Author Topic: Bigelow and ULA Announce Agreement to Place a B330 Hab in Low Lunar Orbit  (Read 41198 times)

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Keep in mind that there's a large amount of Centaur collateral/kits and dependence. It's been proposed before to have other US for Atlas V, and earlier Atlas had many different US's. So it's a "big deal" to move to ACES.

Back to the economics for ULA. What they'd like is one CCB and one US. Not 2-3 of each. Configurations/inventory/supply chain costs dearly. Especially if you have a rival with a low cost vehicle architecture. And where a high rate of change might cause you to lose your impeccable launch record.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
SpaceX was a primary facilitator of this change, true, but Russia/Ukraine and Pentagon/Congress unhappiness with EELV status quo costs also played a role.   
Yes.

We've left the Mike Gass era where traditional congressional unhappiness with EELV costing resulting in "too bad, just pony up" now has become indefensible with too many vying for launch contracts.

Now instead its a Tony Bruno dancing the with the parents trying to eek out a beyond EELV existence for ULA.

As for Russia and Ukraine, just having low labor rates and leveraging post Soviet technology base isn't entirely sufficient to compete in the global launch markets, either as provider or subsystems supplier.

What we're seeing here is how to take things further as a future. We are yet to see though if they even have a means to retain the present post the remaining ride out of the past.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
None of this sounds "Old Space" to me.  "Old Space" was Lockheed Martin flying out the Titan IV inventory for the U.S. Air Force at half-a-billion per, etc..  "Old Space" was already history ten years ago.

There is no definitive description for "New Space" and "Old Space", so I won't be surprised by disagreements.

My observation though is that it boils down to whether a company is willing to risk their own money to create a new market.

SpaceX obviously fits this mold because of their efforts to drive down costs with reusable rockets, even though there is not an existing market for reusable rockets and the vastly more launches they enable. But Musk is hoping to create new demand for lower cost reusable launchers that would not have been possible with expendable rockets.

ULA, which is owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, is reacting to the situation at hand caused by RD-180 political issues, the high cost of Delta IV, and SpaceX becoming a competitor for their core customer. Vulcan is no doubt a good design for an expendable rocket, but it's not apparent that it creates any new markets.

This announcement between ULA and Bigelow is great marketing, but it's not evidence that ULA is "New Space", even though I would consider Bigelow a "New Space" company (Bigelow is spending his own money to create a new capability that does not yet exist - i.e. market risk).

My $0.02
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
None of this sounds "Old Space" to me.  "Old Space" was Lockheed Martin flying out the Titan IV inventory for the U.S. Air Force at half-a-billion per, etc..  "Old Space" was already history ten years ago.

There is no definitive description for "New Space" and "Old Space", so I won't be surprised by disagreements.

My observation though is that it boils down to whether a company is willing to risk their own money to create a new market.

SpaceX obviously fits this mold because of their efforts to drive down costs with reusable rockets, even though there is not an existing market for reusable rockets and the vastly more launches they enable. But Musk is hoping to create new demand for lower cost reusable launchers that would not have been possible with expendable rockets.

ULA, which is owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, is reacting to the situation at hand caused by RD-180 political issues, the high cost of Delta IV, and SpaceX becoming a competitor for their core customer. Vulcan is no doubt a good design for an expendable rocket, but it's not apparent that it creates any new markets.

This announcement between ULA and Bigelow is great marketing, but it's not evidence that ULA is "New Space", even though I would consider Bigelow a "New Space" company (Bigelow is spending his own money to create a new capability that does not yet exist - i.e. market risk).

My $0.02

But what point does it serve anyone trying to maintain this artificial division in the industry.

Offline SimonFD

I find this odd.
I have no issue with the technical proposal - looks great :)

However

Bigelow and ULA are seemingly asking NASA to pay $2.5B to do something that NASA are planning to do themselves with their own resources (SLS/Orion and ISS type modules).

It has been described on here as a DSG precursor but seems to me more like a DSG replacement. Doesn't it take away or delay mission(s) for SLS (a system previously seen as scratching around for something meaningful to do)? Doesn't it potentially take away funding for SLS or something else?

Also, and I accept this could be my Brit outlook here, I find it distasteful to be announcing a project that uses someone else's money without that someone else agreeing to it first!

Or did I misunderstand?  :o


Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
I find this odd.
I have no issue with the technical proposal - looks great :)

However

Bigelow and ULA are seemingly asking NASA to pay $2.5B to do something that NASA are planning to do themselves with their own resources (SLS/Orion and ISS type modules).

It has been described on here as a DSG precursor but seems to me more like a DSG replacement. Doesn't it take away or delay mission(s) for SLS (a system previously seen as scratching around for something meaningful to do)? Doesn't it potentially take away funding for SLS or something else?

Also, and I accept this could be my Brit outlook here, I find it distasteful to be announcing a project that uses someone else's money without that someone else agreeing to it first!

Or did I misunderstand?  :o

It's no different than LM proposing the Mars Basecamp or Boeing proposing their DSG with reusable lunar lander. They're all hoping for NASA money.

B330 can be used as the habitat module. Other DSG modules can still launch with Orion on SLS. It would also give EM-2 somewhere to go and a useful mission to outfit the B330.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Many would find it hilarious that I am defending ULA, but you have to understand how "Old Space" does things vs "New Space". ULA is still rooted in "Old Space" thinking (because of it's parents) which means that they tend to pursue mature markets and try to only accept minimal risk. SpaceX ("New Space") is OK with lots of risk, and is trying to create new markets by dramatically lowering the price to move things to space. LM and Boeing have been very successful overall with their approach so this comparison is really only in a very narrow market, the launch services sector- which SpaceX has been disrupting.
I'm ready to move on from the "Old Space" versus "New Space" discussion era. 

ULA is slashing, what, 40% of its staff, abandoning 60% of its launch sites and probably more than half of its subcontractors, and replacing three of its launch vehicles with one new do-it-all rocket that (most likely) will burn a brand new fuel in brand new rocket engines made by a, that's right, "New Space" company.  Oh, and it plans to cut launch prices significantly too.  And now an agreement to plan for a crazy lunar Bigelow mission, highlighting an innovative on-orbit cryo-propellant transfer system that steps right over the current envelope. 

None of this sounds "Old Space" to me.  "Old Space" was Lockheed Martin flying out the Titan IV inventory for the U.S. Air Force at half-a-billion per, etc..  "Old Space" was already history ten years ago.

SpaceX was a primary facilitator of this change, but Russia/Ukraine and Pentagon/Congress unhappiness with EELV status quo costs also played a role. 

 - Ed Kyle     
What sounds "Old Space" is that the leap toward the lunar orbital outpost is in pursuit of NASA money that might be forthcoming for its new Deep Space Gateway initiative. This wouldn't be happening if the US govt wasn't aiming to get back to the Moon in a bigger way.

Offline Lar

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

But what point does it serve anyone trying to maintain this artificial division in the industry.
(fan)
It's about motivations. OldSpace is motivated by profit first and vision second. NewSpace... isn't.  So it's a valid distinction.

(mod)
...but not one that we should argue about interminably in this thread which should stay narrowly focused.

(fan)
Also, and I accept this could be my Brit outlook here, I find it distasteful to be announcing a project that uses someone else's money without that someone else agreeing to it first!

Slideware (unfunded) spacecraft/missions/aircraft/launchers etc are pretty routine in the MIC, and usually are presented to make the presenting companies look good and possibly stir up interest so people will agitate for funding.  LockMart just did it with their Mars vision.  Both OldSpace and NewSpace do this... but OldSpace usually wants government funding and NewSpace... doesn't always. Sometimes it wants VC funding.

"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
“The B330 would launch to Low Earth Orbit on a Vulcan 562 configuration rocket, the only commercial launch vehicle in development today with sufficient performance and a large enough payload fairing to carry the habitat.”

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

 - Ed Kyle

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

Does the BA-330 extend when it inflates, like BEAM did? The expanded dimensions are 6.7m diameter and 13.7m length, but I haven't seen its launch dimensions.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
From all the renderings I have ever seen the B330 just extends outwards.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2017 03:59 pm by nacnud »

Offline TrevorMonty

I think length is fixed as it has solid middle core containing all equipment.

An empty version would make great free space, something we might see if spacestations become successful as tourist destinations.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2017 04:55 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
The B330 supports attachments at both ends and has to be keep its shape in a fairing, this is easier with a solid core. It also makes it easy to handle thrust while inflated.

This new video shows more details than previous renderings and the solid cylinder at one end is now quite long. Maybe it's required for all the power and attitude control equipment? But there is also something which looks like it could be a secondary "sideways" docking port. If you look at large russian modules like Zvezda or the Mir core they have a sphere at one end with many ports for expansion. Perhaps Bigelow wants to partially copy that? It would make sense if it wants to be a standalone space station core.

It could also just be a window or attachment point for external hardware.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • USA
  • Liked: 3273
  • Likes Given: 101
The sideways port is noted as an airlock hatch in drawings on Bigelows website. I do hope they have plans for some sort of node module though, either internally-built or contracted out. A station with only 2 ports isn't very useful

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
My observation though is that it boils down to whether a company is willing to risk their own money to create a new market.

But what point does it serve anyone trying to maintain this artificial division in the industry.

It's not an artificial division, it's just a way to evaluate what's actually going on. This is especially important when partnerships are involved, since everyone needs to understand what the motivations are for each of the partners.

With regards to this proposal, it might equate to how much money ULA would require to move up the Vulcan and ACES availability - maybe none, or maybe a lot.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247

But what point does it serve anyone trying to maintain this artificial division in the industry.
(fan)
It's about motivations. OldSpace is motivated by profit first and vision second. NewSpace... isn't.  So it's a valid distinction.
Issues with this.

They're both suckling on the govt teat ... because access to space is a national imperative ... one with more history/pork, the other with disruption and nerve. Practice of professionalism is different, one cleaves to relentless, proven optimality ... while the other turns things on its ear for a reason and attempts to survive the consequences. Motivation also different, one pursues the national imperative narrowly within industry scope, the other uses such (and others) to leverage its own agenda. Each find the other's differences unacceptable.

Quote
(mod)
...but not one that we should argue about interminably in this thread which should stay narrowly focused.
ULA's principal rival uses innovation as a effective marketing tool as they define innovation.

Remarks in this thread attempt to compare the two and struggle with the "apples to apples" vs "apples to oranges". Which is why I outlined above in this post what the "apples"/"oranges" distinction comes from, without assigning a form of "goodness"/"badness".

Quote
(fan)
Also, and I accept this could be my Brit outlook here, I find it distasteful to be announcing a project that uses someone else's money without that someone else agreeing to it first!

Slideware (unfunded) spacecraft/missions/aircraft/launchers etc are pretty routine in the MIC, and usually are presented to make the presenting companies look good and possibly stir up interest so people will agitate for funding.  LockMart just did it with their Mars vision.  Both OldSpace and NewSpace do this... but OldSpace usually wants government funding and NewSpace... doesn't always. Sometimes it wants VC funding.
They both want money and attention.

They both compete for mindshare and political influence. However "Old age and treachery will always beat youth and exuberance".

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
A plan that attempts to offend no one... There really isn't a clear rational for this thing.
Nope. A challenge without a confrontation.

Quote
1. Not sure a propellant depot should be Manned.
True.

Likewise a repair scaffold, a rendezvous/assembly point, a ORU changeout facility, and many more. And we have these lovely things called teleoperated robotic arms ...

Quote
2. Placing it in LLO does not afford much chance for anything commercial to use it at this moment. Nor is it on the path for Orion to reach(i.e. attempting not to compete with the DSG).
For current vehicles yes.

Here's what you'd need: Orion service module propellant increase, SLS Block 2 (or distributed launch). For commercial Vulcan/ACES or FH/Dragon with additional capabilities done various ways. Basically a few billion either way.

Quote
BFR if it ever did lunar would likely be used for a landing and if it did stop off in LLO it is not clear what  the BA330 could offer to Space X.
BFS is its own hab.

Quote
I think Bigleow needs to work more with Space X and Blue to find products that can be used  by more companies.
They are antagonistic at the moment. (Was amusing to see in the video Dragon outfitting the hab.)

Quote
3. It  never made much sense for Biglow to design his payload so that only a ULA rocket could lift it. A meter smaller isn't going to make that much difference. I know he thinks it is the best way to get some funding from the government by hitching his wagon to a large well connected aerospace company or SLS but so far it has done little.
Both want to be "hamburger helper" to govt HSF missions. Not unlike SX and CRS/CC.

Quote
4. Equipping\outfitting in LEO is nice and this step does offer a place for commercial.
It builds up a cislunar economy, that starts first with provisioning in LEO.

If ACES can act as a cislunar tug, perhaps it can also do so in reverse.

Quote
Honestly, this thing needs to replace the DSG or be a part of it to have any purpose.
But the DSG needs little/no hab. And you don't need a hab for DSG assembly.

Ergo, this proposal does not seem to be genuine as a "DSG precursor".

Portraying it as such does not seem legitimate.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
None of this sounds "Old Space" to me.  "Old Space" was Lockheed Martin flying out the Titan IV inventory for the U.S. Air Force at half-a-billion per, etc..  "Old Space" was already history ten years ago.

There is no definitive description for "New Space" and "Old Space", so I won't be surprised by disagreements.

My observation though is that it boils down to whether a company is willing to risk their own money to create a new market.

SpaceX obviously fits this mold because of their efforts to drive down costs with reusable rockets, even though there is not an existing market for reusable rockets and the vastly more launches they enable. But Musk is hoping to create new demand for lower cost reusable launchers that would not have been possible with expendable rockets.

ULA, which is owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, is reacting to the situation at hand caused by RD-180 political issues, the high cost of Delta IV, and SpaceX becoming a competitor for their core customer. Vulcan is no doubt a good design for an expendable rocket, but it's not apparent that it creates any new markets.

This announcement between ULA and Bigelow is great marketing, but it's not evidence that ULA is "New Space", even though I would consider Bigelow a "New Space" company (Bigelow is spending his own money to create a new capability that does not yet exist - i.e. market risk).

My $0.02

ULA's new markets

Heavy push. By refuelling ACES in LEO much heavier objects can be sent to the Moon and Mars.

Heavy lander. ACES with XEUS kit (from Masten Space) can land 12 tonne on the Moon. Most robots weigh less than that.

Heavy reusable ascent stage. By refuelling in LLO an ACES with XEUS kit can land and later ascend 25 tonne. This is all man rated. A depot with a habitat can refuel and transfer both cargo and astronauts.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
The sideways port is noted as an airlock hatch in drawings on Bigelows website. I do hope they have plans for some sort of node module though, either internally-built or contracted out. A station with only 2 ports isn't very useful
Thanks, that website has a lot of good info. I remember Bigelow having a website that was a relic of the 90s.

Having two ports and an airlock would make sense for a single-module station but not for a modular one. Maybe this points to a more limited use-case for the initial B330.

In theory you could string several B330s in a long line but you'd have too many airlocks and a shortage of docking ports. You could work around the latter if you gave up on the practice of always having lifeboat capsules for all passengers.

The Mir core node could also be used as an airlock and that design is very flexible. Ideally a modular inflatable would be designed so that the backsides of multiple modules could dock to a 6-way node on the front, tilted at a 45 degree angle so that they don't obstruct the solar panels. To save costs unused ports on side-modules could be skipped.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • USA
  • Liked: 3273
  • Likes Given: 101
Theres probably no reason each B330 has to have its own airlock. And the structural features necessary for an airlock (basically a cylinder with a circular hole cut in the side, and a seal) should be easily applicable to radial docking ports.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
A visiting vehicle docking module could be useful. Basically a cube with 4 International Docking System docking ports. One port connects to the B330 and two to the visiting vehicles. The fourth could connect to a second B330, a second cube or a third visiting vehicle as required.

A facility for the cube to accept and deliver electrical power, communications, air and other consumables would also be useful.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0