Author Topic: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)  (Read 661146 times)

Offline yegors

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Canada
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #580 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. 
« Last Edit: 08/06/2014 09:24 pm by yegors »

Offline mrmandias

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • US
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #581 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.

Offline 411rocket

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Retired RCEME w/ tours in Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia
  • Vancouver Island
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #582 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>"

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #583 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.
« Last Edit: 08/07/2014 08:06 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #584 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.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2014 01:49 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #585 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
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #586 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
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #587 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.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2014 02:42 am by Patchouli »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #588 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
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #589 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.

Offline aga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
  • Per aspera ad astra
  • Germany
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1453
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #590 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
42

Offline rpapo

Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #591 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.
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #592 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?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #593 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
« Last Edit: 08/14/2014 05:14 pm by yg1968 »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #594 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.

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #595 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 ?
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #596 on: 09/11/2014 01:29 pm »
FWIW, they made the wafers on a suborbital flight, not orbital.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #597 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?.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #598 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!
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)
« Reply #599 on: 09/11/2014 05:39 pm »
Anything new with Bigelow Aerospace?

Tags:
 

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