Author Topic: What's Happening at Bigelow? (Read 429275 times)

Comga · « **Reply #80 on:** 05/28/2009 05:09 am »

Quote from: josh_simonson on 05/05/2009 12:39 am

There was an article about them about a week ago in the economist discussing ITAR restrictions and progress being made in that department towards allowing non-US citizens to enter a Bigelow module without a security clearance.

http://www.economist.com/science/tm/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13525115

In the end, this might be Bigelow's most significant contribution.

infocat13 · « **Reply #81 on:** 07/02/2009 11:27 pm »

I have noticed that the bigelow wiki website has references to lunar flyby missions ,all with no citations

I would like to know more

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #82 on:** 07/03/2009 11:33 am »

@ infocat13

I can't give you too many precise details, but the basic idea has been around at least since the 1950s.

Basically, a space station is a long-haul spaceship without the engine power to go anywhere on its own. Thus, in building a habitat module, Bigelow are essentially also building a transfer (orbit-to-orbit) vehicle. All it needs is an engine and some deep-space navigation equipment. There are plenty of booster stages suited for EDS duty, either extant or in development.

You plug an engine (say a SEC Centaur or maybe a ATK heavy ICBM solid motor) onto a Bigelow module's aft port and perform a Transfer Orbit Injection burn along a free-return trajectory. Sir Issac Newton takes over and gravity swings the module around the far side of the Moon and back to Earth in about seven days.

What happens next is dependent on what you want to do with the transfer vehicle. The 'default' option is that you get into your Crew Return Vehicle (a Dragon, Soyuz or DreamChaser) and re-enter the atmospere like the Apollo crews from Return Orbit. Alternately, you either carry a second engine to break back into LEO or use a more exotic method like aerocapture to burn off a lot of your dV so that you can stabilise into LEO using just your RCS engines on the transfer vehicle. You then perform a much less hair-raising re-entry from LEO.

iamlucky13 · « **Reply #83 on:** 07/04/2009 08:33 am »

I thought I'd mention, although I'm pretty sure Bigelow Aerospace's website has listed them as hiring experience engineers for some time now, I've recently started seeing postings in the Craigslist job boards for the same. Unless (and I can't imagine why) they're being spoofed, it looks like there's still something happening over there.

Comga · « **Reply #84 on:** 07/09/2009 03:34 am »

There is a fairly substantial article in the June 29, 2009 issue of Space News titled "Startup Tests Propulsion System for Commercial Space Station". The main thrust is that Orion Propulsion of Huntsville, AL has been testing a H2/O2 attitude control system with 5 lb thrusters under a $4.8M contract awarded May of 2008..

A very interesting comment in the third paragraph is "Sundancer's launch plans are up in the air pending the emergence of what Bigelow Aerospace calls "a viable crew transportation system." But Mike Gold, Bigelow's corporate counsel, said June 22 that "work is proceeding aggressively on Sundancer and other Bigelow Aerospace systems" as the 100 person company waits for the likes of Hawthorne,CA based Space Exploration Technologies or Denver based United Launch Alliance to bring commercial crew transport systems to market. "

So Bigelow claims to be making progress but is stuck in the chicken-and-egg problem of not developing a destination without a transportation system, whose development would be waiting for a destination, if it were not for CRS and possibly COTS-D.

NUAETIUS · « **Reply #85 on:** 08/04/2009 04:34 pm »

http://www.andrews-space.com/news.php?subsection=MzI1

Andrews Space Delivers Spaceflight Hardware for Aerojet / Bigelow

Seattle, WA Aug 3, 2009 - Andrews Space, Inc. (Andrews) announced today that it has delivered avionics flight hardware to Aerojet for Bigelow Aerospace's Sundancer Aft Propulsion System. Under a five month fixed-price contract, Andrews developed, flight-qualified and delivered, 20 propulsion system diode boards responsible for electromotive force protection within the Aerojet propulsion system. Aerojet is under contract to Bigelow to develop the integrated aft propulsion system on Bigelow's Sundancer human-tended space platform.

jhoblik · « **Reply #86 on:** 08/14/2009 03:55 pm »

Interesting Bigellow is financing of development of Orion Lite.
It gives them spacecraft they really needed for their space station.
They will have option at least two launch vehicles Atlas V and Falcon 9. And they will be not stuck if Spacex failed to deliver Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule, they will be able use more expensive launcher Atlas V, but already available.
They are really serious about achieving manned LEO transportation.
I think it will force Spacex go ahead with upgrading Dragon capsule to manned spacecraft, even if they will not able to receive government money for escape system.

Patchouli · « **Reply #87 on:** 08/14/2009 04:06 pm »

I wonder if bigelow's modules could be used as the biases of lunar habitats and even lunar rovers.

They would make the lunar surface cargo requirements a lot smaller heck you'd probably could even get away with something as small as the LEM truck and taxi vs needing Altair's near EELV class payloads.
Sundancer stripped of it's propulsion and fuel tanks might come in under 5,000Kg.

I figure looking at known specs the module probable has several tons of propellant.

zaitcev · « **Reply #88 on:** 08/14/2009 06:04 pm »

The article about Orion-Lite went open on SPACE.COM, in case you wanted to know what's going on with those 760 million that apparently nobody wanted:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090814-orion-lite.html

It's a little confusing, but apparently Bigelow is building Orion-Lite themselves with LM's "help" (whatever that means) instead of asking some other company (like LM) to build it for them. That's where 760 millions are going to go (at least in part).

-- Pete

kevin-rf · « **Reply #89 on:** 08/14/2009 06:25 pm »

Does this mean ULA is going to do the engineering necessary to bring back the two engine Centaur?

For a low flight rate, which is cheaper a two engine Centaur or an extra Solid?

zaitcev · « **Reply #90 on:** 08/14/2009 08:20 pm »

Quote from: kevin-rf on 08/14/2009 06:25 pm

For a low flight rate, which is cheaper a two engine Centaur or an extra Solid?

Can't have solids on manned launches of Atlas, for two reasons at least (both safety related):
- black zones cannot be closed with a solid
- the booster monitoring system cannot predict failure fast enough with solid

-- Pete

Patchouli · « **Reply #91 on:** 08/14/2009 08:39 pm »

I wonder how similar Orion lite is to the regular Orion and can eliminate the need for block I Orion.
Which would leave NASA free to concentrate on just the lunar version.

nacnud · « **Reply #92 on:** 08/14/2009 08:53 pm »

The article mentions that just the outer mould line and pressure shell are the same as Orion heavy.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #93 on:** 08/15/2009 05:08 am »

Okay, so solids are out. (I missed the thread on where solids created black zones, why? linkie?)

For Atlas "402"* ULA needs to adapt the old two engine Centaur design to use the same updates as used on the current single engine Centaur (Electric vs Hydraulic steering). As Jim likes to say, that is not a given, someone has to pay for that. Will ULA?

*Besides, the 4 in 402 refs the fairing, wouldn't this be an Atlas 002

And since Facon 9 has not flown, it is also not a given.

Jim · « **Reply #94 on:** 08/15/2009 01:34 pm »

Quote from: zaitcev on 08/14/2009 08:20 pm

- black zones cannot be closed with a solid

Yes, they can. They can be closed in any configuration.

Nascent Ascent · « **Reply #95 on:** 08/15/2009 02:14 pm »

Well, it looks like the general wins a dollar.

Quote from: general on 02/23/2009 03:25 am

This thread is all very amusing, but you're all missing the point. Bigelows problem is transportation. He needs a crew capsule that could actually take people to his destination. Why would he start building his Space Station if he can't get anyone there??? He's a visionary, but he's not stupid!

We should all be writing letters to our elected officials to advocate:

1) NASA should fund a Commercial Crew Initiative. (NOT COTS D with it's "skin in the game" provision.)

2) Get NASA OUT OF THE WAY!! (NO NASA Bureaucrat Engineers levying garbage requirements.)

3) Get a CREDIBLE domestic company to build a commercial capsule.
(I'll bet you a dollar that there's probably a start at an Orion "Lite" design out there in someone's desk drawer.)

4) Put it on an existing, flight demonstrated launch vehicle. (Duh!)

Stand back and watch what happens in 3 years.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #96 on:** 08/15/2009 03:00 pm »

I'm wondering, there is already another thread on the Orion Lite part of this ... Should the Orion Lite part of this be merged into it?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18323.0

Andy USA · « **Reply #97 on:** 08/15/2009 03:04 pm »

Yes, take all of that conversation to the specific thread. It would be easily just to cut the conversation here, rather than split, or people will just post the same subject again.

Thanks.

SpacexULA · « **Reply #98 on:** 09/10/2009 12:00 am »

New Space all the way around for NASA!

NASA considers ISS Bigelow module

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/09/332086/nasa-considers-iss-bigelow-module.html

However, internal NASA documents passed to Flightglobal show the US space agency is now interested in attaching a Bigelow module, but neither the company or NASA were available for comment.

More through the link

Danny Dot · « **Reply #99 on:** 09/10/2009 12:17 am »

Quote from: Jim on 08/15/2009 01:34 pm

Quote from: zaitcev on 08/14/2009 08:20 pm

- black zones cannot be closed with a solid

Yes, they can. They can be closed in any configuration.

As always, Jim is correct.

No launch vehicle has ever flown high enough to have a black zone for a lifting capsule (which Orion is). And if you need to go lower, every launch vehicle ever flown can easily go lower.

The blackzones I discovered many years ago were for a winged vehicle. And this was before Boeing lowered the trajectory, which they did within 24 hours of being asked.

Man I wish had not shown that data to anyone until I had a chance to talk to the Boeing engineers.

Danny Deger