What's Happening at Bigelow?

[Comga]

Your comments are simplistic.  It has nothing to do with intellectual property.  There is no need to post their bearing and motor specs.  Their goal was to show what they will build.  The brochure does not build confidence that these are anything more than long range plans or that they are capable of delivering.

[Cherokee43v6]

Your comments are simplistic.  It has nothing to do with intellectual property.  There is no need to post their bearing and motor specs.  Their goal was to show what they will build.  The brochure does not build confidence that these are anything more than long range plans or that they are capable of delivering.

SIMPLISTIC!!!  I'm not the one judging the health of the forest in front of me by a three year old dead leaf that blew in from the next county!

Publicity brochures are not written or designed for engineers.  They are marketing tools designed to create an emotional response from their targeted audience, in this case politicians, bureaucrats, and directors of corporations.  These people are generally lawyers and businessmen, very few have any rigorous applied science training and even fewer have used said training in the last 20 years.  Their purpose is to convince these entities that using the services being offered within the brochure are worth consideration.  They are not there to give the reader a nuts and bolts view of the entire operation.  That aspect is left to the negotiation process for the service if said information is pertinent to the needs of the service being negotiated.

As a businessman, I am not concerned what type of step-down power transformer is outside my factory, I care that I have 440 volts of power available to operate my heavy machinery, 220 for my lights and 110 for the coffeemaker in my secretary's office.  How all that happens is moot to the service.

[beancounter]

Yes I've been surprised at just how much info' has come out of Bigelow in the last 12 months or so, not how little.

We know they're planning to fly Sundancer as the first habital model; they are human-loop testing the ECS at the moment; they've contracted with Boeing for development of a crew capsule and I forget who but someone else for a propulsion system.  They're expanding their factory and they've got a bunch on MoU's with countries for future module leases.  Oh, they're also talking with NASA about a module on the ISS.

Yep, I'd say that's a fair bit of info'.  As for detailed design - get real.  It's proprietary information.  You're not going to get it - ever! 

[docmordrid]

A lot of info is in Mr. Big's patent filings. Just search them using his name.

[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.

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

Heavy sarcasm was intended. But the point stands, our economy is not large enough to support much. The space agency has an annual budget of a couple of million US$.

[baldusi]

If I'm not mistaken your space agency was launched last year, right? I guess SA space program is in its infancy. You do have some potential partners in the southern hemisphere
Besides, you should get a special price from SpaceX, don't you?

[ChefPat]

I sure would like to see what Bigelow is saying about SpaceX's announcement.

[beancounter]

I sure would like to see what Bigelow is saying about SpaceX's announcement.

Since Bigelow is already on SpaceX launch manifest, I would say that there's ongoing discussions on a number of fronts and pretty serious ones at that. 
I think there's a distinct possibility that NASA could get left in the dirt if they're not careful.  As I noted once before, only FAA licencing is required for commercial.  NASA only if you visit ISS.

[e of pi]

I'm not sure how well a Bigelow module would fit on the Falcon Heavy. My best calculations from publicly available data indicate such a 53 ton module would have a usable volume of about 883 cubic meters, which is certainly an interestingly large number. However, to fit within the Falcon's currently announced payload fairing, it might have to have a much higher length:diameter ratio than any of their other modules.

[Robotbeat]

I'm not sure how well a Bigelow module would fit on the Falcon Heavy. My best calculations from publicly available data indicate such a 53 ton module would have a usable volume of about 883 cubic meters, which is certainly an interestingly large number. However, to fit within the Falcon's currently announced payload fairing, it might have to have a much higher length:diameter ratio than any of their other modules.

Custom fairings are available.

[ChefPat]

Custom fairings are available.

Does anybody know what the Bigelow Propulsion Buss weighs? It looks to be in the 10 meter or so length (to my Mark 1 Eyeball) in the marketing pix. Could a Faring be made in the 25 meter range on the FH to launch a BA-330 with the Propulsion Buss attached? How high of an orbit could it be placed into using the full Cross Feed capability of an FH?

[grr]

I sure would like to see what Bigelow is saying about SpaceX's announcement.

Since Bigelow is already on SpaceX launch manifest, I would say that there's ongoing discussions on a number of fronts and pretty serious ones at that. 
I think there's a distinct possibility that NASA could get left in the dirt if they're not careful.  As I noted once before, only FAA licencing is required for commercial.  NASA only if you visit ISS.

Slim to zero chance of that. The entire guts of Bigelow and SpaceX is from NASA.
In addition, NASA (along with DOD and other TLA) have been funding both companies. NASA will be going to the moon around 2020. And it will likely be with these 2 companies and several others.

[e of pi]

I'm not sure how well a Bigelow module would fit on the Falcon Heavy. My best calculations from publicly available data indicate such a 53 ton module would have a usable volume of about 883 cubic meters, which is certainly an interestingly large number. However, to fit within the Falcon's currently announced payload fairing, it might have to have a much higher length:diameter ratio than any of their other modules.

Custom fairings are available.

Well, in that case, my best guess at a Falcon Heavy-max Bigelow unit would be a 9 m by 18 m module with about 890 cubic meters of volume. It might fit inside of the barrel diameter of the current faring, but would require a stretch of the cylindrical portion to almost triple the current length. A larger diameter fairing could get a larger diameter module, with a shorter length.

[ChefPat]

Well, in that case, my best guess at a Falcon Heavy-max Bigelow unit would be a 9 m by 18 m module with about 890 cubic meters of volume. It might fit inside of the barrel diameter of the current faring, but would require a stretch of the cylindrical portion to almost triple the current length. A larger diameter fairing could get a larger diameter module, with a shorter length.

At 5m x 13.7m in it's launch configuration, a BA-330 should fit into a standard SpaceX FH Faring that measures 5.2m x 13.9m

[e of pi]

Well, in that case, my best guess at a Falcon Heavy-max Bigelow unit would be a 9 m by 18 m module with about 890 cubic meters of volume. It might fit inside of the barrel diameter of the current faring, but would require a stretch of the cylindrical portion to almost triple the current length. A larger diameter fairing could get a larger diameter module, with a shorter length.

At 5m x 13.7m in it's launch configuration, a BA-330 should fit into a standard SpaceX FH Faring that measures 5.2m x 13.9m

Can you point me at where you found that launch config information? I thought that the inflated diameter was around 6.7 m, if it's only a ratio of 6:5 or so in terms of how much an inflatable module is gaining is size after launch...it seems low. It's also worth noting that 5.2 m is the faring's outer dimensions. The usable diameter is only 4.6 m.

The module I was talking about were my best guesses at a module that fills the mass launchable by Falcon Heavy, as opposed to one that fits the current default faring. By mass, 53 tons is more like two BA-330s.

[Orbital Debris]

[/quote]

Slim to zero chance of that. The entire guts of Bigelow and SpaceX is from NASA.
In addition, NASA (along with DOD and other TLA) have been funding both companies. NASA will be going to the moon around 2020. And it will likely be with these 2 companies and several others.
[/quote]

Other than CCDev money provided by Boeing how has NASA been funding Bigelow? 

[Ben the Space Brit]

To me, the story of Bigelow is a miniature parable of the problems NASA as a whole has because of being subject to political whims.

It was politicians who insisted that Transhab be canned (complaints about "astronauts in balloons") and that only traditional rigid metal-hulled modules be used.  Lo and behold, a commercial entity has picked up the technology and shown just what could have been done with it! A space station with a bigger interior volume than the ISS! A re-usable Earth-to-Moon orbital transfer vehicle! Moonbase modules! NASA is currently struggling to figure out how to launch a capsule into LEO whilst companies like SpaceX, Bigelow, OSC and even ULA (the latter despite being generally far more conservative) are making serious plans for the design of MHLVs, re-usable crew vehicles, lunar settlements and human Mars missions!

NASA would be doing just fine if it didn't have to subsidise so many Congresspersons' re-election bids!

[beancounter]

Slim to zero chance of that. The entire guts of Bigelow and SpaceX is from NASA.
In addition, NASA (along with DOD and other TLA) have been funding both companies. NASA will be going to the moon around 2020. And it will likely be with these 2 companies and several others.
[/quote]

Other than CCDev money provided by Boeing how has NASA been funding Bigelow? 

[/quote]

Beat me to it.  Also check out SpaceX launch manifest which is about 50:50 NASA / Commercial.  SpaceX can survive quite well without NASA and certainly they're on public record as stating they'll do commercial crew with or without gov't funding, unlike Boeing at this point.  They say they've been profitable to this point.  They seem to have sufficient funds to embark on FH and think they have a business case.
Again, if NASA gets recalcitrant over crew, SpaceX and Bigelow and anyone else who isn't interested in ISS business doesn't need anything from NASA.  They just need an FAA licence and customers.

[clongton]

To me, the story of Bigelow is a miniature parable of the problems NASA as a whole has because of being subject to political whims.

It was politicians who insisted that Transhab be canned (complaints about "astronauts in balloons") and that only traditional rigid metal-hulled modules be used.  Lo and behold, a commercial entity has picked up the technology and shown just what could have been done with it! A space station with a bigger interior volume than the ISS! A re-usable Earth-to-Moon orbital transfer vehicle! Moonbase modules! NASA is currently struggling to figure out how to launch a capsule into LEO whilst companies like SpaceX, Bigelow, OSC and even ULA (the latter despite being generally far more conservative) are making serious plans for the design of MHLVs, re-usable crew vehicles, lunar settlements and human Mars missions!

NASA would be doing just fine if it didn't have to subsidize so many Congresspersons' re-election bids!

Isn't it interesting that all of Von Braun's plans in space used inflatables? His space station, his lunar orbiter and even his giant lander, all used inflatables. He planned to put 50 crew-members on the lunar surface using 3 inflatable landers. 50!

[8900]

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

do you have an idea how fast the Indian economy is growing?
more or less the same rate as China. Most African economies are certainly performing not as good as India.