. A note to anyone interested in MIRCorp's colored past: the company was scuttled by great nation politics, the absolutely astounding criminality of its CEO-Walt Anderson, and questions of its own honesty.  Nevertheless, the company accomplished a bunch of largely forgotten space firsts, and I hope history remembers it more fondly.  There's a movie in here somewhere!  Think "The Wolves of Wall Street" in space....

The movie is "Orphans of Apollo" though it's told a bit differently from your description.

Re: commercial operator for ISS - issues to bear in mind : (1) there would be a relatively short window between investment and asset termination to generate innvestor-friendly ROI - a window which NASA says (at present) ends at 2028; (2) Related - markets take a long time to develop; (3)  also might want to take a look at the difficulties NASA and economic development orgs (as well as real and potential commercial customers) are struggling with regarding _successful_ "divestiture"- which isn't just divestiture, it's also about capturing facilities for commercial use - all proving more difficult that it sounds thought there is also good progress; (4)  liability for commercial ISS could be thorny;  (5) there's a National Lab onboard the US segment which is not owned by NASA, so it would have to figure somehow; (6) with regard to ISS all these issues are further amplified through existing international MOUs and highly interdependent set of barter agreements....that's for starters...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2014 01:24 AM

IMHO, the most likely scenario is that when the time comes, NASA and its international partners will divest themselves of the ISS to a commercial operator who operates, expands, consolidates, etc. the station's remaining capabilities depending on customer needs at the time.

There is certainly precedent.  KSC (and other spaces centers) is going through asset divestiture right now.  Also, MIRCorp tried to do exactly this with MIR.


Quite wrong, the  most likely scenario is that is will be deorbited.   A commercial can't afford to operate it much less expand it.  The "operator" would need use of TDRSS and Russian ground stations.  It would need to pay the Russians for propellant.  It would have to pay Boeing for ISS system engineering and spares management, MDA for SSRMS, ESA for Columbus and JAXA for JEM system engineering and spares management. 

And no, facility divestitures is nowhere close to be analogy or even a precedent. That is even lubricous to even make the comparison.   A facility can exist with no maintenance for months and even years.  Also, it can just remain a shell, empty of former equipment.   Neither which can apply to a space vehicle.  What NASA is "giving" away requires little money up front. 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Space OurSoul on 08/05/2014 06:33 PM
Happened to glance at the Bigelow youtube channel and saw this about the recent hires:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wERAF8aVGRA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wERAF8aVGRA)

(Apologies for a link instead of embedding a youtube widget- not sure how!)

(Edit: FYI it's a bio on George Zamka)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: kerlc on 08/05/2014 07:19 PM
Re commercial ISS, a kickstarter campaign to take care of the finances?



Yes, i am joking. :P
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Robert Thompson on 08/06/2014 08:14 AM
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/08/bigelow-aerospace-is-hiring-and.html
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Darkseraph on 08/06/2014 08:56 AM
Biological containment facility? Do we have any reason to suspect there is a pyramid with Xenomorph eggs in Valles Marineris?

Or Space Ebola?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yegors on 08/06/2014 09:23 PM
To me, Bigelow seems like a dinosaur, trying to do the "space startup thing" in the 21st century, while still having the previous century's mentality. Even relatively unimportant to their business things like their website look like a 1997 scam site, especially when you compare it to SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Firefly, etc.

A cutting edge technology company should embrace technology, not hide from it. 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: mrmandias on 08/06/2014 11:32 PM


And no, facility divestitures is nowhere close to be analogy or even a precedent. That is even lubricous to even make the comparison.   A facility can exist with no maintenance for months and even years.  Also, it can just remain a shell, empty of former equipment.   Neither which can apply to a space vehicle.  What NASA is "giving" away requires little money up front.

Trying to decide if Jim meant ludicrous or lubricious.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: 411rocket on 08/07/2014 03:53 AM


And no, facility divestitures is nowhere close to be analogy or even a precedent. That is even lubricous to even make the comparison.   A facility can exist with no maintenance for months and even years.  Also, it can just remain a shell, empty of former equipment.   Neither which can apply to a space vehicle.  What NASA is "giving" away requires little money up front.

Trying to decide if Jim meant ludicrous or lubricious.

Tough call indeed... As Govt's are not always, there to help you, but to help themselves. Offloading a soon to be useless station (without the various support needed). Possibly, so a de-orbit gone bad, can be blamed on the new station operator.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lubricious
"Examples of LUBRICIOUS
<back in the days when lubricious employers could, with impunity, take advantage of naive factory girls>"
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/07/2014 07:59 AM
To me, Bigelow seems like a dinosaur, trying to do the "space startup thing" in the 21st century, while still having the previous century's mentality. Even relatively unimportant to their business things like their website look like a 1997 scam site, especially when you compare it to SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Firefly, etc.

A cutting edge technology company should embrace technology, not hide from it.

This dinosaur's oldschool business techniques has made him rich enough to build very high tech space stations. As a customer would you rather have a cool ( old school) model on your desk of the space station you plan to lease, or a (new school) link on your web browser to a fancy web site.?

I can see the model on a potential customer's desk always being discussed by visitors, to point that helps to cement the deal.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 08/09/2014 12:01 AM
To me, Bigelow seems like a dinosaur, trying to do the "space startup thing" in the 21st century, while still having the previous century's mentality. Even relatively unimportant to their business things like their website look like a 1997 scam site, especially when you compare it to SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Firefly, etc.

A cutting edge technology company should embrace technology, not hide from it.

because Mr Bigelow lives In Vegas and has an interest in security.  Remember http://blackhat.com/us-14/ every year.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: RanulfC on 08/10/2014 02:02 AM


And no, facility divestitures is nowhere close to be analogy or even a precedent. That is even lubricous to even make the comparison.   A facility can exist with no maintenance for months and even years.  Also, it can just remain a shell, empty of former equipment.   Neither which can apply to a space vehicle.  What NASA is "giving" away requires little money up front.

Trying to decide if Jim meant ludicrous or lubricious.

It probably in no way helps that in "government" terms it is just as likely to be EITHER "very-silly" or "in-need-of-lubricant" :)

Randy
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: RanulfC on 08/10/2014 02:14 AM
NASA would like smooth transition from ISS to a commercial station the question is when do they start that transition. If ISS doesn't get backing from the international partners for the 2024 extension then NASA needs to start that transition ASAP. Leasing some of a Bigelow station would start them in right direction.

A Bigelow station should be able to duplicate ISS internal functions. The external facilities that ISS provides for experiments will be more expensive to duplicate.

IMHO, the most likely scenario is that when the time comes, NASA and its international partners will divest themselves of the ISS to a commercial operator who operates, expands, consolidates, etc. the station's remaining capabilities depending on customer needs at the time.

The major problem is that any commercial operator would be stuck having the Russians send Soyuz flights up to re-boost the station at intervals because that's a design-thing that can't be changed without major re-work...

Which in fact is pretty much the "story" of trying to turn a government owned/operated facility into one for commercial use. You MAY be able to use the "shell" of the building but chances are that you're much better off tearing it down and actually building something from the ground up you can USE instead.

The ISS doesn't have a huge "waiting-list" of commercial customers for its "unique-services" now because in fact as a space industrial R&D facility that fact that its manned and in as low an orbit as it is makes it a failure for most to the work that's really needed to advance space industry research.

The movement by people inside the ISS and orbital adjustments have dead-ended the majority of the commercial research in to crystal growth. There was hope for a bit for continuing the effort in a Dragonlab but it was too small for the job. Really the industry is hoping/looking for either another version of the ISS done by Russia or the US by themselves or someone like Bigelow to actually come through with a station. In fact it looks like MULTIPLE stations for various reasons and missions would be the preferred outcome post-ISS. No one want to rely on a government doing it because neither the US or Russia actually seem interested in "commercial" research in the first place but neither has anyone been confident that Bigelow is actually going to step up and build one.

Guess we'll see.

Randy
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Patchouli on 08/10/2014 02:40 AM

The major problem is that any commercial operator would be stuck having the Russians send Soyuz flights up to re-boost the station at intervals because that's a design-thing that can't be changed without major re-work...

Randy

Soyuz does do not usually reboost ISS due to it's limited delta V instead Progress and the ATV usually handle that if the thrusters on the Russian modules are not used.
There's also plans to add a VASIMR engine to ISS which could be used for orbit maintenance.

Technically a commercial vehicle also should be able to perform reboot if it uses the ATV or Shuttle docking port as both non Russian vehicles have performed orbit raising burns from those ports.

Dragon or the CST-100 should be capable of handling reboost operations with the right docking adapter.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: RanulfC on 08/10/2014 05:06 AM
Soyuz does do not usually reboost ISS due to it's limited delta V instead Progress and the ATV usually handle that if the thrusters on the Russian modules are not used.

True I was typing to fast, my mistake but the general principle is the point :)

Quote
There's also plans to add a VASIMR engine to ISS which could be used for orbit maintenance.

As long as those plans have been "around" I'm thinking that won't happen unless the ISS get some major loving from Russia. All indications are that it won't. An ion engine would achieve the same thing but has the same basic problem:  The ISS has to be there for it to happen.

Quote
Technically a commercial vehicle also should be able to perform reboot if it uses the ATV or Shuttle docking port as both non Russian vehicles have performed orbit raising burns from those ports.

Dragon or the CST-100 should be capable of handling reboost operations with the right docking adapter.

Technically true but it still leaves the issue that those reboosts are part of the problem in the first place :) VASMIR, Ion, or even some electrodynamic tethers would all SOLVE the problem but at how much of a cost? And would the cost to "commercialize" the ISS in the end be worth more than just trying to build another station using the lessons learned?

Them's the main questions :)

Randy
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/10/2014 06:03 AM
A variation on the SEP space tug being produced for ARM can perform the station keeping required by a spacestation.  The bag would have to be replaced by say a common berthing port.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: aga on 08/10/2014 06:28 AM
Technically a commercial vehicle also should be able to perform reboot if it uses the ATV or Shuttle docking port as both non Russian vehicles have performed orbit raising burns from those ports.

atv uses russian docking mechanism and one of russian ports
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: rpapo on 08/10/2014 11:10 AM
atv uses russian docking mechanism and one of russian ports
More to the point, it uses the perfect docking port for station reboost: where it can push on the port rather than pull, and where the line of thrust goes through the station center of gravity.  Given the normal orientation of the ISS in orbit, it needs to accelerate with the USA end in front.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 08/10/2014 12:15 PM

atv uses russian docking mechanism and one of russian ports
More to the point, it uses the perfect docking port for station reboost: where it can push on the port rather than pull, and where the line of thrust goes through the station center of gravity.  Given the normal orientation of the ISS in orbit, it needs to accelerate with the USA end in front.
But when Shuttle was docked, station went on a RS forward attitude, to protect the Shuttle tiles. Didn't it?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 08/14/2014 05:05 PM
I missed it when it originally came out but the NASA Pioneering in Space White paper released on May 29 2014 has a few paragraphs discussing the need for in-space habitats which could be provided by international partners or commercial companies such as Bigelow:

Quote from: page 9
Mars-class missions will require crew life support for many hundreds of days at a minimum; a deep space habitation capability (hab) is critical for mission success. It is essential that the hab design receive thorough testing in a relevant deep space microgravity and high radiation environment—well before a final design and committing a crew on a Mars mission. The first deep space hab could be provided by a commercial or international partner, and could provide additional resources including power, EVA suits, stowage, science instruments, and advanced life support testing for Mars class missions as well as extend the in-space time of crewed Orion missions. The hab element also could facilitate additional docking ports to open the cis-lunar space to commercial and international missions in concert with or in addition to the Orion flights. In keeping with our space infrastructure reuse principle, a deep space hab also could provide a dual purpose, in addition to proving systems for Mars missions, by potentially serving as a staging point for lunar surface robotic science or human missions sought by our international partners. Based on the early results of orbital mechanics studies, the cis-lunar proving ground is a favorable location to test and develop the Mars class spacecraft systems prior to sending humans to pioneer Mars.

Quote from: page 13
Exploration Augmentation Module Partnership: NASA is investigating concepts for deep space habitation module systems development. The deep space habitation module itself is likely to be provided by a commercial or international partner—or some hybrid of these.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Pioneering-space-final-052914b.pdf
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/10/2014 07:13 PM
Here is another potential commercial customer for a Bigelow station.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/09/10/acme-advanced-materials-produces-commercial-sic-wafers-micogravity/

The other big plus of in space manufacturing is that you have access to a large dust free vacuum environment. The vacuum allows materials to be made without oxidizing and free of gas bubbles.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 09/11/2014 01:03 PM
Here is another potential commercial customer for a Bigelow station.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/09/10/acme-advanced-materials-produces-commercial-sic-wafers-micogravity/

The other big plus of in space manufacturing is that you have access to a large dust free vacuum environment. The vacuum allows materials to be made without oxidizing and free of gas bubbles.
I noticed the name of the company. Is this their Design Bureau  Chief ?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/11/2014 01:29 PM
FWIW, they made the wafers on a suborbital flight, not orbital.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/11/2014 03:38 PM
FWIW, they made the wafers on a suborbital flight, not orbital.
Do their plan to use suborbital flights for commercial manufacturing?.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/11/2014 04:44 PM
"this video has been removed by the user"

Nice to have a screen shot of the docking gear though.

Matthew

It was weird to have an advert that starts and stops with warnings about showing it.

Agreed.  And then it ended with a telephone number for "contact".  Bigelow Aerospace, pushing backforward into the 20th Century!

Unfortunately, the warnings and the absence of an email address are indicative of some of the, shall we say, peculiarities of the founder.  He doesn't do email, nor accept them in his office.   ???   Reads through a stack of daily faxes printed out by his secretary however.
Oldschoolness is such an adorable thing

It's not Old School, it's RETRO!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 09/11/2014 05:39 PM
Anything new with Bigelow Aerospace?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/18/2014 09:27 AM
With announcement of CST100 and Dragon V2 being selected for CC, Bigelow can finally proceed with his spacestation plans. Last I heard the plan to launch the station in 2017-18, currently in production.

Jezz Bezo is still proceeding with development of a space vehicle, another capsule from the little I can find on it. 

If SNC carries on with DC that will be 4 commercial space vehicles flying by 2020.

Bigelow is going to be spoiled for choice when it comes to taxis.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: bad_astra on 09/18/2014 02:54 PM
This may have been asked elsewhere, but if NASA is not going to reuse the CST100 and Dragon V2's they purchase, can they be sold back to the vendor somehow for further commercial use with, for instance, Bigelow?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 09/18/2014 03:37 PM
This may have been asked elsewhere, but if NASA is not going to reuse the CST100 and Dragon V2's they purchase, can they be sold back to the vendor somehow for further commercial use with, for instance, Bigelow?
NASA is buying a service not a vehicle, they require a new vehicle for the the service. Therefore there is no need for the service provider to "buy back the vehicle" as it was never sold.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 09/18/2014 04:02 PM
So SpaceX is free to re-use the Dragon for some other customer who is not so picky.
They could end up with half a dozen re-usable Dragons at NASA's expense out of this
one contract.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 09/18/2014 05:37 PM
So SpaceX is free to re-use the Dragon for some other customer who is not so picky.
They could end up with half a dozen re-usable Dragons at NASA's expense out of this
one contract.
Yes and this was true for the cargo Dragon v1's as well. However none of those have been re-used yet. There is a picture floating around this site somewhere of them sitting in a warehouse.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: raketa on 09/18/2014 06:39 PM

So SpaceX is free to re-use the Dragon for some other customer who is not so picky.
They could end up with half a dozen re-usable Dragons at NASA's expense out of this
one contract.
Yes and this was true for the cargo Dragon v1's as well. However none of those have been re-used yet. There is a picture floating around this site somewhere of them sitting in a warehouse.
They could be reuse during test fly Falcon 9H, to demonstrate flyby mission around Moon and landing back on the earth.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/19/2014 08:28 PM
Stay on topic folks!
Title: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: mvpel on 10/02/2014 05:16 PM
The Bigelow BA330 1/3 scale mock-up, and the HO-scale lunar and Mars colony displays, at the US Space and Rocket Center today in Huntsville.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: kerlc on 10/02/2014 05:41 PM
Shiny.

Does anyone know if BEAM is on track for its SpaceX CRS-8 flight?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/02/2014 09:45 PM
I do wonder how the lunar buildings will land vertically when the engines are horizontal.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Nindalf on 10/02/2014 09:50 PM
I do wonder how the lunar buildings will land vertically when the engines are horizontal.
Step 1: Circularize to very low orbit.
Step 2: Kill orbital velocity.
Step 3: Assume step 2 is instantaneous.
Step 4: Extend legs.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/02/2014 10:02 PM
I do wonder how the lunar buildings will land vertically when the engines are horizontal.
Step 1: Circularize to very low orbit.
Step 2: Kill orbital velocity.
Step 3: Assume step 2 is instantaneous.
Step 4: Extend legs.

Very very low.  I doubt the legs can take a drop of more than a few feet.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: nadreck on 10/02/2014 10:10 PM
I do wonder how the lunar buildings will land vertically when the engines are horizontal.
Step 1: Circularize to very low orbit.
Step 2: Kill orbital velocity.
Step 3: Assume step 2 is instantaneous.
Step 4: Extend legs.

Very very low.  I doubt the legs can take a drop of more than a few feet.

How about land it vertically, inflate it, tip it over, and when it stops bouncing, go on board, squirrel cage it to upright, then extend the legs.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 10/02/2014 11:21 PM
Shiny.

Does anyone know if BEAM is on track for its SpaceX CRS-8 flight?

Bigelow is due to deliver data/results from analysis and testing to NASA this month for verification.  Apparently they passed the phase 2 safety review last year, and are due for the phase 3 review by the end of this year.  AFAIK, still on schedule.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/03/2014 12:48 AM
I do wonder how the lunar buildings will land vertically when the engines are horizontal.
When comes to landing on moon the bulk of DV required is for deorbit burn which is horizontal. The actual energy and propulsion required for final vertical landing is quite small. Google ULA DTAL and Masten Xeus landers. Using these concepts you could land a BA330 by using a large propulsion stage at one end and small propulsion stage at the other end. The large propulsion stage would to do the deorbit burn with its main engine eg RL10. The small vertical thrusters (can use storable propellant) on each stage would do the final landing.

There are variations on this idea. Use a standard Centuar upper stage to do bulk of deorbit burn, then separate and return to orbit. Leaving 2 small stages for final landing. Allows you to reuse the expensive Centuar stage.

Using storable propellant for vertical thrusters would allow you fly BA330 to different location close by. Eg into lava cave.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: darkenfast on 10/03/2014 07:49 AM
I do wonder how the lunar buildings will land vertically when the engines are horizontal.
When comes to landing on moon the bulk of DV required is for deorbit burn which is horizontal. The actual energy and propulsion required for final vertical landing is quite small. Google ULA DTAL and Masten Xeus landers. Using these concepts you could land a BA330 by using a large propulsion stage at one end and small propulsion stage at the other end. The large propulsion stage would to do the deorbit burn with its main engine eg RL10. The small vertical thrusters (can use storable propellant) on each stage would do the final landing.

There are variations on this idea. Use a standard Centuar upper stage to do bulk of deorbit burn, then separate and return to orbit. Leaving 2 small stages for final landing. Allows you to reuse the expensive Centuar stage.

Using storable propellant for vertical thrusters would allow you fly BA330 to different location close by. Eg into lava cave.

How long is a Centaur stage going to last in orbit?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: arachnitect on 10/03/2014 04:59 PM
I do wonder how the lunar buildings will land vertically when the engines are horizontal.
When comes to landing on moon the bulk of DV required is for deorbit burn which is horizontal. The actual energy and propulsion required for final vertical landing is quite small. Google ULA DTAL and Masten Xeus landers. Using these concepts you could land a BA330 by using a large propulsion stage at one end and small propulsion stage at the other end. The large propulsion stage would to do the deorbit burn with its main engine eg RL10. The small vertical thrusters (can use storable propellant) on each stage would do the final landing.

There are variations on this idea. Use a standard Centuar upper stage to do bulk of deorbit burn, then separate and return to orbit. Leaving 2 small stages for final landing. Allows you to reuse the expensive Centuar stage.

Using storable propellant for vertical thrusters would allow you fly BA330 to different location close by. Eg into lava cave.

How long is a Centaur stage going to last in orbit?

Existing Centaur maybe half a day, but the IVF program ULA is working on could extend that to several days
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: RanulfC on 10/03/2014 08:00 PM
I do wonder how the lunar buildings will land vertically when the engines are horizontal.

The engines are not horizontal they are vertical. They are not even pictured in the cited models unless they are the "quad" around the forward end of the attachments to the modules? IIRC the slide shown of the procedure those modules had side mounted vertically orientated rockets for de-orbit and landing the modules as a whole unit.

Randy
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: mr. mark on 10/07/2014 04:17 PM
Beam seems to be on track for a 2015 launch date.
Source: Space.com http://www.space.com/27356-bigelow-inflatable-room-space-station.html
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 10/08/2014 04:23 AM
I do wonder how the lunar buildings will land vertically when the engines are horizontal.

The engines are not horizontal they are vertical. They are not even pictured in the cited models unless they are the "quad" around the forward end of the attachments to the modules? IIRC the slide shown of the procedure those modules had side mounted vertically orientated rockets for de-orbit and landing the modules as a whole unit.

Randy

This is an old image, lacking in detail, but it may reveal some of their thinking...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 10/30/2014 11:27 AM
There's a big banner on the Bigelow site announcing they're hiring for 100 new positions
Bigelow Aerospace Career Opportunities (http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/careers.php)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 10/30/2014 01:28 PM
There's a big banner on the Bigelow site announcing they're hiring for 100 new positions
Bigelow Aerospace Career Opportunities (http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/careers.php)

Bigelow always said that he was waiting for commercial crew to be in place before launching his habitats. Looks like he really meant it. 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: clongton on 10/30/2014 09:38 PM
There's a big banner on the Bigelow site announcing they're hiring for 100 new positions
Bigelow Aerospace Career Opportunities (http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/careers.php)

Bigelow always said that he was waiting for commercial crew to be in place before launching his habitats. Looks like he really meant it. 

I never doubted it.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 11/03/2014 12:56 AM
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/careers.php
"1 hour lunch"
HAHAHAAHAHAAHA!

The fact that they list this among their benefits should be a warning sign.  Engineers have to clock in and clock out with a swipe card, and have to make up every minute over 60 for lunch.  For the sake of future employees I hope they have revised the vacation policies.  They have a long way to go to even come close to mainstream company benefits.

Bigelow Aerospace is currently a mock-up of a space company.  If Robert Bigelow really decides to 'get serious' he will need to cultivate the properties of a real company.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: MattMason on 11/03/2014 04:18 PM
I've read through the entire thread to this point, over 1.5 years of posts.

Given that Bigelow got into commercial real estate business to cultivate resources for his modules, and now that NASA's space taxis are selected and greenlighted, there still seems to be a "critical mass" element missing in the Bigelow plan as expressed by many here: Interest. The tech appears to be solid (no pun intended) and will get the official nod once BEAM's tests are done.

Before the Virgin Galactic incident, I would easily suggested a courting by Bigelow with major hotel chains to construct the first space hotel. The room rate would be as stellar in cost as the view, but we're aware of plenty of idle millionaires looking for something to do. Labor and their lodging, with supplies and contingencies for rescue and accident (NASA's old STS rescue balls (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/reseball.htm (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/reseball.htm)) came to mind) would make things more stratospheric but not impossible.

It would seem this would be a more practical and primary starting avenue to further the module's use, with semiconductor and pharmacological businesses next in line. After all, a space factory is one thing, but anyone at work in space for any reason have to be able to eat, sleep and recreate comfortably as well in the same place.

While I don't necessarily see the VG incident causing a long-term fear of spaceflight (barnstorming or LEO-style), has anyone noted any firmer recent reports of a collaboration to create a prototype hotel?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: RanulfC on 11/03/2014 06:47 PM
I've read through the entire thread to this point, over 1.5 years of posts.

Given that Bigelow got into commercial real estate business to cultivate resources for his modules, and now that NASA's space taxis are selected and greenlighted, there still seems to be a "critical mass" element missing in the Bigelow plan as expressed by many here: Interest. The tech appears to be solid (no pun intended) and will get the official nod once BEAM's tests are done.

Before the Virgin Galactic incident, I would easily suggested a courting by Bigelow with major hotel chains to construct the first space hotel. The room rate would be as stellar in cost as the view, but we're aware of plenty of idle millionaires looking for something to do. Labor and their lodging, with supplies and contingencies for rescue and accident (NASA's old STS rescue balls (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/reseball.htm (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/reseball.htm)) came to mind) would make things more stratospheric but not impossible.

It would seem this would be a more practical and primary starting avenue to further the module's use, with semiconductor and pharmacological businesses next in line. After all, a space factory is one thing, but anyone at work in space for any reason have to be able to eat, sleep and recreate comfortably as well in the same place.

While I don't necessarily see the VG incident causing a long-term fear of spaceflight (barnstorming or LEO-style), has anyone noted any firmer recent reports of a collaboration to create a prototype hotel?

Ehm, point? He (Bigelow) made his money in real estate specifically cheap but good motel rooms for travellers. THEN he decided to get into the space module business. Not the other way around. :)

He made his millions and then decided to build space habitat modules (And keeps insisting they are NOT going to be a "Space Hotel" BTW :)

Randy
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: obi-wan on 11/03/2014 08:31 PM
I do wonder how the lunar buildings will land vertically when the engines are horizontal.
When comes to landing on moon the bulk of DV required is for deorbit burn which is horizontal. The actual energy and propulsion required for final vertical landing is quite small. Google ULA DTAL and Masten Xeus landers. Using these concepts you could land a BA330 by using a large propulsion stage at one end and small propulsion stage at the other end. The large propulsion stage would to do the deorbit burn with its main engine eg RL10. The small vertical thrusters (can use storable propellant) on each stage would do the final landing.

There are variations on this idea. Use a standard Centuar upper stage to do bulk of deorbit burn, then separate and return to orbit. Leaving 2 small stages for final landing. Allows you to reuse the expensive Centuar stage.

Using storable propellant for vertical thrusters would allow you fly BA330 to different location close by. Eg into lava cave.

From low lunar orbit, the powered descent initiation burn (PDI, to borrow Apollo nomenclature) is 22 m/sec. The remaining 2700 m/sec is used to decelerate and land, with ~250-300 m/sec allocated for hover and landing point diversion. A lot of lander concepts adopt the use of one or more "lunar crashes" stages that burn to depletion and are staged during descent, allowing the lander to be smaller and put the crew closer to the surface (unlike Altair in the Constellation architecture, where the crew would exit their lander and be looking at an ~8 meter drop to get to the surface.)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: MattMason on 11/03/2014 08:33 PM
I've read through the entire thread to this point, over 1.5 years of posts.

Given that Bigelow got into commercial real estate business to cultivate resources for his modules, and now that NASA's space taxis are selected and greenlighted, there still seems to be a "critical mass" element missing in the Bigelow plan as expressed by many here: Interest. The tech appears to be solid (no pun intended) and will get the official nod once BEAM's tests are done.

Before the Virgin Galactic incident, I would easily suggested a courting by Bigelow with major hotel chains to construct the first space hotel. The room rate would be as stellar in cost as the view, but we're aware of plenty of idle millionaires looking for something to do. Labor and their lodging, with supplies and contingencies for rescue and accident (NASA's old STS rescue balls (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/reseball.htm (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/reseball.htm)) came to mind) would make things more stratospheric but not impossible.

It would seem this would be a more practical and primary starting avenue to further the module's use, with semiconductor and pharmacological businesses next in line. After all, a space factory is one thing, but anyone at work in space for any reason have to be able to eat, sleep and recreate comfortably as well in the same place.

While I don't necessarily see the VG incident causing a long-term fear of spaceflight (barnstorming or LEO-style), has anyone noted any firmer recent reports of a collaboration to create a prototype hotel?

Ehm, point? He (Bigelow) made his money in real estate specifically cheap but good motel rooms for travellers. THEN he decided to get into the space module business. Not the other way around. :)

He made his millions and then decided to build space habitat modules (And keeps insisting they are NOT going to be a "Space Hotel" BTW :)

Randy

While Wikipedia is typically as reliable as a news source as Robitussin is as a topical antiseptic and floor wax, an interview in the following article seems to confirm Bigalow's dream (even if he later adapted his work to his current view).

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/nevadan-work-moon-and-beyond-las-vegas-developer
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 11/11/2014 01:29 PM
There's a big banner on the Bigelow site announcing they're hiring for 100 new positions
Bigelow Aerospace Career Opportunities (http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/careers.php)

Must be screening for 2015; was by there the last few days; no discernable new numbers of new employees.
 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 11/29/2014 05:07 PM
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/careers.php
"1 hour lunch"
HAHAHAAHAHAAHA!

The fact that they list this among their benefits should be a warning sign.  Engineers have to clock in and clock out with a swipe card, and have to make up every minute over 60 for lunch.  For the sake of future employees I hope they have revised the vacation policies.  They have a long way to go to even come close to mainstream company benefits.

Bigelow Aerospace is currently a mock-up of a space company.  If Robert Bigelow really decides to 'get serious' he will need to
 cultivate the properties of a real company.

What would be some of the things that you would change?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 11/29/2014 05:09 PM
What happened to the Gate 1 and Gate 2 reports that Bigalow presented to NASA?  Are they in the public domain?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 11/30/2014 04:26 PM
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/careers.php
"1 hour lunch"
HAHAHAAHAHAAHA!

The fact that they list this among their benefits should be a warning sign.  Engineers have to clock in and clock out with a swipe card, and have to make up every minute over 60 for lunch.  For the sake of future employees I hope they have revised the vacation policies.  They have a long way to go to even come close to mainstream company benefits.

Bigelow Aerospace is currently a mock-up of a space company.  If Robert Bigelow really decides to 'get serious' he will need to
 cultivate the properties of a real company.

What would be some of the things that you would change?
I don't want to bog the thread down with a long list, so I will address one of the worst 'benefits' that outsiders should understand.  BA needs to have better sick and vacation time policies.
BA's PTO (Paid Time Off) policies are the farthest from main stream engineering companies. Employees with two years get 11 days PTO which is combined vacation and sick time.  Every hour away from the office (i.e. routine doctor/dental visits/personal business) is strictly counted against that time and (officially) cannot be made up.  Vacation days adjacent to holidays (such as turning a 3 day weekend into 4 days) were not allowed unless approved by top management.  Calling in sick adjacent to a holiday would result in no pay for the holiday. These were the policies from his hotel business, so this was applied for the engineers.  Unofficially, you could make up a few hours here and there if you were well established within the company.
For a while, employees with >2 years could accrue additional days.  However, around April 2011 they arbitrarily changed the policy, reducing the PTO hours for existing employees.  Employees with less than 2 years had 5 days total PTO, 3-5 years had 11 days,  >5 years got 15 days.  This shaved about a week off of everyone's PTO, and was not grandfathered for existing employees. 

With new management, hopefully they have revised this, because 5 days combined sick and vacation for 2 years is pretty tight. I can't imagine they would recruit quality engineers with this policy.

This is why I react with derision when they tout their benefits as good compensation. 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Hauerg on 11/30/2014 04:39 PM
This is ridiculous. This is a shame.
Ok, i am doing some 200-400 hours of overtime every year without compensation. Depending on project needs, is my own decision.
But i do get 28 days of free time. I.e. 5 weeks and 3 days.
Sick leave is bad luck for the employer. (But was only 3.5 days in total for total 2010-2013)
So would i ever consider working for Mr. B.?
Afraid not.
Anyway, as citizen of "communist" (haha) Austria I would not qualify anyway.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 12/03/2014 04:02 PM
I missed it when it came out in October but NASA is asking industry for concept studies on habitats (more specifically on an exploration augmentation module) through a BAA:

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-seeks-proposals-to-develop-capabilities-for-deep-space-exploration-journey/

See pages 17 to 19 of the BAA:
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/163051-SOL-001-001.pdf

Quote from: Page 17 of the BAA
These initial capabilities will be accomplished with the development of the Exploration Augmentation Module (EAM). The EAM will serve as a foundational component of a future in-space habitation capability and may include multiple elements as the architecture is further refined.

The funding is for concept studies:

Quote from: page 19 of the BAA
Funding Allocation: Individual award amounts up to $500K – $1M for this phase of efforts not to exceed a 6-12 month period. Contracts shall be firm fixed price with milestone payments. The Government’s obligation to make awards is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payments can be made and the receipt of proposals that NASA determines are acceptable.

I would expect Bigelow to submit a proposal for this concept study.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 12/03/2014 09:25 PM
What happened to the Gate 1 and Gate 2 reports that Bigalow presented to NASA?  Are they in the public domain?

I asked Mike Gold from Bigelow that question last spring and he said that they wouldn't be released.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/06/2014 03:03 PM
I was looking over the comments on working at Bigelow at glassdoor.com (http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Bigelow-Aerospace-Reviews-E373179.htm).  In addition to the poor vacation and working time issues mentioned above, what I find more worrisome is the lack of communication between departments and complete disregard for proper engineering practice.  It reminds me a lot of what went wrong at North American when they were building the block-1 Apollo modules.  And we all know what a horror show those were.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Robert Thompson on 12/06/2014 03:34 PM
THAT is some fascinating reading. What other companies are investigating inflatable space habitats?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: mr. mark on 12/06/2014 03:55 PM
Any new news on Beam. We should be hearing more about it soon as it's slated for 2015.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 12/06/2014 06:00 PM
THAT is some fascinating reading. What other companies are investigating inflatable space habitats?

Besides Bigelow there's Thin Red Line in Chilliwack BC, CA  who has worked with Bigelow,

http://www.thin-red-line.com

and Paragon SDC (Paragon Space Development Corp.) of Tucson, Arizona,

http://www.paragonsdc.com/index.php

ParabolicArc article.... (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/04/09/paragon-sdc-to-develop-inflatable-space-habitat-with-nasa-sbir-award/)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 12/07/2014 12:27 AM
Any new news on Beam. We should be hearing more about it soon as it's slated for 2015.

local for me, so trying to keep my eyes and camera on it ;)

Is it possible beam is just waiting to be shipped?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/07/2014 06:12 PM
When do we expect Bigelow to do more than just BEAM?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/07/2014 08:36 PM
When do we expect Bigelow to do more than just BEAM?
Last I heard the first BA330 modules are to be launched 2017-18. At over 20t these will need a FH (should be able recover all 3 boosters).

The BEAM is going up in trunk of CRS8 in 2015.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 12/07/2014 08:55 PM
I was looking over the comments on working at Bigelow at glassdoor.com (http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Bigelow-Aerospace-Reviews-E373179.htm).  In addition to the poor vacation and working time issues mentioned above, what I find more worrisome is the lack of communication between departments and complete disregard for proper engineering practice.  It reminds me a lot of what went wrong at North American when they were building the block-1 Apollo modules.  And we all know what a horror show those were.
Not to go too off topic but it's interesting to read the Glassdoor comments about other aerospace companies. Especially ULA and SpaceX.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: okan170 on 12/08/2014 06:29 PM
Not my field, but frankly, if I saw benefits like that offered, I'd jump!  The only benefits I've ever gotten working professionally are that some places are nice enough to take your taxes out for you.  I don't know if that says anything good about the state of things though.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/11/2014 09:46 AM
THAT is some fascinating reading. What other companies are investigating inflatable space habitats?

Besides Bigelow there's Thin Red Line in Chilliwack BC, CA  who has worked with Bigelow,

http://www.thin-red-line.com

and Paragon SDC (Paragon Space Development Corp.) of Tucson, Arizona,

http://www.paragonsdc.com/index.php

ParabolicArc article.... (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/04/09/paragon-sdc-to-develop-inflatable-space-habitat-with-nasa-sbir-award/)

Thin Red Line and Paragon are working directly with Inspiration Mars, IIRC. At the time, there was a lot of incomprehension as to why IM didn't approach Bigelow but now I wonder if Mr Tito may be making a smart choice.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 12/15/2014 01:11 AM
Just a heads up, that new book "Bigelow Aerospace: Colonizing Space One Module at a Time" doesn't have any exclusive images and the majority of them were taken directly from their respective Wikipedia pages.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/15/2014 02:00 AM
THAT is some fascinating reading. What other companies are investigating inflatable space habitats?

Besides Bigelow there's Thin Red Line in Chilliwack BC, CA  who has worked with Bigelow,

http://www.thin-red-line.com

and Paragon SDC (Paragon Space Development Corp.) of Tucson, Arizona,

http://www.paragonsdc.com/index.php

ParabolicArc article.... (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/04/09/paragon-sdc-to-develop-inflatable-space-habitat-with-nasa-sbir-award/)
Thanks for the links.

I'd assumed Bigelow contained all the inflatable technology in-house. Reading Thin Redlines website looks like they had a major part in Bigelow's inflatable technology, interestingly there is no mention of Bigelow in Collaboration section.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: space_dreamer on 12/18/2014 10:00 AM
There are a lot of jobs being advised on the Bigelow website all of a sudden. http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/careers.php

Has Bigelow just come in to some money? It looks like things are hotting up again!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/18/2014 12:59 PM
There are a lot of jobs being advised on the Bigelow website all of a sudden. http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/careers.php

Has Bigelow just come in to some money? It looks like things are hotting up again!
They have been in a holding pattern waiting on commercial crew. With the selections, the construction of their  space station can proceed.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 12/24/2014 03:38 PM
I can't tell for certain because of the ancient, outdated browser on this computer, but it looks like Bigelow just updated their website. It kind of looks like a work in progress though.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 12/24/2014 03:47 PM

They have been in a holding pattern waiting on commercial crew. With the selections, the construction of their  space station can proceed.

Ponies for everyone!

In reality, knowing which providers the government has picked for a development program doesn't really buy Bigelow anything in regards to attempting to build and fly commercial orbital platforms. There would still be many risks until these crewed vehicles are actually flying and validating their cost models.

When Bigelow is generating requirements from customers and then designing a station to meet those requirements, then you will know that something is about to be built.  One piece of evidence for such activity would be a draft ICD floating around the internet.



Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 12/24/2014 04:01 PM
I can't tell for certain because of the ancient, outdated browser on this computer, but it looks like Bigelow just updated their website. It kind of looks like a work in progress though.

your right, it is updated, and at the top of their home page, is a banner advertising 100+ new jobs...
http://bigelowaerospace.com/

gramps
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 12/27/2014 11:57 PM

They have been in a holding pattern waiting on commercial crew. With the selections, the construction of their  space station can proceed.

Ponies for everyone!

In reality, knowing which providers the government has picked for a development program doesn't really buy Bigelow anything in regards to attempting to build and fly commercial orbital platforms. There would still be many risks until these crewed vehicles are actually flying and validating their cost models.

When Bigelow is generating requirements from customers and then designing a station to meet those requirements, then you will know that something is about to be built.  One piece of evidence for such activity would be a draft ICD floating around the internet.

I think we'll know Bigelow is going somewhere as a NewSpace sort of company when they actually have to start recruiting talent like a modern tech company. 

It doesn't bode well for them that 7 of 11 bulleted items on the cover page to their list of job openings (http://bigelowaerospace.com/careers/#jobs) are things like vacation, 401k, health benefits, and, get this, a "1-Hour lunch". 

It seems to me to be flashing a bright red signal that says "our company is not managed like any tech company you've ever worked for", and telegraphs that backwardness fact to potential employees up front.  Seems to me that this will not attract the best and the brightest into that sort of management environment.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 12/28/2014 12:02 AM
They're in Las Vegas.. people are just happy to have a job that isn't in hospitality.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Eerie on 12/28/2014 08:49 AM
It doesn't bode well for them that 7 of 11 bulleted items on the cover page to their list of job openings (http://bigelowaerospace.com/careers/#jobs) are things like vacation, 401k, health benefits, and, get this, a "1-Hour lunch". 

It seems to me to be flashing a bright red signal that says "our company is not managed like any tech company you've ever worked for", and telegraphs that backwardness fact to potential employees up front.  Seems to me that this will not attract the best and the brightest into that sort of management environment.

Just curious: what kind of stuff a regular space tech company will promise? I know that SpaceX provides 100 hour work week, but they are obviously special. :-)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: dcporter on 12/28/2014 03:22 PM
They're in Las Vegas.. people are just happy to have a job that isn't in hospitality.

The HR department maybe. What about the engineers? Lots of table managers with materials sciences backgrounds? I think they were more to Llian's point.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Raj2014 on 12/28/2014 05:51 PM
Are still going to develop the BA2100 Olympus or is it B2100 Olympus? Apparently they took the A out of B330 on their website, which also does not have any information on the 2100. BEAM is still going to ISS next year, on SpaceX CRS-8. They had this technology for 16 years and now they are just testing this on the ISS, they had prototypes launched in space in 2006 and 2007.     
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Arb on 12/28/2014 08:51 PM
Someone at Reddit noticed that the new Bigelow website includes http://bigelowaerospace.com/about/strategic-relationships/spacex/ (http://bigelowaerospace.com/about/strategic-relationships/spacex/) with a prominent rendering of FH and these gems:

Quote
Bigelow Aerospace ... will offer transportation aboard SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, using the Falcon launch vehicle to carry passengers to Bigelow habitats orbiting the Earth.

Quote
Bigelow Aerospace ... intends to utilize the upcoming modified Falcon Heavy for habitat assets and propulsion tug delivery to Low Earth Orbit.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 12/28/2014 10:21 PM
They're in Las Vegas.. people are just happy to have a job that isn't in hospitality.

The HR department maybe. What about the engineers? Lots of table managers with materials sciences backgrounds? I think they were more to Llian's point.

There are very few technical jobs available in Las Vegas. "Will pay you not to tend bar" is all the promises they need to make.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 12/28/2014 11:36 PM
Someone at Reddit noticed that the new Bigelow website includes http://bigelowaerospace.com/about/strategic-relationships/spacex/ (http://bigelowaerospace.com/about/strategic-relationships/spacex/) with a prominent rendering of FH and these gems:

Quote
Bigelow Aerospace ... will offer transportation aboard SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, using the Falcon launch vehicle to carry passengers to Bigelow habitats orbiting the Earth.

Quote
Bigelow Aerospace ... intends to utilize the upcoming modified Falcon Heavy for habitat assets and propulsion tug delivery to Low Earth Orbit.

They announced a collaboration in December 2012,

Link.... (http://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19/spacex-and-bigelow-aerospace-join-forces-offer-crewed-missions-private-space)

And there is this NSF article,

Link.... (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/affordable-habitats-more-buck-rogers-less-money-bigelow/)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Vultur on 12/29/2014 12:12 AM
They had this technology for 16 years and now they are just testing this on the ISS, they had prototypes launched in space in 2006 and 2007.   

IIRC there wasn't much reason to push until recently since there was no way to get there. Now it looks like Commercial Crew will happen.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Comga on 12/29/2014 01:22 AM
They had this technology for 16 years and now they are just testing this on the ISS, they had prototypes launched in space in 2006 and 2007.   

IIRC there wasn't much reason to push until recently since there was no way to get there. Now it looks like Commercial Crew will happen.

danderman says (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30850.msg1306923#msg1306923) that the Commercial Crew downselect is "Ponies for everyone".  You and TrevorMonty (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30850.msg1304453#msg1304453) think it is the key.

This place is great for diversity of thought.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Vultur on 12/29/2014 02:32 AM
Well, not the downselect specifically - I meant demonstrated commitment to, and some progress towards, Commercial Crew in general.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Vultur on 12/29/2014 02:34 AM
When Bigelow is generating requirements from customers and then designing a station to meet those requirements, then you will know that something is about to be built.  One piece of evidence for such activity would be a draft ICD floating around the internet.

I thought the Bigelow plan, after BEAM, was to launch a "generic" station (one or more BA-330) and lease space on it to a variety of customers? (As opposed to designing and launching separate spacecraft for specific customers.)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 12/29/2014 05:22 AM
Someone at Reddit noticed that the new Bigelow website includes http://bigelowaerospace.com/about/strategic-relationships/spacex/ (http://bigelowaerospace.com/about/strategic-relationships/spacex/) with a prominent rendering of FH and these gems:

Quote
Bigelow Aerospace ... will offer transportation aboard SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, using the Falcon launch vehicle to carry passengers to Bigelow habitats orbiting the Earth.

Quote
Bigelow Aerospace ... intends to utilize the upcoming modified Falcon Heavy for habitat assets and propulsion tug delivery to Low Earth Orbit.
These images look new.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 12/29/2014 05:38 AM
Found these on twitter
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: savuporo on 12/29/2014 05:39 AM
They're in Las Vegas.. people are just happy to have a job that isn't in hospitality.

The HR department maybe. What about the engineers? Lots of table managers with materials sciences backgrounds? I think they were more to Llian's point.

There are very few technical jobs available in Las Vegas. "Will pay you not to tend bar" is all the promises they need to make.


Completely untrue, there are tons and tons of new engineering jobs in Vegas area, as it is becoming a serious tech innovation hub (http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/26/part-3-why-investors-tech-startups-are-flocking-to-downtown-vegas/). Check Monster (http://jobsearch.monster.com/search/Full-Time_8?q=Engineering&where=Las-Vegas__2c-NV) , or simply read the news (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andre-bourque/vegas-tech-startup-scene_b_6337216.html)

Now, is Bigelow yet hiring white turban wearing zero-g flight attendants ?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 12/29/2014 05:41 AM
When Bigelow is generating requirements from customers and then designing a station to meet those requirements, then you will know that something is about to be built.  One piece of evidence for such activity would be a draft ICD floating around the internet.

I thought the Bigelow plan, after BEAM, was to launch a "generic" station (one or more BA-330) and lease space on it to a variety of customers? (As opposed to designing and launching separate spacecraft for specific customers.)


The activities I mentioned are those that Bigelow would indeed do if they were looking for multiple customers for a platform.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Comga on 12/29/2014 11:03 PM
Found these on twitter
The second image is curious.  I don't recall seeing end sections like that before.
It is so flat looking, like a crude Photoshop job, or a printed surround on a physical barrel section.
And the end is a cone with what looks like more inflatable surface.  How would that work and be packaged for launch?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Bob Shaw on 12/29/2014 11:25 PM
Here's a wee play with the rather unsaturated version on the Bigelow website; they do, of course, own the source material, but this is a little more 'realistic'. I really like their radiation shield sandbags over the habitat, and the upscaled LRV and trailer!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 12/30/2014 12:53 AM
Found these on twitter
The second image is curious.  I don't recall seeing end sections like that before.
It is so flat looking, like a crude Photoshop job, or a printed surround on a physical barrel section.
And the end is a cone with what looks like more inflatable surface.  How would that work and be packaged for launch?
I think the whole thing may just be an inflatable constructed for the Journey To Space film and/or to show the public the size of larger habitats that Bigelow wants to one day build.

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-121214a-journey-to-space-movie.html
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 12/30/2014 02:47 AM
They're in Las Vegas.. people are just happy to have a job that isn't in hospitality.

The HR department maybe. What about the engineers? Lots of table managers with materials sciences backgrounds? I think they were more to Llian's point.

There are very few technical jobs available in Las Vegas. "Will pay you not to tend bar" is all the promises they need to make.


Completely untrue, there are tons and tons of new engineering jobs in Vegas area, as it is becoming a serious tech innovation hub (http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/26/part-3-why-investors-tech-startups-are-flocking-to-downtown-vegas/). Check Monster (http://jobsearch.monster.com/search/Full-Time_8?q=Engineering&where=Las-Vegas__2c-NV) , or simply read the news (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andre-bourque/vegas-tech-startup-scene_b_6337216.html)

Now, is Bigelow yet hiring white turban wearing zero-g flight attendants ?
Those articles are dubious at best.  The press in Las Vegas were still talking about hot real estate up until 2009. Half the jobs on the first page of the Monster link are Indian Springs (Creech AFB where they control the drones) and 90% of Las Vegas would not pass security screening, not to mention the drug test.
 I would say there are few technical jobs in Las Vegas and even fewer technical personnel (outside of military and the folks that work at black jobs up north).  Even fewer are locals that have the experience to design and build spacecraft such as those posted on the BA website.  What BA is trying to accomplish will require many talented individuals, and they will have to come from outside LV.
Conspicuously absent on the BA website is any mention of relocation benefits.   
Quantum, you would be surprised at what a Vegas bartender gets paid.  In many cases, more than an entry level engineer.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 12/30/2014 02:59 AM
What BA is trying to accomplish will require many talented individuals, and they will have to come from outside LV.

I think you're right, but I don't think Bigelow sees it that way.

Quote from: Orbital Debris
Quantum, you would be surprised at what a Vegas bartender gets paid.  In many cases, more than an entry level engineer.

Once you count tips, sure, but that's entirely the point.. Money isn't everything.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 12/30/2014 03:13 AM
Found these on twitter
The second image is curious.  I don't recall seeing end sections like that before.
It is so flat looking, like a crude Photoshop job, or a printed surround on a physical barrel section.
And the end is a cone with what looks like more inflatable surface.  How would that work and be packaged for launch?
I think the whole thing may just be an inflatable constructed for the Journey To Space film and/or to show the public the size of larger habitats that Bigelow wants to one day build.

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-121214a-journey-to-space-movie.html
I would think that is a BA2100 mockup.  From what I heard, RTB was keen on getting a mockup built that was even larger than the BA330.  The raised gallery looks like it is in the new building as well.  The 2100 was 'notionally' intended to fit in an 8 meter fairing (which doesn't exist on anything but paper AFAIK) so that end structure would fit into that fairing.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 12/30/2014 10:08 AM
They're in Las Vegas.. people are just happy to have a job that isn't in hospitality.

The HR department maybe. What about the engineers? Lots of table managers with materials sciences backgrounds? I think they were more to Llian's point.

There are very few technical jobs available in Las Vegas. "Will pay you not to tend bar" is all the promises they need to make.


Completely untrue, there are tons and tons of new engineering jobs in Vegas area, as it is becoming a serious tech innovation hub (http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/26/part-3-why-investors-tech-startups-are-flocking-to-downtown-vegas/). Check Monster (http://jobsearch.monster.com/search/Full-Time_8?q=Engineering&where=Las-Vegas__2c-NV) , or simply read the news (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andre-bourque/vegas-tech-startup-scene_b_6337216.html)

Now, is Bigelow yet hiring white turban wearing zero-g flight attendants ?
Those articles are dubious at best.  The press in Las Vegas were still talking about hot real estate up until 2009. Half the jobs on the first page of the Monster link are Indian Springs (Creech AFB where they control the drones) and 90% of Las Vegas would not pass security screening, not to mention the drug test.
 I would say there are few technical jobs in Las Vegas and even fewer technical personnel (outside of military and the folks that work at black jobs up north).  Even fewer are locals that have the experience to design and build spacecraft such as those posted on the BA website.  What BA is trying to accomplish will require many talented individuals, and they will have to come from outside LV.
Conspicuously absent on the BA website is any mention of relocation benefits.   
Quantum, you would be surprised at what a Vegas bartender gets paid.  In many cases, more than an entry level engineer.

Sorry to report I've been around the plant....just don't see any real new numbers of employees.  Did notice the firm has a headquarters at a different address.  Is it possible some employees are working from there? 

Regarding promo: if past experience is followed expect the Vegas local news at the plant site in late Jan. 2015.  Will be watching.  Seems like they make an invite around this time.



Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Raj2014 on 01/01/2015 05:27 PM
Since we know Bigelow’s inflatable modules are more resistant to micrometeoroid strikes than current metallic-shelled ISS modules, due to Bigelow’s use of multiple layers of Vectran, a material which is twice as strong as Kevlar. In tests, micrometeoroid objects that would go through ISS modules only penetrated half-way through the skin of Bigelow’s modules, what if they use graphene to strengthen the modules?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: coypu76 on 01/01/2015 05:48 PM
In theory graphene should be very good material for this sort of application, however at present this sort of application has only been tested in microscale experiments.  The other issue with graphene for this application is that graphene composites (multi-sheet structures such as those which would be needed for micrometeoroid shielding) are rigid, which, at the risk of being overly general and vague, seems to be a counter-indication for use in an inflatable structure.  The main attraction of the latter is their ability to be small during launch and large once inflated.  This would seem to dictate the use of flexible materials, however I think that you are correct that graphene would be a very interesting material for application in micrometeoroid shielding.  In the short term, however, the technology is still in its fairly early nascency, so we'll have to wait to see what applications are developed over time.

More info here:  http://gizmodo.com/graphene-body-armor-will-be-twice-as-good-as-regular-bu-1664320431 (http://gizmodo.com/graphene-body-armor-will-be-twice-as-good-as-regular-bu-1664320431)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Raj2014 on 01/01/2015 06:08 PM
In theory graphene should be very good material for this sort of application, however at present this sort of application has only been tested in microscale experiments.  The other issue with graphene for this application is that graphene composites (multi-sheet structures such as those which would be needed for micrometeoroid shielding) are rigid, which, at the risk of being overly general and vague, seems to be a counter-indication for use in an inflatable structure.  The main attraction of the latter is their ability to be small during launch and large once inflated.  This would seem to dictate the use of flexible materials, however I think that you are correct that graphene would be a very interesting material for application in micrometeoroid shielding.  In the short term, however, the technology is still in its fairly early nascency, so we'll have to wait to see what applications are developed over time.

More info here:  http://gizmodo.com/graphene-body-armor-will-be-twice-as-good-as-regular-bu-1664320431 (http://gizmodo.com/graphene-body-armor-will-be-twice-as-good-as-regular-bu-1664320431)

What if they build a whole spacecraft from graphene?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Comga on 01/01/2015 06:40 PM
Re: Graphene
We are not Bigelow's material scientists.
Bigelow's people are aware of modern technologies.
Not everything is relevant to spaceflight.
Better is the enemy of good enough.
Micrometeoroids penetration is not the big issue keeping Bigelow from launching.
Can we go back to what they ARE doing?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Raj2014 on 01/01/2015 08:27 PM
Re: Graphene
We are not Bigelow's material scientists.
Bigelow's people are aware of modern technologies.
Not everything is relevant to spaceflight.
Better is the enemy of good enough.
Micrometeoroids penetration is not the big issue keeping Bigelow from launching.
Can we go back to what they ARE doing?

There is nothing wrong with discussing other ideas, the latest (http://bigelowaerospace.com/beam/) information has already been posted and here it is again.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/01/2015 08:33 PM
Graphene's macroscopic properties are inferior to vectran. Only microscopically is it mechanically superior at this point.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/02/2015 02:31 AM
Can we go back to what they ARE doing?

If only they were actually doing something!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Comga on 01/02/2015 03:04 AM
Can we go back to what they ARE doing?

If only they were actually doing something!

Point taken :D
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/02/2015 03:32 AM
Can we go back to what they ARE doing?

If only they were actually doing something!
I would say designing and building two BA330 modules to fly around 2018 doing something.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/02/2015 03:55 AM
Can we go back to what they ARE doing?

If only they were actually doing something!
I would say designing and building two BA330 modules to fly around 2018 doing something.

You mean like Bigelow said Galaxy would fly soon after Genesis II?  Or like a little later Sundancer would fly somewhat later instead of Galaxy?

Back in 2006 and 2007 Bigelow was actually doing something.  They flew two small prototypes.  Since then, all we've had has been mock-ups and promises.

In 2007, it seemed plausible, if a bit unlikely, that Sundancer would fly in 2010 as promised.  Now, seven plus years later, the next flight is still three years in the future.

I don't really blame Bigelow.  I think Bigelow could execute if there was a market.  The painful reality is that it seems there's nobody willing to pay for what Bigelow is selling -- at least not at anywhere near today's prices.

I think the only thing likely to bring Bigelow back to life would be if SpaceX really can make rapid reusability a reality and lower launch costs by an order of magnitude.  That would open things up, not just for Bigelow but for a huge new economy based on cheap access to space.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 01/02/2015 04:12 AM
ISTM some of the work has been done in terms of building the restraint layers,

Thin Red Line Aerospace.... (http://www.thin-red-line.com/projects.html)

Quote
Thin Red Line developed and supplied 20 full-fidelity inflatable pressure shells of up to 320 cubic meter volume for Bigelow Aerospace.
>

and we've seen at least one being pressure tested in their pool (last year's promo video.) One would think if more are needed all RTB has to do is cut the check,
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/02/2015 05:23 AM

-snip-

I don't really blame Bigelow.  I think Bigelow could execute if there was a market.  The painful reality is that it seems there's nobody willing to pay for what Bigelow is selling -- at least not at anywhere near today's prices.

I think the only thing likely to bring Bigelow back to life would be if SpaceX really can make rapid reusability a reality and lower launch costs by an order of magnitude.  That would open things up, not just for Bigelow but for a huge new economy based on cheap access to space.

while you are right that rapid reusability (well, the associated cost savings) would be a boon for Bigelow, the reality is that that is still several years away.

and Bigelow does have several interested customers. Bigelow "has signed memoranda of understanding with seven governments that wish to use the company’s orbiting facilities — Australia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Japan, Sweden and Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates."

http://www.zmescience.com/space/iss-inflatable-modules-bigelow-aerospace-431243/ (http://www.zmescience.com/space/iss-inflatable-modules-bigelow-aerospace-431243/)

the article is a year old, but as far as i know, they still have those nations on board.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: guckyfan on 01/02/2015 07:23 AM
The reason why they stopped development and production is simple. As long as there is no provider for manned flight to their station there is no use for a station.

This is about to change now and they restart their efforts.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 01/02/2015 11:00 AM
ISTM some of the work has been done in terms of building the restraint layers,

Thin Red Line Aerospace.... (http://www.thin-red-line.com/projects.html)

Quote
Thin Red Line developed and supplied 20 full-fidelity inflatable pressure shells of up to 320 cubic meter volume for Bigelow Aerospace.
>

and we've seen at least one being pressure tested in their pool (last year's promo video.) One would think if more are needed all RTB has to do is cut the check,

where did this firm come from?
some interesting stuff on that web site.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 01/02/2015 01:29 PM
Space News writeup,

http://spacenews.com/41009spotlight-thin-red-line-aerospace/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/02/2015 03:34 PM
and Bigelow does have several interested customers. Bigelow "has signed memoranda of understanding with seven governments that wish to use the company’s orbiting facilities — Australia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Japan, Sweden and Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates."

http://www.zmescience.com/space/iss-inflatable-modules-bigelow-aerospace-431243/ (http://www.zmescience.com/space/iss-inflatable-modules-bigelow-aerospace-431243/)

the article is a year old, but as far as i know, they still have those nations on board.

That's meaningless hype from the Bigelow marketing machine.  We don't know exactly what these "memoranda of understanding" are, but there's no evidence they indicate an intent by those governments to pay Bigelow any money.   Any money other governments paid Bigelow would have to be approved by the legislatures of those governments and would be big news and we would have heard it.

The MOUs are likely just preliminary documents with no commitments and may just be outlining how Bigelow would go about marketing its services in those countries.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/02/2015 03:38 PM
The reason why they stopped development and production is simple. As long as there is no provider for manned flight to their station there is no use for a station.

This is about to change now and they restart their efforts.

SpaceX has been talking up Dragon for crew transport for years, and saying they could do it much faster if they could get someone to pay for it.

If Bigelow really had customers waiting in the wings ready to pay, they could have financed the development of crew Dragon much ealier.  Or, if Bigelow didn't want to finance it themselves, they could have shown the evidence to SpaceX and SpaceX could have found private financing for it.

Crew Dragon had to wait for government funding because NASA is the only customer who has ever shown an interest in buying at the rates today's launch vehicles make possible.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Mader Levap on 01/02/2015 03:46 PM
Crew Dragon had to wait for government funding because NASA is the only customer who has ever shown an interest in buying at the rates today's launch vehicles make possible.
It is more complicated than that. AFAIK Bigelow wanted two independent operators. So SpaceX and someone else, like Boeing. In fact, CST-100 was created in collaboration with Bigelow.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/02/2015 04:03 PM
Crew Dragon had to wait for government funding because NASA is the only customer who has ever shown an interest in buying at the rates today's launch vehicles make possible.
It is more complicated than that. AFAIK Bigelow wanted two independent operators. So SpaceX and someone else, like Boeing. In fact, CST-100 was created in collaboration with Bigelow.

That's the excuse Bigelow gives.  I don't buy it.

Sure, it's better for Bigelow to have two providers.  But for Bigelow to suspend his business for years just because there is only one provider?  That makes no sense.  If there were money to be made in private space stations, it could be made with only one provider of crew transport.

Also, if Bigelow demonstrated demand years ago, Boeing, SNC, Blue Origin, and many others would have been able to get private investment to fund crew transport development.  They are all dependent on NASA money to develop crew transport because there's no demonstrated demand for it at the costs of today's launch vehicles.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 01/02/2015 04:48 PM
Crew Dragon had to wait for government funding because NASA is the only customer who has ever shown an interest in buying at the rates today's launch vehicles make possible.
It is more complicated than that. AFAIK Bigelow wanted two independent operators. So SpaceX and someone else, like Boeing. In fact, CST-100 was created in collaboration with Bigelow.

That's the excuse Bigelow gives.  I don't buy it.


I might be near some of the same events as Mr. Bigelow.  If I cross paths, will have a quick chat about these questions and post it on L2.

 8)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/02/2015 08:18 PM
Crew Dragon had to wait for government funding because NASA is the only customer who has ever shown an interest in buying at the rates today's launch vehicles make possible.
It is more complicated than that. AFAIK Bigelow wanted two independent operators. So SpaceX and someone else, like Boeing. In fact, CST-100 was created in collaboration with Bigelow.

That's the excuse Bigelow gives.  I don't buy it.

Sure, it's better for Bigelow to have two providers.  But for Bigelow to suspend his business for years just because there is only one provider?  That makes no sense.  If there were money to be made in private space stations, it could be made with only one provider of crew transport.

Also, if Bigelow demonstrated demand years ago, Boeing, SNC, Blue Origin, and many others would have been able to get private investment to fund crew transport development.  They are all dependent on NASA money to develop crew transport because there's no demonstrated demand for it at the costs of today's launch vehicles.
They need two crew vehicles for redundancy. Antares crash has demonstrated how important this is.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/02/2015 08:35 PM
Crew Dragon had to wait for government funding because NASA is the only customer who has ever shown an interest in buying at the rates today's launch vehicles make possible.
It is more complicated than that. AFAIK Bigelow wanted two independent operators. So SpaceX and someone else, like Boeing. In fact, CST-100 was created in collaboration with Bigelow.

That's the excuse Bigelow gives.  I don't buy it.

Sure, it's better for Bigelow to have two providers.  But for Bigelow to suspend his business for years just because there is only one provider?  That makes no sense.  If there were money to be made in private space stations, it could be made with only one provider of crew transport.

Also, if Bigelow demonstrated demand years ago, Boeing, SNC, Blue Origin, and many others would have been able to get private investment to fund crew transport development.  They are all dependent on NASA money to develop crew transport because there's no demonstrated demand for it at the costs of today's launch vehicles.

Bigelow suspended their business for years because it had NO crew launch providers. why would they launch a space station that they had no means of sending people to? the only thing to do was what Bigelow did. put the majority of the company into hibernation until a crew provider comes on-line.

you're just putting the crew launch provider into a catch-22 situation. they'd get demand if they had a crew launch provider, but they can't get money for a crew launch provider until they have demand.

so you do what Bigelow did. eliminate the catch-22 by waiting for a crew launch provider to come around.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/02/2015 08:40 PM
and Bigelow does have several interested customers. Bigelow "has signed memoranda of understanding with seven governments that wish to use the company’s orbiting facilities — Australia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Japan, Sweden and Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates."

http://www.zmescience.com/space/iss-inflatable-modules-bigelow-aerospace-431243/ (http://www.zmescience.com/space/iss-inflatable-modules-bigelow-aerospace-431243/)

the article is a year old, but as far as i know, they still have those nations on board.

That's meaningless hype from the Bigelow marketing machine.  We don't know exactly what these "memoranda of understanding" are, but there's no evidence they indicate an intent by those governments to pay Bigelow any money.   Any money other governments paid Bigelow would have to be approved by the legislatures of those governments and would be big news and we would have heard it.

The MOUs are likely just preliminary documents with no commitments and may just be outlining how Bigelow would go about marketing its services in those countries.

regardless, they still have some kind of understanding with Bigelow. it wouldn't make sense to hype it if it were just a discussion about billboards and TV ads. hype makes the most sense if they'd like to use a bit of a Bigelow space station for research.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/02/2015 09:03 PM

regardless, they still have some kind of understanding with Bigelow. it wouldn't make sense to hype it if it were just a discussion about billboards and TV ads. hype makes the most sense if they'd like to use a bit of a Bigelow space station for research.

To hire a Bigelow spacestation the space agencies will have to apply to their governments for large amounts of money.  This money to be spent in the USA.  This is not the sort of thing politicians want to hear in the middle of a recession when they are being forced to make big cuts in spending.

IMHO To get the money the scientists will have to come up with research programs that have a return on investment of under 10 years.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Vultur on 01/03/2015 01:20 AM
Crew Dragon had to wait for government funding because NASA is the only customer who has ever shown an interest in buying at the rates today's launch vehicles make possible.
It is more complicated than that. AFAIK Bigelow wanted two independent operators. So SpaceX and someone else, like Boeing. In fact, CST-100 was created in collaboration with Bigelow.

That's the excuse Bigelow gives.  I don't buy it.

Sure, it's better for Bigelow to have two providers.  But for Bigelow to suspend his business for years just because there is only one provider?  That makes no sense.  If there were money to be made in private space stations, it could be made with only one provider of crew transport.

Also, if Bigelow demonstrated demand years ago, Boeing, SNC, Blue Origin, and many others would have been able to get private investment to fund crew transport development.  They are all dependent on NASA money to develop crew transport because there's no demonstrated demand for it at the costs of today's launch vehicles.

Yeah, but funding the development of the crew transport is a much higher barrier than just using it once it exists.

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure Crew Dragon was really waiting for Commercial Crew; sure, it's being developed faster than it otherwise would be since they don't have to self-fund, but I think it was planned all along. They only started flying F9 in 2010 after all, and CCDev was not much later. They really didn't have any *time* to wait.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: clongton on 01/03/2015 02:05 PM
Chris I understand what you are saying but you are just, well wrong. You don't understand what the difference is between a MOU and a Conditional Contract, speaking as if they were the same thing - they're not. Business relationships defined by a MOU are very complicated but are binding enough that they can be used to secure external funding if Bigelow wanted to do that. But that would have been fraught with difficulties for his company. I wouldn't have done it either. SpaceX Dragon 2 is going to fly. All he has to do is wait for it. Also the external parties to the MOU's are willing to pay Bigelow for his services but are not willing to finance a spacecraft. Why should they? You seem to be under the impression that they should have. Just be patient. It will all come to pass, just not as quickly as you would like it to. Let things run their course. It just takes time, which means years, not months.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Senex on 01/03/2015 04:46 PM
This discussion highlights the issue of a "strategic beachhead" — i.e. your army needs ships that can deliver it to the shore, but the ships can't get near the shore until it's "pacified."  It was the same story behind "the shuttle needs a destination, but the space station needs a transportation system."  Yes, the argument isn't perfect, but it's close to what actually happened. 

This underscores the value of the ISS.  For all its ridiculous cost, for all the resources that might have been better spent, it DID establish a beachhead in low earth orbit.  Because it is there, other things can happen — NanoRacks is growing a market that could, later, become important in supporting other orbital labs like Bigelow's.  Because it is there we can discuss commercial crew options.  UrtheCast and others can begin to learn how private ventures might use a space platform.  Because the ISS is there Bigelow gets to increase the credibility of their technology by testing the BEAM module.

While it may not be the only issue, Bigelow's "Catch 22" trap is real.  This is a very delicate time in the history of getting off the earth.  Imagine if some disaster, technical or political, led to the de-orbiting of the ISS.  Perhaps  commercial crew is canceled.  Bigelow is stuck, and there doesn't appear to be any well-developed competitor in the wings.  We could be set back by many years. 

What happens over this next five years is very important.  The outcome is in no way certain. 
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: BrightLight on 01/03/2015 05:29 PM
This discussion highlights the issue of a "strategic beachhead" — i.e. your army needs ships that can deliver it to the shore, but the ships can't get near the shore until it's "pacified."  It was the same story behind "the shuttle needs a destination, but the space station needs a transportation system."  Yes, the argument isn't perfect, but it's close to what actually happened. 

This underscores the value of the ISS.  For all its ridiculous cost, for all the resources that might have been better spent, it DID establish a beachhead in low earth orbit.  Because it is there, other things can happen — NanoRacks is growing a market that could, later, become important in supporting other orbital labs like Bigelow's.  Because it is there we can discuss commercial crew options.  UrtheCast and others can begin to learn how private ventures might use a space platform.  Because the ISS is there Bigelow gets to increase the credibility of their technology.

While it may not be the only issue, Bigelow's "Catch 22" trap is real.  This is a very delicate time in the history of getting off the earth.  Imagine if some disaster, technical or political, led to the de-orbiting of the ISS.  Perhaps  commercial crew is canceled.  Bigelow is stuck, and there doesn't appear to be any well-developed competitor in the wings.  We could be set back by many years. 

What happens over this next five years is very important.  The outcome is in no way certain.
well said!
for all that the "private space enterprise" is and is not, the infrastructure that NASA has put in place does give non-government opportunities, marginal as they might be, to succeed or fail, the next few years I also think are pivotal to space exploitation. I have reservations about Bigelow being successful but he is the first to claim a serious LEO manned space platform.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/03/2015 08:18 PM
They need two crew vehicles for redundancy. Antares crash has demonstrated how important this is.

No, they don't.  They may like it a lot better if they have two vehicles.  But turn down lots of lucrative business just because they can't have two?  No way.

Anyway, using two providers increases risks.  You get two chances of having a fatal design flaw that doesn't show up until operational flights instead of one.  If you really care about crew safety, you choose just one crew vehicle and live with the possibility of down time if there is a design flaw.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/03/2015 08:25 PM
Also, if Bigelow demonstrated demand years ago, Boeing, SNC, Blue Origin, and many others would have been able to get private investment to fund crew transport development.  They are all dependent on NASA money to develop crew transport because there's no demonstrated demand for it at the costs of today's launch vehicles.

Bigelow suspended their business for years because it had NO crew launch providers. why would they launch a space station that they had no means of sending people to? the only thing to do was what Bigelow did. put the majority of the company into hibernation until a crew provider comes on-line.

you're just putting the crew launch provider into a catch-22 situation. they'd get demand if they had a crew launch provider, but they can't get money for a crew launch provider until they have demand.

so you do what Bigelow did. eliminate the catch-22 by waiting for a crew launch provider to come around.

There's no catch-22.

Lets say Bigelow had real evidence of demand: customers willing to pay the big money.  They get those customers to sign letters of intent.  The customers are happy to sign the letters of intent because they know that will help them get what they want.  Bigelow show those to SpaceX, Boeing, SNC, Blue Origin, etc.  Those companies go to investors and show those letters of intent to the investors.  The investors pony up the money because they see they will get a return on their investment.

That's how things get done all the time in the private sector.  It's the same for any new product.  There are trillions of investment dollars floating around looking for a place to make money.  The capital markets are very, very good at sniffing out any real opportunities to make money.

Why have there been no private investors?  Because there's no evidence of any customers will to pay Bigelow enough to make it worth their while.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/03/2015 08:29 PM
and Bigelow does have several interested customers. Bigelow "has signed memoranda of understanding with seven governments that wish to use the company’s orbiting facilities — Australia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Japan, Sweden and Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates."

http://www.zmescience.com/space/iss-inflatable-modules-bigelow-aerospace-431243/ (http://www.zmescience.com/space/iss-inflatable-modules-bigelow-aerospace-431243/)

the article is a year old, but as far as i know, they still have those nations on board.

That's meaningless hype from the Bigelow marketing machine.  We don't know exactly what these "memoranda of understanding" are, but there's no evidence they indicate an intent by those governments to pay Bigelow any money.   Any money other governments paid Bigelow would have to be approved by the legislatures of those governments and would be big news and we would have heard it.

The MOUs are likely just preliminary documents with no commitments and may just be outlining how Bigelow would go about marketing its services in those countries.

regardless, they still have some kind of understanding with Bigelow. it wouldn't make sense to hype it if it were just a discussion about billboards and TV ads. hype makes the most sense if they'd like to use a bit of a Bigelow space station for research.

It's Bigelow doing the hyping.  Of course it makes sense for them to hype anything that makes it look like they have a real business case.

If any of these governments really did say their were ready to pay Bigelow for use of its station, there's no doubt Bigelow would say that.  Bigelow announcing these MOUs while being so vague about their contents can mean only one thing: there's nothing of substance to the MOUs.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/03/2015 08:42 PM
Chris I understand what you are saying but you are just, well wrong. You don't understand what the difference is between a MOU and a Conditional Contract, speaking as if they were the same thing - they're not.

I never said they were.  Apparently you didn't understand what I was saying as well as you think you did.

In fact, my point is that the MOUs are *not* conditional contracts.  You seem to have thought what I said was the exact opposite of what I actually said.

My whole point is that these MOUs likely have no real substance to them at all.

Business relationships defined by a MOU are very complicated but are binding enough that they can be used to secure external funding if Bigelow wanted to do that.

MOU is a generic term.  It can apply to virtually anything that two parties want to say they agree about.

Sure, there can be MOUs that are binding that would be enough to secure external funding if Bigelow wanted to.  But I don't think these MOUs are of that sort -- otherwise Bigelow would have said so.

But that would have been fraught with difficulties for his company. I wouldn't have done it either. SpaceX Dragon 2 is going to fly. All he has to do is wait for it.

In 2007, Bigelow claimed their first commercial space station would fly in 2010.  Now, it's 2018.  That's an eight year delay.  If Bigelow really had customers eager to pay billions back in 2007, there's no way he would give up the billions of dollars he could have brought in over 8 years.

Anyway, you seem to misunderstand that I was claiming Bigelow would finance SpaceX and the others.  I was not.  I was saying that Bigelow would just show evidence to SpaceX and the others that they have customers.  Then SpaceX and the others would use that evidence to raise money themselves.  No money comes from Bigelow.  All Bigelow has to do is show the evidence to SpaceX, Boeing, SNC, etc.

Also the external parties to the MOU's are willing to pay Bigelow for his services but are not willing to finance a spacecraft.

I never said they would.  I don't know where you got that idea.

The MOUs would just be used to convince other investors to finance SpaceX, SNC, Boeing, etc.  Bigelow pays nothing.  Bigelow's customers pay nothing.

Why should they? You seem to be under the impression that they should have.

No, not at all.

Just be patient. It will all come to pass, just not as quickly as you would like it to. Let things run their course. It just takes time, which means years, not months.

It's not a question of what I like or don't like.  It's a question of whether there are really any customers for Bigelow.  I claim the evidence suggests there aren't.  If that's the case, Bigelow really needs to wait for launch vehicles to get much cheaper, which could make his prices cheap enough that he could finally actually get customers.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 01/03/2015 08:57 PM
Why have there been no private investors?  Because there's no evidence of any customers will to pay Bigelow enough to make it worth their while.

There's plenty of private investors. Bigelow isn't interested in taking their money. Neither is Musk. Neither is Bezos. Anyone can buy Boeing stock, but I don't think that's what you mean.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 01/03/2015 09:20 PM
Why have there been no private investors?  Because there's no evidence of any customers will to pay Bigelow enough to make it worth their while.

There's plenty of private investors. Bigelow isn't interested in taking their money. Neither is Musk. Neither is Bezos. Anyone can buy Boeing stock, but I don't think that's what you mean.
I think at least SpaceX does have private equity sales, if only from employees to a small number of external investors. This is sometimes done in privately held companies to give employees some liquidity without having to deal with an IPO.

That's very different than going public though. A public company has many more disclosure and accounting requirements. Private equity sales can be with carefully vetted investors that agree to non-disclosure. In other words there's no reason any of us would know about these investors, and no way for us to find out what they know.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 01/03/2015 09:26 PM
We know how much external investment Musk, Bigelow and Bezos have taken because they're still in control of their own companies. (Plus, ya know, they tell us.)

Bigelow doesn't just want to fly space stations.. he wants to own them.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: clongton on 01/03/2015 09:27 PM
Why have there been no private investors?  Because there's no evidence of any customers will to pay Bigelow enough to make it worth their while.

Because the USGov is involved. Ever tried to do a private enterprise with USGov fingers in the pie? I have. On the very BEST of days it's a horrible, stinking bloody mess, and it goes downhill from there.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Tomness on 01/03/2015 09:50 PM

I might be near some of the same events as Mr. Bigelow.  If I cross paths, will have a quick chat about these questions and post it on L2.


Why keep it in the darK? :( He skedaddled out of Dragon V2 before our very own reporter could get a word. Been so silient as it is. If he says something go head, Let us all know. :P
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Donosauro on 01/03/2015 10:23 PM
Why have there been no private investors?  Because there's no evidence of any customers will to pay Bigelow enough to make it worth their while.

Because the USGov is involved. Ever tried to do a private enterprise with USGov fingers in the pie? I have. On the very BEST of days it's a horrible, stinking bloody mess, and it goes downhill from there.

Isn't SpaceX doing private enterprise with US government involvement?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 01/03/2015 10:38 PM
Isn't SpaceX doing private enterprise with US government involvement?

.. and zero institutional investment.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: HMXHMX on 01/03/2015 10:44 PM
Isn't SpaceX doing private enterprise with US government involvement?

.. and zero institutional investment.



I believe Draper and Founder's Fund investments would qualify as institutional.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 01/03/2015 10:47 PM
I believe Draper and Founder's Fund investments would qualify as institutional.

I disagree. They're tech company investors. They're not investing anyone's 401k.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/03/2015 10:55 PM
Why have there been no private investors?  Because there's no evidence of any customers will to pay Bigelow enough to make it worth their while.

There's plenty of private investors. Bigelow isn't interested in taking their money. Neither is Musk. Neither is Bezos. Anyone can buy Boeing stock, but I don't think that's what you mean.

What I meant was that nobody in the private sector decided in 2007 to do what NASA is doing now with CCtCap: paying to develop private crew transport to and from LEO.  Of course, the private investors would expect a return on their money, unlike CCtCap.

Maybe SpaceX wouldn't have been willing to give up the equity to do that, but surely someone would.

To me, that implies that the expected return on such an investment would not be enough to justify the investment, and that in turn implies that there isn't a huge market for Bigelow.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/03/2015 10:57 PM
Why have there been no private investors?  Because there's no evidence of any customers will to pay Bigelow enough to make it worth their while.

Because the USGov is involved. Ever tried to do a private enterprise with USGov fingers in the pie? I have. On the very BEST of days it's a horrible, stinking bloody mess, and it goes downhill from there.

The US government being involved doesn't scare away all investors.  There are plenty of businesses that make huge amounts of money in areas in which the US government is more heavily involved than they would be in the business of transporting crew to and from a private Bigelow station.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 01/03/2015 11:01 PM
Maybe SpaceX wouldn't have been willing to give up the equity to do that, but surely someone would.

To me, that implies that the expected return on such an investment would not be enough to justify the investment, and that in turn implies that there isn't a huge market for Bigelow.

I think the problem is simply that there's no-one who can credibly say they can do it. SpaceX couldn't credibly say they could do it in 2007.. and while I expect there's some investors who'd love to have a chunk of SpaceX now, they're probably still not very confident of any business that involves human spaceflight. To the investment community, human spaceflight remains "what NASA does". If you had NASA willing to fly paying customers you'd have no trouble finding financing to start a booking company, for example.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Vultur on 01/04/2015 01:23 AM
Also, if Bigelow demonstrated demand years ago, Boeing, SNC, Blue Origin, and many others would have been able to get private investment to fund crew transport development.  They are all dependent on NASA money to develop crew transport because there's no demonstrated demand for it at the costs of today's launch vehicles.

Bigelow suspended their business for years because it had NO crew launch providers. why would they launch a space station that they had no means of sending people to? the only thing to do was what Bigelow did. put the majority of the company into hibernation until a crew provider comes on-line.

you're just putting the crew launch provider into a catch-22 situation. they'd get demand if they had a crew launch provider, but they can't get money for a crew launch provider until they have demand.

so you do what Bigelow did. eliminate the catch-22 by waiting for a crew launch provider to come around.

There's no catch-22.

Lets say Bigelow had real evidence of demand: customers willing to pay the big money.  They get those customers to sign letters of intent.  The customers are happy to sign the letters of intent because they know that will help them get what they want.  Bigelow show those to SpaceX, Boeing, SNC, Blue Origin, etc.  Those companies go to investors and show those letters of intent to the investors.  The investors pony up the money because they see they will get a return on their investment.

That's how things get done all the time in the private sector.  It's the same for any new product.  There are trillions of investment dollars floating around looking for a place to make money.  The capital markets are very, very good at sniffing out any real opportunities to make money.

Why have there been no private investors?  Because there's no evidence of any customers will to pay Bigelow enough to make it worth their while.

OK, sure, but it would require MUCH more money to pay back the development of a crew launch system as well.

The Bigelow module technology is already developed, so the amount of money that needs to be made for it to be viable is far far less if all they have to pay for is fabrication + launch costs.

EDIT: also, as QuantumG says, there's also the factor of "believability".

EDIT x2: also, aren't radically new infrastructures usually paid for with at least some government component rather than pure private investment?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 01/04/2015 04:35 PM
Let me sum all of this up:

Bigelow Aerospace has a contract with NASA to build a prototype expandable ISS module.

At the same time, BA is releasing graphics of advanced space platforms designs and producing full size mockups of these platforms. Bob Bigelow and his firm have made public statements of interest in leasing space aboard orbital versions of these systems. However, BA have been making these statements for almost 20 years.

What we are not seeing is the work necessary to secure customers, such as the issuance of an ICD for customers of their platforms - for those not familiar with this process, an ICD would be used by potential lessors of an entire platform, a section of a platform, or even individual platform subsystems. Without an ICD, no customer could seriously commit to using the facility.

Development of an ICD would not require that a transportation system be available, but it would support an occupied facility once that transportation were in place.

Lack of an ICD means that customers are not being seriously pursued at the moment. More importantly, a successful facility would base its specifications to some degree on customer requirements, which normally are generated during the ICD generation process.

BTW, MOUs with national governments in this regard are worthless. You could go out and get some if you wanted to waste your time.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Beittil on 01/05/2015 08:44 AM
In the instance of the MOU with the Netherlands for example I can tell you that it is worth about as much as the paper that you use to clean yourself with after a number 2 :)

The Dutch government's investments in the space sector are a joke at best. Their contribution to ESA this year is even less than $200M, not to mention the fact that we dont even have a national space organisation (much like France has CNES and Germany has DLR).

There is a Dutch astronaut (Andre Kuipers of the class of 2002, did a tour on exp. 30/31), but much like all his fellow astronauts from that same class he isn't really ever going to fly up again. ESA has the class of 2009 (6 astronauts) doing their tours now (2 have been up, 1 is currently up at ISS).

So, that leaves us (on national level) with: no space agency, no astronauts and practically no inventment beyond our yearly (minimal) contribution to ESA.

So yeah... nice MOU with the Netherlands you have there Bob. Hope you got a good wipe out of it :P

Hoewever, there are a lot of space orientated organisations around here into the research and manufacturing areas. The best known probably being 'Dutch Space' (solar arrays). These groups and organisations could well be interrested in leasing BA330 space, but could/would probably only do so when formed into a consortium
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 01/06/2015 02:37 PM
I don't want anyone here thinking that my belief is that Bigelow isn't "real", just that my belief is that one important step in developing a large space platform would securing customers, and a requirement for that is publication of the interfaces that customers require.  An interface document is required before a customer could know whether their systems would even be functional on the Bigelow platform.

The national MOUs clearly have no funding attached, and the signers may not even be capable of operating equipment aboard the platform. However, there is one area where they could be useful, and that is communicating customer requirements to Bigelow (sort of like unfunded Space Act agreements). However, if Bigelow were operating at that level, we would probably hear about foreign space companies being tasked by their governments to provide feedback to Bigelow, and we are not hearing that. Likewise, we are not hearing from commercial firms in the US working with Bigelow to iterate their requirements.

Absent that information, the stories about Bigelow "waiting" until commercial space transportation is available are pointless - if BA doesn't have the customer requirements, then there probably won't be an operational platform.

I should also note that the smart thing for BA to do would be to match the customer requirements against the most cost effective launcher, and then design around those two, rather than design around the biggest launcher available.   On "cost effective", I am referring to the inflection point in the launch cost vs launch capability curve.  It may be that F9 is the cheapest launcher for BA, and putting up a 12 ton "narrow" platform can accommodate all customers. BA doesn't know that yet, because they don't seem to have done the work with customers yet.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/06/2015 05:45 PM
FHR should be able to deliver 20t BA330 to LEO and recover its outer boosters if not all 3. The launch cost may not be much more than F9E currently.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 01/07/2015 12:13 AM
FHR should be able to deliver 20t BA330 to LEO and recover its outer boosters if not all 3. The launch cost may not be much more than F9E currently.



What customers require the additional payload capability of F9H?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 01/07/2015 12:14 AM
Let me raise another issue.

What is the atmospheric pressure of the module going to be? Sea level? Denver pressure? Some other pressure?

What requirements are driving the selection of that nominal pressure?

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Vultur on 01/07/2015 02:52 AM
Absent that information, the stories about Bigelow "waiting" until commercial space transportation is available are pointless - if BA doesn't have the customer requirements, then there probably won't be an operational platform.

I should also note that the smart thing for BA to do would be to match the customer requirements against the most cost effective launcher, and then design around those two, rather than design around the biggest launcher available.   On "cost effective", I am referring to the inflection point in the launch cost vs launch capability curve.  It may be that F9 is the cheapest launcher for BA, and putting up a 12 ton "narrow" platform can accommodate all customers. BA doesn't know that yet, because they don't seem to have done the work with customers yet.

Maybe, but I think we need to distinguish between "they're not very far along" and "they're not doing it the way I would do it". I got the impression that their plan was to provide a "generic" station and worry about adapting it for specific uses once they had the basic hardware up.


EDIT:
FHR should be able to deliver 20t BA330 to LEO and recover its outer boosters if not all 3. The launch cost may not be much more than F9E currently.



What customers require the additional payload capability of F9H?

Similarly... who knows? But at this point I don't think it "matters"; they've already decided that B330 will be a certain size, and that makes it come out to be 20 tons. It might not have been the right decision or made for the right reasons, but that doesn't imply the decision hasn't been made yet.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 01/07/2015 11:02 AM
Why have there been no private investors?  Because there's no evidence of any customers will to pay Bigelow enough to make it worth their while.

Because the USGov is involved. Ever tried to do a private enterprise with USGov fingers in the pie? I have. On the very BEST of days it's a horrible, stinking bloody mess, and it goes downhill from there.

The US government being involved doesn't scare away all investors.  There are plenty of businesses that make huge amounts of money in areas in which the US government is more heavily involved than they would be in the business of transporting crew to and from a private Bigelow station.

I disagree, the red tape and strings are a nightmare.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 01/14/2015 02:58 PM


Maybe, but I think we need to distinguish between "they're not very far along" and "they're not doing it the way I would do it". I got the impression that their plan was to provide a "generic" station and worry about adapting it for specific uses once they had the basic hardware up.

This violates a boatload of engineering and common sense practices.

There is zero chance that Bigelow would ever launch a large platform without first having solicited customer requirements.

The purpose of showing off full size mockups is to attract customer attention and then get that feedback from them. So far, this process has yet to result in an ICD, which tells us that a platform is some ways off, regardless of whether space transportation for humans to access the platform is available or not.

Think about this like designing a new rocket - you could simply assume that the market requires a new 30 ton launcher, or you could go out and talk to potential customers. Then, after you get signs of interest, but prior to building the thing, you issue a spec showing the vibroacoustical loads and other aspects of the new launcher to make sure that customers can adapt their payloads to your launcher. And then you build the thing. 

Bigelow is not yet at the stage of determining whether customers require a large platform, let alone whether they can use the platform as it has been designed. Everything is still generic with Bigelow, but customers require specifics.

I am not saying that BA won't get there, only that there is a ways to go.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/14/2015 03:46 PM
The latest problems ( few hours ago) on ISS with US section, which caused crew to move to Russian section, has shown how important it is to have to self contained sections. IMHO having minimum of 2 BA330 modules is a must for any permanently manned station.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/14/2015 08:24 PM
People do not know what they want in a spacestation - they have never had one to find out.  So a BA330 with living quarters and a large/significant empty work area should be a good start.  The work area is likely to need plenty of power, light and attachment points.  Anything else they can take up themselves or buy a made to measure version equipped on the ground.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 01/15/2015 11:52 AM
Is it just my ancient computer, or did the Bigelow website get really screwed up in that last change?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Robert Thompson on 01/15/2015 03:34 PM
In the long meantime, put some Mars One people in a BA330 and do human factors.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: francesco nicoli on 01/16/2015 09:42 AM
does anyone know with which SpaceX flight the BEAM is supposed to reach the ISS?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: okan170 on 01/16/2015 10:33 AM
does anyone know with which SpaceX flight the BEAM is supposed to reach the ISS?

SpX-8, which is set for September 2nd, 2015.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/16/2015 01:05 PM
What is the atmospheric pressure of the module going to be? Sea level? Denver pressure? Some other pressure?

What requirements are driving the selection of that nominal pressure?

I'd imagine the same as the average cabin pressure of the ISS. Justification? BEAM is being designed for a open-hatch long-duration mating to the ISS. Therefore, Bigelow must at least claim to be able to engineer the balloon and the connection to the hard ends strongly enough to survive that pressure for a long duration.

Why ISS pressure? The ISS and its Russian forebears have more-or-less set the only extant standard for long-duration space habitats in terms of internal environmental conditions. Eventually, companies may come along that challenge that but right now, ISS is king. All commercial crew vehicles are being designed to operate at ISS pressure and, consequently, Bigelow (who hopes to use these vehicles) will need by necessity to use the same environment settings.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: JasonAW3 on 01/16/2015 02:12 PM
Out of curiosity, just what WOULD be the upper limit to how big an inflatible that Bigelow Aerospace could make?  I know the current practical limit is based upon the current available launchers, but if they could be "zippered" together, what would be the practical size limit?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/16/2015 03:08 PM
Out of curiosity, just what WOULD be the upper limit to how big an inflatible that Bigelow Aerospace could make?  I know the current practical limit is based upon the current available launchers, but if they could be "zippered" together, what would be the practical size limit?
Checkout their BA2100.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/17/2015 12:02 AM
What is the atmospheric pressure of the module going to be? Sea level? Denver pressure? Some other pressure?

What requirements are driving the selection of that nominal pressure?

I'd imagine the same as the average cabin pressure of the ISS. Justification? BEAM is being designed for a open-hatch long-duration mating to the ISS. Therefore, Bigelow must at least claim to be able to engineer the balloon and the connection to the hard ends strongly enough to survive that pressure for a long duration.

Why ISS pressure? The ISS and its Russian forebears have more-or-less set the only extant standard for long-duration space habitats in terms of internal environmental conditions. Eventually, companies may come along that challenge that but right now, ISS is king. All commercial crew vehicles are being designed to operate at ISS pressure and, consequently, Bigelow (who hopes to use these vehicles) will need by necessity to use the same environment settings.
Skylab was fairly long duration (astronauts were in there for months), but it operated at a much lower pressure of just 5psi.

That counts as some sort of "standard." No reason future stations, especially in deep space, couldn't someday be operated at lower than 14.7psi pressure. Also, just because CST-100 and Dragon /can/ operate at sea level pressure doesn't mean they /have/ to.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 01/17/2015 01:53 AM
What is the atmospheric pressure of the module going to be? Sea level? Denver pressure? Some other pressure?

What requirements are driving the selection of that nominal pressure?

I'd imagine the same as the average cabin pressure of the ISS. Justification? BEAM is being designed for a open-hatch long-duration mating to the ISS. Therefore, Bigelow must at least claim to be able to engineer the balloon and the connection to the hard ends strongly enough to survive that pressure for a long duration.

Why ISS pressure? The ISS and its Russian forebears have more-or-less set the only extant standard for long-duration space habitats in terms of internal environmental conditions. Eventually, companies may come along that challenge that but right now, ISS is king. All commercial crew vehicles are being designed to operate at ISS pressure and, consequently, Bigelow (who hopes to use these vehicles) will need by necessity to use the same environment settings.

Skylab was fairly long duration (astronauts were in there for months), but it operated at a much lower pressure of just 5psi.

That counts as some sort of "standard." No reason future stations, especially in deep space, couldn't someday be operated at lower than 14.7psi pressure. Also, just because CST-100 and Dragon /can/ operate at sea level pressure doesn't mean they /have/ to.

From the safety and medical aspects,  there may be. See Dalton's Law of partial pressures.

Humans need ~2.4-3 psi of O2 pressure for proper perfusion through the lungs. At sea level and at the normal atmospheric Oxygen-Nitrogen mix of ~20%/80%, we hit 2.9-3 psi.

From what I've read, Skylab at 5 psi had to use a 70% Oxygen/30% Nitrogen mix to get a 2.48 psi O2 partial pressure.

ISTM going with 70% O2 increases fire hazards, and at 5 psi if there is a leak may give  you less time margin to fix it before hypoxia sets in. And no, an O2 mask may not help unless it's a pressurized mask. You can  be on 100% O2 but without the necessary pressure it's lights out.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/17/2015 02:21 AM
70% O2 isn't necessarily problematic if the partial pressure is low. And again, 2.5psi is lower partial pressure than sea level O2. There's a possibility of a possibility of an issue, but that's it.

There's also an improvement in survivability in case of explosive decompression if you start out at a lower pressure. You have much lower chance of developing the bends. Also, lower pressure means leaks are slower so if you're replenishing the air from tanks, your tanks will last longer.

Lots of trade-offs. Don't want to get bogged down with this, since we've talked about this many times. But Skylab worked and didn't have major problems with this (as does Denver, which operates at a lower total pressure than ISS), so certainly there's some case to be made for operating at a lower pressure, even if only marginally lower.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/17/2015 04:26 AM
Bigelow will probably operate at same atmosphere as ISS as CC vehicles will be using ISS atmosphere.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/17/2015 05:27 AM
Bigelow will probably operate at same atmosphere as ISS as CC vehicles will be using ISS atmosphere.
CC vehicles could certainly be run at lower pressure.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 01/17/2015 12:26 PM
In the long meantime, put some Mars One people in a BA330 and do human factors.

Can you viably inhabit a BA330 in a 1 Gee environment? Surely only the ridged section would actually be accessible without incurring spine-busting injury.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Vultur on 01/18/2015 03:51 PM
(as does Denver, which operates at a lower total pressure than ISS), so certainly there's some case to be made for operating at a lower pressure, even if only marginally lower.

Yeah, I really don't see why ISS and so on aren't, e.g., Denver pressure. It's 2.5 psi lower, which IIRC would make EVA easier, but I'm pretty sure problems at that altitude are very unusual. (I think it's ~8000 ft. equivalent that's usually considered where problems start - airliner cabins are only allowed to depressurize to that - but IIRC some people can have problems lower.)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 01/18/2015 04:45 PM
What is the atmospheric pressure of the module going to be? Sea level? Denver pressure? Some other pressure?

What requirements are driving the selection of that nominal pressure?

I'd imagine the same as the average cabin pressure of the ISS. Justification? BEAM is being designed for a open-hatch long-duration mating to the ISS. Therefore, Bigelow must at least claim to be able to engineer the balloon and the connection to the hard ends strongly enough to survive that pressure for a long duration.

Why ISS pressure? The ISS and its Russian forebears have more-or-less set the only extant standard for long-duration space habitats in terms of internal environmental conditions. Eventually, companies may come along that challenge that but right now, ISS is king. All commercial crew vehicles are being designed to operate at ISS pressure and, consequently, Bigelow (who hopes to use these vehicles) will need by necessity to use the same environment settings.

There is no question that the requirement for BEAM is to use ISS pressure.

As for the pressure requirements for a commercial platform, the customers make that determination, not BA, nor third parties. There is no requirement to mimic ISS pressure, especially as the commercial transport vehicles can easily operate at lower pressure if required.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: JasonAW3 on 01/18/2015 10:02 PM
What is the atmospheric pressure of the module going to be? Sea level? Denver pressure? Some other pressure?

What requirements are driving the selection of that nominal pressure?

I'd imagine the same as the average cabin pressure of the ISS. Justification? BEAM is being designed for a open-hatch long-duration mating to the ISS. Therefore, Bigelow must at least claim to be able to engineer the balloon and the connection to the hard ends strongly enough to survive that pressure for a long duration.

Why ISS pressure? The ISS and its Russian forebears have more-or-less set the only extant standard for long-duration space habitats in terms of internal environmental conditions. Eventually, companies may come along that challenge that but right now, ISS is king. All commercial crew vehicles are being designed to operate at ISS pressure and, consequently, Bigelow (who hopes to use these vehicles) will need by necessity to use the same environment settings.

There is no question that the requirement for BEAM is to use ISS pressure.

As for the pressure requirements for a commercial platform, the customers make that determination, not BA, nor third parties. There is no requirement to mimic ISS pressure, especially as the commercial transport vehicles can easily operate at lower pressure if required.

Most commercial stations and craft will likely be earth normal pressure or all requires a slow switch over in pressure.  My guess is any EVA suits will likely be hard suits.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/18/2015 11:16 PM
What is the atmospheric pressure of the module going to be? Sea level? Denver pressure? Some other pressure?

What requirements are driving the selection of that nominal pressure?

I'd imagine the same as the average cabin pressure of the ISS. Justification? BEAM is being designed for a open-hatch long-duration mating to the ISS. Therefore, Bigelow must at least claim to be able to engineer the balloon and the connection to the hard ends strongly enough to survive that pressure for a long duration.

Why ISS pressure? The ISS and its Russian forebears have more-or-less set the only extant standard for long-duration space habitats in terms of internal environmental conditions. Eventually, companies may come along that challenge that but right now, ISS is king. All commercial crew vehicles are being designed to operate at ISS pressure and, consequently, Bigelow (who hopes to use these vehicles) will need by necessity to use the same environment settings.

There is no question that the requirement for BEAM is to use ISS pressure.

As for the pressure requirements for a commercial platform, the customers make that determination, not BA, nor third parties. There is no requirement to mimic ISS pressure, especially as the commercial transport vehicles can easily operate at lower pressure if required.

Most commercial stations and craft will likely be earth normal pressure or all requires a slow switch over in pressure.  My guess is any EVA suits will likely be hard suits.
Wasn't a problem for Skylab.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: JasonAW3 on 01/18/2015 11:59 PM
What is the atmospheric pressure of the module going to be? Sea level? Denver pressure? Some other pressure?

What requirements are driving the selection of that nominal pressure?

I'd imagine the same as the average cabin pressure of the ISS. Justification? BEAM is being designed for a open-hatch long-duration mating to the ISS. Therefore, Bigelow must at least claim to be able to engineer the balloon and the connection to the hard ends strongly enough to survive that pressure for a long duration.

Why ISS pressure? The ISS and its Russian forebears have more-or-less set the only extant standard for long-duration space habitats in terms of internal environmental conditions. Eventually, companies may come along that challenge that but right now, ISS is king. All commercial crew vehicles are being designed to operate at ISS pressure and, consequently, Bigelow (who hopes to use these vehicles) will need by necessity to use the same environment settings.

There is no question that the requirement for BEAM is to use ISS pressure.

As for the pressure requirements for a commercial platform, the customers make that determination, not BA, nor third parties. There is no requirement to mimic ISS pressure, especially as the commercial transport vehicles can easily operate at lower pressure if required.

Most commercial stations and craft will likely be earth normal pressure or all requires a slow switch over in pressure.  My guess is any EVA suits will likely be hard suits.
Wasn't a problem for Skylab.

True, but that was a government facility.  If you're going to have the guests in your commercial facility, be it a research or hotel facility, you need to think of the guest's comfort.  Research, yeah the could adjust the pressure.  Hotel?  Unless it would present an unacceptable risk, they'd likely keep the pressure at sea level for guest comfort.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/19/2015 02:35 AM
I think the argument for sea level pressure gets weaker and weaker the further from LEO you get.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: guckyfan on 01/19/2015 10:27 AM
I see no reason, not to use the pressure commonly used in airplanes, like at 3km altitude. But do adjust oxygen partial pressure to match sea level for comfort.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Comga on 01/19/2015 03:02 PM
IIRC In the 60's there was some debate between Huston and Colorado Springs, CO for the Manned Spaceflight Center.  If they had located the astronauts in Colorado, they would have aclimatized to ~6,000 ft altidue, around 850 mBar.  They could have trained "up the street" in Leadville at almost 10 kft. which one gets quite used to after a while.  They would be just fine with lower pressure even without increasing the oxygen fraction, which increases flamability.  This could have lead to a lower pressure for US operations, like the Shuttle, but not whe working with the Russians.  That pressure issue goes back to the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, which dealt with significantly different pressures in the two capsules by carrying an airlock, which could be opened to only one side at a time.

Can anyone here say if Bigelow has considered pressures other than sea level and/or oxygen levels other than 19%?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 01/22/2015 01:02 AM
70% O2 isn't necessarily problematic if the partial pressure is low. And again, 2.5psi is lower partial pressure than sea level O2. There's a possibility of a possibility of an issue, but that's it.


Wow.  No!  Sorry I disagree, it is very problematic.  Search the web for oxygen safety (there are good resources from White Sands Test Facility) and you will find that anything over 22 percent is considered enriched, and causes all kinds of flammability problems.  Operating room fires and even anecdotal evidence of hair gel catching on fire from pilot's oxygen masks. 

As others have noted, flammability is based on percentage and human metabolic needs are dependent on partial pressure of O2.  Therefore if your overall pressure is low, you may have to enrich the percentage. Sure, places like Denver and Leadville can acclimatize, but it takes time.  But ask any submariner what living at 18% (~2.6 psia) is like and you will get some colorful descriptions.  Mainly a lot of lethargy and irritability, and reduced immune response.   

Skylab and early NASA missions had did not have a problem because the NASA materials specifications are very rigorous.  Because they have learned the hard way.  Shuttle and ISS were generally designed to accommodate 30% O2, some parts of ISS like the airlock are qual'd to 100%.  When Shuttle cabin pressure was reduced to 10.2 psi for EVA, the O2 system was shifted to lower setpoints to ensure it stayed below 30%. 

Higher O2 percentages are a cost driver from a materials standpoint.  NASA spaceflight materials are essentially required to self extinguishing and are controlled to the point that the amount of velcro in the cabin managed down to the square inch.  Reduced atmospheric pressure is a cost driver as well, since all equipment needs to be tested to operate at lower pressures.  Lower pressure requires additional thermal analysis.  The assumption for CCDev vehicles was that most equipment would be shut down when the hatches were opened with a Bigelow Space Complex.

Yes, BEAM will match ISS pressures but Genesis was flown at lower than 14.7 (that much is public). It doesn't scale up very easily to the BA330 size, especially when you are trying to fold all that into a narrow launch vehicle.  I can't go into specifics, but suffice to say, several years ago I did a lot of research on the design bases for the atmospheric requirements of spacecraft and operating at reduced pressures.  The manager driving that research is no longer at Bigelow, so hopefully they have some wiser folks that are more invested in meeting flammability requirements.  Bigelow operating at anything more than 22% oxygen would be a tragedy waiting to happen.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Vultur on 01/22/2015 06:30 AM
What is the atmospheric pressure of the module going to be? Sea level? Denver pressure? Some other pressure?

What requirements are driving the selection of that nominal pressure?

I'd imagine the same as the average cabin pressure of the ISS. Justification? BEAM is being designed for a open-hatch long-duration mating to the ISS. Therefore, Bigelow must at least claim to be able to engineer the balloon and the connection to the hard ends strongly enough to survive that pressure for a long duration.

Why ISS pressure? The ISS and its Russian forebears have more-or-less set the only extant standard for long-duration space habitats in terms of internal environmental conditions. Eventually, companies may come along that challenge that but right now, ISS is king. All commercial crew vehicles are being designed to operate at ISS pressure and, consequently, Bigelow (who hopes to use these vehicles) will need by necessity to use the same environment settings.

There is no question that the requirement for BEAM is to use ISS pressure.

As for the pressure requirements for a commercial platform, the customers make that determination, not BA, nor third parties. There is no requirement to mimic ISS pressure, especially as the commercial transport vehicles can easily operate at lower pressure if required.

Most commercial stations and craft will likely be earth normal pressure or all requires a slow switch over in pressure.  My guess is any EVA suits will likely be hard suits.

Depends HOW different the pressure is; people fly from, say, Houston (~sea level) to Mexico City (7000-some feet).
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Vultur on 01/22/2015 06:38 AM
Hotel?  Unless it would present an unacceptable risk, they'd likely keep the pressure at sea level for guest comfort.
Sure, places like Denver and Leadville can acclimatize, but it takes time.

Denver pressure (~12.3 psi) just isn't that noticeably different. You feel your ears pop while you're changing pressures, but not really much more. You'll get tired somewhat faster, but it's really not very noticeable in my experience.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: rpapo on 01/22/2015 10:47 AM
Hotel?  Unless it would present an unacceptable risk, they'd likely keep the pressure at sea level for guest comfort.
Sure, places like Denver and Leadville can acclimatize, but it takes time.

Denver pressure (~12.3 psi) just isn't that noticeably different. You feel your ears pop while you're changing pressures, but not really much more. You'll get tired somewhat faster, but it's really not very noticeable in my experience.
I lived in Juliaca, Peru (3800m altitude) for two months, after having spent the previous 14 months at a lower altitude (~2400m).  By that time, I found Juliaca quite livable, though I could get winded just going up one flight of steps.  The locals had no problems at all.  According to http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html), the air pressure there would have been about 9psi.

On the other hand, people who went straight to that altitude from sea level, without any adjustment period, had a hard time for a while, suffering fatigue and sometimes severe headaches.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: obi-wan on 01/22/2015 06:59 PM
You're talking about two completely different phenomena here. Acclimatization is due to the fact that on Earth, atmospheric constituents are always in the same proportions. When you go to a higher altitude, there is less partial pressure of oxygen, and your body ultimately responds by increasing the number of red blood cells to carry oxygen more effectively. In a spacecraft, we can adjust the proportions of oxygen and nitrogen to be whatever we want. This give rise to the second issue: decompression sickness, which is caused by nitrogen dissolved in your bloodstream at the usual partial pressure. When you decrease pressure (e.g., by going EVA), if the pressure drops too much the blood becomes supersaturated with nitrogen, it starts forming gas bubbles in the bloodstream, and all kinds of bad things proceed from there. The key indicator is the decompression R-value, but the short version is you can't drop in pressure by more than a factor of two (rough rule of thumb) without running the risk of bends.

Any spacecraft will almost certainly have a partial pressure of oxygen of 3psi, so you have the same oxygen pressure as at sea level on Earth. Any suit that works at 8 psi will work better at 4, so the general theory for exploration vehicles is (approximately) 8 psi at 30% oxygen, which lets them go EVA at around 4 psi with no more prebreathe than they would normally get by suit checkout and airlock depressurization. NASA standards calls for no more than 30% oxygen due to flammability concerns, but I've seen a number of NASA exploration planning documents calling for cabins at 32% or 34% O2 just to make the numbers (both decompression from launch to spacecraft pressure and spacecraft to suit pressure drops) work out better.

And, ISS was chosen to have Earth-normal sea level pressure primarily to minimize other effects for biological studies. The theory was, we'd like to make sure the changes we see are due to microgravity, and not confuse the protocols by also changing atmospheric pressure. There's really no reason at all to maintain Earth sea level pressure as we move out into the solar system.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/23/2015 01:12 AM
There's really no reason at all to maintain Earth sea level pressure as we move out into the solar system.

Of course there are reasons to maintain Earth sea level pressure.  There are lots of them.  Some have been given in this thread.

It may be that the trade-offs work out better not to have Earth sea level pressure, but it's still a trade-off.

Earth proportions of oxygen reduce the danger of fire.  If the proportions are the same, lower pressure means lower partial pressure of oxygen, and people will not be able to breathe as effectively.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Burninate on 01/23/2015 03:00 AM
There's really no reason at all to maintain Earth sea level pressure as we move out into the solar system.

Of course there are reasons to maintain Earth sea level pressure.  There are lots of them.  Some have been given in this thread.

It may be that the trade-offs work out better not to have Earth sea level pressure, but it's still a trade-off.

Earth proportions of oxygen reduce the danger of fire.  If the proportions are the same, lower pressure means lower partial pressure of oxygen, and people will not be able to breathe as effectively.

Earth proportions of oxygen do not reduce the danger of fire.  Fire risk scales with partial pressure of oxygen.    So does lung function.  Here's some breathing gas mixes:
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Burninate on 01/23/2015 03:22 AM
70% O2 isn't necessarily problematic if the partial pressure is low. And again, 2.5psi is lower partial pressure than sea level O2. There's a possibility of a possibility of an issue, but that's it.


Wow.  No!  Sorry I disagree, it is very problematic.  Search the web for oxygen safety (there are good resources from White Sands Test Facility) and you will find that anything over 22 percent is considered enriched, and causes all kinds of flammability problems.  Operating room fires and even anecdotal evidence of hair gel catching on fire from pilot's oxygen masks. 

As others have noted, flammability is based on percentage and human metabolic needs are dependent on partial pressure of O2.
Yeah, I don't believe this anymore.  I think it was a bad explanation that made it around the Internet like an urban myth.  Partial pressure of O2 scales both fire risk and breathability, or a variety of things (from compression engines and fire pistons to space suits & capsules post-Gemini) wouldn't work as designed, and some things, like matches and engines at high altitudes, wouldn't work badly in the manner in which experiment indicates they do.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: llanitedave on 01/23/2015 03:44 AM
What would be the effects of replacing nitrogen, at least in part with helium or argon?  Other than funny voices, of course.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 01/23/2015 03:55 AM
Heliox (helium/oxygen), Argox (argon/oxygen) and Trimix (nitrogen/oxygen/helium) are used in commercial diving.  So are Neox (neon/oxygen) and Hydreliox (hydrogen/oxygen), but the latter is probably a bad idea for a spacecraft atmosphere ;)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: nadreck on 01/23/2015 04:34 PM
Heliox (helium/oxygen), Argox (argon/oxygen) and Trimix (nitrogen/oxygen/helium) are used in commercial diving.  So are Neox (neon/oxygen) and Hydreliox (hydrogen/oxygen), but the latter is probably a bad idea for a spacecraft atmosphere ;)

However those are done to keep the partial pressure of nitrogen down to: a) to minimize the amount of nitrogen that gets disolved in our systems (therefor increasing dive times/reducing decompression times do avoid decompression sickness {the bends}); and b) eliminate nitrogen narcosis from high amounts of nitrogen disolved in the blood (allowing for much deeper dives ie higher pressures of the breathing mix).

The risk of decompression sickness is very low in transitions from 1000 millibar standard air mix to 400 millibar (7500m) there is virtually no risk going from 500 millibar (50/50 N2/O2 to 100 millibar which is about the limit for breathe-ability at that mixture ratio.

You may see 'recommendations' about safe amounts of pressure change, but I came across a dutch doctor studying acute mountain sickness (he gave us a pre-ascent and post-ascent questionaire when we did Kilimanjaro which is a pressure of just under 500 millibars at the top at 5895 meters ASL) and the Dutch health agency suggests limiting daily altitude changes to 500 meters! I routinely hike 1500 meter altitude changes on day hikes, and I regularly go to the 3000 meter level in the Rockies on those hikes.   However I want to point out that legal limits (US) for unpressurized aircraft piloting without supplementary oxygen is 3800meters - passenger limit is 4570meters. This reflects the impact of a rapid change of pressure on ones ability to absorb enough oxygen to stay alert/conscious despite still having an adequate amount of partial pressure. So rate of change of oxygen partial pressures is an important aspect of this. For treks like Everest base camp,  Kilimanjaro, operators generally build in one or two  extra day acclimatization stays (if just one usually around the 4000M level and usually the extra day suggestion is a stroll up another 500 or so meters vertical and returning down to spend the night at the same level as the previous night).  For life in space, acclimatization is a given, and given benefits of reducing pressures for other reasons, I see no reason why it would not be practical to reduce pressure to 500 millibars and a 60/40 mix of N2/O2 in habitats and pressurize suits to 200-250 millibars with a 50/50 mix. However, that would preclude individuals who are prone to acute mountain sickness going into space, just like it precludes them visiting Kili or Everest base camp.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Misha Vargas on 01/23/2015 05:30 PM
There's really no reason at all to maintain Earth sea level pressure as we move out into the solar system.

Of course there are reasons to maintain Earth sea level pressure.  There are lots of them.  Some have been given in this thread.

It may be that the trade-offs work out better not to have Earth sea level pressure, but it's still a trade-off.

Earth proportions of oxygen reduce the danger of fire.  If the proportions are the same, lower pressure means lower partial pressure of oxygen, and people will not be able to breathe as effectively.

By that logic, why not go higher than Earth pressure, decrease the percentage of oxygen, and cut the fire risk even more? Unless Earth pressure/O2 level is somehow coincidentally the BEST possible combination. That's what I took obi-wan to mean — "There's no reason to think that Earth has the best possible air pressure for spacecraft."

I'm still unsure on what to believe about partial pressure vs. O2 percentage.

Edit: I'm staring real hard at this NTRS pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070005041.pdf), and it seems like higher pressures are a bit safer when looking at self-extinguishment. And that the size of that improvement is greater for things that are really hard to burn anyway.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 01/23/2015 06:09 PM
The trade is structural mass vs human factors.

Designers want low structural mass, people want oxygen.

In some cases, human factors win, as ISS is pressured at seal level AFAIK to ensure that any science results are not "tainted" by an unusual atmosphere.

However, Denver pressure would be fine for any applications where research into human biology is not a factor, and Denver pressure saves quite a bit of structural mass.  All visiting vehicles can adjust their internal pressure to match Denver pressure, if that is a requirement.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Orbital Debris on 01/23/2015 08:19 PM
70% O2 isn't necessarily problematic if the partial pressure is low. And again, 2.5psi is lower partial pressure than sea level O2. There's a possibility of a possibility of an issue, but that's it.


Wow.  No!  Sorry I disagree, it is very problematic.  Search the web for oxygen safety (there are good resources from White Sands Test Facility) and you will find that anything over 22 percent is considered enriched, and causes all kinds of flammability problems.  Operating room fires and even anecdotal evidence of hair gel catching on fire from pilot's oxygen masks. 

As others have noted, flammability is based on percentage and human metabolic needs are dependent on partial pressure of O2.
Yeah, I don't believe this anymore.  I think it was a bad explanation that made it around the Internet like an urban myth.  Partial pressure of O2 scales both fire risk and breathability, or a variety of things (from compression engines and fire pistons to space suits & capsules post-Gemini) wouldn't work as designed, and some things, like matches and engines at high altitudes, wouldn't work badly in the manner in which experiment indicates they do.

I'm sorry you don't believe.  I based my statement on White Sands Test Facility training and several years examining the design basis for spacecraft atmospheres, not internet urban myths. Please feel free to do your own research. 
http://wiki.nasa.gov/oxygen-fire-incidents/wiki/home/ 
While some of these are anecdotal, there are plenty of technical papers available as well.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Comga on 01/23/2015 08:50 PM
I'm sorry you don't believe.  I based my statement on White Sands Test Facility training and several years examining the design basis for spacecraft atmospheres, not internet urban myths. Please feel free to do your own research. 
http://wiki.nasa.gov/oxygen-fire-incidents/wiki/home/ (http://wiki.nasa.gov/oxygen-fire-incidents/wiki/home/) 
While some of these are anecdotal, there are plenty of technical papers available as well.

Fascinating stuff
The page on the Apollo 1 fire includes this:  (bolding added)
"As a result of the investigation, major modifications in design, materials, and procedures were implemented. The two-piece hatch was replaced by a single quick-operating, outward opening crew hatch made of aluminum and fiberglass. The new hatch could be opened from inside in seven seconds and by a pad safety crew in 10 seconds.  Ease of opening was enhanced by a gas-powered counterbalance mechanism. The second major modification was the change in the launch pad spacecraft cabin atmosphere for pre-launch testing ·from 100 percent oxygen to a mixture of 60 percent oxygen and 40 percent nitrogen to reduce support of any combustion. The crew suit loops still carried 100 percent oxygen. After launch, the 60/40 mix was gradually replaced with pure oxygen until cabin atmosphere reached 100 percent oxygen at 5 pounds per square inch. This “enriched air” mix was selected after extensive flammability tests in various percentages of oxygen at varying pressures."

That's still a very high oxygen pressure and high concentration.  That this was allowed was probably due to keeping tight controls on material combustibility.
However it goes against all the suggestions to have less than sea level oxygen levels, going higher instead.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Burninate on 01/23/2015 10:01 PM
70% O2 isn't necessarily problematic if the partial pressure is low. And again, 2.5psi is lower partial pressure than sea level O2. There's a possibility of a possibility of an issue, but that's it.


Wow.  No!  Sorry I disagree, it is very problematic.  Search the web for oxygen safety (there are good resources from White Sands Test Facility) and you will find that anything over 22 percent is considered enriched, and causes all kinds of flammability problems.  Operating room fires and even anecdotal evidence of hair gel catching on fire from pilot's oxygen masks. 

As others have noted, flammability is based on percentage and human metabolic needs are dependent on partial pressure of O2.
Yeah, I don't believe this anymore.  I think it was a bad explanation that made it around the Internet like an urban myth.  Partial pressure of O2 scales both fire risk and breathability, or a variety of things (from compression engines and fire pistons to space suits & capsules post-Gemini) wouldn't work as designed, and some things, like matches and engines at high altitudes, wouldn't work badly in the manner in which experiment indicates they do.

I'm sorry you don't believe.  I based my statement on White Sands Test Facility training and several years examining the design basis for spacecraft atmospheres, not internet urban myths. Please feel free to do your own research. 
http://wiki.nasa.gov/oxygen-fire-incidents/wiki/home/ 
While some of these are anecdotal, there are plenty of technical papers available as well.

Sorry if I was a bit abrupt, I've been tossing this around in my head since I heard it and it didn't make sense... 15 or so years ago, and it just doesn't add up with things I've learned since.

If you have authoritative sources, please point me to something more declarative then.  Also tell me how a fire piston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_piston) or an HCCI engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneous_charge_compression_ignition) is supposed to initiate combustion, and why a space suit doesn't have the same fire risks that Apollo 1 did.  Also explain why ignition devices (http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=315) fail at high altitudes despite having the same oxygen percentage as at low altitudes.

A NASA report: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070005041.pdf

Guaranteed autoignition seems to go with some slower scaling law, but the point of flame extinguishment would appear to correspond closely with partial pressure of oxygen.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: symbios on 01/24/2015 11:12 AM
Could a separate general thread for air mix be created?

This has long ago stopped being about Bigelow...
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 01/24/2015 11:25 PM
Air mix is pertinent to Bigelow in the sense that requirements for air pressure and gases should flow from customers, but we are not hearing any such interactions.

Air mix as a subject for debate about optimal pressures and gases in the abstract would be pretty pointless here.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 01/25/2015 04:18 AM
What I got from the discussion is that to make a choice you have to be optimizing for something given a set of requirements or constraints (and ICD would be a great starting point, obviously). Since there is nothing of the sort, I tend to assume that they haven't closed any of the business cases and thus all is till up in the air (no pun intended). And at least seven years away from flight, if it ever comes to that.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/25/2015 02:11 PM
Could a separate general thread for air mix be created?

This has long ago stopped being about Bigelow...

I agree. Let's refocus this thread. ANY more of on the side topic needs to be a new thread with a link to what's been said in this one.

No trim, so just housekeeping.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: MattMason on 01/26/2015 05:00 PM
Some very stimulating news as heard from NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden at the 1/26/15 Commercial Crew Program update conference:

Bolden specifically mentioned Bigelow technology as the likely path for ISS v.2, on answering a long-term future for commercial LEO flight that would be the stepping stone for 2024 Mars mission.

This might be the first time I'm aware of, outside of the BEAM mission, where NASA is taking Bigelow very seriously for ISS, at the least.

Presser thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36618.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36618.0)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/26/2015 07:03 PM
Some very stimulating news as heard from NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden at the 1/26/15 Commercial Crew Program update conference:

Bolden specifically mentioned Bigelow technology as the likely path for ISS v.2, on answering a long-term future for commercial LEO flight that would be the stepping stone for 2024 Mars mission.

This might be the first time I'm aware of, outside of the BEAM mission, where NASA is taking Bigelow very seriously for ISS, at the least.

Presser thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36618.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36618.0)
See #51 onwards for quotes on Bigelow ISS.

I picking leasing space on a Bigelow station is NASA exit plan from ISS.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Malderi on 01/26/2015 08:13 PM
I think the chances of NASA leasing space on a Bigelow station to be... low. I put the chances of NASA contracting with Bigelow for pressure vessels for a NASA owned/operated station to be a little higher.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 01/26/2015 08:20 PM
Some very stimulating news as heard from NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden at the 1/26/15 Commercial Crew Program update conference:

Bolden specifically mentioned Bigelow technology as the likely path for ISS v.2, on answering a long-term future for commercial LEO flight that would be the stepping stone for 2024 Mars mission.

This might be the first time I'm aware of, outside of the BEAM mission, where NASA is taking Bigelow very seriously for ISS, at the least.

Presser thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36618.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36618.0)

It's consistent with what Gerst said in May 2013. See this article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/space-station-moon-base-bigelows-expands-inflatable-ambitions/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: MattMason on 01/27/2015 01:52 AM
Some very stimulating news as heard from NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden at the 1/26/15 Commercial Crew Program update conference:

Bolden specifically mentioned Bigelow technology as the likely path for ISS v.2, on answering a long-term future for commercial LEO flight that would be the stepping stone for 2024 Mars mission.

This might be the first time I'm aware of, outside of the BEAM mission, where NASA is taking Bigelow very seriously for ISS, at the least.

Presser thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36618.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36618.0)

It's consistent with what Gerst said in May 2013. See this article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/space-station-moon-base-bigelows-expands-inflatable-ambitions/

Thanks, guys. There's only so much back-thread info I can absorb before I'll go cross-eyed. It's still notable that NASA's face discusses this so publicly to me, but I'm probably falling from the novelty.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Moe Grills on 01/27/2015 05:08 PM
You know what? it's both humorous and sad to think that the next pressurized ISS addition/module won't come from a space power like Russia, but from a private corporation.
Bigelow Aerospace has achieved respectability in commercial spaceflight. It is no longer pie-in-the sky like so many private firms that have got nowhere with ambitious space plans.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Lars-J on 01/27/2015 05:14 PM
You know what? it's both humorous and sad to think that the next pressurized ISS addition/module won't come from a space power like Russia, but from a private corporation.

Why is is humorous and sad? It is great!
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Kryten on 01/27/2015 05:19 PM
You know what? it's both humorous and sad to think that the next pressurized ISS addition/module won't come from a space power like Russia, but from a private corporation.
Almost all of the US segment was build by Boeing, Kibo was built by Mitsubishi, the latest Russian modules by RKK Energiya, Columbus by EADS Astrium, and the PMM By Thales Alenia. This is nothing remotely new.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Moe Grills on 01/27/2015 05:46 PM
You know what? it's both humorous and sad to think that the next pressurized ISS addition/module won't come from a space power like Russia, but from a private corporation.
Almost all of the US segment was build by Boeing, Kibo was built by Mitsubishi, the latest Russian modules by RKK Energiya, Columbus by EADS Astrium, and the PMM By Thales Alenia. This is nothing remotely new.
All funded directly or indirectly  by TAXPAYERS (you TOO) in the nations they came from. Bigelow's BEAM would be an exception.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Moe Grills on 01/27/2015 05:49 PM
You know what? it's both humorous and sad to think that the next pressurized ISS addition/module won't come from a space power like Russia, but from a private corporation.
Bigelow Aerospace has achieved respectability in commercial spaceflight. It is no longer pie-in-the sky like so many private firms that have got nowhere with ambitious space plans.

Sad, because a space 'power' like Russia is a pale reflection of its former glories in the USSR or RF.
Humorous, cause it's funny to think that a private corporation can do things now nation states shy away from.
It's like a corporation giving a nation a one finger salute.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Kryten on 01/27/2015 05:50 PM
All funded directly or indirectly  by TAXPAYERS (you TOO) in the nations they came from. Bigelow's BEAM would be an exception.
I'm sorry? How is a module NASA is paying $18 million for (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/jan/HQ_M13-011_NASA-Bigelow_Event.html) not taxpayer funded?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: mr. mark on 01/27/2015 05:52 PM
Do we have an accurate picture of what Beam actually looks like? I've see so many presentations and illustrations and they all look different. One has a tinfoil looking outer coating and others appear to have a different surface coat mainly whitish. Also size looks to be different in a lot of the illustrations.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: mr. mark on 01/27/2015 05:57 PM
Assuming it looks like this?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: okan170 on 01/28/2015 12:00 AM
Assuming it looks like this?

A bit ago, I did a test render based off of that picture and some of the existing material out there on BEAM.  I have no idea if the article will have a NASA logo on it, but it seemed cool.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/28/2015 08:59 AM
I still want to see a modified BEAM with telescopic stiffening rods in the centre and a IDS port at one end to see if it is practical as a launch-with-Dragon orbital module. It wouldn't be that simple; I'm not even sure that the final product would be light enough to dual launch with Dragon but I think it would be a worthwhile idea to at least seriously investigate. Why? We don't know when BA-330 will be in a flyable condition but BEAM very nearly is in flyable condition and it might get both Bigelow and SpaceX a revenue stream from flying some of Space Adventures short-duration LEO ticket holders.

Last century, rich people paid for the thrill ride in one of the barely-flyable early aircraft for a few minutes. I can see them being willing to do so again for a few days in LEO. A few hundred thousands of dollars to have some of the R&D boys look at the figures and play with CAD but potentially millions in passenger revenue at the other side if it turns out to be workable. To quote a certain fictional entrepreneur: "I punched those numbers into my pocket calculator and it makes a happy face!"
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: maitri982 on 01/28/2015 02:47 PM
To bad they dont have something ready to fly...they could get cut rate on Falcon Heavy demo mission this year.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/29/2015 02:26 PM
I still want to see a modified BEAM with telescopic stiffening rods in the centre and a IDS port at one end to see if it is practical as a launch-with-Dragon orbital module. It wouldn't be that simple; I'm not even sure that the final product would be light enough to dual launch with Dragon but I think it would be a worthwhile idea to at least seriously investigate. Why? We don't know when BA-330 will be in a flyable condition but BEAM very nearly is in flyable condition and it might get both Bigelow and SpaceX a revenue stream from flying some of Space Adventures short-duration LEO ticket holders.

Last century, rich people paid for the thrill ride in one of the barely-flyable early aircraft for a few minutes. I can see them being willing to do so again for a few days in LEO. A few hundred thousands of dollars to have some of the R&D boys look at the figures and play with CAD but potentially millions in passenger revenue at the other side if it turns out to be workable. To quote a certain fictional entrepreneur: "I punched those numbers into my pocket calculator and it makes a happy face!"

A Falcon 9 may be sufficient to put the pair in LEO. An arm will be needed to extract the BEAM V2.0 from the trunk.

Could a Falcon Heavy send the pair on an Apollo 8 style trip around the Moon?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 01/29/2015 03:52 PM
I still want to see a modified BEAM with telescopic stiffening rods in the centre and a IDS port at one end to see if it is practical as a launch-with-Dragon orbital module. It wouldn't be that simple; I'm not even sure that the final product would be light enough to dual launch with Dragon but I think it would be a worthwhile idea to at least seriously investigate. Why? We don't know when BA-330 will be in a flyable condition but BEAM very nearly is in flyable condition and it might get both Bigelow and SpaceX a revenue stream from flying some of Space Adventures short-duration LEO ticket holders.

Last century, rich people paid for the thrill ride in one of the barely-flyable early aircraft for a few minutes. I can see them being willing to do so again for a few days in LEO. A few hundred thousands of dollars to have some of the R&D boys look at the figures and play with CAD but potentially millions in passenger revenue at the other side if it turns out to be workable. To quote a certain fictional entrepreneur: "I punched those numbers into my pocket calculator and it makes a happy face!"

A Falcon 9 may be sufficient to put the pair in LEO. An arm will be needed to extract the BEAM V2.0 from the trunk.

Could a Falcon Heavy send the pair on an Apollo 8 style trip around the Moon?

Why an arm? Attach it to the second stage and have Dragon 2 separate, turn around, dock and extract it the same as Apollo extracted the LEM.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 01/29/2015 07:48 PM
I still want to see a modified BEAM with telescopic stiffening rods in the centre and a IDS port at one end to see if it is practical as a launch-with-Dragon orbital module. It wouldn't be that simple; I'm not even sure that the final product would be light enough to dual launch with Dragon but I think it would be a worthwhile idea to at least seriously investigate. Why? We don't know when BA-330 will be in a flyable condition but BEAM very nearly is in flyable condition and it might get both Bigelow and SpaceX a revenue stream from flying some of Space Adventures short-duration LEO ticket holders.

Last century, rich people paid for the thrill ride in one of the barely-flyable early aircraft for a few minutes. I can see them being willing to do so again for a few days in LEO. A few hundred thousands of dollars to have some of the R&D boys look at the figures and play with CAD but potentially millions in passenger revenue at the other side if it turns out to be workable. To quote a certain fictional entrepreneur: "I punched those numbers into my pocket calculator and it makes a happy face!"

A Falcon 9 may be sufficient to put the pair in LEO. An arm will be needed to extract the BEAM V2.0 from the trunk.

Could a Falcon Heavy send the pair on an Apollo 8 style trip around the Moon?

Depending on the mass of the current Dragon V2 CSM (not sure exactly, lets say ~12 mt. If I am wrong please correct me) and the mass of BEAM 2.0 (say 2 mt) it could be feasible to do a bare bones lunar flyby on a free return trajectory using Falcon Heavy. Of course there would be no possibility of aborting the mission and Dragon V2 probably isn't BLEO ready.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/30/2015 06:55 PM

Why an arm? Attach it to the second stage and have Dragon 2 separate, turn around, dock and extract it the same as Apollo extracted the LEM.

Because an arm is being used to extract the BEAM from the trunk at the ISS.  Little arms are being developed suitable for capsules.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: JasonAW3 on 01/30/2015 10:12 PM

Why an arm? Attach it to the second stage and have Dragon 2 separate, turn around, dock and extract it the same as Apollo extracted the LEM.

Because an arm is being used to extract the BEAM from the trunk at the ISS.  Little arms are being developed suitable for capsules.

The arm is extra mass that a flyby mission would not need.  I mean, it would be nice to have, if there was a need for it beyond extraction of the BEAM module, but there really wouldn't be.  A turn around, dock and remove from the upper stage is a WHOLE lot simpler than having to reach over 270 degrees around into the trunk move it to the front of the craft, and then dock it to the front having to use two or more cameras to see exactly what you're doing.

I'm not saying that the dock and remove will be much easier, but it's far less complicated.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 02/02/2015 07:42 PM
It looks like BEAM is scheduled for September on CRS-8:

Quote from: twitter
@BigelowSpace's inflatible space station module now to fly to ISS September-ish aboard @SpaceX's 8th paid cargo run, per NASA budget doc.
https://twitter.com/Leone_SN/status/562332184464601089
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: jacqmans on 03/04/2015 01:29 PM
March 3, 2015

Media Invited to See Bigelow Expandable Space Station Module Ahead of Shipment to NASA


NASA and Bigelow Aerospace invite media to a photo and interview opportunity at 10 a.m. PST on Thursday, March 12, at Bigelow Aerospace’s North Las Vegas facility to mark the completion of all major milestones on the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM).

Reporters will have the opportunity to see and photograph the BEAM before it’s shipped to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida for launch to the International Space Station later this year. Robert Bigelow, president and founder of Bigelow Aerospace, and William Gerstenmaier, NASA’s associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, will conduct a joint question and answer session with media.

To attend, media must contact Mike Gold at [email protected] or 202-274-0227. Media seeking additional information, or who would like to request a one-on-one interview with Bigelow, also should contact Gold. Reporters seeking a one-on-one interview with Gerstenmaier should contact Stephanie Schierholz at [email protected] or 202-358-1100.

The demonstration of expandable space habitat technology supports NASA’s long-term exploration goals on its journey to Mars, for which the agency will need to develop a deep space habitat for human missions beyond Earth orbit.

The BEAM is scheduled to launch in the second half of this year aboard the eighth SpaceX cargo resupply mission to the station and be installed on the aft port of the station’s Tranquility node.

For more information about Bigelow Aerospace, visit:

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com

For more information about the BEAM, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/beam_feature.html
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Moe Grills on 03/04/2015 04:00 PM
 As far as I know, NASA astronauts will be formally allowed to enter the BEAM module from time-to-time for data collection, etc.

But I'm thinking since the module is flexible, tear-resistant, 3.2 meters in diameter, etc. And unlike other ISS modules, uncluttered inside, it may be safe for astronauts/cosmonauts to have SOME FUN inside on occasion. Things like engaging in zero-g acrobatics without fear of banging ones head into a locker or instrument panel.
Think also faux-centrifugal jogging loops inside. Those of us old enough to remember Skylab will know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Malderi on 03/04/2015 05:28 PM
As far as I know, NASA astronauts will be formally allowed to enter the BEAM module from time-to-time for data collection, etc.

But I'm thinking since the module is flexible, tear-resistant, 3.2 meters in diameter, etc. And unlike other ISS modules, uncluttered inside, it may be safe for astronauts/cosmonauts to have SOME FUN inside on occasion. Things like engaging in zero-g acrobatics without fear of banging ones head into a locker or instrument panel.
Think also faux-centrifugal jogging loops inside. Those of us old enough to remember Skylab will know what I'm talking about.

It's actually not going to be any bigger than other ISS modules, and will be almost certainly filled with trash.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: rpapo on 03/04/2015 06:13 PM
Think also faux-centrifugal jogging loops inside. Those of us old enough to remember Skylab will know what I'm talking about.
Not big enough.  If your feet are on one side, your head is already past the center-point.  Skylab was -far- bigger inside.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Moe Grills on 03/04/2015 06:31 PM
Think also faux-centrifugal jogging loops inside. Those of us old enough to remember Skylab will know what I'm talking about.
Not big enough.  If your feet are on one side, your head is already past the center-point.  Skylab was -far- bigger inside.

That's why I said "faux" centrifugal. Such horseplay or activity will certainly be a clumsy but FUN FUN perversion/version of it.
Hey! If you can't have fun, before the BEAM is used for trash storage, then space is no place for FUN or OCCASIONAL horseplay.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Moe Grills on 03/04/2015 06:42 PM
As far as I know, NASA astronauts will be formally allowed to enter the BEAM module from time-to-time for data collection, etc.

But I'm thinking since the module is flexible, tear-resistant, 3.2 meters in diameter, etc. And unlike other ISS modules, uncluttered inside, it may be safe for astronauts/cosmonauts to have SOME FUN inside on occasion. Things like engaging in zero-g acrobatics without fear of banging ones head into a locker or instrument panel.
Think also faux-centrifugal jogging loops inside. Those of us old enough to remember Skylab will know what I'm talking about.

It's actually not going to be any bigger than other ISS modules, and will be almost certainly filled with trash.
8)
Bigger, huh? I could almost get lewd with that comment, but you'd blush. An inflatable module that is free of gear, tools, instrument panels that can gash your head bad if you make a careless somersault or other zero-g acrobatic stunt, makes it worthwhile to 'bounce' around and do aggressive acrobatic stunts in what will be at START a relatively unobstructed module.
You know what? I strongly believe there remain some free-spirit astronauts and visitors to the ISS who would do exactly what I forecast they will do. After all, like most human beings, they like to have fun from time to time; even or especially in zero-g.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Comga on 03/04/2015 06:42 PM

Why an arm? Attach it to the second stage and have Dragon 2 separate, turn around, dock and extract it the same as Apollo extracted the LEM.

Because an arm is being used to extract the BEAM from the trunk at the ISS.  Little arms are being developed suitable for capsules.

The arm is extra mass that a flyby mission would not need.  I mean, it would be nice to have, if there was a need for it beyond extraction of the BEAM module, but there really wouldn't be.  A turn around, dock and remove from the upper stage is a WHOLE lot simpler than having to reach over 270 degrees around into the trunk move it to the front of the craft, and then dock it to the front having to use two or more cameras to see exactly what you're doing.

I'm not saying that the dock and remove will be much easier, but it's far less complicated.

I believe that is not true.  It would not be simpler.

To do a docking both vehicles need to be under attitude control, and there needs to be some force to hold them together before latching. 

The Japanese have a design on paper for a similar system for their hypothetical crew vehicle.  There is an old thread on it (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19061.msg489036#msg489036).

Essentially, it keeps mechanical control of the "target" object, here a BEAM-like inflatable, so that it can be pulled onto the docking/berthing adapter without adding an independent ACS. 
In the Japanese design, that linkage has to be severed in an abort.

This could be done with a multi-jointed arm.  I can also see it being done with cables and using rotation to keep those cables under tension while pulling them in.

edit: Or do it docmordrid's way (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30850.msg1322872#msg1322872) and use the second stage's ACS.  That has the advantage of leaving the orbital module behind in an abort.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Lars-J on 03/04/2015 06:47 PM
There is a media event for the BEAM module tomorrow next Thursday at 10 AM (PST), prior to it being shipped to KSC:

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/march/media-invited-to-see-bigelow-expandable-space-station-module-ahead-of-shipment-to/#.VPdhG_nF98F

Quote
NASA and Bigelow Aerospace invite media to a photo and interview opportunity at 10 a.m. PST on Thursday, March 12, at Bigelow Aerospace’s North Las Vegas facility to mark the completion of all major milestones on the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM).

Reporters will have the opportunity to see and photograph the BEAM before it’s shipped to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida for launch to the International Space Station later this year. Robert Bigelow, president and founder of Bigelow Aerospace, and William Gerstenmaier, NASA’s associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, will conduct a joint question and answer session with media.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 03/05/2015 04:35 PM
There is a media event for the BEAM module tomorrow next Thursday at 10 AM (PST), prior to it being shipped to KSC:




Should be an interesting watch, thanks for the heads up.  :D

Does anyone know if the internals of BEAM have changed over the last year and a smidgen? Are there any images/artist's impressions of what the BEAM's inside would look like fully inflated? Various Google searches have come to a (bluntly unrewarding) cropper.

Thank you kindly.

Thank you kindly.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Billium on 03/05/2015 05:10 PM
If anyone has a chance to confirm the mass and dimensions of BEAM (both before and after inflation) I would be very interested to know what they are. I'm also curious about the process of inflation, when and how that happens.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: MattMason on 03/05/2015 06:46 PM

Why an arm? Attach it to the second stage and have Dragon 2 separate, turn around, dock and extract it the same as Apollo extracted the LEM.

Because an arm is being used to extract the BEAM from the trunk at the ISS.  Little arms are being developed suitable for capsules.

The arm is extra mass that a flyby mission would not need.  I mean, it would be nice to have, if there was a need for it beyond extraction of the BEAM module, but there really wouldn't be.  A turn around, dock and remove from the upper stage is a WHOLE lot simpler than having to reach over 270 degrees around into the trunk move it to the front of the craft, and then dock it to the front having to use two or more cameras to see exactly what you're doing.

I'm not saying that the dock and remove will be much easier, but it's far less complicated.

I believe that is not true.  It would not be simpler.

To do a docking both vehicles need to be under attitude control, and there needs to be some force to hold them together before latching. 

The Japanese have a design on paper for a similar system for their hypothetical crew vehicle.  There is an old thread on it (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19061.msg489036#msg489036).

Essentially, it keeps mechanical control of the "target" object, here a BEAM-like inflatable, so that it can be pulled onto the docking/berthing adapter without adding an independent ACS. 
In the Japanese design, that linkage has to be severed in an abort.

This could be done with a multi-jointed arm.  I can also see it being done with cables and using rotation to keep those cables under tension while pulling them in.

edit: Or do it docmordrid's way (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30850.msg1322872#msg1322872) and use the second stage's ACS.  That has the advantage of leaving the orbital module behind in an abort.

To go with what's noted here, the Dragon and BEAM use CBM mating, a non-autonomous spacecraft connection. Both are, by analogy, "plugs" to the Common Berthing Mechanism "jacks" on the ISS nodes, and require the Canadarm to connect and disconnect. Without a redesign, such "dockings" are completely impossible because these don't use formal Shuttle-era docking mechanisms and work only with the ISS CBM ports.

Going forward, the NASA Docking Systems are going to be used (that's what all those recent spacewalks were for, in preparation) to put the new systems on the current Shuttle-era ports. Dragon I and things like BEAM and Cygnus work differently.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Danderman on 03/05/2015 07:04 PM
Cargo vehicles and modules will continue to use CBM. Crewed vehicles will dock.

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Moe Grills on 03/05/2015 07:06 PM
If anyone has a chance to confirm the mass and dimensions of BEAM (both before and after inflation) I would be very interested to know what they are. I'm also curious about the process of inflation, when and how that happens.

Wikipedia didn't help you????
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 03/05/2015 07:06 PM
BEAMs collapsed metric size is ~1.737 m long by ~2.362 m wide.

http://www.nss.org/adastra/volume25/beam.html

Quote
>
Then BEAM will be inflated from its packed dimensions of 5.7 feet long and just under 7.75 feet in diameter to its pressurized dimensions of 12 feet long and 10.5 feet in diameter....


Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Billium on 03/06/2015 12:59 PM
Thanks, Wikipedia just had one set of measurements and didn't specify if it was collapsed or inflated.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/06/2015 02:28 PM
When BEAM is first activated and certified as crew-ready, I have no doubt that NASA will have lots of photos and videos of the crew bouncing around the inside. After that, however, I'm pretty sure they'll only go inside to throw rubbish in there.

If they want to properly use it for something operational, I'd personally use it as the EVA suit storeroom. It's nicely placed to have the stuff close to Quest. It's even big enough inside to do maintenance on the suits away from other equipment over which you don't want coolant fluid and the like to spray.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Beittil on 03/06/2015 02:56 PM
Yeah, but since the module is up there for testing the last thing they would want to do is store mission critical equipment in there :)

It is a shame that BEAM will spend most of its two years at the ISS with the hatch firmly closed though :( It's all going to come down to the sensors and camera's inside.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: yg1968 on 03/11/2015 12:57 AM
An article on commercial crew and Bigelow:
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/03/10/boeing-spacex-look-beyond-nasa-space-customers/24724977/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/11/2015 07:44 AM
An article on commercial crew and Bigelow:
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/03/10/boeing-spacex-look-beyond-nasa-space-customers/24724977/

Every time I see an article about Bigelow, I eagerly read it looking for evidence they've found a customer willing to pay enough for them to launch a permanent stand-alone station.  So far, I've always been disappointed.  I don't see any evidence of institutions biting for Bigelow's business model of renting space in a shared station.  Russia has shown some people will pay tens of millions to spend a week in space, but the total they've managed to milk out of that source isn't really enough to justify the costs of a Bigelow station and transport to and from it.

I'm really looking forward to SpaceX reaching the point where first-stage re-use and Dragon 2 re-use bring down costs of both cargo and crew space access enough to change the economics of a Bigelow station.  Maybe in 5-10 years.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 03/11/2015 09:06 AM
Russia has shown some people will pay tens of millions to spend a week in space, but the total they've managed to milk out of that source isn't really enough to justify the costs of a Bigelow station and transport to and from it.

I think you mean Space Adventures has shown people will pay >$50M each to spend a week or more on a space station, and they've managed to milk a few flights out of Russia to do it (painfully, you might add).
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/11/2015 10:00 AM
Russia has shown some people will pay tens of millions to spend a week in space, but the total they've managed to milk out of that source isn't really enough to justify the costs of a Bigelow station and transport to and from it.

I think you mean Space Adventures has shown people will pay >$50M each to spend a week or more on a space station, and they've managed to milk a few flights out of Russia to do it (painfully, you might add).

IF SpaceX meets its cost targets, Space Adventures' existing price structure would at the very least pay for a 'week bobbing around in a Dragon' flight. That's why I like the idea of a BEAM-derivative in the trunk and attached to a modified F9 U/S for power and services for one flight. It creates a space tourist application to help create a foundation on which to build the market.

Regarding the BA-330 (I still think they should have kept the 'Nautilus' type name...) that won't happen until a major customer comes forward. India and Brazil are both ambitious enough but will need persuading that their money isn't wasted. That's what a BEAM2 would really be about - proving to potential commercial customers that Bigelow can build modules and SpaceX can get people to them.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: QuantumG on 03/11/2015 10:03 AM
Also, most of the potential customers would like to go for less time.. but more importantly, not have to suffer through the Russian training program.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: jsgirald on 03/11/2015 10:52 AM
I think Bigelow may have made a mistake going directly for Ba330 and skipping the Sundancer.
Sundancer was well within the capability of any CRS type booster, while Ba330 will need something much more powerful (FH level).

2 - 3 Falcon 9 launches might put a very decent station made up of Sundancer modules in orbit, and crew capsules already paid for by commercial crew could be reused for a commercial station (same goes for cargo Dragon, actually).
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 03/11/2015 01:04 PM
I think Bigelow may have made a mistake going directly for Ba330 and skipping the Sundancer.
Sundancer was well within the capability of any CRS type booster, while Ba330 will need something much more powerful (FH level).

2 - 3 Falcon 9 launches might put a very decent station made up of Sundancer modules in orbit, and crew capsules already paid for by commercial crew could be reused for a commercial station (same goes for cargo Dragon, actually).
Mr. Bigelow won't design something that has to pay for itself and has a very doubtful market. Mr. Bolden has made it very clear that he believes that a Bigelow station will replace the ISS as a LEO experimentation and training ground. Since the ISS is scheduled to work at least until 2024, they still have 8 to 10 years to commission their new station. Is not a lot but we are now in the critical requirement definition phase. And that means actually developing the requirements that clients want. I believe BEAM was the first step. But we'll now around 2018 or 2019 when NASA starts putting out RFP and RFQ regarding LEO station services.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: nadreck on 03/11/2015 03:07 PM
Also, most of the potential customers would like to go for less time.. but more importantly, not have to suffer through the Russian training program.

Maybe, but how much of the price they pay is for the ambiance of hanging with working scientist/astronauts.  Not going through the extensive training might be nice, but not being part of the ISS and in fact just going up with a few other tourists and one babysitter might not be as marketable.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: jsgirald on 03/11/2015 03:46 PM
I think Bigelow may have made a mistake going directly for Ba330 and skipping the Sundancer.
Sundancer was well within the capability of any CRS type booster, while Ba330 will need something much more powerful (FH level).

2 - 3 Falcon 9 launches might put a very decent station made up of Sundancer modules in orbit, and crew capsules already paid for by commercial crew could be reused for a commercial station (same goes for cargo Dragon, actually).
Mr. Bigelow won't design something that has to pay for itself and has a very doubtful market. Mr. Bolden has made it very clear that he believes that a Bigelow station will replace the ISS as a LEO experimentation and training ground. Since the ISS is scheduled to work at least until 2024, they still have 8 to 10 years to commission their new station. Is not a lot but we are now in the critical requirement definition phase. And that means actually developing the requirements that clients want. I believe BEAM was the first step. But we'll now around 2018 or 2019 when NASA starts putting out RFP and RFQ regarding LEO station services.

You may be right, but NASA funding is always uncertain, some might say erratic, and a cheaper alternative might be more marketable to other potential institutional customers that Bigelow has tried to attract in the past.

Anyway, the least that can be said of Bigelow is that he's a very persistent man, and not in a hurry. It all started back in 1998 and it's taken him 17 years to fly hardware actually paid by a customer!  :o
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 03/11/2015 04:11 PM
For a space station you need a CONOPS, an ICD, and a set of requirements and specifications. I see nothing of the sort. Developing an ECLSS, comm infrastructure, control structure, etc., requires a lot of investment and engineering. I don't see anything of that happening. Look at how people can guess rocket launches and fleet configurations from radio frequency applications, for example.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/11/2015 04:14 PM
Two BA330 are under construction, should be ready(fly?) 2017-2018. Unfortunately I can't remember source of this information. The large recruiting drive at Bigelow tends to back this up.

They needed Commercial crew finalized before proceeding.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: JasonAW3 on 03/11/2015 05:08 PM
For a space station you need a CONOPS, an ICD, and a set of requirements and specifications. I see nothing of the sort. Developing an ECLSS, comm infrastructure, control structure, etc., requires a lot of investment and engineering. I don't see anything of that happening. Look at how people can guess rocket launches and fleet configurations from radio frequency applications, for example.

I'm sorry but I think that they've pretty much covered those issues when they launched 2 Genisis modules some years back.  Admittedly, they were using Russian launch vehicles and the modules were small scale versions of the BA330, but considering that they monitored, controlled and received data and video telemetry from both modules, (which are still in orbit) tends to indicate that Bigelow Aerospace seems to be covering all needed bases.  (Oh, and they now have 4 ground stations lined up already)

    Truth be told, I would not be entirely suprised if BA sends up one of their modules as soon as early next year.  Admittedly, they'd have to wait about a year befor the final certification of the Dragon 2 and the CST-100, but it would give them some additional flight time to work any suprise bugs out of the system before first occupation.  (Hotelliers tend to HATE to allow any guests into a new hotel until everything is perfect.  I imagine Mr. Bigelow is very much the same).
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: jsgirald on 03/11/2015 05:35 PM
Two BA330 are under construction, should be ready(fly?) 2017-2018. Unfortunately I can't remember source of this information. The large recruiting drive at Bigelow tends to back this up.

They needed Commercial crew finalized before proceeding.

They're 20 ton modules, so they'll also need to wait for an operational FH, right?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: MattMason on 03/11/2015 05:44 PM
Also, most of the potential customers would like to go for less time.. but more importantly, not have to suffer through the Russian training program.

I'm totally speculating and haven't time to research any interest, but the massive, creative and ridiculously expensive projects to create artificial islands made by parties in Dubai might signal a casual interest to a spaceborne home away from home for those where money is of no consequence.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 03/11/2015 06:36 PM
For a space station you need a CONOPS, an ICD, and a set of requirements and specifications. I see nothing of the sort. Developing an ECLSS, comm infrastructure, control structure, etc., requires a lot of investment and engineering. I don't see anything of that happening. Look at how people can guess rocket launches and fleet configurations from radio frequency applications, for example.

I'm sorry but I think that they've pretty much covered those issues when they launched 2 Genisis modules some years back.  Admittedly, they were using Russian launch vehicles and the modules were small scale versions of the BA330, but considering that they monitored, controlled and received data and video telemetry from both modules, (which are still in orbit) tends to indicate that Bigelow Aerospace seems to be covering all needed bases.  (Oh, and they now have 4 ground stations lined up already)

    Truth be told, I would not be entirely suprised if BA sends up one of their modules as soon as early next year.  Admittedly, they'd have to wait about a year befor the final certification of the Dragon 2 and the CST-100, but it would give them some additional flight time to work any suprise bugs out of the system before first occupation.  (Hotelliers tend to HATE to allow any guests into a new hotel until everything is perfect.  I imagine Mr. Bigelow is very much the same).
The Genesis didn't had an Interface Control Document for clients payloads, a set of specifications and requirement for acceptable cargo and equipment, a concept of operation that included cargo and crew transport, real time communication and bandwidth allowances for on board experiments, contingency plans for emergencies and evacuations, a functioning ECLSS, etc. Those were pathfinder demos. Nothing more.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Star One on 03/11/2015 06:59 PM

For a space station you need a CONOPS, an ICD, and a set of requirements and specifications. I see nothing of the sort. Developing an ECLSS, comm infrastructure, control structure, etc., requires a lot of investment and engineering. I don't see anything of that happening. Look at how people can guess rocket launches and fleet configurations from radio frequency applications, for example.

I'm sorry but I think that they've pretty much covered those issues when they launched 2 Genisis modules some years back.  Admittedly, they were using Russian launch vehicles and the modules were small scale versions of the BA330, but considering that they monitored, controlled and received data and video telemetry from both modules, (which are still in orbit) tends to indicate that Bigelow Aerospace seems to be covering all needed bases.  (Oh, and they now have 4 ground stations lined up already)

    Truth be told, I would not be entirely suprised if BA sends up one of their modules as soon as early next year.  Admittedly, they'd have to wait about a year befor the final certification of the Dragon 2 and the CST-100, but it would give them some additional flight time to work any suprise bugs out of the system before first occupation.  (Hotelliers tend to HATE to allow any guests into a new hotel until everything is perfect.  I imagine Mr. Bigelow is very much the same).

Are they still actively collecting data from the two Genesis stations?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ZIP DUDE on 03/11/2015 07:11 PM
We're spending 3 billion per year on ISS operations for all this awesome microgravity research, but we don't think Bigelow is going to have enough customers to fill a 6 person BA330. Between other governments, public research, private research, and space tourism there should be enough demand. If not, we should be sending the ISS on a short trip to the ocean.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Burninate on 03/11/2015 07:11 PM
For a space station you need a CONOPS, an ICD, and a set of requirements and specifications. I see nothing of the sort. Developing an ECLSS, comm infrastructure, control structure, etc., requires a lot of investment and engineering. I don't see anything of that happening. Look at how people can guess rocket launches and fleet configurations from radio frequency applications, for example.

What do you believe Bigelow currently employs people to do?  I don't mean this as a rhetorical question.  What sort work do you think *is* going on given the lack of news?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ZIP DUDE on 03/11/2015 07:34 PM
Two BA330 are under construction, should be ready(fly?) 2017-2018. Unfortunately I can't remember source of this information. The large recruiting drive at Bigelow tends to back this up.

They needed Commercial crew finalized before proceeding.

They're 20 ton modules, so they'll also need to wait for an operational FH, right?

Wrong. Looks like SpaceX already has scheduled FH payloads for 2017. There's also Ariane 5, Delta IV Heavy, and Proton M if SpaceX can't deliver by 2018.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/11/2015 07:42 PM
For a space station you need a CONOPS, an ICD, and a set of requirements and specifications. I see nothing of the sort. Developing an ECLSS, comm infrastructure, control structure, etc., requires a lot of investment and engineering. I don't see anything of that happening. Look at how people can guess rocket launches and fleet configurations from radio frequency applications, for example.

What do you believe Bigelow currently employs people to do?  I don't mean this as a rhetorical question.  What sort work do you think *is* going on given the lack of news?
The Genius modules were launched in 2006. There has been 9 years of R&D between then and now.  I'm guessing NASA would be happy to share its extensive ISS technology and knowledge with Bigelow so they wouldn't be starting from scratch.

Starting with a clean slate plus NASA knowledge base, I would hope their systems are more reliable and easier to maintain than ISS.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/11/2015 07:47 PM
For a space station you need a CONOPS, an ICD, and a set of requirements and specifications. I see nothing of the sort. Developing an ECLSS, comm infrastructure, control structure, etc., requires a lot of investment and engineering. I don't see anything of that happening. Look at how people can guess rocket launches and fleet configurations from radio frequency applications, for example.

What do you believe Bigelow currently employs people to do?  I don't mean this as a rhetorical question.  What sort work do you think *is* going on given the lack of news?
The Genius modules were launched in 2006. There has been 9 years of R&D between then and now.  I'm guessing NASA would be happy to share its extensive ISS technology and knowledge with Bigelow so they wouldn't be starting from scratch.

Starting with a clean slate plus NASA knowledge base, I would hope their systems are more reliable and easier to maintain than ISS.

Bigelow *did* start with NASA technology.  It's a continuation of a program that NASA worked on for a while as a research project, then abandoned and turned over to Bigelow because NASA didn't want to fund it any more.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ZIP DUDE on 03/11/2015 08:17 PM

Are they still actively collecting data from the two Genesis stations?

According to http://bigelowaerospace.com/bigelow-aerospace-spacecraft/genesis/ both stations are operational and still collecting data.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: rcoppola on 03/11/2015 08:20 PM
BA330 is actually a great place to start.

I think NASA will only be a tenant to any future commercial station/habitat. They, like other companies and countries will lease space but not outright own the actual station. So in all likelihood NASA will be sharing space along side other users. They'll lease space on the BA330 as well as pay for rides on Dragon and CST-100.

That's the vision as far as I can tell. Not outright building another ISS by contracting with Bigelow to provide the modules. But rather being an anchor tenant to get things moving and to provide some initial funding stability. And then they benefit from reduced costs associated with commercial operations. It's a win win.

It's actually quite an amazing time ahead. The costs of allowing Bigelow for station buildout & management, Boeing and SpaceX for cargo and crew transportation, will be a fraction of a fraction of what the ISS cost to build.  And it truly opens up LEO as never before with an excellent chance of becoming a real commercial market for the first time in history. (wrt human occupancy)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 03/12/2015 12:55 AM
Two BA330 are under construction, should be ready(fly?) 2017-2018. Unfortunately I can't remember source of this information.
You read that in an article right here at NSF.com, & the two modules are supposed to be flight ready at the end of 2016.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/12/2015 09:31 AM
I've long believed that a successful commercial crewed spaceflight epoch would require the following:

1) Non-governmental training - Commercial crew providers to have their own training system set up (possibly with NASA help but ultimately independent and with its own governmentally-agreed minimum standards);

2) An independent Mission Control centre that will be responsible for tracking, communications and technical support for non-governmental crewed spaceflight. This would necessarily involve renting time on the TDRS network as a separate customer from NASA, et al;

3) A clear and extremely visible marketing program intended to attract groups, institutions and agencies unable to get onto NASA's waiting list to fly crew-tended experiments and who wish to carry out missions to destinations to which NASA does not want to go.

To me, point (3) is significant as it means that, to be successful, the commercial providers must be willing to duck out from behind NASA and even annoy them by being willing to say stuff like: "Hey, if you want lunar surface and are willing to pay your bit of lander development, we're your guys!"
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/12/2015 12:58 PM
...
2) An independent Mission Control centre that will be responsible for tracking, communications and technical support for non-governmental crewed spaceflight. This would necessarily involve renting time on the TDRS network as a separate customer from NASA, et al;
...
TDRS is likely to be replaced by a 4000 High-LEO (1000km) constellation with an in-space only distributed wi-fi like system able to support continuous communication without any real sophisticated comm equipment on the targets and at a very significant cheaper price than renting NASA TDRS. It would also give a significant increase in available bandwidth over TDRS and would not require any dedicated ground station. The Station would be just another Virtual Network over Internet application. In other words it would be very inexpensive to rent the needed bandwidth.

SpaceX would be missing the boat if they did not design in this capability of their on constellation in order to support their own launch and on orbit operations of Dragon V2.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: baldusi on 03/12/2015 02:26 PM
For a space station you need a CONOPS, an ICD, and a set of requirements and specifications. I see nothing of the sort. Developing an ECLSS, comm infrastructure, control structure, etc., requires a lot of investment and engineering. I don't see anything of that happening. Look at how people can guess rocket launches and fleet configurations from radio frequency applications, for example.

That is pure speculation on your part (unless you work there) It's a good bet that if a random poster on an internet forum knows what needs to be done, then the paid engineers on Bigelows staff also know what needs to be done.

To assume they have done no work towards that goal is just bizzare...even for the internet.
No. We have ex employees that stated flat out that none of this had been worked on at least until a couple of years back. And we have space entrepreneurs who work on selling solutions to experiments on the ISS stating that they had no knowledge whatsoever of any of that being worked on. Given they are the only private company to offer custom racks on the ISS, I would say they are the prime client to contact.
Besides, there are a lot more things that can point at development. There are press releases about work, presentations, MOU with governments, etc. Nothing points to this work being done. In L2 we have the ICD for XCOR Lynx, and that is a couple of years of flying. This things don't happen overnight. They take time, and need to be communicated.
Bigelow knows quite well that he won't be able to compete with ISS on price, since it's absolutely subsidized. The business units are not quite clear. The cargo contractors have yet to settle on the optimum approach at logistics. The LV providers are going through a technological breakthrough phase. Bigelow station won't happen before 2022.
And before you bring up SpaceX manifest, look at Mr. Bigelow's own words, that he had made a usd50,000 deposit for a Falcon 1 flight and SpaceX asked him if he could leave that deposit with them so they could quote him as a client.
Mr. Bolden does hopes to replace the ISS with a Bigelow station. But for that Bigelow has to learn how to work with NASA, and that is, from employers own mouth, quite a bigger stretch of cultures than SpaceX and NASA.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/12/2015 03:11 PM
I personally hope he succeeds,  because without a destination commercial HSF isn't going anywhere. Best we could hope for is a few hours orbiting earth in a cramp capsule.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: guckyfan on 03/12/2015 04:19 PM
Sure Bigelow hopes for a good ROI. But he is prepared to lose all of it, I am sure.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Burninate on 03/12/2015 06:03 PM
Parabolic Arc attended a press event at Bigelow Aerospace today.  Many pictures, a presence by Bob, by Gerstenmeier, and by Japanese commercial spaceflight partners.  I'll link their article once they write it up.

https://twitter.com/spacecom

"Bigelow says he interested in moon first then mars. Easier to learn on moon before moving further."
"Bigelow wants two b330 modules ready for launch in 2018 assuming crew transport available. Too early to discuss uses, tenants."
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ChefPat on 03/12/2015 07:14 PM
"Bigelow wants two b330 modules ready for launch in 2018 assuming crew transport available.

That got pushed back a bit. This (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/bigelow-moon-property-create-lunar-industry/) NSF article from last year said 2016.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/12/2015 08:35 PM
Parabolicarc.com (@spacecom) tweeted at 7:22 AM on Fri, Mar 13, 2015:
Officials from Japan manned space systems Corp here along with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
(https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/576085808555294722)

Get the official Twitter app at https://twitter.com/download

From Doug (Parabolic arc) who is at Bigelow news conference. Japan maybe one possible tenant.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Lars-J on 03/12/2015 08:46 PM
Doug tweeted a picture of BEAM: https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/576079164203122688
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Burninate on 03/13/2015 12:27 AM
Parabolic Arc finished their writeup (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/03/12/54848/)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: MattMason on 03/13/2015 11:11 AM
Doug tweeted a picture of BEAM: https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/576079164203122688

That is a marvel of engineering, there. Subtle. At least the arguments about the module's color can be put to rest.

Most importantly, it shows that even a small station seems easily and quickly fashioned, centered a "hard" CBM node, using nothing more than cargo Dragons.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Malderi on 03/13/2015 03:21 PM
Doug tweeted a picture of BEAM: https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/576079164203122688

That is a marvel of engineering, there. Subtle. At least the arguments about the module's color can be put to rest.

Most importantly, it shows that even a small station seems easily and quickly fashioned, centered a "hard" CBM node, using nothing more than cargo Dragons.

Not necessarily. One of the reasons BEAM's packing efficiency is so high is it's basically all structure. There's no systems inside (ECLSS, avionics, thrusters, power, cooling, etc.) ISS has all that already, so it's fine. But you're not going to make a station out of BEAMs, because it'd fry you, suffocate you, tumble and re-enter, and not be able to communicate while doing it, all while being very dark inside.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 03/13/2015 04:21 PM
Story with a local flavor

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/28430983/nlv-aerospace-company-making-out-of-this-world-history
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: MattMason on 03/13/2015 06:47 PM
Doug tweeted a picture of BEAM: https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/576079164203122688

That is a marvel of engineering, there. Subtle. At least the arguments about the module's color can be put to rest.

Most importantly, it shows that even a small station seems easily and quickly fashioned, centered a "hard" CBM node, using nothing more than cargo Dragons.

Not necessarily. One of the reasons BEAM's packing efficiency is so high is it's basically all structure. There's no systems inside (ECLSS, avionics, thrusters, power, cooling, etc.) ISS has all that already, so it's fine. But you're not going to make a station out of BEAMs, because it'd fry you, suffocate you, tumble and re-enter, and not be able to communicate while doing it, all while being very dark inside.

My thoughts are obviously technically oversimplified in terms of the module's overall function. While it's not probable that Bigelow would make BEAM-type modules with all the "innards" (ECLSS, power/waste, fuel, gases, et al.), the concept shows that size doesn't matter.

His modules are to be launched nearly empty and then filled from within, like the old Apollo Applications early designs for the original Skylab "wet workshop," right? A bit of a reverse from the current hard modules that come "jelly filled" but spacewalks and more assembly are needed outside the module to complete.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: MattMason on 03/13/2015 06:52 PM
Story with a local flavor

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/28430983/nlv-aerospace-company-making-out-of-this-world-history

Great catch. Interesting that Bigelow himself noted how the modules could be used for entertainment purposes or dormitories. Nothing new, I'm sure, but that was a well produced news report that might give that company a little more traction as September approaches.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Burninate on 03/13/2015 11:52 PM
I am reconsidering this belief:
Quote
However, if the BA 330 is launched deflated it will be empty after being inflated on orbit. This may necessitate at least one additional launch to deliver a fit-out crew to load supplies and fit-out the inside of the ship, including floors, cupboards, desks, beds, gym, laboratory, computers and solar storm shelter (the bathroom is already part of the BA 330 core). It is almost certainly preferable, simpler and safer to inflate, fit-out and stock the BA 330 on Earth prior to launch. Although this will require a larger vehicle to launch the module, it will avoid the cost of launching a fit-out crew as well as the necessary tools, supplies and equipment, and the risk to those astronauts.

The challenge, however, is finding a suitably capable vehicle that can accommodate a 6.7m-diameter payload. The obvious candidate is the SLS currently under development by NASA, which has a payload fairing of 8.4m. The Block IA Cargo version is capable of lifting 105 tonnes to LEO, which is obviously massive overkill in terms of launch capability, but it may be possible to include part of the cruise stage in the payload.
This seems ridiculous.  Inflatables are designed primarily to defeat the restriction on fairing diameter and maximize module volume per launch dollar.  I suggest that launching a second, (and third, and fourth, and fifth) Falcon Heavy flight to fill the inflatable hab in orbit, will be cheaper than flying one with a few extra tons of payload on it from the SLS pre-inflated.  Pre-inflated, aluminum is a familiar, proven technology with a good degree of structural rigidity and the option to use side attachment points.  From the SLS, Skylab or BA-2100 are both feasible - an inflated BA-330 combines the disadvantages of the one with the disadvantages of the other.

So consider a reusable lander/habitat like MCT.  It has to descend to Mars, return to Earth orbit, and shuttle back and forth repeatedly.  There is little to no hope of a rescue mission, and we are trying to mitigate the possibility of equipment failures.  It is a *large* vehicle, with plenty of surface area to suffer MMOD or rock hits.  A hole in either the propellant tank or the habitat could be life-threatening and vehicle-trashing, considering how long a patch has to last and how little redundancy there is.

How serious is the collision resistance of the Bigelow canvas?  Is there a reasonable case to be made for using it, perhaps layered with a normal rigid aluminum shell or a truss, as a hole-resistant pressure vessel, inflated on the ground?

How would it behave in reentry/aerocapture conditions assuming it's not on the leading edge?

Outside of LEO, how much lower are is the collision risk expected to be?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: manboy on 03/14/2015 12:07 AM
High res BEAM images

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/bigelow-aerospace-shows-its-expandable-space-station-future-n322521

http://photos.dailynews.com/2015/03/photos-bigelow-aerospacebeam-moduleinternational-space-station-2/

http://www.nasa.gov/content/new-expandable-addition-on-space-station-to-gather-critical-data-for-future-space-habitat/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: docmordrid on 03/14/2015 03:30 AM
>
>
How serious is the collision resistance of the Bigelow canvas? 
>

From a 2002 AIAA TransHab 'lessons learned' report, which is what Bigelow's tech is based on, and if I'm reading it correctly TeansHab used a wall  thickness substantially thinner than what a B330 would use.

http://spacearchitect.org/pubs/AIAA-2002-6105.pdf

Quote
The configuration in figure 8 has withstood impacts of up to a 1.7-cm diameter aluminum projectile fired at 7 km/s (15,600 mph).
>
With the successful completion of the hypervelocity impact testing and inflatable shell development tests, TransHab has proven that the inflatable structure technology is ready for the space age. TransHab demonstrates the great strides made to prove inflatable structures technology is ready to be applied as habitats for space applications.  ISS TransHab’s design meets or exceeds habitation requirements for space station. If TransHab’s development had not been stopped, it would have been an excellent replacement of the hard aluminum habitat for the ISS.  It would have been launched as the last station element in late 2004.
>
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: jak Kennedy on 03/14/2015 04:09 AM
Please research BA330. It is designed I believe with a solid core with all the things you talk about it needing to fit it out. It may need some additional items but I far as I am aware it will not go up empty. People occupy empty space and that will be provided by being inflatable. To launch it inflated misses the whole point.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Burninate on 03/14/2015 07:04 AM
Please research BA330. It is designed I believe with a solid core with all the things you talk about it needing to fit it out. It may need some additional items but I far as I am aware it will not go up empty. People occupy empty space and that will be provided by being inflatable. To launch it inflated misses the whole point.
Yes, that's how I understood it at first, but they also brag about impact resistance and durability being substantially better than an aluminum can pressure vessel.

A Mars mission would find durability highly desirable. I am examining the proposition "For the challenges faced with a reusable Mars lander, you can't afford to use an aluminum can pressure vessel when there's Bigelow/Transhab canvas available, if the form factor and mass for the two options are identical" in order to focus narrowly on that aspect.  The BA-330 and BA-2100 concepts are for space stations, this would not be a space station.

It would be preinflated because you would still need high-G load-bearing capability and high rigidity and heat resistance to survive multiple trips in and out of the Martian atmosphere - in-space inflation lets you use a small-diameter launch fairing to get a very large-diameter habitat, but this is a completely orthogonal application that I would like feedback on.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 05:18 PM
ISS has been in orbit since 1998, and in LEO which is more prone to debris than deep space, and it's supposed to be in orbit at least until 2024 and possibly until 2028. Pretty much a worst case for durability, but seems to work just fine.

There is advantage to the inflatables, but it is somewhat overblown. Aluminum cans work great.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Cinder on 03/14/2015 05:39 PM
What mitigates inflatables' volume/launch advantage?  Or is that not a real advantage?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Prober on 03/14/2015 05:41 PM
Story with a local flavor

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/28430983/nlv-aerospace-company-making-out-of-this-world-history

Great catch. Interesting that Bigelow himself noted how the modules could be used for entertainment purposes or dormitories. Nothing new, I'm sure, but that was a well produced news report that might give that company a little more traction as September approaches.

the stories from channel 3 & 8 local

http://www.mynews3.com/content/video/default.aspx?videoId=5658201&navCatId=25504

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/28408420/private-las-vegas-company-shows-off-space-module

Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/18/2015 12:28 PM
@Prober,

Is that a BA-330 mock-up in your pictures?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: Malderi on 03/18/2015 03:03 PM
That is a BA-2100 mockup. The BA-330's are big, but not that big. Public pictures of BA-330 mockups have been available for some time.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: JBF on 03/19/2015 12:04 PM
Here you go.
Title: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: mvpel on 03/21/2015 04:49 PM
I'm at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center and the current IMAX "Journey to Space" features Bigelow's Olympus prominently as the Orion Mars transhab, and interestingly enough seemed to depict some design items that suggest that the clearance issues with Dragon's hinged nose cover are taken into consideration, and the 1/3 BA-330 model has been moved to a place of prominence by the entrance from the Rocket Park.

(Edit: The BA-2100 from a couple of posts ago is what was shown in the "Journey to Space" movie, with some poor fellow standing on a staircase pretending to turn screws around the windows.)
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/03/2015 05:04 AM
Fiso podcast about Bigelow, nothing really new since 2013 podcast. Latest stuff is towards end.

BA330 space station still waiting on commercial crew, 2018-19 at this stage.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Gold_7-1-15/
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: NealioSpace on 07/08/2015 09:22 PM
FOR ANYONE CONTEMPLATING WORKING FOR BIGELOW AEROSPACE:
The reality for Bigelow Aerospace employees. Still the same after all these years.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Bigelow-Aerospace-RVW7107648.htm?utm_source=company-follow&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=company-follow-ri&utm_content=company-follow-ri-review-button
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: llanitedave on 07/10/2015 12:49 AM
What's troubling about that goes beyond whether it's a nice place to work, it makes you wonder whether modules themselves are even going to be safe and functional.
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: ClaytonBirchenough on 07/10/2015 12:56 AM
What's troubling about that goes beyond whether it's a nice place to work, it makes you wonder whether modules themselves are even going to be safe and functional.

A very valid concern.

I wonder if this is how Bigelow operated wrt his real estate career too...?
Title: Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/10/2015 11:53 PM