NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Commercial Space Flight General => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 09/06/2018 03:01 pm
-
Thread four for Bigelow general updates and discussion.
Thread 1:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15581.0
Thread 2:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26545.0
Thread 3:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30850.0
News articles with Bigelow references from this site:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=Bigelow
Remember to keep it on topic and civil at all times or your post will be deleted without notice.
-
Kirk Shireman = ISS manager
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
Shireman notes that Bigelow Aerospaces BEAM module, originally intended to be on the ISS for two years, is now expected to remain on the station indefinitely. #IAC2018
10:57 AM - Oct 1, 2018
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/961356823696740352
-
Kirk Shireman = ISS manager
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
Shireman notes that Bigelow Aerospaces BEAM module, originally intended to be on the ISS for two years, is now expected to remain on the station indefinitely. #IAC2018
10:57 AM - Oct 1, 2018
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/961356823696740352?s=19
Realistically, was anyone hoping to use the CBM port BEAM is attached to for something else, considering the assorted clearance issues due to surrounding structures? Well, aside from maybe Nanorack's Bishop airlock?
-
Realistically, was anyone hoping to use the CBM port BEAM is attached to for something else, considering the assorted clearance issues due to surrounding structures? Well, aside from maybe Nanorack's Bishop airlock?
Nanoracks had at once point proposed a permanent exposed facility on that port, similar in capabilities to Bartolomeo IIRC. That ended development around when Bishop started though
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/03/04/spacexs-crew-dragon-launch-could-make-space-hotels-a-reality/amp/
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/03/04/spacexs-crew-dragon-launch-could-make-space-hotels-a-reality/amp/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/03/04/spacexs-crew-dragon-launch-could-make-space-hotels-a-reality/amp/)
Yawn
Perhaps Forbes readers dont know this stuff
Bigelow is still talking about the B330.
That’s designed for the larger fairing volume, lower payload, more expensive Atlas V, rather than the cheaper, more capable (to LEO) Heavy version of the Falcon rocket that would be used for customer transport.
(AFAIK Boeing has not talked about selling capsules or rides commercially.
That Starliner seats are much more expensive may be due solely to Boeing’s superior negotiating, but they would also negotiate with Bigelow.)
It might be that Bigelow doesn’t have the talent to start a new design.
How many work there now?
It’s very hard to believe he has the talent to build anything
And NASA is paying Dover to replicate Bigelow’s “expandable” technology.
There may not ever be much to discuss in this Thread 4.
Kind of a shame.
Edit: changed word choice re Atlas V
-
The Bigelow module at their campus is now available to NASA for testing as part of NextSTEP-2. Any photographs of the modifications or equipment such as life support?
-
Was wondering if this thread would come back to life. All this accelerated moon talk and not a peep from Bigelow...
-
Um.... some trimming. we don't need posts arguing about whether a post is OK or not.
-
The recent NASA post on gateway hab prototypes has this image of Bigelow's latest concept: (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/nextstep-ba-concept-20190104_3.jpg)
The propulsion module looks like a weird Centaur 3m stage with 4 engines and outfitted as its own module complete with robotic arms, hexagonal solar panels and additional "stuff" (external experiment racks)?
The length/width seems all wrong for a 5m Centaur, see Nanoracks photo as a comparison, or ULA's own renderings of Vulcan Centaur.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-begins-testing-habitation-prototypes
This is also quite different from module shown in a NASA Gateway update document produce sometime in 2018 or later: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/cislunar-update-gerstenmaier-crusan-v5a.pdf
Here we see hexagonal solar panel modules and nodes without the large engine bells.
It would be really nice to know if any of this is in serious development or all just preliminary ideas in constant flux. The variation and lack of consistency suggests the latter to me.
Meanwhile the Glassdoor reviews have gone from describing BA as merely a bad company to work for to a literal dumpster fire surrounded by armed guards.... https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Bigelow-Aerospace-Reviews-E373179.htm
-
I read some of the Glass Door reviews. Holy crap! The real money in Bigelow is in selling Kafka’s take on “The Office.”
-
The recent NASA post on gateway hab prototypes has this image of Bigelow's latest concept: (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/nextstep-ba-concept-20190104_3.jpg)
The propulsion module looks like a weird Centaur 3m stage with 4 engines and outfitted as its own module complete with robotic arms, hexagonal solar panels and additional "stuff" (external experiment racks)?
The length/width seems all wrong for a 5m Centaur, see Nanoracks photo as a comparison, or ULA's own renderings of Vulcan Centaur.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-begins-testing-habitation-prototypes
This is also quite different from module shown in a NASA Gateway update document produce sometime in 2018 or later: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/cislunar-update-gerstenmaier-crusan-v5a.pdf
Here we see hexagonal solar panel modules and nodes without the large engine bells.
It would be really nice to know if any of this is in serious development or all just preliminary ideas in constant flux. The variation and lack of consistency suggests the latter to me.
*snip*
Like the habitat module, the power and propulsion element is also in design competition. I think NASA is cycling through various combinations of the proposals in the competitions every time they require an artwork of the Gateway space station.
I'm not sure who designed the PPE in this artwork, but the 5 competing companies are Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital ATK, Sierra Nevada, and Space Systems Loral.
-
Like the habitat module, the power and propulsion element is also in design competition. I think NASA is cycling through various combinations of the proposals in the competitions every time they require an artwork of the Gateway space station.
I'm not sure who designed the PPE in this artwork, but the 5 competing companies are Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital ATK, Sierra Nevada, and Space Systems Loral.
Each company is either doing their own PPE or not bidding one at all. This thing in Bigelows renders isn't from anybody elses's bid, and it seems to be cobbled together from assets they already had for ACES/B330. The hexagonal things in the presentation were chemical tugs/lunar landers that Bigelow proposed years ago and has apparently done no work on since
-
Bigelow published some tweets today:
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1115363247194927105
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1115363480532439040
Kinda weird post to be honest. After being so quiet for a while they show a fuzzy looking inflatable and a terrible shcematic, then ramble about protecting IP.
-
So despite the fact that they received US taxpayer money to build the mock-ups, not only will it not go to a NASA facility for testing like the other Hab prototypes, we can’t even get a real photo of it?
Something smells bad....
-
Like the habitat module, the power and propulsion element is also in design competition. I think NASA is cycling through various combinations of the proposals in the competitions every time they require an artwork of the Gateway space station.
I'm not sure who designed the PPE in this artwork, but the 5 competing companies are Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital ATK, Sierra Nevada, and Space Systems Loral.
Each company is either doing their own PPE or not bidding one at all. This thing in Bigelows renders isn't from anybody elses's bid, and it seems to be cobbled together from assets they already had for ACES/B330. The hexagonal things in the presentation were chemical tugs/lunar landers that Bigelow proposed years ago and has apparently done no work on since
Bigelow is not doing a PPE bid, its bid is for the habitat module.
Two different things.
I don't know whose design the PPE in that picture is, but it's one of those 5 companies.
-
It was bothering me, so I dug around until I found the original web page where that picture came from. For the record, it's here:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-begins-testing-habitation-prototypes
The page has a render for each habitat, and each render seems to have been produced by each of the companies developing habitats for the Gateway (not by NASA). Each company also seems to have included their own hardware for the rest of the Gateway in their render, as they saw fit. For example, Northrop Grumman uses all Cygnus-based hardware for every Gateway element in their render.
So Bigelow has not put in a bid for the PPE, but its render shows its own hardware in that section of the Gateway. Mystery solved.
-
It was bothering me, so I dug around until I found the original web page where that picture came from.
I posted that link in my original post.... no digging required.
Can't really say the mystery is solved, those nozzles are clearly large chemical engines anyway, not a SEP unit as required for the PPE. So the mystery is that either Bigelow is proposing that as their architecture or the rendering is complete artistic licence.
Given their history I would assume artistic licence. It would be great if it was something they had in the works with ULA, but I doubt that for several reasons, the first of which is that module looks completely infeasible given ULA's hardware.
Anyway the reason I drew attention to their artwork (Copyrighted for 2019) is that if it is in fact a serious proposal for habitat propulsion it would be relevant and timely given the current uncertainty around SLS's EUS and the ability to co-manifest payloads. Any module flying on commercial launch vehicles will need to be capable of injecting itself into NHRO. That whole Low Lunar Orbit Bigelow station that was announced (https://spacenews.com/bigelow-and-ula-announce-plans-for-lunar-orbiting-facility/) a few years ago proposed this very capability by using ULA's ACES and distributed lift. Of course since then Boeing has kiboshed development of certain key elements of ACES anyway...
-
I don't know whose design the PPE in that picture is, but it's one of those 5 companies.
To be more direct: there is not a PPE design in that render. It is entirely a fabrication by Bigelow, and is not actually being developed. The PPE bids of all those companies are known, and the "thing" in that render is obviously cobbled together with no thought from multiple other spacecraft
-
I read some of the Glass Door reviews. Holy crap! The real money in Bigelow is in selling Kafka’s take on “The Office.”
I have hoped that Bigelow would do well, they have good proven technology that is useful and have plans to take one of the next milestones of expanding into space: commercial space stations.
After reading the recent reviews, I am now somewhat concerned that if they do get a station built, it may be extreme levels of unsafe. (I had seen bad reviews before, but these new ones go far beyond what I previously read and imply much worse problems. They are consistent with the older reviews in a way that gives them credibility. They seem to confirm the worst possible interpretation of the older reviews.)
The absolute worst review is one that gives the company 4 stars from July 2018. I can't bear to repeat it here, but it makes literal threats to anyone posting negative reviews, and implicitly confirms the complaints in other reviews that management does not understand engineering.
It seems like plenty of good engineers may have passed through, and with influence from the NASA contracts, hopefully anything that makes it to orbit will have had some proper safety reviews. I still hope for their success, but I now fear catastrophic failure.
-
NASA's NextSTEP-2 consists of several projects it called Appendixes.
Appendix A - ground prototypes for habitats including the Bigelow inflatable
Appendix B - ISRU FabLab
Appendix E - lunar lander descend element and transfer stage
Appendix H - lunar lander ascend element including cabin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Space_Technologies_for_Exploration_Partnerships#Habitation_systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Space_Technologies_for_Exploration_Partnerships#Habitation_systems)
-
I have hoped that Bigelow would do well, they have good proven technology that is useful and have plans to take one of the next milestones of expanding into space: commercial space stations.
LOL - I see what you did there...
New company tag line: “Bigelow, we’re expanding into space.“
-
Or maybe, "Bigelow: We're big-in-low earth orbit!"
-
NASA has published a slide deck on commercialization of LEO.
Bigelow is nowhere to be found....
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1133390325249134592
For a company that pitches themselves as building space stations they sure aren't doing a very good job of finding potential customers...
-
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1133419903267086338
-
NASA has published a slide deck on commercialization of LEO.
Bigelow is nowhere to be found....
This appears to be the results of this NASA contract:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-concepts-for-a-vibrant-future-commercial-space-economy
Bigelow was given an award, yet it is the only one missing from the results package. All 12 of the others are present in the package.
Contracts were for max $1 million a piece.
-
NASA has published a slide deck on commercialization of LEO.
Bigelow is nowhere to be found....
This appears to be the results of this NASA contract:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-concepts-for-a-vibrant-future-commercial-space-economy
Bigelow was given an award, yet it is the only one missing from the results package. All 12 of the others are present in the package.
Contracts were for max $1 million a piece.
Space News has a little info on this:
The 13th company, Bigelow Aerospace, “respectfully withdrew their proposal submission” after that announcement, NASA spokesperson Stephanie Schierholz said.
Blair Bigelow, vice president of corporate strategy at Bigelow Aerospace and Bigelow Space Operations, said May 30 that the company decided to withdraw its study proposal “in return for pursuing something else that was very important to both NASA and ourselves.” She did not elaborate on what the alternative opportunity was.
https://spacenews.com/leo-commercialization-studies-show-wide-range-of-markets-and-demand/
-
Space News has a little info on this:
The 13th company, Bigelow Aerospace, “respectfully withdrew their proposal submission” after that announcement, NASA spokesperson Stephanie Schierholz said.
Blair Bigelow, vice president of corporate strategy at Bigelow Aerospace and Bigelow Space Operations, said May 30 that the company decided to withdraw its study proposal “in return for pursuing something else that was very important to both NASA and ourselves.” She did not elaborate on what the alternative opportunity was.
https://spacenews.com/leo-commercialization-studies-show-wide-range-of-markets-and-demand/
I wonder what that could be?
Lunar base habitat?
Living quarters on a space station?
Living quarters on a Mars Transfer Vehicle?
-
Space News has a little info on this:
The 13th company, Bigelow Aerospace, “respectfully withdrew their proposal submission” after that announcement, NASA spokesperson Stephanie Schierholz said.
Blair Bigelow, vice president of corporate strategy at Bigelow Aerospace and Bigelow Space Operations, said May 30 that the company decided to withdraw its study proposal “in return for pursuing something else that was very important to both NASA and ourselves.” She did not elaborate on what the alternative opportunity was.
https://spacenews.com/leo-commercialization-studies-show-wide-range-of-markets-and-demand/
I wonder what that could be?
Lunar base habitat?
Living quarters on a space station?
Living quarters on a Mars Transfer Vehicle?
Could be Bigelow's XBASE concept. It's a B330 attached to ISS.
-
Space News has a little info on this:
The 13th company, Bigelow Aerospace, “respectfully withdrew their proposal submission” after that announcement, NASA spokesperson Stephanie Schierholz said.
Blair Bigelow, vice president of corporate strategy at Bigelow Aerospace and Bigelow Space Operations, said May 30 that the company decided to withdraw its study proposal “in return for pursuing something else that was very important to both NASA and ourselves.” She did not elaborate on what the alternative opportunity was.
https://spacenews.com/leo-commercialization-studies-show-wide-range-of-markets-and-demand/
I wonder what that could be?
Lunar base habitat?
Living quarters on a space station?
Living quarters on a Mars Transfer Vehicle?
Could be Bigelow's XBASE concept. It's a B330 attached to ISS.
But why do they need to withdrew their proposal if they want to do XBASE? Several other proposals also have modules attached to the ISS first before going independent.
-
Space News has a little info on this:
The 13th company, Bigelow Aerospace, “respectfully withdrew their proposal submission” after that announcement, NASA spokesperson Stephanie Schierholz said.
Blair Bigelow, vice president of corporate strategy at Bigelow Aerospace and Bigelow Space Operations, said May 30 that the company decided to withdraw its study proposal “in return for pursuing something else that was very important to both NASA and ourselves.” She did not elaborate on what the alternative opportunity was.
https://spacenews.com/leo-commercialization-studies-show-wide-range-of-markets-and-demand/
I wonder what that could be?
Lunar base habitat?
Living quarters on a space station?
Living quarters on a Mars Transfer Vehicle?
Could be Bigelow's XBASE concept. It's a B330 attached to ISS.
But why do they need to withdrew their proposal if they want to do XBASE? Several other proposals also have modules attached to the ISS first before going independent.
Who knows, I'm just guessing. They could be selling a B330 to NASA instead of following the commercialization study.
-
Bigelow Space Operations was formed for the purpose of studying demand etc: https://www.bigelowspaceops.com/press/press_021418.php
The commercial study would seem like a great way to get paid to do this?
My bet is that RB got paranoid that their participation is going to give away some kind of trade secrets and master plan. Or he's chasing UFOs... Either way I have zero faith in this company following through on any of their big ideas.
-
Bigelow Space Operations was formed for the purpose of studying demand etc: https://www.bigelowspaceops.com/press/press_021418.php (https://www.bigelowspaceops.com/press/press_021418.php)
The commercial study would seem like a great way to get paid to do this?
My bet is that RB got paranoid that their participation is going to give away some kind of trade secrets and master plan. Or he's chasing UFOs... Either way I have zero faith in this company following through on any of their big ideas.
With the two launches of B330-1 and B330-2 expected in 2021,...
Really
Within the next 17 months...
-
But why do they need to withdrew their proposal if they want to do XBASE? Several other proposals also have modules attached to the ISS first before going independent.
B330 mass 23 tonne plus a second launch of several tons of furniture and fittings. Most LOP-G modules mass around 10 tonnes. I wonder if Bigelow has been told, informally, that XBASE with its extra large fairing is too heavy for high energy orbits such as the one used by the Gateway?
-
B330 mass 23 tonne plus a second launch of several tons of furniture and fittings. Most LOP-G modules mass around 10 tonnes. I wonder if Bigelow has been told, informally, that XBASE with its extra large fairing is too heavy for high energy orbits such as the one used by the Gateway?
No, its still easily within the capabilities of the distributed lift architecture with Vulcan (which they had previously baselined)
-
Those Glassdoor reviews - oh dear!!!
Maybe we won't be seeing any sort of inflatable hab from Bigelow then?
-
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1135583105924755456
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1135583452961464320
Details on how it actually gets to the surface not provided...
The only 2 vehicles that could come close to making this happen are XEUS and Starship. XEUS is shelved, I think since I don't know what Masten is proposing for a lander now. Inflatables really have a minimal benefit with Starship, with the cargo door openings not being super well definded right now.
This looks cool and all but it doesn't have me excited. Seems like a product that is way ahead of the potential market and a distraction from Bigelow growong and developing as a legitimate company.
EDIT: wait looks like tanks and engines on 2 modules....
So the intent is a modular assembled habitat/lander?
-
more photos:
https://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/firstbase/
edit: two main engines, with two modules with similarly sized fuel tanks. Implies either methalox or hypergolics I guess.
edit 2:Actually, pixel measuring suggests a tank volume ratio of ~3:1. So, looks like hydrolox. BE-7?
-
more photos:
https://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/firstbase/
edit: two main engines, with two modules with similarly sized fuel tanks. Implies either methalox or hypergolics I guess.
edit 2:Actually, pixel measuring suggests a tank volume ratio of ~3:1. So, looks like hydrolox. BE-7?
I am glad to see they are recruiting ECLSS staff. It is difficult to live in a cold and airless Moon base.
-
Is it a left and right propulsion pack essentially hung off the hatch structures though?
-
No mock ups of the interior, so maybe they're still trying to figure out what it would look like? I'm trying to imagine how that would work out with gravity and this thing laying on its side.
-
Details on how it actually gets to the surface not provided...
...
EDIT: wait looks like tanks and engines on 2 modules....
So the intent is a modular assembled habitat/lander?
Yes. This concept is basically unchanged from what they showed in powerpoints 3-5 years ago. The whole thing docks together in LEO, and the propulsion modules (and expendable departure stages) get it all the way to the surface. Don't ask me how they expect to put that much force perpendicular to the docking ports...
-
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1135583105924755456
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1135583452961464320
Details on how it actually gets to the surface not provided...
The only 2 vehicles that could come close to making this happen are XEUS and Starship. XEUS is shelved, I think since I don't know what Masten is proposing for a lander now. Inflatables really have a minimal benefit with Starship, with the cargo door openings not being super well definded right now.
This looks cool and all but it doesn't have me excited. Seems like a product that is way ahead of the potential market and a distraction from Bigelow growong and developing as a legitimate company.
EDIT: wait looks like tanks and engines on 2 modules....
So the intent is a modular assembled habitat/lander?
XEUS is still ongoing but sort of on the backburner as they await their Centaur V stage (will receive a qualification stage for ground testing) and later the lander version (implementation of CECE technology) of RL10C-X upgrade engine which is now the baseline engine version. The delays and switch from Centaur III to Centaur V is the latest hold up for continuation of the project and associated studies. XEUS requires ACES tech to fly lunar missions.
-
XEUS is still ongoing but sort of on the backburner as they await their Centaur V stage (will receive a qualification stage for ground testing) and later the lander version (implementation of CECE technology) of RL10C-X upgrade engine which is now the baseline engine version. The delays and switch from Centaur III to Centaur V is the latest hold up for continuation of the project and associated studies. XEUS requires ACES tech to fly lunar missions.
This isn't the thread for it but I'll repost this info.
Tory Bruno has said on the Space Show in an interview that XEUS has been shelved due to "others" working on landers. Eric Berger has posted about certain ACES elements also being shelved at Boeing's direction. Unless you have sources that say otherwise that is where things are as far as everyone on the ULA reddit knows.
ULA has really dropped their promotion of both of these, which is a pretty strange move given everything that is happening regarding NASA's current direction.
The ACES element is relevant, since launch of B330 beyond LEO depends on distributed launch with ULA, who last anyone's heard is Bigelow's launch provider.
-
ACES and distributed launch are a threat to SLS hence Boeing killing it. Both ULAs parents have lander proposals so won't allow XEUS to compete.
Bigelow best bet for ride to moon is Blue's NG.
-
This would be quite an impressive step forward if/when it happens:
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1137012892191076353
-
This would be quite an impressive step forward if/when it happens:
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1137012892191076353
You beat me to this by a minute, so I deleted my post.
Doesn't this imply that there would be additional crew berths on the ISS, or can it actually accommodate an additional four crew in its current configuration?
-
Seems to me that Bigelow would need permission to attach a new module to the station to host those 4 additional crew.
-
This announcement is confusing to me, as the new commercial rules outlined by NASA today (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-opens-international-space-station-to-new-commercial-opportunities-private) explicitly say that only two private astronauts per year will be allowed on the ISS. The Bigelow announcement clearly implies that it would be sending four each time (16 astronauts on 4 flights).
-
This announcement is confusing to me, as the new commercial rules outlined by NASA today (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-opens-international-space-station-to-new-commercial-opportunities-private) explicitly say that only two private astronauts per year will be allowed on the ISS. The Bigelow announcement clearly implies that it would be sending four each time (16 astronauts on 4 flights).
I might be wrong, but I interpreted the passage as two missions per year, not two astronauts.
"up to two short-duration private astronaut missions per year"
Meaning there could be a number of astronauts per mission, but only two missions per year.
-
It seems like the next announcement from NASA should be which commercial company gets to use the available port on the ISS. If I remember correctly, weren't proposals submitted awhile ago or was there only discussion of requesting proposals? I seem to remember that Bigelow, Axiom Space, and Nanoracks had legitimate proposals.
Edit: Read this new article from the verge (https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/7/18656280/nasa-space-station-private-astronauts-commercial-business) which answered most of my questions.
-
This announcement is confusing to me, as the new commercial rules outlined by NASA today (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-opens-international-space-station-to-new-commercial-opportunities-private) explicitly say that only two private astronauts per year will be allowed on the ISS. The Bigelow announcement clearly implies that it would be sending four each time (16 astronauts on 4 flights).
That page explicitly says two "missions" per year, not two astronauts.
-
This would be quite an impressive step forward if/when it happens:
REMOVED TWEET
You beat me to this by a minute, so I deleted my post.
Doesn't this imply that there would be additional crew berths on the ISS, or can it actually accommodate an additional four crew in its current configuration?
I think this is a signal that Bigelow is prepared (whether or not it actually does) to win the habitat contract for NextSTEP, which would involve a demonstration mission where a mission-specific B330 called XBASE would be attached to the ISS, and the Bigelow crew would be needed to outfit it there after it is expanded.
-
My take on this was that missions wouldn't need Xbase initially. But it's correct that the numbers would be challenging if that were the case. 2 missions x 2 astronauts, then build xbase and then 1x3 and 1x7 would work.
I would be more excited to see them fly a few to ISS as is, then build Xbase than wait for the module. Would make more business sense to build capabilities and supply incrementally... jbless Xbase is really THAT close to launch readiness (I'm skeptical).
-
Doesn't this imply that there would be additional crew berths on the ISS, or can it actually accommodate an additional four crew in its current configuration?
Visitors could be accommodated in the Dragon; shades of STS days. It has a toilet and galley if memory serves.
-
This part of NASA's press release is relevant to Bigelow and their XBASE:
As a first step, NASA is making one space station port and utilities available for industry to attach a commercial module to support commercial activities, and today is releasing a synopsis as Appendix I in NASA’s Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) 2 Broad Agency Announcement (BAA). NASA expects to release the solicitation June 14, with awards made by the end of the fiscal year. The forward port of the station’s Harmony module will be available to industry for a finite period of time.
NASA will follow up with a synopsis for NextSTEP 2 Appendix K in July to partner with industry in the development of future free-flying commercial stations in low-Earth orbit.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-opens-international-space-station-to-new-commercial-opportunities-private
-
So this is put up or shut up for Bigelow, it seems to me.
-
we are at a time where as the old commercial goes "the rubber meets the road" for a lot of these companies...Bigelow, Axiom etc
it will be curious to see if "any" of them can actually turn viewgraphs into hardware...but if one does...then well the door might just move wide open
it is unlikely that if Bigelow or anyother provider puts up hardware that connects to the "commercial node" that "for them" at least the limitation on visits will stay in place...or the cost structure particularly if the module is such that "IT" contributes to basic ISS operation
IF it happens and it is profitable (two big ifs) then this could be the lever that 1) opens space commercialism with human flight and 2) starts finding something profitable for humans to do in space and 3) changes the very character of human spaceflight.
right now, my "bet" would be with Bigelow being the most "able" to turn viewgraphs and mockups into something that flies...
-
right now, my "bet" would be with Bigelow being the most "able" to turn viewgraphs and mockups into something that flies...
Bigelow has been around a LONG time. If you read the threads, you might form the same impression as I have... all paper at this point. Poor management and poor working conditions means all the actual talent has left. I'd bet on someone else, if they are at all competent, being first.
-
all paper at this point.
Not exactly: Genesis I, Genesis II and BEAM.
Anyways, BEAM and whatever crew vehicle is used to get up there will work for crew accommodation in a crunch until something larger comes along (probably not 4 people per trip though unless NASA augments that with space they set up in Leonardo or something).
-
all paper at this point.
Not exactly: Genesis I, Genesis II and BEAM.
All done before the most talented engineers left.
I'd be surprised if Bigalow can still step up; pleased, but surprised.
-
Arranging ISS trips as a test for their own habs later?
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1137012892191076353
Bigelow Space Operations has made significant deposits for the ability to fly up to 16 people to the International Space Station on 4 dedicated SpaceX flights.
-
https://www.bigelowspaceops.com/flytotheiss.php
Bigelow Space Operations Announces it has Reserved up to Four Dedicated SpaceX Launches to the International Space Station
On Friday, June 7, 2019 Bigelow Space Operations (BSO) announced that last September of 2018 BSO paid substantial sums as deposits and reservation fees to secure up to four SpaceX launches to the International Space Station (ISS). These launches are dedicated flights each carrying up to four people for a duration of one to possibly two months on the ISS.
BSO is excited about NASA’s announcements last Friday. BSO has demonstrated its sincerity and commitment to moving forward on NASA’s commercialization plans for the ISS through the execution of last September’s launch contracts. BSO intends to thoroughly digest all of the information that was dispersed last week so that all opportunities and obligations to properly conduct the flights and activities of new astronauts to the ISS can be responsibly performed.
In these early times, the seat cost will be targeted at approximately $52,000,000 per person.
The next big question is when is this all going to happen? Once the SpaceX rocket and capsule are certified by NASA to fly people to the ISS, then this program can begin.
As you might imagine, as they say “the devil is in the details”, and there are many. But we are excited and optimistic that all of this can come together successfully, and BSO has skin in the game.
Robert T. Bigelow
President,
Bigelow Space Operations
Bigelow Aerospace
-
all paper at this point.
Not exactly: Genesis I, Genesis II and BEAM.
All done before the most talented engineers left.
I'd be surprised if Bigalow can still step up; pleased, but surprised.
and IIRC was largely based on existing technology they got from NASA. If you don't have core technology development in-house, what's your value exactly? An integrator? There are plenty of those, and they are better at it than Bigelow.
-
all paper at this point.
Not exactly: Genesis I, Genesis II and BEAM.
All done before the most talented engineers left.
I'd be surprised if Bigalow can still step up; pleased, but surprised.
and IIRC was largely based on existing technology they got from NASA. If you don't have core technology development in-house, what's your value exactly? An integrator? There are plenty of those, and they are better at it than Bigelow.
I'm of the understanding that Bigelow improved on the transhab design significantly, particularly in regards to the materials used.
-
Bigelow Space Operations Announces it has Reserved up to Four Dedicated SpaceX Launches to the International Space Station
On Friday, June 7, 2019 Bigelow Space Operations (BSO) announced that last September of 2018 BSO paid substantial sums as deposits and reservation fees to secure up to four SpaceX launches to the International Space Station (ISS). These launches are dedicated flights each carrying up to four people for a duration of one to possibly two months on the ISS.
I don't really get this -- is Bigelow essentially just acting as a travel agent here? It doesn't seem like they are providing any material service for the tourists.
And if SpaceX is going to be in the tourist-ferrying business, why would they agree to have Bigelow act as middle-man, rather than just make arrangements for tourists directly?
-
Bigelow Space Operations Announces it has Reserved up to Four Dedicated SpaceX Launches to the International Space Station
On Friday, June 7, 2019 Bigelow Space Operations (BSO) announced that last September of 2018 BSO paid substantial sums as deposits and reservation fees to secure up to four SpaceX launches to the International Space Station (ISS). These launches are dedicated flights each carrying up to four people for a duration of one to possibly two months on the ISS.
I don't really get this -- is Bigelow essentially just acting as a travel agent here? It doesn't seem like they are providing any material service for the tourists.
And if SpaceX is going to be in the tourist-ferrying business, why would they agree to have Bigelow act as middle-man, rather than just make arrangements for tourists directly?
I understand it as the seats they are reserving aren't for tourists, but would be for Bigelow employees who come to outfit a B330 on the ISS.
This is assuming that they either A. get the go-ahead from NASA for the XBASE, B. have an agreement with NASA to check out / outfit a private B330 at the ISS before separating it for their private space station, or C. win the Gateway habitat competition and put it together at the ISS before shifting it to the Gateway. Or possibly even some combination of the above.
-
I don't really get this -- is Bigelow essentially just acting as a travel agent here? It doesn't seem like they are providing any material service for the tourists.
Something they will need to do anyway. Lot's of work in securing customers, arranging a ride, dealing with accommodation (ISS), providing any relevant training and health checks, and what is likely mountains of paper work.
And if SpaceX is going to be in the tourist-ferrying business, why would they agree to have Bigelow act as middle-man, rather than just make arrangements for tourists directly?
They could, but all of the above sounds like a lot of work and risk for a company that doesn't specialize in it. Much different than something like DearMoon where they can offer a service 100% internal to the company.
I understand it as the seats they are reserving aren't for tourists, but would be for Bigelow employees who come to outfit a B330 on the ISS.
This is assuming that they either A. get the go-ahead from NASA for the XBASE, B. have an agreement with NASA to check out / outfit a private B330 at the ISS before separating it for their private space station, or C. win the Gateway habitat competition and put it together at the ISS before shifting it to the Gateway. Or possibly even some combination of the above.
Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.
There is no evidence that B330 is anywhere near ready, and that single docking port has at least 2 other potential customers trying to get a piece of it with the upcoming competition.
XBASE was only ever intended as a test for NASA before it undocks to become its own independent station.
The next big question is when is this all going to happen? Once the SpaceX rocket and capsule are certified by NASA to fly people to the ISS, then this program can begin.
No mention of B330 or XBASE whatsoever. Pretty big omission if that is something they are depending on.
Personally I think this is the first good proposal/plan to come from Bigelow in a long time. There will no doubt be a very steep learning curve to actually getting tourists up to any station, ISS or their own module. Depending on their own module just makes that exponentially harder.
If they can successfully pull off flying even a few tourists it legitimizes them as a company. This would further validate space tourism as a valid industry - the last orbital flight was a decade ago.
Geek wire reports that one competitor, Space Adventures, is in works to fly tourists on Starliner as the 5th seat: https://www.geekwire.com/2019/bigelow-aims-sell-rides-space-station-spacex-dragon-ships-52m-seat/
I am super skeptical of pretty much everything Bigelow does, but this a step to actually operating a legitimate business with paying customers beyond the niche market of space closets. (https://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/beam/) If/when B330 launches it has a much higher chance of success if the mechanism to get customers there is actually proven out.
-
If they can successfully pull off flying even a few tourists it legitimizes them as a company.
It speaks volumes about the company's reputation that they have a module attached to the ISS but still need to be legitimized.
-
Geek wire reports that one competitor, Space Adventures, is in works to fly tourists on Starliner as the 5th seat: https://www.geekwire.com/2019/bigelow-aims-sell-rides-space-station-spacex-dragon-ships-52m-seat/
The problem with any effort to fly tourists in the 5th seat, unless I'm missing something, is that you can only run those missions during crew handovers. So either you have to coordinate with both Boeing and SpaceX so that the tourist can ride up on a Starliner and return on a Dragon, or you have to hope scheduling works out such that two Starliners launch in a row (and I assume NASA plans to alternate capsules). Or your tourist is staying on the station for six months (not terribly likely).
-
Geek wire reports that one competitor, Space Adventures, is in works to fly tourists on Starliner as the 5th seat: https://www.geekwire.com/2019/bigelow-aims-sell-rides-space-station-spacex-dragon-ships-52m-seat/
The problem with any effort to fly tourists in the 5th seat, unless I'm missing something, is that you can only run those missions during crew handovers. So either you have to coordinate with both Boeing and SpaceX so that the tourist can ride up on a Starliner and return on a Dragon, or you have to hope scheduling works out such that two Starliners launch in a row (and I assume NASA plans to alternate capsules). Or your tourist is staying on the station for six months (not terribly likely).
The other thing is that NASA hasn't yet said that they would allow that. In a NAC meeting last year, McAlister said that NASA was considering this option because they understand that it's not easy to fill an entire capsule. Since nothing was announced last week, I am guessing that NASA hasn't yet approved this plan. I was disapointed that no one asked that question at the press conference last week.
-
If they can successfully pull off flying even a few tourists it legitimizes them as a company.
It speaks volumes about the company's reputation that they have a module attached to the ISS but still need to be legitimized.
Either the company's reputation, or the standards of the legitimizing agency, or both.
-
Why does this seem like an Orion Lite debacle all over again?
-
all paper at this point.
Not exactly: Genesis I, Genesis II and BEAM.
All done before the most talented engineers left.
I'd be surprised if Bigalow can still step up; pleased, but surprised.
Looks like many of Bigelow's items were done by Thin Red Line in Chilliwack BC Canada.
http://www.thin-red-line.com/
http://www.thin-red-line.com/projects.html
Bigelow Aerospace inflatable habitat
Genesis spacecraft flight hardware
Thin Red Line developed and supplied 20 full-fidelity inflatable pressure shells of up to 320 cubic meter volume for Bigelow Aerospace. Thin Red Line designed, engineered and manufactured the pressure restraining hulls of Genesis 1 and 2 (launched 7/2006 and 6/2007 respectively), the first spacecraft on orbit successfully incorporating large volume, high-stress inflatable architecture
-
all paper at this point.
Not exactly: Genesis I, Genesis II and BEAM.
All done before the most talented engineers left.
I'd be surprised if Bigalow can still step up; pleased, but surprised.
Looks like many of Bigelow's restraint layers were done by Thin Red Line in Chilliwack BC Canada.
http://www.thin-red-line.com/
http://www.thin-red-line.com/projects.html
Bigelow Aerospace inflatable habitat
Genesis spacecraft flight hardware
Thin Red Line developed and supplied 20 full-fidelity inflatable pressure shells of up to 320 cubic meter volume for Bigelow Aerospace. Thin Red Line designed, engineered and manufactured the pressure restraining hulls of Genesis 1 and 2 (launched 7/2006 and 6/2007 respectively), the first spacecraft on orbit successfully incorporating large volume, high-stress inflatable architecture
Thin Red Line makes inflatables like this for other folks, too.
-
>
Looks like many of Bigelow's restraint layers were done by Thin Red Line in Chilliwack BC Canada.
http://www.thin-red-line.com/
http://www.thin-red-line.com/projects.html
Bigelow Aerospace inflatable habitat
Genesis spacecraft flight hardware
Thin Red Line developed and supplied 20 full-fidelity inflatable pressure shells of up to 320 cubic meter volume for Bigelow Aerospace. Thin Red Line designed, engineered and manufactured the pressure restraining hulls of Genesis 1 and 2 (launched 7/2006 and 6/2007 respectively), the first spacecraft on orbit successfully incorporating large volume, high-stress inflatable architecture
Thin Red Line makes inflatables like this for other folks, too.
AIUI, ILC Dover does SNC's LIFE, or did ILC-D sub it out to TRL?
-
*snip*
I understand it as the seats they are reserving aren't for tourists, but would be for Bigelow employees who come to outfit a B330 on the ISS.
This is assuming that they either A. get the go-ahead from NASA for the XBASE, B. have an agreement with NASA to check out / outfit a private B330 at the ISS before separating it for their private space station, or C. win the Gateway habitat competition and put it together at the ISS before shifting it to the Gateway. Or possibly even some combination of the above.
Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.
There is no evidence that B330 is anywhere near ready, and that single docking port has at least 2 other potential customers trying to get a piece of it with the upcoming competition.
XBASE was only ever intended as a test for NASA before it undocks to become its own independent station.
The next big question is when is this all going to happen? Once the SpaceX rocket and capsule are certified by NASA to fly people to the ISS, then this program can begin.
No mention of B330 or XBASE whatsoever. Pretty big omission if that is something they are depending on.
Personally I think this is the first good proposal/plan to come from Bigelow in a long time. There will no doubt be a very steep learning curve to actually getting tourists up to any station, ISS or their own module. Depending on their own module just makes that exponentially harder.
If they can successfully pull off flying even a few tourists it legitimizes them as a company. This would further validate space tourism as a valid industry - the last orbital flight was a decade ago.
Geek wire reports that one competitor, Space Adventures, is in works to fly tourists on Starliner as the 5th seat: https://www.geekwire.com/2019/bigelow-aims-sell-rides-space-station-spacex-dragon-ships-52m-seat/
I am super skeptical of pretty much everything Bigelow does, but this a step to actually operating a legitimate business with paying customers beyond the niche market of space closets. (https://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/beam/) If/when B330 launches it has a much higher chance of success if the mechanism to get customers there is actually proven out.
I'm not sure which part of what I said you are questioning? It sounds to me like you think this means they are just going to fly tourists to the ISS for the heck of it, which I suppose is possible as well.
I'm hoping this means they either pretty sure or are expectant of winning the Gateway habitat competition, or NASA is near to agreeing them to put XBASE (or a private B330) on the ISS.
-
all paper at this point.
Not exactly: Genesis I, Genesis II and BEAM.
All done before the most talented engineers left.
I'd be surprised if Bigalow can still step up; pleased, but surprised.
Looks like many of Bigelow's items were done by Thin Red Line in Chilliwack BC Canada.
http://www.thin-red-line.com/
http://www.thin-red-line.com/projects.html
Bigelow Aerospace inflatable habitat
Genesis spacecraft flight hardware
Thin Red Line developed and supplied 20 full-fidelity inflatable pressure shells of up to 320 cubic meter volume for Bigelow Aerospace. Thin Red Line designed, engineered and manufactured the pressure restraining hulls of Genesis 1 and 2 (launched 7/2006 and 6/2007 respectively), the first spacecraft on orbit successfully incorporating large volume, high-stress inflatable architecture
Figures.
The subcontractor train is an established fact in traditional aerospace, with the predictable outcome.
It's annoying when a "new space" company is established and immediately falls into the same pattern.
-
*snip*
The subcontractor train is an established fact in traditional aerospace, with the predictable outcome.
It's annoying when a "new space" company is established and immediately falls into the same pattern.
It depends on the part, but it's almost always going to be cheaper and faster to subcontract out to someone who specializes in whatever part you need, rather than purchasing all the tooling, raw materials, hiring people with the know-how, and slowly build up your internal knowledge base to produce the part on your own.
Everyone subcontracts. Even SpaceX, though they do a substantial amount of work in-house.
-
Is Bigelow still using Thin Red Line as a contractor? There was a Space News article from 2014 that mentioned the earlier work but didn't make it sound like a current relationship.
-
*snip*
The subcontractor train is an established fact in traditional aerospace, with the predictable outcome.
It's annoying when a "new space" company is established and immediately falls into the same pattern.
It depends on the part, but it's almost always going to be cheaper and faster to subcontract out to someone who specializes in whatever part you need, rather than purchasing all the tooling, raw materials, hiring people with the know-how, and slowly build up your internal knowledge base to produce the part on your own.
Everyone subcontracts. Even SpaceX, though they do a substantial amount of work in-house.
There's a difference between buying COTS parts from a vendor, to subcontracting a small job, to basically "subcontracting" everything and becoming just a contract manager.
That's how you get companies with almost no core competency except for the ability to get contracts. I know "everyone does it", but that's how the industry got to the state that's in.
-
SNC seems to be doing a good job out of subcontracting a lot of their work. Same thing for NGIS. Not because SpaceX prefers vertical integration means that it is the only way of doing things.
-
SNC seems to be doing a good job out of subcontracting a lot of their work. Same thing for NGIS. Not because SpaceX prefers vertical integration means that it is the only way of doing things.
Of course it's not the only way, since as I said, everyone's doing it the other way ...
Vertical integration is definitely the hardest way to do things, but without a doubt resulted in the most radical, rapid, and effective progress we've seen in aerospace in decades, and by a large margin.
This is not only circumstantial. It is easy to see how VI plays across the technology deck to enable this progress. W/o it, all of SpaceX's programs would have been many times slower and more expensive, if they were to happen at all.
-
You know “Aerospace inflation”? I.e. how things in Aerospace have, overall, increased in price a lot faster than everything else, even including increased capability?
The entire supply chain has had half a century of cost growth and stagnation and lack of spending discipline. That’s why vertically integration is necessary for a company like THAT WHICH SHALL NOT BE NAMED.
-
This isn't a SpaceX thread.
-
twitter.com/bigelowspace/status/1140644245490954241?s=21
More on our "First Base": How do we help protect astronauts from radiation on the surface of the moon? Placing regolith over their heads has long been considered necessary but previous methods have not been practical. On the lunar surface, the simpler the construction the better.
https://twitter.com/bigelowspace/status/1140644376550367232
Astronauts fill durable tubes with regolith. The tubes (~20 m long) are laced over the habitat to build a desired thickness. There is a simple approach to this placement. This approach to radiation protection doesn’t require moving parts. The astronauts perform the tube loading.
twitter.com/bigelowspace/status/1140644495156842496?s=21
Outside of the habitat, an enclosed rover outfitted with water or other tiles provides much needed shielding on the lunar surface. The two person enclosed rover and the solar field are deployed from the two warehouses of "First Base".
https://twitter.com/bigelowspace/status/1140644716301524997
Close-ups from a table model at our plant that we quickly put together about 15 years ago. As you can see we have refined some of these concepts.
-
Or just land near the Marius Hills Hole (MHH) and gently lower a Sundancer inside. Dust, radiations, insane variation of temperatures: gone. Et voilŕ !
-
{snip}
Astronauts fill durable tubes with regolith. The tubes (~20 m long) are laced over the habitat to build a desired thickness. There is a simple approach to this placement. This approach to radiation protection doesn’t require moving parts. The astronauts perform the tube loading.
Filling the tubes will require many hours of manual work in spacesuits. This is not a good option.
-
{snip}
Astronauts fill durable tubes with regolith. The tubes (~20 m long) are laced over the habitat to build a desired thickness. There is a simple approach to this placement. This approach to radiation protection doesn’t require moving parts. The astronauts perform the tube loading.
Filling the tubes will require many hours of manual work in spacesuits. This is not a good option.
Astronauts may be the most versatile, but they are undoubtedly the most expensive “moving parts” one could imagine.
This is not thought through, even though Bigelow hinted he had a solution years ago.
The caption says the model is something they built quickly 15 years ago.
That’s a blatant admission that they did not and never intended to put in a professional effort.
“He’s dead, Jim!”
-
{snip}
Astronauts fill durable tubes with regolith. The tubes (~20 m long) are laced over the habitat to build a desired thickness. There is a simple approach to this placement. This approach to radiation protection doesn’t require moving parts. The astronauts perform the tube loading.
Filling the tubes will require many hours of manual work in spacesuits. This is not a good option.
Astronauts may be the most versatile, but they are undoubtedly the most expensive “moving parts” one could imagine.
This is not thought through, even though Bigelow hinted he had a solution years ago.
The caption says the model is something they built quickly 15 years ago.
That’s a blatant admission that they did not and never intended to put in a professional effort.
“He’s dead, Jim!”
Eliminating moving parts is an odd goal in my opinion. Once the base is set up there are surely going to be attempts to mine lunar ice and other elements, no?
Eliminating something that is inevitable seems like a waste of time.
-
Space suits are cheaper than any large space-rated robotics. Astronauts themselves are self-replicating.
-
Space suits are cheaper than any large space-rated robotics. Astronauts themselves are self-replicating.
Not while in their spacesuits they aren't.
-
Space suits are cheaper than any large space-rated robotics. Astronauts themselves are self-replicating.
Not while in their spacesuits they aren't.
It's not at useful timescales for current missions, although hopefully we'll see that change before the end of my life.
-
Space suits are cheaper than any large space-rated robotics. Astronauts themselves are self-replicating.
Not while in their spacesuits they aren't.
Life, uh, finds a way...
https://www.fastcompany.com/3068263/meet-the-designer-of-nasas-next-generation-spacesuit-diaper
(Where’s the Party thread?)
-
Space suits are cheaper than any large space-rated robotics. Astronauts themselves are self-replicating.
Not while in their spacesuits they aren't.
Life, uh, finds a way...
https://www.fastcompany.com/3068263/meet-the-designer-of-nasas-next-generation-spacesuit-diaper
(Where’s the Party thread?)
Something something rocky noodles something
-
Hmm, S2 appears to have shrunk and BA330 fits easily into the fairing ...
https://twitter.com/bigelowspace/status/1152289674670383104
How a #B330 could be turned into a lunar base (First Base).
-
Hmm, S2 appears to have shrunk and BA330 fits easily into the fairing ...
Maybe, that warehouse/docking node/tug scales a fair bit too long. Renderings to scale have never been Bigelow's strong suit...
I imagine the folks at ULA aren't real happy with these graphics...
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/ula-bigelow-expand-association-lunar-depot-plan/
-
Hmm, S2 appears to have shrunk and BA330 fits easily into the fairing ...
https://twitter.com/bigelowspace/status/1152289674670383104
How a #B330 could be turned into a lunar base (First Base).
The more I look at that gif, the worse the rocket gets. Side boosters separating at the same time as S2, an enormous interstage for some reason, wrong shape of the fairing...
-
https://spacenews.com/nasa-planning-to-keep-beam-module-on-iss-for-the-long-haul/
https://twitter.com/genejm29/status/1160894236759330816
-
Not sure whether this is a sign that inflatable modules perform better than expected or inflatable modules' progress stagnating...
-
Not sure whether this is a sign that inflatable modules perform better than expected or inflatable modules' progress stagnating...
Its performance has been validated to be good enough to be part of a human-occupied habitat in space for 10+ years, I'd say that's a very good sign.
-
Not sure whether this is a sign that inflatable modules perform better than expected or inflatable modules' progress stagnating...
Think that NASA need the extra storage space afforded by the BEAM module.
-
Yes, but won't BEAM now occupy one of the two points the bigger module can dock/ berth to for the rest of ISS' operational life? Seems to me that doesn't really inspire progress...
-
No, the aft port on node 3 is pretty useless. BEAM is about the biggest thing that can attach there without hitting Zaryas solar arrays or the truss. NanRacks proposed an unpressurized module there once (like Bartolomeo, but with a CBM), but it was canceled in favor of Bishop and Outpost
-
https://twitter.com/lorengrush/status/1172185780841639936
An interesting morning so far in Vegas
Hopefully Loren will have something to report soon. Something must be afoot for Bigelow to be hosting her?
-
https://twitter.com/lorengrush/status/1172185780841639936
An interesting morning so far in Vegas
Hopefully Loren will have something to report soon. Something must be afoot for Bigelow to be hosting her?
Side note: THAT'S A FLIPPIN CLONETROOPER in front of the B2100 mockup. Cool. That's all.
-
Side note: THAT'S A FLIPPIN CLONETROOPER in front of the B2100 mockup. Cool. That's all.
Isn't he a little short to be a stormtrooper?
-
Looking at the docking port in comparison seems like 6' stormtrooper.
-
https://twitter.com/thejackbeyer/status/1172215310482460672
At Bigelow Aerospace today for updates on NextSTEP Phase 2 and B330. For comparison, here’s a mockup of BEAM (currently on the ISS) and B330 (potential Lunar Gateway hab module). If BEAM is like a two person tent, B330 is like a 4 or 5 bedroom home! @BigelowSpace @NASASpaceflight
-
Some great B330 pics:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1172215821550198785
This is a steel testing version of @BigelowSpace's B330, an inflatable space habitat that the company is developing with @NASA.
B330 is designed to get to space with a single rocket launch and accommodate 4 people "indefinitely" on a long duration mission, such as to Mars.
twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1172215848444055557
Bigelow says that B330 has two galleys (i.e., kitchens), two kitchens, crew quarters and lockers, dedicated areas for research, a 3D printer, and "enormous cargo space."
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1172215860859154432
Here's B330 with people in front of it, so you get a sense of the scale from the outside.
Bigelow says it can build the first operational B330 space station in 42 months (essentially by 2023).
Edit to add:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1172219510826422279
Like BEAM, the company envisions deploying B330 by attaching it to the International Space Station.
-
Nice to finally see the B330 mockup Bigelow made for NASA! Interesting details - like the beams that say "do not exist" :p and lab and stowage areas.
-
twitter.com/thejackbeyer/status/1172226681957863424
This is what it looks like as you enter a B330. Note items labeled “DOES NOT EXIST” which are only needed for mobility due to gravity. On the real thing they, well, don’t exist. Shot with @Spectacles.
https://twitter.com/thejackbeyer/status/1172227424865509376
This is what one of four crew quarters looks like. There would be an enclosure for privacy that is currently denoted by the black outline. The racks on the right represent personal locker space.
twitter.com/thejackbeyer/status/1172229076771229696
Large curved screens in place of windows on the lower deck connected to cameras the crew can control. Another bunk way off at the other end. The amount of space in B330 is staggering, and I knew it was going to be big.
https://twitter.com/thejackbeyer/status/1172230206330818562
B330 is so big in fact, that I couldn’t get a great interior picture even with an 11mm lens. Here’s some shots of the mid deck. There’s two gallies, a 3D printer, a glove box and loads more.
-
https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/1172490700996448256
Our astronauts are inside @BigelowSpace's B330 Mars Transporter Testing prototype this week. It’s the last of 5 tests this year to assess performance, layout & ergonomics of these very unique American designed deep space habitats. Learn more here: go.nasa.gov/2UeEPOZ
-
Will give this a standalone thread as we could use more for Bigelow for a future section.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/09/bigelows-b330-autonomous-expandable-station/
And video from Jack!
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1172539699132600320
-
Fine article Chris, well written. By the way, Bigelow space stations will be quite expensive. Why?
Inflation ;D
-
https://twitter.com/lorengrush/status/1172554069908414464
Also some news here: Bigelow is no longer planning to send tourists to the ISS in four SpaceX Crew Dragon flights - at least for the foreseeable future
Edit to add: I think Michael has a point
https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1172559728364466177
Isn't this the kind of stuff you investigate *before* you announce that you have booked up to four launches?
theverge.com/2019/9/13/2086…
-
Isn't this the kind of stuff you investigate *before* you announce that you have booked up to four launches?
theverge.com/2019/9/13/2086…
Yeah no kidding, it's pure incompetence on their part. What exactly have they and the Bigelow Space Operations been doing this whole time.
That and failing to incorporate windows. Number 1 rule is always to know your customers. Who is going to want to pay to go to space and not look out a real window? Obviously noone given their comments on the difficulty of selling $50million seats.
-
Isn't this the kind of stuff you investigate *before* you announce that you have booked up to four launches?
theverge.com/2019/9/13/2086…
Yeah no kidding, it's pure incompetence on their part. What exactly have they and the Bigelow Space Operations been doing this whole time.
That and failing to incorporate windows. Number 1 rule is always to know your customers. Who is going to want to pay to go to space and not look out a real window? Obviously noone given their comments on the difficulty of selling $50million seats.
Windows are heavy, and also vulnerable to debris. Previous B330 renders had small windows within a pyramid-shaped chunk taken out of the side of the module, obviously that would be a structural issue as well.
I would guess it would be easier for Bigelow to have a separate module with a window on it.
-
I really want Bigelow to succeed but it seems to me that this is just a NASA-funded ground-based demo and there are no clear plans to launch anything into space. Or did I miss something?
Bigelow has launched stuff before: Genesis and BEAM. But nothing resembling a launch date for B330 yet.
Do we even know what launchers it fits? Last I remember it slightly too large for Falcon9 which was a really silly limitation to build into your design.
-
Windows are heavy, and also vulnerable to debris. Previous B330 renders had small windows within a pyramid-shaped chunk taken out of the side of the module, obviously that would be a structural issue as well.
I would guess it would be easier for Bigelow to have a separate module with a window on it.
And? The ISS copolla is where international astronauts spend a lot of their freetime. A rational company ( https://axiomspace.com/axiom-station/)
would see the value in that despite any engineering challenges. Bigelow doesn't behave rationally.
I had thought this previous announcement to fly crew to the ISS as is meant Bigelow would work to provide a service first and grow as a business, but clearly they can't be bothered with market research and seem content to just keep churning out mock ups and prototypes.
-
That and failing to incorporate windows. Number 1 rule is always to know your customers. Who is going to want to pay to go to space and not look out a real window? Obviously noone given their comments on the difficulty of selling $50million seats.
Having no windows was a jaw-dropper for me. Obviously, that won't work for space tourism. It is also a safety issue regarding docking/undocking ops; if the crew needs to have eyes on target, a screen won't do - no depth perception.
-
That and failing to incorporate windows. Number 1 rule is always to know your customers. Who is going to want to pay to go to space and not look out a real window? Obviously noone given their comments on the difficulty of selling $50million seats.
Having no windows was a jaw-dropper for me. Obviously, that won't work for space tourism. It is also a safety issue regarding docking/undocking ops; if the crew needs to have eyes on target, a screen won't do - no depth perception.
Screens and camera systems supporting binocular vision exist. I have one next to me right now, it was sold by Nintendo.
-
if robert bigelow died, would bigelow aerospace be likely to continue as a commercial venture?
-
IMO Mr. Bigelow is no longer seriously interested in "tourists". He has done a fair amount of PR, but none of it has been geared toward tourism. On the other hand all of it has been geared toward the professional HSF sector, for ISS habs, lunar stations and deep space habs enroute to Mars. The current lack of windows, which really only matter to tourists, is a non-issue.
-
Their number one priority seems to be winning a gateway contract. Not sure how important it is for NASA to have a window on every module (worst comes to worst you can head over to the lander/Orion and look out the window).
-
IMO Mr. Bigelow is no longer seriously interested in "tourists". He has done a fair amount of PR, but none of it has been geared toward tourism. On the other hand all of it has been geared toward the professional HSF sector, for ISS habs, lunar stations and deep space habs enroute to Mars. The current lack of windows, which really only matter to tourists, is a non-issue.
Other than that time 3 months ago when they said they were flying tourists to the ISS ::)
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1138517707140132864
And their offshoot Bigelow Space OPs: "The sales, space operations and customer service company for commercial space stations in low Earth orbit and beyond."
Problem is I don't think they know what it is they want to do at all.
-
IMO Mr. Bigelow is no longer seriously interested in "tourists". He has done a fair amount of PR, but none of it has been geared toward tourism. On the other hand all of it has been geared toward the professional HSF sector, for ISS habs, lunar stations and deep space habs enroute to Mars. The current lack of windows, which really only matter to tourists, is a non-issue.
Other than that time 3 months ago when they said they were flying tourists to the ISS ::)
And their offshoot Bigelow Space OPs: "The sales, space operations and customer service company for commercial space stations in low Earth orbit and beyond."
Problem is I don't think they know what it is they want to do at all.
I didn't mean that he "wouldn't" accommodate tourists, only that it is no longer his focus, as evidenced by the direction all his expensive PR has taken in the recent past. Sorry for the confusion.
BTW Commercial Space Stations in LEO doesn't in any way imply tourism. His focus on them is specifically aimed at NGOs and other governmental space programs, not as a tourist destination.
-
Problem is I don't think they know what it is they want to do at all.
I think the problem is that they don’t have any customers ... They are trying to find an offering that there’s a market for.
Obviously for over a decade they were stuck with no viable commercial route to get people to orbit. That issue is getting close to resolution, but still no confirmed customers for anything. I really hope they can keep going until they find a market. I fear they may be just a few years ahead of their time.
-
That and failing to incorporate windows. Number 1 rule is always to know your customers. Who is going to want to pay to go to space and not look out a real window? Obviously noone given their comments on the difficulty of selling $50million seats.
Having no windows was a jaw-dropper for me. Obviously, that won't work for space tourism. It is also a safety issue regarding docking/undocking ops; if the crew needs to have eyes on target, a screen won't do - no depth perception.
Screens and camera systems supporting binocular vision exist. I have one next to me right now, it was sold by Nintendo.
Sometime back, one of my hobbies for many years was mountain climbing. I consider myself very fortunate to have been stargazing in clear air, above 18000 feet, during the new moon, in the middle of the night without a light on the ground for many miles.
It convinced me that I had never seen the night sky in all its glory before that. I would never trade that for viewing through any camera.
edit: I forgot to mention hours of getting accustomed to the darkness.
-
It convinced me that I had never seen the night sky in all its glory before that. I would never trade that for viewing through any camera.
Exactly this. No view on any digital screen has ever provided the same calming effect on me as simply looking out a window. This includes the HD views of Earth from the ISS.
“Windows are passé,” said Bigelow. “These TV screens make them obsolete.”
Keep in mind that even for Gateway one of the goals is to study astronauts physical and mental health during long duration spaceflight. In every astronaut interview I've read about their stay on the ISS they point out how much of their free time would be spend looking out through the cupola and how it made them feel.
Personally I recoiled in horror when I saw a single TV screen "window" in the prototype...
I fear they may be just a few years ahead of their time.
I think they're behind the time to be honest. If they were truly ahead of their time they wouldn't have competition. But they do - Axiom Space and Nanoracks are both vying for the free docking port on the ISS that Bigelow wants to put their XBASE on. This competition is aggressively pursuing other customers and revenue streams, not hitching everything on one government program.
Axiom Space is targeting a diverse set of customers and revenue steams: governmental & private research & spaceflight and tourism. Their tourism plans start in 2020 (probably will slip) by making use of the ISS as is. With Micheal Suffredeni at the helm (former ISS Program Office Manager) I have no doubt they will navigate the hurdles Bigelow described as: “You have to negotiate then with 11 different legal departments,” Source Verge article (https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/13/20863143/bigelow-aerospace-b330-inflatable-space-habitat-nasa-nextstep-astronauts)
Nanoracks meanwhile is thriving as a commercial outfit operating on the station, and working to align future customers of their station while simultaneously pursuing additional government contracts through NextSTEP2.
Sierra Nevada isn't directly competing against Bigelow for ISS use, but they are in NextSTEP2 and also LEO payloads by partnering with the UN for a free flyer mission. Whether or not they have any interest in a station of any kind of their own hasn't emerged.
Where I really feel they are behind the times is embracing the new Public Private Partnership models of true commercial partners that NASA is embracing. Most of the competition for Gateway is with companies that have multiple revenue streams, and multiple business cases for their hardware. Northrup Grumman, Sierra Nevada, and to some extent Boeing and Lockheed are all looking to how their existing products can offset the costs of the product they are offering. Bigelow doesn't have that and until they demonstrate an ability to find customers for using their product they won't.
We've seen two Gateway contracts awarded already, both were to companies that could seriously reduce the purchase price to NASA because they are finding ways to sell that hardware to other customers or programs. That's the commercial spaceflight market today - and it doesn't look like a market Bigelow is prepared to play in.
Hoping he can do a reality TV show sure won't cut it.
Bigelow also noted that finding people who want to pay more than $50 million for a seat to go to space are hard to come by. Though he claims to have come up with a business case where tourists can be sent to a free-flying B330 habitat for free. Future tourists could agree to be part of a reality show contest where they compete to train and then launch to space. “This is all part of what could be a lot of fun to broadcast is the whole training regime,” he said. “It isn’t going to be for sissies.” In exchange, they’ll get a free trip to space with the rest of the US rooting for them to make it. The idea sounds vaguely familiar to one proposed by the now-bankrupt company Mars One, which proposed funding trips to Mars with massive reality TV shows.
Source Verge article (https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/13/20863143/bigelow-aerospace-b330-inflatable-space-habitat-nasa-nextstep-astronauts)
-
If a paying customer wants windows, my guess is they will get windows. But as it was pointed out earlier, if you aren't accommodating tourists, and focused on only professional astronauts, windows are a "nice to have". Also pointed out here in other forums: submarines have no windows. Navy crews seem to do OK with it.
-
If a paying customer wants windows, my guess is they will get windows. But as it was pointed out earlier, if you aren't accommodating tourists, and focused on only professional astronauts, windows are a "nice to have". Also pointed out here in other forums: submarines have no windows. Navy crews seem to do OK with it.
Not only that, but there can be windows on other modules. For a NASA mission, there's always the windows on the Orion capsule.
-
I really want Bigelow to succeed but it seems to me that this is just a NASA-funded ground-based demo and there are no clear plans to launch anything into space. Or did I miss something?
Bigelow has launched stuff before: Genesis and BEAM. But nothing resembling a launch date for B330 yet.
Do we even know what launchers it fits? Last I remember it slightly too large for Falcon9 which was a really silly limitation to build into your design.
Yes, that's exactly what it is, the mockup for NASA's NEXTStep habitat program. Bigelow is in a competition with 5 other companies to make the habitat module for the Gateway space station, and that contract hasn't been awarded yet.
A B330 would fit in the extended Atlas V fairing, but they appear to have switched to Vulcan. The Bigelow Operations web page says that the B330 is 50,000 lb, which is too heavy for an Atlas V to put into LEO. It would also fit in a Blue Origin New Glenn fairing.
-
They were working on designs for windows at one time. They must have encountered technical issues.
-
As an ISS module rather than a standalone station, windows are the exception rather than the rule so B330 would hardly be unusual. Apart from the Cupola, there is WORF on Destiny (now partially obscured by a large frame for holding cameras), the window on Kibo, and a large number of portholes on Zvezda. The CBM and SSVP docking/berthing ports also have portholes (IIRC APAS-95 has no porthole).
-
As an ISS module rather than a standalone station, windows are the exception rather than the rule so B330 would hardly be unusual.
B330 is supposed to be a standalone station as stated constantly by BA. It is supposed to be a one size fits all solution for LEO, LLO, NHRO and supposedly Lunar surface.
That one size fits all design should be cost competitive if they can sell multiples to different markets and spread out their dev costs
That is going to be significantly less likely if it's only appealing to a select group of users
-
If you ignore personal preferences in regards to windows or not-windows, I find it interesting that SpaceX is planning numerous windows on Starship and Blue has large windows on New Shepard. It will be interesting to see what Blue does on orbital spacecraft.
It would seem to me that Bigelow is odd-man out.
-
As an ISS module rather than a standalone station, windows are the exception rather than the rule so B330 would hardly be unusual.
B330 is supposed to be a standalone station as stated constantly by BA. It is supposed to be a one size fits all solution for LEO, LLO, NHRO and supposedly Lunar surface.
That one size fits all design should be cost competitive if they can sell multiples to different markets and spread out their dev costs
That is going to be significantly less likely if it's only appealing to a select group of users
Well, except for power production, waste heat removal, multiple docking ports for visiting vehicles, equipment to allow berthing instead of docking to acocomodate all kinds of vehicles,... no reason why you couldn't add a viewing module to that list.
-
Today, we were notified by the US Air Force that there is a 5.6% chance that Genesis II will collide with dead Russian satellite Cosmos 1300 in 15 hours. Although this is a relatively low probability, it brings to light that low Earth orbit is becoming increasingly more littered.
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1174007949863211008?s=20
-
About 9:40 UT on September 18th over Central Africa, with a closing angle greater than 90°?
-
Today, we were notified by the US Air Force that there is a 5.6% chance that Genesis II will collide with dead Russian satellite Cosmos 1300 in 15 hours. Although this is a relatively low probability, it brings to light that low Earth orbit is becoming increasingly more littered.
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1174007949863211008?s=20
Did Genesis II die prematurely, so that it couldn't be properly deorbited, or is Bigelow just a terrible operator?
Edit:
No. They're a terrible operator. It's right on their wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_II "Although the design life of the spacecraft avionics was only six months, the avionics systems worked flawlessly for over two and a half years before failure."
Is there no penalty for a company that puts more than a metric ton of spacecraft in orbit with a known life span of 6 months and then doesn't deorbit it at the end of its life? They can seriously still get away with exceeding design life by a factor of 5 and receive no penalty?
-
Today, we were notified by the US Air Force that there is a 5.6% chance that Genesis II will collide with dead Russian satellite Cosmos 1300 in 15 hours. Although this is a relatively low probability, it brings to light that low Earth orbit is becoming increasingly more littered.
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1174007949863211008?s=20
Did Genesis II die prematurely, so that it couldn't be properly deorbited, or is Bigelow just a terrible operator?
Edit:
No. They're a terrible operator. It's right on their wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_II "Although the design life of the spacecraft avionics was only six months, the avionics systems worked flawlessly for over two and a half years before failure."
Is there no penalty for a company that puts more than a metric ton of spacecraft in orbit with a known life span of 6 months and then doesn't deorbit it at the end of its life? They can seriously still get away with exceeding design life by a factor of 5 and receive no penalty?
Penalty? Penalized by who? AFAIK, there are guidlines, but they are strictly voluntary and don't apply to objects in low orbit that will reenter on their own in less than a decade.
-
Genesis II doesn't have any propulsion system - it used magnetorquers for orientation - so I don't think it could have deorbited even while it was active.
-
Today, we were notified by the US Air Force that there is a 5.6% chance that Genesis II will collide with dead Russian satellite Cosmos 1300 in 15 hours. Although this is a relatively low probability, it brings to light that low Earth orbit is becoming increasingly more littered.
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1174007949863211008?s=20
Did Genesis II die prematurely, so that it couldn't be properly deorbited, or is Bigelow just a terrible operator?
Edit:
No. They're a terrible operator. It's right on their wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_II "Although the design life of the spacecraft avionics was only six months, the avionics systems worked flawlessly for over two and a half years before failure."
Is there no penalty for a company that puts more than a metric ton of spacecraft in orbit with a known life span of 6 months and then doesn't deorbit it at the end of its life? They can seriously still get away with exceeding design life by a factor of 5 and receive no penalty?
I am not a fan of Bigelow, but your comments are harsh, and your terms are confused.
The operational lifetime was designed to be more than 6 months and made it to 2.5 years.
The predicted orbital lifetime, based on the mass and cross section, was said to be 12 years, half of the NASA limit for its LEO spacecraft.
However, it is currently in a 480 by 550 orbit 12 years after launch.
Anyone know the orbit just after launch?
A crude comparison of data (from Wikipedia and Heavens Above) suggests that it has descended only 1.5 km in ~1.5 years. That would indicate a very long orbital lifetime, but can't be accurate.
Most LEO spacecraft have no propulsion or deorbit accelerating devices.
There is no sheriff in that there territory.
There are treaties that cover responsibility, but they only go so far.
-
Today, we were notified by the US Air Force that there is a 5.6% chance that Genesis II will collide with dead Russian satellite Cosmos 1300 in 15 hours. Although this is a relatively low probability, it brings to light that low Earth orbit is becoming increasingly more littered.
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1174007949863211008?s=20
Did Genesis II die prematurely, so that it couldn't be properly deorbited, or is Bigelow just a terrible operator?
Edit:
No. They're a terrible operator. It's right on their wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_II "Although the design life of the spacecraft avionics was only six months, the avionics systems worked flawlessly for over two and a half years before failure."
Is there no penalty for a company that puts more than a metric ton of spacecraft in orbit with a known life span of 6 months and then doesn't deorbit it at the end of its life? They can seriously still get away with exceeding design life by a factor of 5 and receive no penalty?
There are no rules, only guidelines, and deorbit within 25 years of EOL is a standard guideline. At the current orbit of Genesis II, it may meet that guideline, since it is an altitude that based on rule of thumb decays on the order of magnitude of 10 years. Depends highly on ballistic coefficient and timing with the solar cycle.
The current guidelines are probably not good enough, especially with proliferation of cubesats, and large upcoming constellations. so it is odd of Bigelow to complain about the current status, when they haven't done anything to exceed current guidelines on their past launches.
-
Today, we were notified by the US Air Force that there is a 5.6% chance that Genesis II will collide with dead Russian satellite Cosmos 1300 in 15 hours. Although this is a relatively low probability, it brings to light that low Earth orbit is becoming increasingly more littered.
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1174007949863211008?s=20
Did Genesis II die prematurely, so that it couldn't be properly deorbited, or is Bigelow just a terrible operator?
Edit:
No. They're a terrible operator. It's right on their wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_II "Although the design life of the spacecraft avionics was only six months, the avionics systems worked flawlessly for over two and a half years before failure."
Is there no penalty for a company that puts more than a metric ton of spacecraft in orbit with a known life span of 6 months and then doesn't deorbit it at the end of its life? They can seriously still get away with exceeding design life by a factor of 5 and receive no penalty?
US regulations are that satellites should deorbit within 25 years of end-of-life.
Per: http://www.lizard-tail.com/isana/lab/orbital_decay/
From its current altitude of ~520 km Genesis II should reenter in about 8 years, let's say 2028.
It was launched in 2007, which means its orbital life would be about 21 years. Right on the mark.
-
Today, we were notified by the US Air Force that there is a 5.6% chance that Genesis II will collide with dead Russian satellite Cosmos 1300 in 15 hours. Although this is a relatively low probability, it brings to light that low Earth orbit is becoming increasingly more littered.
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1174007949863211008?s=20
Did Genesis II die prematurely, so that it couldn't be properly deorbited, or is Bigelow just a terrible operator?
Edit:
No. They're a terrible operator. It's right on their wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_II "Although the design life of the spacecraft avionics was only six months, the avionics systems worked flawlessly for over two and a half years before failure."
Is there no penalty for a company that puts more than a metric ton of spacecraft in orbit with a known life span of 6 months and then doesn't deorbit it at the end of its life? They can seriously still get away with exceeding design life by a factor of 5 and receive no penalty?
I am not a fan of Bigelow, but your comments are harsh, and your terms are confused.
The operational lifetime was designed to be more than 6 months and made it to 2.5 years.
The predicted orbital lifetime, based on the mass and cross section, was said to be 12 years, half of the NASA limit for its LEO spacecraft.
However, it is currently in a 480 by 550 orbit 12 years after launch.
Anyone know the orbit just after launch?
A crude comparison of data (from Wikipedia and Heavens Above) suggests that it has descended only 1.5 km in ~1.5 years. That would indicate a very long orbital lifetime, but can't be accurate.
Most LEO spacecraft have no propulsion or deorbit accelerating devices.
There is no sheriff in that there territory.
There are treaties that cover responsibility, but they only go so far.
Estimates of satellite deorbit time is heavily dependent on the density of the very high upper atmosphere, which is more dense when the Sun is active and less dense when it's quieter. The past solar cycle has been very low activity, so the upper atmosphere has been less dense than predicted. Many LEO satellites have enjoyed extended lifetimes thanks to that.
-
twitter.com/chrisg_nsf/status/1174036377027129345
Since you tweeted, can you provide info on how @BigelowSpace plans to not contribute to orbital debris problem as Genesis I & II do not have the ability to move out of the way? As it stands, they are dead orbital debris contributing to the problem, unless I've missed something.
https://twitter.com/bigelowspace/status/1174074445599666176
Anything we launch from here on out will have prop. capability. B330 has two dissimilar propulsion units, more than capable of performing end of life maneuvers. Destinations are not the future worry. They will be few and far between compared to the number of satellites.
-
https://twitter.com/bigelowspace/status/1174308055841828864
Per the Air Force, there was no collision between Genesis II and Cosmos 1300.
-
https://twitter.com/LeoLabs_Space/status/1174320780198449152
Our data for this event shows a miss distance of approximately 59 meters at TCA, and a collision probability that climbed steadily over the past two days to 8.9e-4.
-
https://twitter.com/LeoLabs_Space/status/1174320780198449152
Our data for this event shows a miss distance of approximately 59 meters at TCA, and a collision probability that climbed steadily over the past two days to 8.9e-4.
A collision probability of 0.00089?
I assume "1" is a 100% probability of impact?
-
Response to Charles Bolden's Comments on October 7th, 2019
1. "Bolden argued the onus was on industry to step up in both its use of the ISS and development of commercial facilities."
Not only has Bigelow spent over $350 million to date out of its own pocket to pursue the development of commercial facilities over the past 20 years, but Bigelow also diligently pursued business cases relative to using the ISS. In looking at the business cases for the ISS, Bigelow made many discoveries about the ISS that are difficult to overcome. Bigelow had paid large sums of monies for deposits for 4 dedicated launches to send 16 people to the ISS over a period of time. This contract has since been cancelled due to serious issues that are out of Bigelow's control.
2. "He expressed disappointment that Bigelow Aerospace, which has an experimental module on the station, hadn't done more to implement its vision of commercial space stations."
We knew from day one that we were focusing on destinations, and that we were dependent on whether there was space transportation for people, which at this point in time is still something that is highly desired.
ISS is the stepping-stone, but the fact is that the ISS is very handicapped from a business perspective. However, if a B330 is attached to the American side of the ISS (which is only about 420 cubic meters) we have a terrific business case that now results from a combination of both.
An asset such as a B330 space station has enormous commercial horsepower, and is a terrific beginning to an ISS transition. However, this kind of an asset requires proper funding. At such a pivotal point in human spaceflight, this is not the time to handicap a budget for such an important asset with such an important mission.
Space News Article: https://spacenews.com/nasa-looks-to-support-development-of-commercial-space-stations/
http://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/news/learnmore.php?story=charlie_bolden/
-
Today, we were notified by the US Air Force that there is a 5.6% chance that Genesis II will collide with dead Russian satellite Cosmos 1300 in 15 hours. Although this is a relatively low probability, it brings to light that low Earth orbit is becoming increasingly more littered.
https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1174007949863211008?s=20
Did Genesis II die prematurely, so that it couldn't be properly deorbited, or is Bigelow just a terrible operator?
Edit:
No. They're a terrible operator. It's right on their wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_II "Although the design life of the spacecraft avionics was only six months, the avionics systems worked flawlessly for over two and a half years before failure."
Is there no penalty for a company that puts more than a metric ton of spacecraft in orbit with a known life span of 6 months and then doesn't deorbit it at the end of its life? They can seriously still get away with exceeding design life by a factor of 5 and receive no penalty?
And based on you Wikipedia knowledge, you've determined that they are a terrible operator? First, they are no longer an operator, and have not been since 2011, when all the operators were laid off. I'm not sure their is anyone left there that knows how to actually track the spacecraft.
I'm not sure who edited the page, but the initial design life for the avionics were indefinite. All of these were a secondary mission objective. The primary was to prove the ability of the MMOD to hold pressure and withstand impacts within the LEO environment during a long term period. The initial requirements were for an on-orbit lifetime of 12 years. Nominal insertion was for an orbit of 550 km, which the Dnepr launch system acheived within 400m. (the launch was watched very closely by SPACECOM). There are ways to detect impacts and leaks without the pressure sensors being active, but I'm not sure BA currently has anyone that has the expertise to analyze the data. Since the spacecraft were experimental there were uncertainties in the drag coefficient and atmospheric models.
Correction, I know that someone from BA edited the page, because the 'flawlessly' quote is propaganda.
I will not dispute that BA may be a dysfunctional company. However, for you to so glibly characterize them as a bad operator, I take issue. Take a look at the COSMOS 1300. Two metric tons in orbit since 1981 with a mission life span of two months.
-
Cross-posting:
Bigelow Aerospace sets sights on free-flying station after passing on ISS commercial module
by Jeff Foust — January 29, 2020
WASHINGTON — The founder of Bigelow Aerospace says his company decided not to pursue a NASA competition for a commercial International Space Station module because of funding concerns, but remains interested in a separate effort for supporting a free-flying facility in low Earth orbit.
https://spacenews.com/bigelow-aerospace-sets-sights-on-free-flying-station-after-passing-on-iss-commercial-module/
-
Perhaps better here than in the ISS threads..
I hope Mr. Bigelow has a plan going forward. He was rich enough to start his company and excited an awful lot of people. But he doesn't have the deep pockets of Elon Musk and even he almost went broke until NASA basically saved SpaceX, something for which Elon will ever be grateful. Mr. Bigelow is now speaking of funding concerns. I'm hopeful that it has to do with things he has going on that really won't allow him taking on another contract in the near term. That's my hope anyway. I would love to see his vision of free flying NGO and other governments stations bearing the Bigelow Aerospace logo come to fruition.
The comparison between Musk and Bigelow is less their fortunes, for which Bigelow had a substantial advantage when they started in their space businesses, but their skills and approaches to leading those efforts.
Musk is CTO, has wide knowledge of physics and aerospace technology, is seen directly supervising workers including welders and car assemblers, and sits in a cubicle.
Bigelow does none of that and posts guards to keep employees out of his office.
[humor]Bigelow believes extraterrestrials have visited in UFOs.
Musk believes extraterrestrials will be emigrating to Mars on Starships. ;) [/humor]
-
Perhaps better here than in the ISS threads..
I hope Mr. Bigelow has a plan going forward. He was rich enough to start his company and excited an awful lot of people. But he doesn't have the deep pockets of Elon Musk and even he almost went broke until NASA basically saved SpaceX, something for which Elon will ever be grateful. Mr. Bigelow is now speaking of funding concerns. I'm hopeful that it has to do with things he has going on that really won't allow him taking on another contract in the near term. That's my hope anyway. I would love to see his vision of free flying NGO and other governments stations bearing the Bigelow Aerospace logo come to fruition.
The comparison between Musk and Bigelow is less their fortunes, for which Bigelow had a substantial advantage when they started in their space businesses, but their skills and approaches to leading those efforts.
Musk is CTO, has wide knowledge of physics and aerospace technology, is seen directly supervising workers including welders and car assemblers, and sits in a cubicle.
Bigelow does none of that and posts guards to keep employees out of his office.
[humor]Bigelow believes extraterrestrials have visited in UFOs.
Musk believes extraterrestrials will be emigrating to Mars on Starships. ;) [/humor]
After reading the posts above, including BA's response to Bolden, it seems in a very basic sense, that BA doesn't have any confidence that working with NASA on the ISS will result in much progress, or customers. Also it seems as if BA having spent $100M's feels that it is being derided, for not keeping the cash flowing. Unlike a government program, that an write off past expenses, and research, and still be awarded further funding, a private company has to actually raise the cash itself.
Once SS is flying launching a B330 will be much cheaper, as will ferrying astronauts/guests. As long as SpaceX doesn't capture the space tourism market for itself, using adapted Starships, working with them seems far more cost effective. BA has worked with NASA, invested a large fortune, and got one small test module on the ISS, which is used to store trash! Now an alternative is developing its time to move on!
-
twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1242205592803999746
Bigelow Aerospace has yet to confirm this, but I've heard from several people that the company is temporarily closing due to Covid-19 rules issued by the Nevada governor.
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1242211281903517697
To be clear, I have heard that this "temporary" closure at Bigelow may in fact be permanent. But so far the company has not commented.
https://twitter.com/nasawatch/status/1242207253945556997
Sources report that @BigelowSpace laid off their entire work force this morning.
Edit to add:
twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1242216852480299009
According to a company spokesperson, Bigelow Aerospace did lay off all its employees today. That was done to comply with a Nevada state directive closing all non-essential businesses because of the coronavirus pandemic. [1/2]
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1242217301006524416
The spokesperson added that the company expected to hire employees back once that directive shuttering non-essential businesses ended. (Sources I talked with felt the layoffs were, in fact, permanent.) [2/2]
-
Doesn't provide any further clarity as to whether this is temporary or permanent, but SpaceNews did a writeup (https://spacenews.com/bigelow-aerospace-lays-off-entire-workforce/):
According to sources familiar with the company’s activities, Bigelow Aerospace’s 68 employees were informed that they were being laid off, effective immediately. An additional 20 employees were laid off the previous week.
Those sources said that the company, based in North Las Vegas, Nevada, was halting operations because of what one person described as a “perfect storm of problems” that included the coronavirus pandemic.
-
What is the future of inflatable habitats? Is it possible that anyone else is going to acquire the patents and technology from Bigelow and continue investing in this area? The status of the patents is unclear but maybe some of the tech might be worth something.
With dragon, starliner and maybe starship coming up it seems like the prospect of commercial space stations is closer than ever and inflatables are the most efficient way to create provide habitable volume. So any company with expertise in this area has excellent opportunities.
-
What is the future of inflatable habitats? Is it possible that anyone else is going to acquire the patents and technology from Bigelow and continue investing in this area? The status of the patents is unclear but maybe some of the tech might be worth something.
With dragon, starliner and maybe starship coming up it seems like the prospect of commercial space stations is closer than ever and inflatables are the most efficient way to create provide habitable volume. So any company with expertise in this area has excellent opportunities.
Sierra Nevada Corp looks be working on inflatables and could get this IP & tech for cheap. Let the past die, kill it if you have to. It's the only way you can be what your meant to be.
-
What is the future of inflatable habitats? Is it possible that anyone else is going to acquire the patents and technology from Bigelow and continue investing in this area? The status of the patents is unclear but maybe some of the tech might be worth something.
With dragon, starliner and maybe starship coming up it seems like the prospect of commercial space stations is closer than ever and inflatables are the most efficient way to create provide habitable volume. So any company with expertise in this area has excellent opportunities.
Sierra Nevada Corp looks be working on inflatables and could get this IP & tech for cheap. Let the past die, kill it if you have to. It's the only way you can be what your meant to be.
I was under the impression that a lot of the core IP was from TransHab work NASA did, and was licensed from NASA?
-
It seems a real real shame if Bigelow fails. To have put in so much money, passion, and to have launched several times, with success especially the BEAM module. On the face of it NASA seems to have dragged their feet, and not found a way to buy modules from Bigelow.
Engineers finding they are designing a dream, that is being forgotten, and no-one is buying, whilst they invest years of their lives probably move on!
The one company that is most likely to need habitats of any kind in the near future, is SpaceX. Why have they shown such disinterest in Bigelow? Maybe SX thought it was such a critical path technology that they'd rather have it in-house. Therefore let it die and pick up all the IP and knowledgeable staff when it fails.
That's my prediction. SX will actively recruit all these laid off Bigelow workers, who will relish an exciting job at SX rather than the risk of B maybe coming back to life. Then they will buy the remains of the company, or otherwise get the IP from NASA etc.
So this is all a guess. No sources, so don't ask for references on "disinterest" etc.
SX could take the B designs, and mass produce them, and variations. If its needed they will work on it like they do at BC! Bigelow could not do that!
Edit: If this happens it will not be a waste... (some of the) efforts of those Bigelow engineers will fold into the Mars project, a good legacy.
-
I'm not sure how much "skill" there really is. There were reports all over the past years (not sure if in this thread or if there were other threads as well) that Bigelow Aerospace outsourced a lot of work and that most of the good engineers and technicians left long ago due to a very bad working environment. Those reports suggest that the company basically existed only on paper the last years. I'll try to find the entries in the thread(s).
edit: Pages 3, 4 in this thread cover a lot of those things.
-
I'm not sure how much "skill" there really is. There were reports all over the past years (not sure if in this thread or if there were other threads as well) that Bigelow Aerospace outsourced a lot of work and that most of the good engineers and technicians left long ago due to a very bad working environment. Those reports suggest that the company basically existed only on paper the last years. I'll try to find the entries in the thread(s).
edit: Pages 3, 4 in this thread cover a lot of those things.
Here is a real gem that came from a different thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40735.msg1561181#msg1561181):
3) The B330 design process migh only be at the point of testing the inflatable envelope itself, not the actual module or electronic subsystems, so even they haven't even begun to make a decent estimate of power requirements.
Is there a breakdown of the power requirements of the ISS in L2? It's a bad idea to renew my L2 subscription before I've finished refurbishing my place, but it'll be good to know it's there once I start designing again.
It's number 3. The drawings are conceptual, done by a graphic artist to please RTB, and have not been vetted by the engineers usually. Here is a typical meeting of the engineers:
ECLSS mgr: We need 5kw to power the electrolyzer to break water
Power: 5 kw? I cant get 5 kw to power the entire spacecraft!
Thermal: I can’t reject 5 kw of heat!
Structures: Doesn’t matter, I can’t pack 5 kw of arrays anyway, it is all fictitious
PM: Wait, we don’t have enough power?
I'm paraphrasing, but yes that conversation really happened a few years ago. It was so incredible, it is burned into my memory. One of the engineers facetiously scaled a drawing for the 'notional' power requirements and the arrays dwarfed the softgoods portions.
-
OK I read one of those posts... I agree if it was all hollowed out, and the designs are not real, and there are no skilled engineers, then there doesn't seem to be anyone to head hunt.
However Genisis?, and BEAM worked. It still looks like a good technology. and seems applicable to SX especially on Mars, and maybe also in orbit, despite the volume of Starship. My guess remains/is modified to, that SX will mass produce expandable habitats, and they will lap up the IP somehow.
-
I'm not sure how much "skill" there really is. There were reports all over the past years (not sure if in this thread or if there were other threads as well) that Bigelow Aerospace outsourced a lot of work and that most of the good engineers and technicians left long ago due to a very bad working environment. Those reports suggest that the company basically existed only on paper the last years. I'll try to find the entries in the thread(s).
edit: Pages 3, 4 in this thread cover a lot of those things.
Here is a real gem that came from a different thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40735.msg1561181#msg1561181):
3) The B330 design process migh only be at the point of testing the inflatable envelope itself, not the actual module or electronic subsystems, so even they haven't even begun to make a decent estimate of power requirements.
Is there a breakdown of the power requirements of the ISS in L2? It's a bad idea to renew my L2 subscription before I've finished refurbishing my place, but it'll be good to know it's there once I start designing again.
It's number 3. The drawings are conceptual, done by a graphic artist to please RTB, and have not been vetted by the engineers usually. Here is a typical meeting of the engineers:
ECLSS mgr: We need 5kw to power the electrolyzer to break water
Power: 5 kw? I cant get 5 kw to power the entire spacecraft!
Thermal: I can’t reject 5 kw of heat!
Structures: Doesn’t matter, I can’t pack 5 kw of arrays anyway, it is all fictitious
PM: Wait, we don’t have enough power?
I'm paraphrasing, but yes that conversation really happened a few years ago. It was so incredible, it is burned into my memory. One of the engineers facetiously scaled a drawing for the 'notional' power requirements and the arrays dwarfed the softgoods portions.
That last bit is exactly how I imagined this entire enterprise. It just felt bad from day one.
-
Bigelow's fortune and income comes from his motel chain. With lockdown motels will take huge finanicial hits.
-
(snip)
That last bit is exactly how I imagined this entire enterprise. It just felt bad from day one.
No
Not from "day one".
My young colleague went to Bigelow early on and they built, flew, and operated Genesis 1 and 2, which were real first steps to building space habitats.
Then the wheels came off the bus.
Bigelow just could not manage the enterprise to success.
Only one person had defied the adage that to build a small fortune in spaceflight you should start with a large one.
Bigelow's was never going to be the second, according to people who worked for him.
-
Given the multitude of reports about management issues over the years, proving out the technology to a point where NASA was comfortable attaching a module to the ISS might have been the best that could have been hoped for. Frankly, I'm more optimistic with SNC being the only company pursuing inflatable modules than I was when BA was the only company doing so.
-
(snip)
That last bit is exactly how I imagined this entire enterprise. It just felt bad from day one.
No
Not from "day one".
My young colleague went to Bigelow early on and they built, flew, and operated Genesis 1 and 2, which were real first steps to building space habitats.
Then the wheels came off the bus.
Bigelow just could not manage the enterprise to success.
Only one person had defied the adage that to build a small fortune in spaceflight you should start with a large one.
Bigelow's was never going to be the second, according to people who worked for him.
How far beyond TransHub did Genesis 1 and 2 go?
-
With BA in zombie mode, how does NASA feel about BEAM? Is the ISS support organization sufficiently provided with data to deal with BEAM should the maker be unable to respond to a problem? Or is BEAM sufficiently "simple" that there wasn't really much to support once it's attached?
-
Sierra Nevada Corp looks be working on inflatables and could get this IP & tech for cheap. Let the past die, kill it if you have to. It's the only way you can be what your meant to be.
To the extent that inflatables make economic sense (which I don't think is the case but thats another thread), I think SNC has been the superior option for a while. Their LIFE module is only marginally smaller than B330, but from what I've heard is lighter, has a better deployment mechanism, and is more scalable to even larger modules. And on the business side, SNC of course actually exists, seems to have at least sorta competent management, and LIFE/derivatives would benefit from commonality with Dream Chaser (both in terms of shared designs for things like ECLSS, and being able to offer vertically integrated station manufacturing/operation/crew/cargo), their unmanned satellite offerings, and potentially other modules they've proposed previously. I don't know if it'd even really be worthwhile to buy Bigelow's IP unless its like a dollar, they seem to be doing pretty well as it is
-
I don't know if it'd even really be worthwhile to buy Bigelow's IP unless its like a dollar, they seem to be doing pretty well as it is
Unlike every other inflatable concept, Bigelow has flown multiple pieces of flight hardware. They have the longest duration piece of in-orbit test hardware that exists. Everyone else in in the design or ground mockup stage.
Just having access to the BEAM IP and lifetime test data alone is of great value to anyone who wants to actually fly hardware.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVc-rXF1cqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gzWtcOQT_w
-
Looks like people were hired back. Not sure when the governor's orders were lifted and this actually occured.
This week Bigelow Aerospace has the privilege of hosting NASA for a two weeklong ground test of the B330 under the NextSTEP Phase 2 program. Shown here is an all steel testing unit (Mars Transporter Testing Unit).
The B330 is an autonomous, expandable independent space station that gets to space in a single launch. This large space station can accommodate four people indefinitely and five people for many months. Equipped with two galleys, two toilets, enormous cargo space and two dissimilar propulsion systems this is the ideal habitat for a long duration space mission. The first B330 can be built in 42 months upon receiving authority to proceed. The second B330 can be built within 28 months of the first, and the third B330 could be built within 22 months of the second.
The ground test is an important milestone for Bigelow Aerospace and B330. We are hosting over 60 NASA engineers, test leads and support staff as well as eight astronauts. In contrast to the other NextSTEP Phase 2 participants, we chose to keep our ground units at our facility so we could continue to develop and test. We also have many units that are too large and complex to feasibly transport back and forth.
The B330 has evolved from NASA heritage technology from the Transhab program. Expandable habitat technology was created from the Transhab program with the purpose of taking humans to Mars. This is important. In deep space, expandable structures have the potential to provide better protection against secondary radiation than traditional aluminum structures. The total effects of secondary radiation on humans are still unknown, but have the potential to be very serious. Cancer is not the only big worry.
It is important to listen to what President Trump has been saying about Mars. The way to Mars is to the Moon. The way to the Moon is through the Gateway.
http://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/news/learnmore.php?story=b330_mars
The EXIF data on the photograph suggests the group photo was taken september 9th with the number of people present (counting NASA personnel) similar to the number that was indicated to be laid off.
-
Looks like people were hired back. Not sure when the governor's orders were lifted and this actually occured.
This week Bigelow Aerospace has the privilege of hosting NASA for a two weeklong ground test of the B330 under the NextSTEP Phase 2 program. Shown here is an all steel testing unit (Mars Transporter Testing Unit).
The B330 is an autonomous, expandable independent space station that gets to space in a single launch. This large space station can accommodate four people indefinitely and five people for many months. Equipped with two galleys, two toilets, enormous cargo space and two dissimilar propulsion systems this is the ideal habitat for a long duration space mission. The first B330 can be built in 42 months upon receiving authority to proceed. The second B330 can be built within 28 months of the first, and the third B330 could be built within 22 months of the second.
The ground test is an important milestone for Bigelow Aerospace and B330. We are hosting over 60 NASA engineers, test leads and support staff as well as eight astronauts. In contrast to the other NextSTEP Phase 2 participants, we chose to keep our ground units at our facility so we could continue to develop and test. We also have many units that are too large and complex to feasibly transport back and forth.
The B330 has evolved from NASA heritage technology from the Transhab program. Expandable habitat technology was created from the Transhab program with the purpose of taking humans to Mars. This is important. In deep space, expandable structures have the potential to provide better protection against secondary radiation than traditional aluminum structures. The total effects of secondary radiation on humans are still unknown, but have the potential to be very serious. Cancer is not the only big worry.
It is important to listen to what President Trump has been saying about Mars. The way to Mars is to the Moon. The way to the Moon is through the Gateway.
http://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/news/learnmore.php?story=b330_mars
The EXIF data on the photograph suggests the group photo was taken september 9th with the number of people present (counting NASA personnel) similar to the number that was indicated to be laid off.
Not a single mask and zero distancing. Highly doubt that picture was within the past three months at least.
-
Looks like people were hired back. Not sure when the governor's orders were lifted and this actually occured.
[trimmed quote]
http://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/news/learnmore.php?story=b330_mars
The EXIF data on the photograph suggests the group photo was taken september 9th with the number of people present (counting NASA personnel) similar to the number that was indicated to be laid off.
Not a single mask and zero distancing. Highly doubt that picture was within the past three months at least.
The EXIF date taken is Sept 9, 2019 (not 2020) and the article is from Sept 12, 2019. So, not new.
-
Looks like people were hired back. Not sure when the governor's orders were lifted and this actually occured.
[trimmed quote]
http://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/news/learnmore.php?story=b330_mars
The EXIF data on the photograph suggests the group photo was taken september 9th with the number of people present (counting NASA personnel) similar to the number that was indicated to be laid off.
Not a single mask and zero distancing. Highly doubt that picture was within the past three months at least.
The EXIF date taken is Sept 9, 2019 (not 2020) and the article is from Sept 12, 2019. So, not new.
Lol - ooooh! Well that is a horse of a different color.
-
Looks like people were hired back. Not sure when the governor's orders were lifted and this actually occured.
[trimmed quote]
http://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/news/learnmore.php?story=b330_mars
The EXIF data on the photograph suggests the group photo was taken september 9th with the number of people present (counting NASA personnel) similar to the number that was indicated to be laid off.
Not a single mask and zero distancing. Highly doubt that picture was within the past three months at least.
The EXIF date taken is Sept 9, 2019 (not 2020) and the article is from Sept 12, 2019. So, not new.
Lol - ooooh! Well that is a horse of a different color.
That would have been some resurrection..
-
(snip)
That last bit is exactly how I imagined this entire enterprise. It just felt bad from day one.
No
Not from "day one".
My young colleague went to Bigelow early on and they built, flew, and operated Genesis 1 and 2, which were real first steps to building space habitats.
Then the wheels came off the bus.
Bigelow just could not manage the enterprise to success.
Only one person had defied the adage that to build a small fortune in spaceflight you should start with a large one.
Bigelow's was never going to be the second, according to people who worked for him.
How far beyond TransHub TransHab did Genesis 1 and 2 go?
(very late response)
They got to orbit.
-
(snip)
That last bit is exactly how I imagined this entire enterprise. It just felt bad from day one.
No
Not from "day one".
My young colleague went to Bigelow early on and they built, flew, and operated Genesis 1 and 2, which were real first steps to building space habitats.
Then the wheels came off the bus.
Bigelow just could not manage the enterprise to success.
Only one person had defied the adage that to build a small fortune in spaceflight you should start with a large one.
Bigelow's was never going to be the second, according to people who worked for him.
How far beyond TransHub TransHab did Genesis 1 and 2 go?
(very late response)
They got to orbit.
iRoll. And I flew across the ocean a couple of years ago. :)
--
Given the IP that they got with TransHub, how much more did they develop?
It takes a different type of organization to develop new technology as opposed to implementing existing one.
If you only know how to do the latter, you will quickly run out of steam.
-
There is an interview of Joe Rogan with Robert Bigelow:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4K3Q51lzzIjUNEsEz1qqXE
I was very interested in Bigelow due to his involvement in spaceflight and space habitats. Unfortunately this topic comes barely up. I have been sitting through the entire interview and I am quite disappointed by the sheer amount of superstition that Bigelow entertains. Now this does not necessarily impacts Bigelow Aerospace.. but it does make me wonder if there is any future to them.
-
There is an interview of Joe Rogan with Robert Bigelow:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4K3Q51lzzIjUNEsEz1qqXE
I was very interested in Bigelow due to his involvement in spaceflight and space habitats. Unfortunately this topic comes barely up. I have been sitting through the entire interview and I am quite disappointed by the sheer amount of superstition that Bigelow entertains. Now this does not necessarily impacts Bigelow Aerospace.. but it does make me wonder if there is any future to them.
Bigelow was a nut long before Bigelow Aerospace existed (and it was founded before both Blue Origin and SapceX). You have to be at least a little nuts to start a commercial space hotel company nearly a decade before COTS! Bigelow's nuttiness may well have been a large factor in why Bigelow Aerospace is currently defunct-in-all-but-name, but Bigelow's nuttiness combined with a willingness to reach into some deep pockets is also the reason Bigelow Aerospace existed in the first place and managed to fly two free-flying inflatable modules and one currently still attached to the ISS and in active use.
-
I suspect that Bigelow will come back once the pandemic is over. His hotel business must have taken a huge hit because of the pandemic.
-
This video (at 20 seconds of the video) confirms my suspicion that Bigelow hopes to revive Bigelow Aerospace:
https://youtu.be/SdNPuhfrYDc
-
This article has more details about Bigelow Aerospace:
https://news3lv.com/news/local/is-there-life-after-death-nevada-aerospace-entrepreneur-offers-1-million-for-proof
“Yeah, we had to lay everybody off. We have only about 15 people working in the aerospace company working here right now,” said Bigelow. [...]
Bigelow would like to fully reopen his company in the future [...].
-
Are there any real specs for the extended Falcon fairing they're working on? As in, would a FH be able to launch a BA 330 with one?
-
Are there any real specs for the extended Falcon fairing they're working on? As in, would a FH be able to launch a BA 330 with one?
I suspect Starship is likely to be ready before a restarted Bigelow can have a BA-330 ready for flight, so I don't think FH fairing limitations are that meaningful at this point. (Yes Starship is not a guarantee but neither is Bigelow's return) ;)
And besides, New Glenn or Vulcan would be able to launch a BA 330 without much trouble.
-
Are there any real specs for the extended Falcon fairing they're working on? As in, would a FH be able to launch a BA 330 with one?
I suspect Starship is likely to be ready before a restarted Bigelow can have a BA-330 ready for flight, so I don't think FH fairing limitations are that meaningful at this point. (Yes Starship is not a guarantee but neither is Bigelow's return) ;)
And besides, New Glenn or Vulcan would be able to launch a BA 330 without much trouble.
You start talking Starship, New Glenn, Vulcan your talking more BA-1000 but putting those 1000 or 330 in reuse mode would nice too
-
Are there any real specs for the extended Falcon fairing they're working on? As in, would a FH be able to launch a BA 330 with one?
Bigelow's plans for launching the BA-330 in late 2013 was to use a Falcon Heavy with an extended fairing (which, at that time, was supposed to be 15' taller).
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30850.msg1192430#msg1192430
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42664.msg1664203#msg1664203
-
Bigelow was a nut long before Bigelow Aerospace existed (and it was founded before both Blue Origin and SapceX). You have to be at least a little nuts to start a commercial space hotel company nearly a decade before COTS! Bigelow's nuttiness may well have been a large factor in why Bigelow Aerospace is currently defunct-in-all-but-name, but Bigelow's nuttiness combined with a willingness to reach into some deep pockets is also the reason Bigelow Aerospace existed in the first place and managed to fly two free-flying inflatable modules and one currently still attached to the ISS and in active use.
Why do you say he is nuts?
1. Because he believes that there is other intelligent life out there and they may have visited us?
2. Because he is interested to find out whether or not human conscienceless survives the body at death?
Lots and lots of people, very intelligent people, believe these things. The only difference is that he has enough money to fund actual efforts to realistically find genuine answers to these questions, while the vast majority can only speculate. And so he spends it and talks publicly about it. To say that "I believe [this and that] and I'm willing to spend enough money to find out if it is true or not" does not make someone nuts. It makes them unique, but only because they have the money to do that while the rest of us do not.
-
(snip)
That last bit is exactly how I imagined this entire enterprise. It just felt bad from day one.
No
Not from "day one".
My young colleague went to Bigelow early on and they built, flew, and operated Genesis 1 and 2, which were real first steps to building space habitats.
Then the wheels came off the bus.
Bigelow just could not manage the enterprise to success.
Only one person had defied the adage that to build a small fortune in spaceflight you should start with a large one.
Bigelow's was never going to be the second, according to people who worked for him.
How far beyond TransHub TransHab did Genesis 1 and 2 go?
(very late response)
They got to orbit.
iRoll. And I flew across the ocean a couple of years ago. :)
--
Given the IP that they got with TransHub, how much more did they develop?
It takes a different type of organization to develop new technology as opposed to implementing existing one.
If you only know how to do the latter, you will quickly run out of steam.
A search of the USPTO will show the patents obtained by Bigelow for new IP.
-
Bigelow was a nut long before Bigelow Aerospace existed (and it was founded before both Blue Origin and SapceX). You have to be at least a little nuts to start a commercial space hotel company nearly a decade before COTS! Bigelow's nuttiness may well have been a large factor in why Bigelow Aerospace is currently defunct-in-all-but-name, but Bigelow's nuttiness combined with a willingness to reach into some deep pockets is also the reason Bigelow Aerospace existed in the first place and managed to fly two free-flying inflatable modules and one currently still attached to the ISS and in active use.
Why do you say he is nuts?
1. Because he believes that there is other intelligent life out there and they may have visited us?
2. Because he is interested to find out whether or not human conscienceless survives the body at death?
Lots and lots of people, very intelligent people, believe these things. The only difference is that he has enough money to fund actual efforts to realistically find genuine answers to these questions, while the vast majority can only speculate. And so he spends it and talks publicly about it. To say that "I believe [this and that] and I'm willing to spend enough money to find out if it is true or not" does not make someone nuts. It makes them unique, but only because they have the money to do that while the rest of us do not.
Yes, I agree. It's good to have some people that don't always follow the mold or what is popular in the media. Being excentric isn't always a bad thing and is probably part of what makes these people successful. The same thing could be said of Elon Musk.
-
Yeah...Son of Sam was eccentric too.
Bigelow doesn't believe aliens "may have visited" He thinks they're here now and believes in every fruitcake UFO "theory" in the book. In the spectrum between scientific researcher and nut, he's pretty close to one end.
-
There is an interview of Joe Rogan with Robert Bigelow:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4K3Q51lzzIjUNEsEz1qqXE
I was very interested in Bigelow due to his involvement in spaceflight and space habitats. Unfortunately this topic comes barely up. I have been sitting through the entire interview and I am quite disappointed by the sheer amount of superstition that Bigelow entertains. Now this does not necessarily impacts Bigelow Aerospace.. but it does make me wonder if there is any future to them.
Did Bigelow smoked weed during the interview ? ;) (sorry, couldn't resist...)
-
Yeah...Son of Sam was eccentric too.
Bigelow doesn't believe aliens "may have visited" He thinks they're here now and believes in every fruitcake UFO "theory" in the book. In the spectrum between scientific researcher and nut, he's pretty close to one end.
For me, his stance was news. I didnt know he was into that stuff, and of course he can do what he wants, not my place to judge the dude. If there is solid evidence for something, I'm ready to leave the worn out path of commonly agreed reality behind and explore whats in the woods. But Bigelow.. he wants to believe stuff, evidence or not. Im surprised he got anything functional into space with that attitude. Must have been well separated from the team who did it.
-
I don't care whether Bigelow believes in aliens, I'm more worried about the management horror stories on Glassdoor...
-
(snip)
That last bit is exactly how I imagined this entire enterprise. It just felt bad from day one.
No
Not from "day one".
My young colleague went to Bigelow early on and they built, flew, and operated Genesis 1 and 2, which were real first steps to building space habitats.
Then the wheels came off the bus.
Bigelow just could not manage the enterprise to success.
Only one person had defied the adage that to build a small fortune in spaceflight you should start with a large one.
Bigelow's was never going to be the second, according to people who worked for him.
How far beyond TransHub TransHab did Genesis 1 and 2 go?
(very late response)
They got to orbit.
iRoll. And I flew across the ocean a couple of years ago. :)
--
Given the IP that they got with TransHub, how much more did they develop?
It takes a different type of organization to develop new technology as opposed to implementing existing one.
If you only know how to do the latter, you will quickly run out of steam.
A search of the USPTO will show the patents obtained by Bigelow for new IP.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=bigelow+aerospace&FIELD1=AANM&co1=OR&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=bigelow+aerospace&FIELD1=AANM&co1=OR&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT)
FWIW, it looks like there are 6 patents that match for "Bigelow Aerospace" in the applicant name field. Four are different types of tugs, one for habitats, and another for a bare-bones lander.
-
It's disapointing that Bigelow wasn't at the Industry Day for the new Commercial LEO Destinations (free flyer habitat) program (see below):
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1375799375742525440
-
Bigelow (which I'm not convinced remains a going concern) is suing NASA for $1.05 million. The damages sought seem ... inflated.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1376598972127707138
-
See also:
Bigelow Aerospace, which closed operations last year at the beginning of the pandemic, is accusing NASA of withholding a $1 million contract payment for testing work on its B330 moon module, according to a lawsuit the company filed last week.
For work done between 2019-2020, Bigelow says it sent NASA three separate demands for payment between December and last month, but a NASA contracting officer asked for more data and a meeting at HQ before paying them out. Bigelow says that violates their contract
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1376607265474682882
-
Dispute seems to be down to what constitutes "test data". NASA expects raw data (e.g. big table of timestamped pressure transducer values), Bigelow wants to provide a summary report.
-
I just placed a phone call to the phone number on the Bigelow Aerospace web page. The recording stated that their normal business hours are M - Th 8:00am to 5:00pm, and Fridays 8:00am to 3:00pm.
-
Does anyone have any information on the size (length, width) of the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 solar arrays?
All I can find is that the forward panels are long and skinny (perhaps 2m x .4m) and the aft ones wider and shorter (perhaps 1.12m x .67m).
The write ups say GaAs cells but no more than that. Who supplied them to Bigelow?
I am trying to build a scale model of G1.
Thanks.
-
https://twitter.com/to0ast/status/1470112107765055493?s=21
-
https://twitter.com/to0ast/status/1470112109149175810
Description
NASA/JSC has a requirement for engineering support services for the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) metallics/structures to ensure continued usage of the BEAM on the International Space Station (ISS). This service includes on-call support in the event of anomalies and/or issue resolution impacting the BEAM and/or ISS interfaces to the BEAM.
NASA/JSC intends to issue a sole source contract to ATA Engineering, Inc. starting as early as the first quarter or the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2022 to support BEAM on-orbit operations.
Since inception of the BEAM, ATA Engineering Inc. has worked directly as a partner with Bigelow Aerospace (BA) during the initial design, development, and test verification of the BEAM. ATA’s specific responsibility during BEAM development was to verify the primary and secondary metallic structures of the BEAM for all ground, launch, and on-orbit environments. This was successfully accomplished through a combination of analysis and testing. As part of this support, ATA developed and maintained all the finite element models (FEMs) of the BEAM structure and ATA performed all the necessary strength, dynamics, fatigue, and fracture analyses using these FEMs. Following the successful commissioning of BEAM on ISS in April 2016, ATA developed FEMs of a new internal configuration of BEAM to support stowage of cargo on the internal secondary structure members. ATA also supported BA through various analyses to demonstrate that the life of the BEAM structure could be extended from its original two-year mission to beyond the life of ISS out to 2032 under the BEAM Sustaining Engineering Contract with Bigelow Space One, LLC.
Aside from BA, ATA is the only company with unique familiarity with and access to the structural design of BEAM and is the only company that has been granted access by Bigelow Aerospace/Bigelow Space One, LLC to the BEAM data, models and analysis methods used to design and sustain the BEAM. Consequently, ATA is uniquely qualified to support the engineering sustainment of BEAM on a sole source basis.
In December 2021, Bigelow Space One, LLC transferred title and ownership of the BEAM to NASA Johnson Space Center.
To continue critical support of the BEAM with a minimal gap in services, the Government plans to enter into a sole-source contract with ATA Engineering Inc. ATA will provide a baseline level of support in the form of anomaly resolution support for BEAM metallics/structures. ATA will perform engineering services for the metallics and structures of the BEAM and recommend corrective action(s) to NASA and its support contractors This includes the initial assessment of the failure conditions, risks to hardware, failure analysis to identify probable/root causes and recommended resolution actions. ATA shall perform the anomaly resolution tasks when requested by NASA to support Mission Evaluation Room (MER) meetings. In addition, ATA will perform failure investigation, future life extension assessments, unique analysis, feasibility studies, and other work to maintain BEAM operability.
Firms desiring consideration are required to fully identify their interest and capabilities within 7 days of the date of publication of this synopsis.
The Government intends to acquire a commercial item service using FAR Part 12.
Interested organizations may submit their capabilities and qualifications to perform the effort electronically via email to the identified Primary point of contact not later than 4:30 p.m. Central Standard Time on December 17, 2021. Such capabilities/qualifications will be evaluated solely for the purpose of determining whether or not to conduct this procurement on a competitive basis.
A determination by the Government not to compete this acquisition on a full and open competition basis, based upon responses to this notice, is solely within the discretion of the Government.
https://sam.gov/opp/220ac7db7bef4b4085636f3cd65dc5c2/view
-
Unfortunate news about Bigelow. I was hoping they would get a order some day for a BA-2100, perhaps launched on FH or the like.
-
I wonder who owns the inflatable module/habitat IP now?
-
I wonder who owns the inflatable module/habitat IP now?
I think the patent already expired?
-
I wonder who owns the inflatable module/habitat IP now?
I think the patent already expired?
The company's IP, patents, assets et al were purchased by what is now Sierra Space and an undisclosed entity at a private sale. The effective date for transfer of ownership are the same date except with BEAM which required following a different transfer process to the US government.
-
Well, their website is still up, but hasn't been updated in over two years. The domain name expires on 15 April 2023.
-
Sad news about the demise of Bigelow Aerospace. I had been hoping against hope that it would survive and thrive, but at least the work continues thru Sierra Space.
-
Sad news about the demise of Bigelow Aerospace. I had been hoping against hope that it would survive and thrive, but at least the work continues thru Sierra Space.
Probablevictem of COVID. Lockdowns and reduce travel would've hit Bigelows motel business hard.
Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk
-
Sad news about the demise of Bigelow Aerospace. I had been hoping against hope that it would survive and thrive, but at least the work continues thru Sierra Space.
I was wondering were they were getting their inflatable tech. I guess they are buying the IP to keep from getting infringement law suits.
-
Sad news about the demise of Bigelow Aerospace. I had been hoping against hope that it would survive and thrive, but at least the work continues thru Sierra Space.
I was wondering were they were getting their inflatable tech. I guess they are buying the IP to keep from getting infringement law suits.
Any of the TransHab patents they licensed from NASA would have expired by now, but Bigelow IP would still be under patent. Good thing it was purchased, so work can continue.
Unfortunately for Bigelow, commercial crew and commercial space stations took too long.
-
Sad news about the demise of Bigelow Aerospace. I had been hoping against hope that it would survive and thrive, but at least the work continues thru Sierra Space.
Probablevictem of COVID. Lockdowns and reduce travel would've hit Bigelows motel business hard.
Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk
Not any more so than my long dead grandma... They were dead a long time before that bat laid eyes on that pig...
-
Sad news about the demise of Bigelow Aerospace. I had been hoping against hope that it would survive and thrive, but at least the work continues thru Sierra Space.
Probablevictem of COVID. Lockdowns and reduce travel would've hit Bigelows motel business hard.
Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk
Not any more so than my long dead grandma... They were dead a long time before that bat laid eyes on that pig...
I dont have a clue what that last bit means, but meekgee is right.
Bigelow Aerospace was the victim of Robert Bigelow. He was never going to be able to lead an aerospace engineering firm.
They did good stuff for a while.
An intern on one of my projects many years ago got a job there (after I told her about it), got some great experience, (met a bright colleague whom she married) and moved on before excessive poop hit the fan.
If you still were hoping for great things from Bigelow, you just weren’t paying attention.
-
The Sierra Life Module uses ILC Dover Inflatable module technology, developed independently from Bigelow:
Q:This looks a lot like a Bigelow design. Did they make the inflation part or did you copy their technology?
A:No, the LIFE habitat is not a copy of the Bigelow design. The LIFE habitat uses commercially available Vectran material and is based on ILC Dover's Tunnel Plug technology. Sierra Space is partnered with ILC Dover to develop the habitat. ILC Dover has extensive experience in inflatable systems.
https://www.sncorp.com/what-we-do/life-habitat/
-
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1483508217565093900
-
Bigelow Aerospace transfers BEAM space station module to NASA:
https://spacenews.com/bigelow-aerospace-transfers-beam-space-station-module-to-nasa/
-
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1483508217565093900
Heh. NASA don't really has a choice. There is no easy way of replacing the storage capacity of the BEAM.
-
Any idea how much Bigelow paid for BEAM ?
-
.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1483508217565093900 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1483508217565093900)
$1M/4 is a remarkably round number for an agency that routinely issues contracts with ten or more non-zero digits.
How does NASA isolate the cost of operating BEAM?
Is this a contract to Bigelow Aerospace?
Do they have anything operating on the ground?
If there is no Bigelow involvement this may belong more in an ISS thread than in this “grave of Bigelow” thread.
-
.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1483508217565093900 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1483508217565093900)
$1M/4 is a remarkably round number for an agency that routinely issues contracts with ten or more non-zero digits.
How does NASA isolate the cost of operating BEAM?
Is this a contract to Bigelow Aerospace?
Do they have anything operating on the ground?
If there is no Bigelow involvement this may belong more in an ISS thread than in this “grave of Bigelow” thread.
Bigelow Aerospace is no more. They tried to sue NASA for money they thought they were owed. They didn't do the homework and had only PowerPoints, also they didn't bid on any NextStep Commerical Module follow ons, they couldn't close their business case.
https://spacenews.com/bigelow-aerospace-lays-off-entire-workforce/
They laid off their entire workforce so no one from there could continue providing the engineering support for B.E.A.M.
https://spacenews.com/bigelow-aerospace-transfers-beam-space-station-module-to-nasa/
Come find out Bigelow paid ATA Engineering for those services, so NASA is paying that contractor directly for those services until ISS is deorbited or 2032. What ever comes first.
-
Any idea how much Bigelow paid for BEAM ?
In the initial contract, NASA paid Bigelow $17M for Beam. I doubt that Bigelow made much of a profit on it (if any).
-
I just called the phone number listed on the Bigelow Aerospace website & a very friendly woman informed me that BA has been closed since 2020. She didn't have any more information for me than that.
-
Any idea how much Bigelow paid for BEAM ?
In the initial contract, NASA paid Bigelow $17M for Beam. I doubt that Bigelow made much of a profit on it (if any).
Thanks! That's really cheap by ISS standards!
-
I just called the phone number listed on the Bigelow Aerospace website & a very friendly woman informed me that BA has been closed since 2020. She didn't have any more information for me than that.
If the company is actually closed, then who answered the phone?
-
I don't know but one can surmise that the number was reassigned and someone is having to field calls for Bigelow.