What's Happening at Bigelow?

[Danderman]

Also; I can't see such large changes in 'the plan' if MOU's are the only paper involved. Methinks there is more, just unannounced.

and ponies, too!

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

An additional thought on FH fairings is that if the faring was increased to a total length of 34m two BA330 or a BA330 and propulsion module could be launched in the same FH launch. To make a complete 3 BA330 and 1 propulsion module station would take either 4 FH with a shorter fairing at a minimum of $85M each in launch costs or 2 FH with the longer fairing in which the launch cost for each module would be equivalent to $65M, a total station project savings of $80M.

[baldusi]

I don't know how space limited in FH fairing would it be.

I took a look at the proposed faring and it is too short by ~4m. The diameter is not a problem. The BA330 is 13.7m long. The current proposed faring (the F9 developed one) will only fit at best a little over 10m of the diameter of the BA330 in stowed configuration. A 4 or 5 m longer faring is needed for the FH to accommodate taller payloads. Total faring length of 19 or 20m instead of the 13.9 F9 length.

Both Altas V and Delta IV long 5m fairing have something like 12m before they tape in. I guess part of getting a competing vehicle for EELV would be to add a "long" fairing. And yer, it would need to be some 4m longer. I still wonder if they could go with a 7m fairing. Atlas says it has been designed with a 7.2m fairing (though it would need some minor modifications to a stock vehicle/pad). If both Falcon Heavy and Atlas V had a 7m fairing, it's quite probably that DOD and/or NASA could use it.
For Bigelow it could mean to launch with better radiation protection, for example.
Regarding the Russian spoke system, I've wondered if they didn't developed a iLIDS compatible dock system, because they are waiting for a "private" order to actually pay for such development. May be if CCdev isn't successful, they will ask for Bigelow to pay for (part of) the development of their own indigenous version. It would also allow them to send their capsules to the US side of the ISS.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I don't know how space limited in FH fairing would it be.

I took a look at the proposed faring and it is too short by ~4m. The diameter is not a problem. The BA330 is 13.7m long. The current proposed faring (the F9 developed one) will only fit at best a little over 10m of the diameter of the BA330 in stowed configuration. A 4 or 5 m longer faring is needed for the FH to accommodate taller payloads. Total faring length of 19 or 20m instead of the 13.9 F9 length.

Both Altas V and Delta IV long 5m fairing have something like 12m before they tape in. I guess part of getting a competing vehicle for EELV would be to add a "long" fairing. And yer, it would need to be some 4m longer. I still wonder if they could go with a 7m fairing. Atlas says it has been designed with a 7.2m fairing (though it would need some minor modifications to a stock vehicle/pad). If both Falcon Heavy and Atlas V had a 7m fairing, it's quite probably that DOD and/or NASA could use it.
For Bigelow it could mean to launch with better radiation protection, for example.
Regarding the Russian spoke system, I've wondered if they didn't developed a iLIDS compatible dock system, because they are waiting for a "private" order to actually pay for such development. May be if CCdev isn't successful, they will ask for Bigelow to pay for (part of) the development of their own indigenous version. It would also allow them to send their capsules to the US side of the ISS.

Before using Soyuz they would look seriously at using the MPCV. If per person rate is equal or less than Soyuz plus the distributed cost of the docking system, Bigelow would probably use the MPCV. Increasing the MPCV flight rate would lower its per seat cost as well. Another item is the flight rate of Soyuz would at least have to double or more to support a Bigelow station, something Soyuz may not be able to support.

[ChefPat]

A longer faring increases the load that bends the rocket [?] & decreases the weight it can put into orbit.
You can't just make the faring longer & longer without losing mass too.

[baldusi]

The FH seems to be volume limited, not weight limited. If a 7mx20m fairing would reduce it's payload to 35tn (34% less!!!), it would still be a very useful LV and more powerful than anything available (for LEO). Again, in those sizes you could get telescope with four times the light gathering capabilities of the Hubble, and for a fraction of the JWST.
For Bigelow it would allow some serious radiation protection, plus a reduced propulsion module. They show their BA330 launching on an Atlas V 551. That's 18tn to LEO. So you'd have 17tn for other uses.
Bigelow said that they could double the radiation protection of the BA2100 with 5tn of water. The BA2100 has about 3.5 times the surface of the BA330. So it could use either 1.5tn for radiation, or a whopping 7tn of water, for something like four to six times the radiation protection of the ISS. And still have 10tn of supplies or equipment inside the station.
Alternately, if they can design a "stubby" propulsion module, it might fit a BA330 and a stubby propulsion module in one launch.
I know that the FH is kind of extremely thin. And a wider fairing would increase the drag and aerodynamic load. Which is particularly bad for an engine that can't throttle. But I've slashed the performance by a third.

[go4mars]

I know that the FH is kind of extremely thin. And a wider fairing would increase the drag and aerodynamic load. Which is particularly bad for an engine that can't throttle. But I've slashed the performance by a third.

We don't yet know what the diameter of the raptor stage will be.  If it is 6 meters for example, then a 10 meter payload on top of raptor might be possible.  Without side cores it would resemble a male-derived gamete. 

[jongoff]

What you all have inferred from the website would be correct.  Sundancer designs have been shelved.

It's a pity.  I really liked Sundancer.  If they could really pull it off with the specs they were shooting for (size, capacity, duration, mass), it would've been sweet.

~Jon

[clongton]

Does anyone have, or know where to find, a dimensioned drawing of any of the Bigelow stations?

[Chris-A]

Does anyone have, or know where to find, a dimensioned drawing of any of the Bigelow stations?

Chuck, I haven't seen any rough drawings on the Internet at all. Not even a module, just the basic PR images we see all the time.

Hard to find item.

EDIT: I'm doing some analysis from a presentation from ISDC.
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/bigelow.chrtz.isdc.pdf
I'm using a drafting program to create a rough diagram of the BA330.

[clongton]

Does anyone have, or know where to find, a dimensioned drawing of any of the Bigelow stations?

Chuck, I haven't seen any rough drawings on the Internet at all. Not even a module, just the basic PR images we see all the time.

Hard to find item.

EDIT: I'm doing some analysis from a presentation from ISDC.
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/bigelow.chrtz.isdc.pdf
I'm using a drafting program to create a rough diagram of the BA330.

Thanks Chris.
I hope you'll share them when they're finished

[FinalFrontier]

A longer faring increases the load that bends the rocket [?] & decreases the weight it can put into orbit.
You can't just make the faring longer & longer without losing mass too.

There should be mass to spare here. Whats the mass of the module again?

[docmordrid]

I've seen 20-23 MT for BA-330.

[Chris-A]

Here is the first draft. I will have more later.
Edit: Added metric dimensions.

[docmordrid]

Nice!

[ChefPat]

A longer faring increases the load that bends the rocket [?] & decreases the weight it can put into orbit.
You can't just make the faring longer & longer without losing mass too.

There should be mass to spare here. Whats the mass of the module again?

I was responding to OldAtlasEGuy when he was talking about launching 2 BA-330's stacked into a 5 x 34 meter, or so, long faring.
Just the BA-330's would be 46 metric tons. Then there'd be all the stuff needed to keep them together in that configuration after they were in orbit.
I'm not an engineer, but even I can say with certainty, that ain't gonna happen with an FH.
If the Propulsion Buss/Docking Node is considerably lighter & in the 10 meter long range, I can see a faring of the necessary length lifting that weight/length configuration.
In fact, Bigelow may have that in mind already.

[Rocket Science]

Has anyone ever considered spinning up the module to create artificial gravity for long term missions? Just a thought...

[ChefPat]

Has anyone ever considered spinning up the module to create artificial gravity for long term missions? Just a thought...

I asked that very question & got a rather cryptic answer.
Reading between the lines, I'd say they've looked at it but have no actual plans to implement it at this time.

[SpacexULA]

Has anyone ever considered spinning up the module to create artificial gravity for long term missions? Just a thought...

Even the largest module he has talked about would spin you brain. Now you might be able to use a BA-330 to test gravity effects on mice though.

[ChefPat]

Has anyone ever considered spinning up the module to create artificial gravity for long term missions? Just a thought...

Even the largest module he has talked about would spin you brain. Now you might be able to use a BA-330 to test gravity effects on mice though.

In the correct configuration, spinning 2 of them on either end of a long tether would work just fine.