What's Happening at Bigelow?

[Robert Thompson]

Wonder exactly what is in that Aerojet contract?

Maybe... Aug '08, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=8af3ac333a0b62952fb145867eb5c483&topic=13251.0
Aug '09, http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Andrews_Space_Delivers_Spaceflight_Hardware_For_Aerojet_Bigelow_999.html

[clongton]

For a better sense of scale, here's Lori Garver on a recent visit to Bigelow facilities...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/5417051168/

I know we are ALL impressed with what we see in these mock-ups, but that specific picture is a very good example of the difficulties of a horizontal layout vs. a vertical layout as in Skylab and TransHab. Remember that these will be used in zero-g so any crew member that is not firmly attached to a surface and cannot *reach* some other surface is effectively stuck in midair where they are. A good zero-g design would have no more space between floor and ceiling than the length of a person's height plus arm outstretched above them, perhaps 7 foot (2.1m) or for a tall person, 7 foot 6 inches (2.3m). That was one of the lesson of Skylab. TransHab provided this as well as the early Bigelow designs by having a vertical core with "levels" perpendicular to it.

[Robert Thompson]

For a better sense of scale, here's Lori Garver on a recent visit to Bigelow facilities...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/5417051168/

horizontal layout vs. a vertical layout as in Skylab and TransHab. Remember that these will be used in zero-g so any crew member that is not firmly attached to a surface and cannot *reach* some other surface is effectively stuck in midair

The intended use of the space will require this kind of consideration. The way the physical model depicts the floor parallel to the solid core, you get maximum single solid surface, or, 'most earth-like visual depth of field' for the available volume and depending on what application you need. I can't immediately figure out any, but there's no physical constraint to it as in the design of a submarine or space shuttle. The TransHab format with floor perpendicular to core will have other applications. Off the top of my head, I bet that parallel / large floor surface would serve social / physical activities, and the TransHab format would suit controlled and isolated microgravity science. If there's going to be true persistence, then perhaps two modules as a mullet: business up front, party in the back.

Something that occurred to me looking at the model is that if you want to create the illusion of maximum floor space, even in weightless un-oriented environment, then you could have two identical large floors whose normal vectors both point away from the solid core. It's fun to devise. You might have a workspace whose office window is full earth, all the time, the equivalent of a coveted corner office.

As a selling point for hotel services, I imagine a large earth viewing room with a remotely adjustable high-end 12 inch Celestron telescope with CCD digital camera trained onto the surface of the earth. The moving image is directly piped to a 40" LCD high def monitor. Paying guests have control over the telescope movement, angle and focus, and can swap eyepieces as desired. Maybe remote sensing basics and Cold War Spying 101 for novices. Play name that country / geographical feature. Jeopardy based on what country you fly over - time is limited.

[ChefPat]

There's not much new here & I'm sick of hearing the derogatory tag "Space Hotel" but it's an excellent article.
Human-spaceflight's future may lie in orbiting hotel, other ventures

[A_M_Swallow]

There's not much new here & I'm sick of hearing the derogatory tag "Space Hotel" but it's an excellent article.

If other tags are wanted then one of the habitats will have to be laid out as something else.  With one of the triple module models make say the Sundancer the control room and one of the habitats the living quarters.  The third module could be laid out with a telescope pointing at the stars at one end and a micro-gravity laboratory doing biochemical and physics experiments at the other.

[beancounter]

I wonder if mass is an issue for these modules or they have plenty of mass margin for their proposed launch vehicles?   In doing so, a number of space-oriented companies have looked at and are incorporating carbon structures into their products so I wonder if Bigelow is also doing this.  There would be a number of opportunities I would think and such mass reductions would surely add up.
Any thoughts or better still, hard knowledge on this?

[Robert Thompson]

I'm sick of hearing the derogatory tag "Space Hotel"

I understand that pov. Consider these human behaviors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_leisure,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_up_with_the_Joneses,
"costly signalling" under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism.

What I've gathered from observing affluence is that "Wealth seeks to demonstrate ease of wealth attainment" or "Wealth seeks to imply steady state". Which when applied to the Tito's and Shuttleworth's, they are attempting to remove the tenor of wealth from the public designation 'space tourist', hoping rather to simulate some kind of non-fiscal meritorious rationale for their presence using something like "spaceflight participant". The important thing is that the negative charge carried by the labels "space tourism" and "space hotel" is an indicator of the strength of the force of envy from any lower socioeconomic class.

A self-effacing scientific thinker may very well hope that the field had been leveled. But wealth and its concomitant bowing, genuflection, livery, deference, etc, has to pave the way before accessibility trickles down to the plebes. (Here I think of Plebeian as any median income from a developed country, e.g. a 50K/yr American). I'll hold my breath for the day when a 50K/yr American gets a 3-day stay on a Bigelow module. Maybe it will be the result of a $1000/ticket raffle - I won't complain. How and when access becomes truly quotidian, droll, 5AM-Traffic Jam, and referred to as "space commuting" is for me still SyFy. Anyway, tell me if I'm wrong.

these will be used in zero-g so any crew member that is not firmly attached to a surface and cannot *reach* some other surface is effectively stuck in midair where they are. ... TransHab provided this as well as the early Bigelow designs by having a vertical core with "levels" perpendicular to it.

I believe IsaacKuo promotes an idea of an LEO station with two capsules swinging around each other with masses and momenta to reproduce lunar gravity in one and martian in the other. Two of these Transhabs could do that. You could get X square meters of lunar surface at lunar g and test ISRU processes. Maybe test lunar electrostatic dust transport and regolith damage to surfaces.

[go4mars]

example of the difficulties of a horizontal layout vs. a vertical layout... Remember that these will be used in zero-g

Maybe its a Moon or Mars version. 

[Ben the Space Brit]

example of the difficulties of a horizontal layout vs. a vertical layout... Remember that these will be used in zero-g

Maybe its a Moon or Mars version. 

It's a mock-up; That implies that it was designed from the outset to work in the 1g gravity, 1,000mb atmospheric pressure of Earth.  The actual free-fall and lunar surface versions will doubtless have many features that simply could not be put in the mock-up as they wouldn't work, at least not without compromising the structure.

[Comga]

Someone showed me a copy of a very large (230 mm by 350 mm) brochure from Bigelow titled "JUST THE BEGINNING   2011".  It has illustrations of the step by step assembly of a three module space station with three CST-100 capsules and three crews, starting with the launch on some purposely mash-up rocket.    There are illustrations of a three unit and four propulsive support units at "L1", landing, and sitting on the Moon and even a seven unit "Lunar Depot Aries at Lagrangian 1 Point".

There are many comparison illustrations of the enormous available volume when compared to "ISS Destiny Module" / "Traditional Aluminum Can Design". One reason they are so roomy is that Destiny is 80% filled with science racks and their supporting services, while the Bigelow modules are completely empty except for the people floating inside.

There is also an eight page, effusive statement by Robert Bigelow on why leasing a space station is a necessity for any country that wants to project power and prestige.   "Who knows, the very key to levitation (a sort of Holy Grail in the space world) may be waiting to be discovered in that strange environment of microgravity." "We have already linked the connection in power that can exist through enhanced national image, wealth, and influence. "  One of his prospective "Sovereign Nation Consortia" customers is "Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria".  This was probably written before those particular countries became, let's say, distracted with personal issues unrelated to space.

The main impression is that there is so much technology to be developed before any of this can be realized.  Just the fourth illustration of the assembly shows a "Supplemental power bus and docking node" with five docking/berthing hatches heading for a rendezvous with the occupied Sundancer/CST-100.  Rigid, steerable solar arrays, (that aren't steered in any of the pictures and pretty darned small), thermal radiators,... The expandable/inflatable structures, as useful as they may be, are just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

Sorry for the long post. It would be easier to scan and post it but that is proscribed.

[ChefPat]

The main impression is that there is so much technology to be developed before any of this can be realized.  Just the fourth illustration of the assembly shows a "Supplemental power bus and docking node" with five docking/berthing hatches heading for a rendezvous with the occupied Sundancer/CST-100.  Rigid, steerable solar arrays, (that aren't steered in any of the pictures and pretty darned small), thermal radiators,... The expandable/inflatable structures, as useful as they may be, are just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

Are these pix what Bigelow is actually going to put into space or are thet marketing tools?

[Jason1701]

New factory looks great. Seems realistic it could be operational by end of Q2.

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/prosper.php

[mlorrey]

Someone showed me a copy of a very large (230 mm by 350 mm) brochure from Bigelow titled "JUST THE BEGINNING   2011".  It has illustrations of the step by step assembly of a three module space station with three CST-100 capsules and three crews, starting with the launch on some purposely mash-up rocket.    There are illustrations of a three unit and four propulsive support units at "L1", landing, and sitting on the Moon and even a seven unit "Lunar Depot Ares at Lagrangian 1 Point".

There are many comparison illustrations of the enormous available volume when compared to "ISS Destiny Module" / "Traditional Aluminum Can Design". One reason they are so roomy is that Destiny is 80% filled with science racks and their supporting services, while the Bigelow modules are completely empty except for the people floating inside.

This isn't accurate. The Bigelow modules are launched uninflated, but with a core that is simply packed with racks of gear, at least as much as a standard ISS module if not more so. The Bigelow module makes its room thereafter from inflation, but the core retains all the equipment it was launched with.

The Genesis modules dont have such cores only because they are small and were only intended to demonstrate the viability of the inflatable technology.

There is also an eight page, effusive statement by Robert Bigelow on why leasing a space station is a necessity for any country that wants to project power and prestige.   "Who knows, the very key to levitation (a sort of Holy Grail in the space world) may be waiting to be discovered in that strange environment of microgravity." "We have already linked the connection in power that can exist through enhanced national image, wealth, and influence. "  One of his prospective "Sovereign Nation Consortia" customers is "Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria".  This was probably written before those particular countries became, let's say, distracted with personal issues unrelated to space.

The main impression is that there is so much technology to be developed before any of this can be realized.  Just the fourth illustration of the assembly shows a "Supplemental power bus and docking node" with five docking/berthing hatches heading for a rendezvous with the occupied Sundancer/CST-100.  Rigid, steerable solar arrays, (that aren't steered in any of the pictures and pretty darned small), thermal radiators,... The expandable/inflatable structures, as useful as they may be, are just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

Sorry for the long post. It would be easier to scan and post it but that is proscribed.

The solar panels are several times larger than those on an Almaz station, just that the inflatable is so much larger that the panels look small. Secondly, because the inflatable isn't metallic, you dont have the same sort of temperature control problems that you do with metallic modules that rapidly absorb solar radiation, so their radiator needs are much lower.

Solar panels dont need to steer on a time frame that fits within a simulation video.

There remain a lot of countries that seek the prestige of a manned space flight program. South Korea, is one, hence their wet lease of a Lynx vehicle for training. With the end of Shuttle, you wont ever see a South Korean astronaut at ISS again, since they paid $28 million to Russia for their last astronaut to go to ISS, I doubt they'd fork over $63 million for another seat on Soyuz. More likely they'd pay SpaceX for rides to Bigelow's station at much lower rates.

Likewise, Japan will have a choice of buying Soyuz rides from Russia to ISS or else going with SpaceX/Boeing and Bigelow.

For a nation wanting to be seen as independent of western governments (India, Pakistan, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, etc) a free market option is not just more economical, but politically more viable.

[Lampyridae]

For a nation wanting to be seen as independent of western governments (India, Pakistan, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, etc) a free market option is not just more economical, but politically more viable.

We don't have a space program - a government one anyway. I can't see the African National Congress sending people into space when there's rampant poverty in our own country.

Nope, in this country you have to work for it. You have to make billions, go to the US, naturalise, and start up your own space company.

[Calorspace]

For a nation wanting to be seen as independent of western governments (India, Pakistan, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, etc) a free market option is not just more economical, but politically more viable.

We don't have a space program - a government one anyway. I can't see the African National Congress sending people into space when there's rampant poverty in our own country.

Nope, in this country you have to work for it. You have to make billions, go to the US, naturalise, and start up your own space company.

I don't think this can be assumed. Look at India

[Comga]

There are many comparison illustrations of the enormous available volume when compared to "ISS Destiny Module" / "Traditional Aluminum Can Design". One reason they are so roomy is that Destiny is 80% filled with science racks and their supporting services, while the Bigelow modules are completely empty except for the people floating inside.

This isn't accurate. The Bigelow modules are launched uninflated, but with a core that is simply packed with racks of gear, at least as much as a standard ISS module if not more so. The Bigelow module makes its room thereafter from inflation, but the core retains all the equipment it was launched with.

Solar panels dont need to steer on a time frame that fits within a simulation video.

That's not the point.  It's just how they illustrated and exaggerated the reletive volumes.

And there is no "simulation video", just unsophosticated illustrations.    The point is that they don't have even solid models that can be adjusted.  The solar panels are all shown in some initial orientation, even when that does not make sense.

[apace]

And there is no "simulation video", just unsophosticated illustrations.    The point is that they don't have even solid models that can be adjusted.  The solar panels are all shown in some initial orientation, even when that does not make sense.

They have more than 3 years to fix this problems ;-) I love the idea of Bigelow's space station ideas, but first the must go into space, full scale, with people and then we will see more.

[Cherokee43v6]

Lets not forget that they have launched and are currently operating two subscale demonstrators using the depicted architecture.

It could be that they are just choosing not to depict it because it is assumed.  Or they may have a different solution that they choose not to share.  Either way, they have actual hardware flying and that says something very important about their commitment.

[Comga]

Lets not forget that they have launched and are currently operating two subscale demonstrators using the depicted architecture.

It could be that they are just choosing not to depict it because it is assumed.  Or they may have a different solution that they choose not to share.  Either way, they have actual hardware flying and that says something very important about their commitment.

The solar panels on the Genesis modules are smaller and have much simpler mounting and deployment.  I believe that they are not articulated.

This is just one of the technologies illustrated in the booklet that needs significant development.

[Cherokee43v6]

The thing is Comga, why do they have to tell us how they are solving (or have solved) the problem.  Bigelow is NOT building these stations as a government contractor.  They are a private entity seeking to launch private stations.

If they wish to keep their solutions as a proprietary intellectual property, that is up to them as a private industry.  Hyundai heavy industries doesn't have to tell the world the makeup of the steel it puts into the ships it builds.  Glaxo doesn't have to explain how it makes Zantac. (The generic folks have to figure out that themselves.)

You're talking about a private company with hundreds of millions in private money invested in these technologies.  They're not going to publicize something that allows someone else to compete against them using their own work.  If you really want to know what they're doing, search the patent office website for their filings.