What's Happening at Bigelow?

[kkattula]

All the serious notational base plans that I've seen call for the landing pads to eventually be microwave sintered to a depth of at least 2 meters. Yes, that will take a while to accomplish but once in place, dust and debris will not be a problem for incoming landers. It will be like coming down on clean concrete.

I think a good base strategy would be to pre-land a large rover or two near the future base site, and have them:

1) Place 4 radio beacons &/or radar transponders a km or two apart to allow follow on precision landings.

2) Identify a landing field, and clear it of inconvenient rocks. Maybe fill in a few holes too.

3) Spend several lunar days microwaving the field, other base sites, and roads between them.

4) Tow new arrivals (all landers should have wheels) to their required position.

[A_M_Swallow]

Modifying the model to show the landing site in a separate crater is a few hours work.  This can save hundreds of millions of dollars, because it gets everyone used to the idea that the base and landing site are separate but related.  Get this wrong on the moon and you have to build a new Moon base.  With a little imagination the result complex can be made to look very inviting.

[Sparky]

Modifying the model to show the landing site in a separate crater is a few hours work.  This can save hundreds of millions of dollars, because it gets everyone used to the idea that the base and landing site are separate but related.  Get this wrong on the moon and you have to build a new Moon base.  With a little imagination the result complex can be made to look very inviting.

I highly doubt that anyone expects Bigelow's lunar base will be built to the exact specs of a piece of concept art that was made 10-20 years earlier. Heck, ISS doesn't look exactly like drawings of it from 5 years ago.

And who knows, maybe Bigelow is trying to boast their confidence in the micrometeoroid protection that their BA330 modules provide. The nodes, rover, and other equipment would need to be shielded, but the inflatable parts would probably survive a few strikes.

[telomerase99]

His plan is to bury the entire habitat with regolith. He has even patented a device that functions like a conveyer belt toward this end.

The regolith would provide shielding from both micrometeorites as well as radiation.

[docmordrid]

Not to mention if the water blankets they've talked about are installed, which would add significantly to radiation/particle shielding.

[mlorrey]

His plan is to bury the entire habitat with regolith. He has even patented a device that functions like a conveyer belt toward this end.

The regolith would provide shielding from both micrometeorites as well as radiation.

I've been designing something like a snow blower that uses a scaled up cylindrical paint stripper brush instead of solid blades, along with preprep of ground with akin to a roto-tiller to loosen it up.

[ChefPat]

Woah, very interesting. I wonder what the modules at the end of the habitats are supposed to be -- lander propulsion?

[ChefPat]

Bigelow has said that he wants to assemble the 3 module base at EML-1 & land it on it's own power. Making those Propulsion/Entryway units refuel able will also allow the base to move from point to point under it's own power as well.
As for the model, an artists concept often takes a few liberties that don't allow for the laws of physics. The manufacturer will not always want all of his proprietary info displayed for all to see on what is essentially a marketing tool.

[Garrett]

from the Space.com article:

For the moon base, three BA 330s, along with topped off propulsion tanks and power units, could be joined together and then migrated from either L1 or lunar orbit and flown to a pre-selected lunar spot.

That sounds a bit odd to me, so hopefully somebody here has a better insight into how this could work. I mean, I would have thought that trying to land three attached BA-330's would result in a lot of stress where they join.

[Ben the Space Brit]

from the Space.com article:

For the moon base, three BA 330s, along with topped off propulsion tanks and power units, could be joined together and then migrated from either L1 or lunar orbit and flown to a pre-selected lunar spot.

That sounds a bit odd to me, so hopefully somebody here has a better insight into how this could work. I mean, I would have thought that trying to land three attached BA-330's would result in a lot of stress where they join.

I believe that there is a landing engine on the central hub too.  It would be tricky but, ultimately, all that would be required was very careful co-ordination of the thrust levels from all four engines.

[Robotbeat]

from the Space.com article:

For the moon base, three BA 330s, along with topped off propulsion tanks and power units, could be joined together and then migrated from either L1 or lunar orbit and flown to a pre-selected lunar spot.

That sounds a bit odd to me, so hopefully somebody here has a better insight into how this could work. I mean, I would have thought that trying to land three attached BA-330's would result in a lot of stress where they join.

I believe that there is a landing engine on the central hub too.  It would be tricky but, ultimately, all that would be required was very careful co-ordination of the thrust levels from all four engines.

One-sixth gravity also makes it a lot easier.

[ChefPat]

from the Space.com article:

For the moon base, three BA 330s, along with topped off propulsion tanks and power units, could be joined together and then migrated from either L1 or lunar orbit and flown to a pre-selected lunar spot.

That sounds a bit odd to me, so hopefully somebody here has a better insight into how this could work. I mean, I would have thought that trying to land three attached BA-330's would result in a lot of stress where they join.

Putting this puppy down complete is going to take a lot of things going right & leaving very little to chance. I suspect that the area chosen for landing will have at the least been thoroughly scouted & possibly even prepared ahead of time.

[Lampyridae]

Why not have just a ring inside the Bigelow module, only 1 meter or so in width (and as big of diameter as the module), where the crew can sleep and/or exercise? Like this:

The Russians did look at this (in the 70s or 80s, IIRC).  They found that the difference in forces when the cosmonaut's height was a significant fraction of the diameter of the centrifuge caused serious disorientation and even some problems with the blood flow through the body.  A 5m-diameter one, like that which would fit inside a Skylab, would have a situation where the head was virtually in free-fall whilst the body was in partial gravity.  This would make the subject very prone to black-outs.  Not a good thing.

FWIW, I've always considered the Discovery-1's 10m-diameter centrifuge in 2001 about the minimum sensible size for even trained and conditioned crews.  It could be made to work with highly-trained astronauts who have been conditioned through years of training to handle it.  However, semi-trained space tourists (such as Bigelow's target market) probably wouldn't be able to handle it.

The textbooks often cite 2001 as "bad science" with regard to centrifuges, citing the 1-2 RPM limit that 60s researchers found. However, 2001 is proof in itself that higher RPMs are possible. The actual rotation rate of the centrifuge was at least 6 RPM, with Keir Dullea (Bowman) hanging upside down (and eating) for half of that. 6 RPM is enough for 1/6g, which is what the film used. Walking spinward would generate 1/2 to 1/3 gee. Jogging in the spinward direction would raise it to about 1g. On the moon, the problem would be falling off the floor if walking anti-spinward. I would guess a lunar centrifuge would need to be about 30m in diameter, providing about 0.5 gee to avoid this added wonkyness.

As for sleeping in "hamster wheels" it's quite viable and has been looked at in depth. As long as people's heads are restrained vertically it's fine. Horizontally it's not a problem.

[grakenverb]

Article in NY Times (w/nice picture):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/science/space/08space.html

[docmordrid]

I found the evolution of the propulsion bus+node interesting...

Old

New (cropped, zoomed & gamma corrected)

[Garrett]

Article in NY Times (w/nice picture):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/science/space/08space.html

Great picture. If ever they don't succeed in space, at least they can try winning some model construction contests back home 

More seriously, that article had some info that I never heard before. I'll pick out what I thought interesting:

The two Bigelow stations would then be home to 36 people at a time

Wha? 36!? Did the reporter make a mistake here or is that truly the number they hope to have up there?

In recent years, he has played down the notion that he is building a space hotel for rich tourists, although he says space tourism could provide a part of his business.

That really surprised me. I didn't know he was banking so much on (international?) government contracts.

His space stations are not his only interest in space. “I’ve been a researcher and student of U.F.O.’s for many, many years,” Mr. Bigelow said. “Anybody that does research, if people bother to do quality research, come away absolutely convinced. You don’t have to have personal encounters.”
He added: “People have been killed. People have been hurt. It’s more than observational kind of data.”

Bigelow is a UFO fanatic! This makes him, in my eyes, a bit of a liability. Any research I've ever done on UFO's has convinced me they don't exist. But maybe I'm the mad one!

Other views that run counter to mainstream science include ... a disbelief in the Big Bang theory.

Well, this doesn't sound good, unless the reporter exaggerated Bigelow's disbelief.

Bigelow: “I have four decades of building all kinds of things. The principles are the same.”
...
 (Another of the company values declares: “Make up your mind quickly. Don’t take forever, people are waiting, the company is waiting, the future is waiting and time costs money.”)

OK, when I saw this I just thought to myself: "Oh sh*t!"

[DGH]

Article in NY Times (w/nice picture):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/science/space/08space.html

If that picture is accurate Boeing is doing Apollo not Orion lite.

It appears to be about 4 meter diameter.
That would be under a 6 mt capsule.
Angles seem a little better adding some volume.

With service module about 10 mt.
A little more with LAS.
Atlas 402/411/412  depending on orbit or Delta 4,2.

7 people would be very tight.
That would be almost as tight as the Apollo rescue set up.


This really reminds me of the original Boeing proposal for the Vision.

This could be launched to EML-2 on a RS-68A Delta IV Heavy with significant margins.

[Ben the Space Brit]

With the success of Falcon-9 f1, has there been any word from Bigelow about scheduling the test flight of Sundancer on the Falcon-9? It's been "on the books" for years, but now there is an operational launcher, I'm wondering if they are making serious preparations.

[DigitalMan]

In recent years, he has played down the notion that he is building a space hotel for rich tourists, although he says space tourism could provide a part of his business.

That really surprised me. I didn't know he was banking so much on (international?) government contracts.

Bigelow has stated since the beginning that he was not marketing to tourists only to government and commercial entities.  If a hotel chain rented a module they would be free to send up tourists. 

[bad_astra]

He may not be marketing it to them, but he has to consider there is going to be a lucrative side market for things like tourism and perhaps more importantly, filmmakers.