What's Happening at Bigelow?

[docmordrid]

To put a fine point on emerging nations, both India and Brazil are fielding nuclear powered submarines.  Brazil mid-decade and India's lead boat, the INS Sindhuvijay, entered service in 2007.

[ChefPat]

Can you point me at where you found that launch config information?

I read it on a previous iteration of the Bigelow site. I'm trying to find a cached version but have had no success so far.

[e of pi]

Can you point me at where you found that launch config information?

I read it on a previous iteration of the Bigelow site. I'm trying to find a cached version but have had no success so far.

Thanks for looking. The only configuration information I could find in my searches was the Genesis diagrams, so any additional information would be great.

[grr]

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.

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

You mean other than the fact that transhab was licensed to them for a song?
 Or that NASA has Engineers working with Bigelow to make their systems robust for ISS?
Or that NASA is funding R&D for life support systems via orbitec?
Or that iLIDS is from NASA?

NASA is working very closely with BA and subsidizing in so many ways, to make it viable.
Right now, lots of discussions to get a BA unit up to the ISS around 2013/2014 timeframe to help get Bigelow going.
That is all funding.
And you pointed out Boeing, but a bigger supplier for Bigelow is likely going to be SpaceX if costs are the major concerns.

Now, is it DIRECT money going to Bigelow like say COTS? Not yet.
But, I think that we will see that shortly once SLS is dead and CONgress allows NASA to push private space into providing services rather than simply building things for them.

[Lampyridae]

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?

Roundabout 2007. Although South Africans who care about such things probably consider SpaceX "our" space program. 

I think hosting the Square Kilometre Array would probably be SA's biggest contribution to space science, and I hope we get it.

Science is quite well sheltered in budget terms, and there's a robust academic culture in this country (University of Cape Town is world class). But our basic education sucks and the chances of turning out engineering grads on the scale of China or India is just laughable.

China, India, Brazil, Australia, South Korea would be much more amenable to this sort of thing - something to showcase engineering skill.

[mlorrey]

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.

yes but rates of growth are sorta deceiving. A change in income from $1 per month to $2 per month is a 100% growth rate, but a change from $100 per month to $101 per month is only 1% growth.

[Robert Thompson]

The author speaks poorly at the end, but the following has favorable budget analysis for India:

"Public interest in space, by the numbers" August 9, 2010
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1676/1

"American space spending was about 0.34% of its $14.3 trillion GDP (which represents about 25% of the world’s total $58 trillion GDP). Other national spending on space compared to GDP includes Russia at 0.23%, India at 0.07%, Japan at 0.06%, and China at 0.04%."

"Calculating government spending per capita on space puts the US at $158, Japan at $24, Russia at $20, China at $1.50, and India at $0.75."

"if GDP is adjusted by subtracting out $2.75 a day per person, as a proxy for basic living needs, India’s space spending is world-leading at 1.85% of this adjusted GDP. The US is now at 0.35%, Russia at 0.26%, and China and Japan both come in at 0.06%."

[Jason1701]

A construction update at long last!

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

[AdamH]

A construction update at long last!

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

Check out the fancy curves on picture 14,16,18.

[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.

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

You mean other than the fact that transhab was licensed to them for a song?
 Or that NASA has Engineers working with Bigelow to make their systems robust for ISS?
Or that NASA is funding R&D for life support systems via orbitec?
Or that iLIDS is from NASA?

NASA is working very closely with BA and subsidizing in so many ways, to make it viable.
Right now, lots of discussions to get a BA unit up to the ISS around 2013/2014 timeframe to help get Bigelow going.
That is all funding.
And you pointed out Boeing, but a bigger supplier for Bigelow is likely going to be SpaceX if costs are the major concerns.

Now, is it DIRECT money going to Bigelow like say COTS? Not yet.
But, I think that we will see that shortly once SLS is dead and CONgress allows NASA to push private space into providing services rather than simply building things for them.

Pointless trying to convince those whose minds are made up.  Enough to say you are mistaken and engaging in hyperbole.

There has been some NASA involvement in Bigelow but not anywhere near the amounts spent by Bigelow themselves and let's face it, if Robert Bigelow hadn't started out doing something on his own, we wouldn't have any inflatable module flying.  NASA wasn't interested and couldn't fund it in fact Congress specifically cancelled TransHab. 

So what evidence to you have that NASA is providing capital to ensure Bigelow remains viable?  Where have they spent money on Bigelow, what contracts have they let, what hardware has been developed, what infrastructure has been constructed, what NASA facilities have Bigelow used or required?

Same goes for SpaceX.  Musk didn't start his company to benefit NASA.  They've seen the gaps and aimed for them.  They've had NASA funding for particular milestones via COTS-C.  They had a flight for F1 funded by DoD or Air Force.  They've got a few minor contracts for various studies.  That's about it.  Probably amounts to about $300 million max.  CRS doesn't count since it's payment for services rendered contract.  No service, no payment. 
NASA certainly hasn't been involved in any design, development or manufacturing work that SpaceX has done wrt their booster systems.  Dragon's a different beast and there's been a fair bit of consulting wrt that vehicle but not millions of dollars and not the 'guts' of the business.

As I stated before, SpaceX and Bigelow don't need NASA.  NASA actually needs commercial since they and Congress have wasted billions of dollars on failed programs over the years and still can't agree a way forward.

So, once again, SpaceX and Bigelow can go to FAA for licencing to anywhere other than the ISS.  They don't need NASA involvement whatsoever.  The odds that they'd do that might not be high but that doesn't preclude them for doing so if, as I've said, NASA beats around the bush too much or makes the requirements too onerous and isn't prepared to pay for them.

And your statements regarding NASA being the 'guts' of their businesses is just a statement and not based in reality.

Another question:  what evidence have you to believe that NASA's going to the Moon in 2020?  That program hasn't been identified any NASA budget so there's no funding for the program, there's no funding for the LV, and there's insufficient funding for the MPCV to achieve the required capability.  So, please point out where I can find the above?

 

[ChefPat]

From the BA Site "In The News" tab;

Bigelow Aerospace Exhibit at the National Space Symposium

Bigelow Aerospace will have a 1,200 sq. ft. exhibit at the 27th National Space Symposium running from April 11th – 14th at the Broadmoor Hotel located in Colorado Springs, CO.  We invite anyone attending the Symposium to come view the Bigelow Aerospace exhibition and learn more about our company’s exciting work and future plans.

[e of pi]

I wonder which models they'll be taking. 1200 sq. feet is almost enough they could bring a full Sundancer mockup, but I'll be personally more interested if they bring the BA-2100 model I wrote about.

[alexterrell]

From the BA Site "In The News" tab;

Bigelow Aerospace Exhibit at the National Space Symposium

Bigelow Aerospace will have a 1,200 sq. ft. exhibit at the 27th National Space Symposium running from April 11th – 14th at the Broadmoor Hotel located in Colorado Springs, CO.  We invite anyone attending the Symposium to come view the Bigelow Aerospace exhibition and learn more about our company’s exciting work and future plans.

...and please ask some really technical questions (working stress of fabric, safety factor, air recirculation rates etc) and put a report and photos in here.

[baldusi]

Specifically, ask for hypothetical longer fairings. Is it possible to pack stuff between the walls and core, such that it is slightly wider than the core? I'm thinking of preloading as much as possible Sundancer of BA330 on a FH.

[DigitalMan]

I'd be interested to know whether they considered different layouts and orientations.

[Robert Thompson]

This is fifth generation+, but what would a centrifugal g Bigelow require in terms of diameter (human comfort) and centrifugal floor structure (assuming it cannot be the bladder and other critical surfaces that comprise the actual wall)?

[e of pi]

This is fifth generation+, but what would a centrifugal g Bigelow require in terms of diameter (human comfort) and centrifugal floor structure (assuming it cannot be the bladder and other critical surfaces that comprise the actual wall)?

There is no space-based data on human-tolerable rotation rates, or on gravity level required to avoid the worst symptoms of microgravity exposure that I am aware of. Thus, the only guaranteed values for gravity level to provide are extremely conservative in my opinion--1 G, 3 RPM or so. This requires a 100 m radius, which is far beyond that which can be provided by a module of Bigelow's geometry--an inflated torus would be better for that. However, if only .33 G is required (Mars, just as an example) and humans can adapt to 5 RPM, then only a 22 m diameter is needed--which might be doable in a future Bigelow-style module.

This is an area I really wish we'd do more research into--beyond the biology of it, it directly effects the engineering requirements to support long-term off-planet habitation.

[baldusi]

If you want to do a 100m Diameters, it might be difficult, but not unfeasible. A good question is how many folds can take a bigelow wall. Could you put a 50m x 4m tube on a custom 10m x 4.6m FH fairing? (4.6m x 6.6m, currently, but a 50% length increase shouldn't be such a problem). Then you would need lots of assembly, but could make a hexagonal reticular frame of carbon fibre tubes. Then put a solid connector on each vertices. Each connector joins the Bigelow tube. If you want to go really big, make two of those structures and join each connector with a BA330 transversaly (like two wheels joint at the vertices).

[simonbp]

He planned to put 50 crew-members on the lunar surface using 3 inflatable landers. 50!

And they would then erect launch pads for modified Sargents with thermonuclear warheads for terrestrial bombardment. Also, the MPs among the 50-man crew would defend the base with shoulder-mounted Davy Crockett Atomic Bazookas.

There are times when von Braun made Bond villains look sane...

[mlorrey]

He planned to put 50 crew-members on the lunar surface using 3 inflatable landers. 50!

And they would then erect launch pads for modified Sargents with thermonuclear warheads for terrestrial bombardment. Also, the MPs among the 50-man crew would defend the base with shoulder-mounted Davy Crockett Atomic Bazookas.

There are times when von Braun made Bond villains look sane...

You dont measure a Bond Villain's sanity by the size of his toys, but by the complexity of the plot by which the villain plans to kill Bond after he has already drugged him and kidnapped him and has him completely in his power. The size of his toys just tells you how much he is overcompensating.