Commercial HLV and R&D

[mmeijeri]

Surface habs need to be larger than what would fit in a 5m fairing.

You have previously agreed inflatables would be better for habs and transhabs. They are better for radiation and MMOD shielding, give plenty of space and would give synergy with Bigelow.

Moving from EELV Phase 1 to Phase 2 is not just an upgrade - it's an entirely new launch vehicle development program.

It would be a new first stage. This is no different from the Shuttle -> J-130 -> J-246 plan, it just starts with the upper stage, not the first stage.

The Atlas V Phase 1 has a 3.8m common core while the Phase 2 is a 5m common core. That's not an upgrade; that's a new rocket. That is a design change that should be avoided because then it simply recreates the Ares debacle of having 2 different launch vehicles, 2 different manufacturing infrastructures and 2 different launch infrastructures.

This is in part why I am opposed to Phase 2. You could solve that by switching everything over and having just one vehicle. The resulting single stick configuration may well be too large to be useful. It would probably have to do dual-payload launches like Ariane 5. But Arianespace and ESA seem to be moving away from that model with Ariane 6 and moving towards the EELV model.

Note that going with an SDLV would suffer from the same problem in spades. There may be only one SDLV (in two configurations), but EELVs are not going away. You would now have two (or three, four with Falcon) totally different vehicles with the SDLV requiring a very expensive infrastructure.

I see EELV Phase 2 as better than SDLV, but much worse than Phase 1 in that regard.

[Namechange User]

Chuck, you're trying to have it both ways.  The Augustine Committee specifically said that when they said "HLVs are necessary for robust exploration", they meant HLVs to mean "vehicles at least 40-50mT with fairings of at least 6.5-7.5m diameter".  You can't take their "HLVs are necessary" comment out of context of their definition of HLVs.  What they were saying in effect is that "vehicles with payloads in the 40-50mT range and 6.5-7.5m fairing diameter range are necessary for robust exploration".  If that doesn't qualify as HLVs to you, that's fine, but you can't just turn around and accuse Martijn of calling Bolden a liar.

If a vehicle in the 40-50mT range in your opinion isn't Heavy Lift, then the A-com didn't say Heavy Lift is required for robust exploration.

~Jon

You quote the Augustine Commission as defining HLV as "AT LEAST 40-50mT" and that they agreed "HLV's are necessary for robust exploration".  The "at least" is key.  Therefore, by what you just posted something that has greater than what you believe is necessary still fits the intent of the Augustine Commission. 

Umm...that seems a little logically flawed to me.  At least $5 is necessary to buy lunch at Jack in the Box, $2000 is greater than $5, so somehow $2000 is necessary for a lunch at Jack in the Box?

Buying an HLV that's bigger and more expensive than is necessary fundamentally means being able to do less in space, not more.  Payloads, operations, infrastructure, hardware to actually do stuff at destinations, all these things cost money.  Money that will be less available if we buy a bigger HLV than we need. 

I have a hard time seeing how buying an HLV that's over twice what the A-com said was necessary for spaceflight is somehow consistent with their intent.  Well, at least most of their intent--there were a few of them who felt bigger==always better, but most of them seemed more willing to go with a rocket that was big enough to get the job done.

Just my $.02

~Jon

Jon,

Congratualtions on knowing exactly what we need.  As far as I can tell, and I'm fairly close to the subject, no one else has determined what we are doing with this new "program".

Restricting yourself to an arbitrary HLV "class" and assuming that is all we will ever need can also be short-sighted.  A more robust and capable HLV allows for mission operations flexibility.

I don't care if you don't agree with me honestly.  I believe logic is actually on my side.  The "A-com" reviewed several HLV options, and guess what "class" they were in? 

So, to wrap it up I wholey disagree with the fact that we must spend the next 20 years "developing" an HLV to get us right back to where we are today.  That in no way makes practical sense. 

As for cost, so you know how much using the "current" HLV will cost and know for a fact that it will kill everthing else?  Can you compare it to some other "more appropriate non-existent HLV" that you know how much that will cost?  Can you break down for me the amount on R&D that will be spent over the next 20 years on said research?  Do you know what that research will specifically buy us in terms of operations that significantly reduce operations costs?  Do you know how much the development of a "more appropriate non-existent HLV" will cost once the research phase is done and we move into testing various vehicle configurations?  Do you know what infrastructure will be required and how much that will cost to launch that vehicle?  Do you know why it is necessary to wait 20 years to do that?  If you do know all these answers and can conclusively show me that indeed this particular HLV will be orders of magnitude less expensive and definitively allow for "payloads, operations, infrastructure, hardware to actually do stuff at destinations", as you see as worthy of course, than using the vehicle we have now, then I will stand down. 

[Ben the Space Brit]

Surface habs need to be larger than what would fit in a 5m fairing.

You have previously agreed inflatables would be better for habs and transhabs. They are better for radiation and MMOD shielding, give plenty of space and would give synergy with Bigelow.

True.  However, inflatables can't be launched fully outfitted.  So you would need at least one, more likely two (cargo and outfitting crew) launch to the hab to outfit it before the mission can proceed.  That adds further cost to the mission.

The Atlas V Phase 1 has a 3.8m common core while the Phase 2 is a 5m common core. That's not an upgrade; that's a new rocket. That is a design change that should be avoided because then it simply recreates the Ares debacle of having 2 different launch vehicles, 2 different manufacturing infrastructures and 2 different launch infrastructures.

This is in part why I am opposed to Phase 2. You could solve that by switching everything over and having just one vehicle. The resulting single stick configuration may well be too large to be useful. It would probably have to do dual-payload launches like Ariane 5. But Arianespace and ESA seem to be moving away from that model with Ariane 6 and moving towards the EELV model.

Acutally, the problem isn't that great.  Atlas-V Phase 2 is completely capable of acting as a CLV.  Indeed, it can launch a heavier crew vehicle without strap-on boosters, unlike Atlas-V Phase 1.  This is one of the reasons why I love Phase 2: In its 'vanilla' form, it can do ISS support.  It also has a heavy and super-heavy configuration for both the crew and cargo mission for exploration too.  Heck, the heavy and super-heavy can even mount 8.4m PLFs if needed.

I see EELV Phase 2 as better than SDLV, but much worse than Phase 1 in that regard.

That is an important area of difference between you and I.  Because I see the minimum payload limit set much higher, I feel that the greater payload of Phase 2 is a critical asset that is needed for exploration.  The EELVs, up to Phase 1, can support ISS and can do cargo launch for exploration.  However, to launch exploration mission vehicles in a one launch + refuellling scenario, the Phase 2 has them beaten.  You do more with less, ensuring that you spend more on the actual mission and less on launching it.

[clongton]

Surface habs need to be larger than what would fit in a 5m fairing.

You have previously agreed inflatables would be better for habs and transhabs. They are better for radiation and MMOD shielding, give plenty of space and would give synergy with Bigelow.

And I still do. The inflatable I envision would not fit in a 5m fairing.

Moving from EELV Phase 1 to Phase 2 is not just an upgrade - it's an entirely new launch vehicle development program.

It would be a new first stage. This is no different from the Shuttle -> J-130 -> J-246 plan, it just starts with the upper stage, not the first stage.

It makes no sense to use an existing configuration (3.8m core) if it is possible/probable that there will be requirements that it cannot meet. Wisdom would dictate that you make sure your efforts would take care of all the likelihoods (not the outlandish), but do it in such a way that the same vehicle can be configured to effectively handle the majority of the less-performance needs economically.

The Atlas V Phase 1 has a 3.8m common core while the Phase 2 is a 5m common core. That's not an upgrade; that's a new rocket. That is a design change that should be avoided because then it simply recreates the Ares debacle of having 2 different launch vehicles, 2 different manufacturing infrastructures and 2 different launch infrastructures.

This is in part why I am opposed to Phase 2. You could solve that by switching everything over and having just one vehicle. The resulting single stick configuration may well be too large to be useful. It would probably have to do dual-payload launches like Ariane 5. But Arianespace and ESA seem to be moving away from that model with Ariane 6 and moving towards the EELV model.

We're thinking on the same lines - a single vehicle. Where we differ is you want to start with the Phase-1, 3.8m core, and try to configure that later to handle any heavier lift requirements that may arise while I want to start with the Phase-2, 5m core, configured with "removable" capability that provides heavier lift when required, but is economical and effective as a Phase-1 lifter with the extra propulsive capabilities removed.

Carefully designed, it would not be too large to be useful, needing dual-payloads to be effective. That is a design and engineering task and is well within the capabilities of the LM design staff.

Let me ask a question. Would you be opposed to the Phase-1 and Phase-2 configurations sharing the 5m core if it would perform as I suggest? If it does perform like that then it would give you what you and I both want; a single launch vehicle that is effective and economical in either role.

I offered the SDLV aside just as that; an aside. I don't wish to hijack this thread by going further with that thought.

[mmeijeri]

And I still do. The inflatable I envision would not fit in a 5m fairing.

I think that's unreasonable. A couple of Bigelow habs on the surface should be enough. No need to land all that in one piece. If you have a large launch vehicle it makes sense to max out the volume (and mass) you can get out of it. It's not good enough a reason to want more than 6.5m fairings.

It makes no sense to use an existing configuration (3.8m core) if it is possible/probable that there will be requirements that it cannot meet. Wisdom would dictate that you make sure your efforts would take care of all the likelihoods (not the outlandish), but do it in such a way that the same vehicle can be configured to effectively handle the majority of the less-performance needs economically.

Not if you believe the larger vehicle is harmful and if you believe the risk that you couldn't find a good solution without larger fairings is very small. And that's what I believe.

We're thinking on the same lines - a single vehicle. Where we differ is you want to start with the Phase-1, 3.8m core, and try to configure that later to handle any heavier lift requirements that may arise while I want to start with the Phase-2, 5m core, configured with "removable" capability that provides heavier lift when required, but is economical and effective as a Phase-1 lifter with the extra propulsive capabilities removed.

Are you talking about J-130 now or a hypothetical EELV with a wide body booster but an existing upper stage?

Let me ask a question. Would you be opposed to the Phase-1 and Phase-2 configurations sharing the 5m core if it would perform as I suggest? If it does perform like that then it would give you what you and I both want; a single launch vehicle that is effective and economical in either role.

What I want to avoid is:

- spending money on stuff that isn't essential or spending it earlier than necessary
- delaying commercial propellant launches
- going beyond LEO without commercial propellant launches
- having a single launcher that sucks up all payloads

In theory this doesn't rule out using an HLV to launch small masses (astronauts + crew vehicle) through a higher delta-v to a high energy staging orbit as opposed to launching larger masses through a smaller delta-v to LEO.

I offered the SDLV aside just as that; an aside. I don't wish to hijack this thread by going further with that thought.

No need to exclude discussion of SDLV as far as I can tell, provided it's a commercial SDLV.

[Serafeim]

  for habs and transhabs. They are better for radiation and MMOD shielding, give plenty of space and would give synergy with Bigelow.

better for  shielding radiation?I didnt know that...
yes.Bigelow can help with the lunar habitats.

[Ben the Space Brit]

  for habs and transhabs. They are better for radiation and MMOD shielding, give plenty of space and would give synergy with Bigelow.

better for  shielding radiation?I didnt know that...

The hydrocarbon-composite hull is a lot better at absorbing solar-originated radiation.  They are essentially transparent to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs), which means you don't get the hazardous 'particle showers' inside the cabin caused by GCRs impacting with the atoms in dense metallic hulls.

[mmeijeri]

Metals are bad for cosmic radiation. When the heavy particles that make up cosmic radiation strike the metal, they break up and create a shower of secondary particles that are even worse than the primary radiation. Metal is better for solar particle events. Cosmic radiation is continuous, but it is only a problem if you are exposed to it for a very long time. Solar particle events are deadly without shielding, but fortunately they last only hours to days. For such relatively short periods you can retreat to a storm shelter. Even if that shelter has higher secondary radiation, that's not really a problem.

[Serafeim]

I understand.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122616.htm
this shielding material also is polymer and not metal...
maybe this can be put on the bigelow inflatables..it produce solar electric energy also..
the toroidal inflatabla lunar habitat has the core for maybe solar events and alot of room around..

The "lunar texshield" is made from a lightweight polymer material that has a layer of radiation shielding that deflects or absorbs the radiation so astronauts are only exposed to a safe amount. The outermost surface of the shield includes a layer of solar cells to generate electricity, backed up by layers of radiation-absorbing materials. The advantages of the materials used in the design include flexibility, large surface area, ease of transportation, ease of construction and the ability to have multiple layers of independent functional fabrics.

The students will present their lunar texshield at the 2009 RASC-AL Forum held June 1-3 in Cocoa Beach, Fla. The project will be judged by a steering committee made up of experts from NASA, industry and universities.

[clongton]

I think that's unreasonable. A couple of Bigelow habs on the surface should be enough. No need to land all that in one piece. If you have a large launch vehicle it makes sense to max out the volume (and mass) you can get out of it. It's not good enough a reason to want more than 6.5m fairings.

I guess that it comes down to hab design. I want 6 crew on the Martian surface for a year to have a spacious home in which to live and relax as well as laboratories and facilities for their exploration efforts. If they are going to be on the surface for a year, they need space - lots of it. Here's why I say that: My daughter-in-law's father (Charlie) spent 3 tours of duty in Antarctica in the 1950's and early 1960's. His biggest complaint was lack of space. He has told me personally that in addition to everything always being in the way (unlike in zero-g), claustrophobia was an ever-present danger that any one of them could succumb to on a daily basis and that he had personally witnessed some people go "over the edge" with it, as he put it. And that is a place where they could get outside and breath natural air, as well as "usually" get an airlift out in an emergency. On Mars, there is no "emergency air lift home" to be had. They have to be comfortable and have personal privacy areas as well as recreation areas. Remember, they will be "stuck" there for a year, with another 9-months to a year trip "in a can" to get home. Martian surface habs, even inflatables, that fit in a 5m fairing will simply not inflate to the kind of volume I think is necessary to help the crew avoid the kinds of dangers that Charlie complained about.

Now that may be my opinion, but at least it is based on conversations with a man who lived and worked in habitations similar to what we will need on Mars. Out of curiosity, on what do you base your hab size ideas?

It makes no sense to use an existing configuration (3.8m core) if it is possible/probable that there will be requirements that it cannot meet. Wisdom would dictate that you make sure your efforts would take care of all the likelihoods (not the outlandish), but do it in such a way that the same vehicle can be configured to effectively handle the majority of the less-performance needs economically.

Not if you believe the larger vehicle is harmful and if you believe the risk that you couldn't find a good solution without larger fairings is very small. And that's what I believe.

Opinions may vary, but are usually based on something tangible. Beliefs on the other hand can be difficult to quantify. I would need to understand why you "believe" that before I could intelligently comment.

We're thinking on the same lines - a single vehicle. Where we differ is you want to start with the Phase-1, 3.8m core, and try to configure that later to handle any heavier lift requirements that may arise while I want to start with the Phase-2, 5m core, configured with "removable" capability that provides heavier lift when required, but is economical and effective as a Phase-1 lifter with the extra propulsive capabilities removed.

Are you talking about J-130 now or a hypothetical EELV with a wide body booster but an existing upper stage?

I'm speaking in this thread, and in this conversation, about adapting the Atlas-V for Commercial use. I really don't want to bring the Jupiter into this conversation. IMO, the person who started this thread didn't really have the Jupiter in mind but was thinking more along the lines of existing or planned commercial vehicles and how they might be adapted.

The 5m core could easily use existing upper stages for as long as that made sense. Larger upper stages and/or larger payload fairings might be a growth option when we go to Mars but probably would not be needed before then. In the interim, if we decide we need to fly a mission that needs them, we can cross that bridge when we get there. But in the mean time the existing upper stages would likely be sufficient.

My *MAIN* concern is I do not want to build a vehicle that will force us to build another one later to do a mission that we know we are eventually going to do (Mars) if the one we build doesn't have enough growth options to handle the later mission. Let's build *one* launch vehicle that efficiently handles current needs and make sure it has enough margin and/or growth options to be the only launcher we have to build for a long time.

Let me ask a question. Would you be opposed to the Phase-1 and Phase-2 configurations sharing the 5m core if it would perform as I suggest? If it does perform like that then it would give you what you and I both want; a single launch vehicle that is effective and economical in either role.

What I want to avoid is:

1.- spending money on stuff that isn't essential or spending it earlier than necessary
2.- delaying commercial propellant launches
3.- going beyond LEO without commercial propellant launches
4.- having a single launcher that sucks up all payloads

In theory this doesn't rule out using an HLV to launch small masses (astronauts + crew vehicle) through a higher delta-v to a high energy staging orbit as opposed to launching larger masses through a smaller delta-v to LEO.

Agreed. I have always held to those, with the partial exception of #3. I think that there is a case to be made for creating a demonstrated need for commercial depots by doing a few BEO missions without them with launch vehicle configurations that can be demonstrated beyond a doubt to benefit immensely by their use. For example (and only an example) we designed the DIRECT architecture to be a 2-launch lunar solution that could function even more efficiently as a single-launch solution when a depot became available. We *wanted* the depot but we didn't want it on the critical path. Doing it that way would demonstrate to the potential commercial investors that there was an *existing* market for their investments, with a high probability of a good ROI. Showing an existing market is critical to investor confidence. That's my caveat for #3.

So if I understand correctly, we agree that the launch vehicle must be designed and sized to reasonable requirements for current needs, with sufficient margins or growth potential for reasonably well understood likely future missions, *without* paying for anything now that is not needed now. Is that a fair assessment?

[robertross]

Jeff Greason Says:
February 8th, 2010 at 3:30 pm

...

The decision on whether it is worth the extra cost in dollars to maintain independent production capacity because of redundancy, which states it is in, or the labels on the personnel badges is a political decision, not an economic or technical one, and will be made by the politicians.

*****

Jeff Greason Says:
February 8th, 2010 at 3:51 pm

...

~Jon

Thanks for posting that 'refresher' Jon.
I still stand by my words, as they are well within the range he discusses.

But I think Jeff said it best in the middle there, the part I kept, for I think EVERYONE here is playing the role of politician to a 'certain' extent.

Sorry if I offended everyone with that last statement, including myself 

[notsorandom]

A Bigelow Aerospace style habitat makes perfect sense. I really don't see a future where they are not used extensively. I was curious about how much extra space they provide for a given fairing diameter so I did some quick math. The Sundancer is going to be launched on a Falcon 9 which has a faring size of 4.6m. The Sundancer expands to a diameter of 6.3m. That gives an increase of 37%. I don't know how this scales but assuming it is linear then:
Fairing size of 5m expands up to 6.85m
Fairing size of 6m expands up to 8.22m
Fairing size of 7m expands up to 9.59m
Fairing size of 8.4m expands up to 11.51m
Fairing size of 10m expands up to 13.7m

Clongton put the absolute minimum size surface habitat at 7m diameter. I am inclined to agree that thats a minimum but would have to say that that is still very small. If the number above can be a guide it looks like a fairing size of 6m is the smallest that is accepted.

Doing some more math I tried to visualize what the area of one level of a 6m fairing habitat would be. I normally live in rectangular or square rooms. So to help me conceptualize this I converted the area to a square. An 8.22m (6m fairing) round room would have an area of 53 sqm. That would make a square of 7.28m or since I am used to feet for measuring such things 22.8 feet. Not bad for a room but really small for a first floor.

Here is another way to look at it. From the statics I was able to find the average American family is 3.1 people sharing 1500 sq feet or 140 sq meters. Astronauts can be a little more cramped then that so lets say about 45 sq meters per person. A crew of 6 would then need about six stories of a 6m faring habitat and some extra stories for equipment and storage. A habitat launched in an 8.4 meter faring would only have to have 3 stories. So it looks like for an extra 2.4 meters of diameter you can halve the hight. Based on this I would say 6m fairing is doable but still cramped and that over 8m is significantly better. It seems reasonable to me that it would be easier to land an object that's length and diameter are similar then one which is overly long.

I realize that this post was more about housing and habitats then rockets but I think its important to try an define the size of a payload when talking about different rocket designs. For reference a BA-330 is expected to be 23,000 kg. It has four stories and an expanded outside diameter of 6.7m. The habitat I discussed above have significantly more volume then the BA-330 so should be expected to also be significantly more massive. For a lunar habitat a 6m fairing and at least 45 mt seams like a lower limit.

[Bernie Roehl]

A Bigelow Aerospace style habitat makes perfect sense. I really don't see a future where they are not used extensively.
[...]
A crew of 6 would then need about six stories of a 6m faring habitat and some extra stories for equipment and storage.
[...]
It seems reasonable to me that it would be easier to land an object that's length and diameter are similar then one which is overly long.

The alternative is to use more than one habitat.  A surface base comprised of (say) three interconnected habitats would give plenty of room.

Also, according to http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/station/transhab/, a transhab can be expanded to almost twice its original diameter, which helps a lot (since the area of each floor goes up as the square of the radius).

[notsorandom]

The alternative is to use more than one habitat.  A surface base comprised of (say) three interconnected habitats would give plenty of room.

Moving and connecting 20mt habitats on the surface of the Moon or Mars would add quite a bit of complexity. Some sort of moving equipment would have to be developed and landed. Or the habitats would have to be self mobile increasing their mass and decreasing their habitable volume. Linking habitats on the ground is something that will eventually be needed but may be to complex for the first set of habitats.

A single habitat mini base also allows for a long expedition at an area without the expense of setting up a large permanent settlement. Land the habitat and then a crew to stay there for six months or so. After the mission is done launch another habitat somewhere else. Thats only two landings opposed to 3 for a habitat, one for crew, and one for moving equipment. I would rather approach this incrementally and not have to spend the money on building a base right off the bat. Single module expendable habitats would be a good transition between bases and lander only missions.

This gets in to the operational cost versus development cost debate. We don't want a launcher that will break the bank and we also don't want a surface program that will either. Can it be done with smaller launchers at 25mt? Perhaps but it is likely to be so complicated or expensive that the program isn't robust.

Also, according to http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/station/transhab/, a transhab can be expanded to almost twice its original diameter, which helps a lot (since the area of each floor goes up as the square of the radius).

Your point about the area increasing by the square of the radius is a very good one. From a mass per area perspective larger diameters are more efficient.

The numbers I used were really a shot in the dark. It would be great if I underestimated faring size to expanded size. Also I don't know if bigger habitats have a higher or lower expansion ratio then smaller ones. I assumed they didn't. For the Sundancer and BA-330 though, the figures hold true though since I used their diameters and extrapolated from there. They are too small for a single module habitat.

I'm trying to establish a good guess for what the minimum sized launch vehicle should be. Thats from a purely clean sheet, no politics, unlimited budget, and no legacy hardware standpoint though. I have a feeling that when a detailed analysis is done that the cost of building a bigger launcher would be lower then that of building a more complicated payload. With these factors an Atlas Phase 2 or something in that class is likely to be the minimum.

The truth is that we are talking really about only two commercial HLV launchers because no others have been officially proposed They are the growth options of the Atlas V and Delta IV. I'm sure that other domestic rocket companies have been thinking about HLV rockets since this budget was announced. It has been mentioned that a commercial SDHLV is being considered as well as a Falcon 9 growth option that would be in the 50mt class. It will certainly be interesting to see what else appears in the coming months now that the Ares V is off the table.

[docmordrid]

The alternative is to use more than one habitat.  A surface base comprised of (say) three interconnected habitats would give plenty of room.

Also, according to http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/station/transhab/, a transhab can be expanded to almost twice its original diameter, which helps a lot (since the area of each floor goes up as the square of the radius).

And Bigelow modules are an evolution of TransHab, with the BA-330 reportedly being 13.7m by 6.7m inflated. 

Bigelow has proposed landing 3 assembled BA-330's and hubs/power buses on the moon or other bodies for this exact purpose: an instant base.  The first two images are from one of his patents and the bottom one is a zoom in on a modification of the power bus I noticed in their artwork a while back: landing pads.

[neilh]

Moving and connecting 20mt habitats on the surface of the Moon or Mars would add quite a bit of complexity. Some sort of moving equipment would have to be developed and landed. Or the habitats would have to be self mobile increasing their mass and decreasing their habitable volume. Linking habitats on the ground is something that will eventually be needed but may be to complex for the first set of habitats.

I know in the past Bigelow Aerospace has discussed using a vibrating mechanism as a relatively simple way to bury their habitats in lunar regolith, and had supposedly carried out some tests. I wonder if a similar mechanism could be used for moving the habitats across the lunar surface, kind of like the inverse of those tabletop electronic vibrating football games.

You'd then only need to get them in the same general vicinity of each other, then use flexible connectors.

[ChefPat]

Bigelow has proposed landing 3 assembled BA-330's and hubs/power buses on the moon or other bodies for this exact purpose: an instant base.  The first two images are from one of his patents and the bottom one is a zoom in on a modification of the power bus I noticed in their artwork a while back: landing pads.

Bigelow has also said this configuration can land & move from point to point on the Lunar surface without further assistance other than refueling/resupply.

[docmordrid]

Also;

If anything can be drawn from Genesis it was 1.6m in diameter at launch and ended up being 2.54m in diameter after inflation, a ratio of 1.5875. Working that backwards for a BA-330's inflated diameter of 6.7m one gets about 4.22m for a launch diameter.  Enough clearance for a 5 meter fairing, or not?

[notsorandom]

Thats certainly is an interesting concept to link the modules like that and then land them. It would be pretty cool to watch that thing land! The modules are horizontal so I wonder how that effects the utilization of space when landed. It doesn't seem all that workable for Mars. So if Mars is the goal then we still might need bigger modules.

An HLV and large single module may still be cheaper then this type of habitat. Not counting propellant or the propulsion to take the modules to the Moon it would take six EELV Heavies to get the modules in to orbit. Conservatively estimating a price of $400 million per launch (Delta IV-H is in the $500 million range) that costs $2.4 Billion to just launch the payload. Two Atlas V Phase 2 launches at 74mt would cost $1.25 Billion for the same payload. One Phase 3 Atlas would also be $1.25 Billion. The Figures for a commercial SDHLV are even better. There is a price break somewhere in there but with out knowing how many bases are desired and what the development cost for the six part base vs one part base its hard to tell where it is. The bigger launchers need more development money but can fly payload less expensively.

Also;

If anything can be drawn from Genesis it was 1.6m in diameter at launch and ended up being 2.54m in diameter after inflation, a ratio of 1.5875. Working that backwards for a BA-330's inflated diameter of 6.7m one gets about 4.22m for a launch diameter.  Enough clearance for a 5 meter fairing, or not?

Sundancer is meant to fly in the Falcon 9's 4.6 meter faring and is only a bit skinnier then the BA-330 so I would agree that 5m is what they had in mind when they designed it. Genesis I and II were flow in a Dnepr rocket with a fairing diameter of 2.7 meters. Since I was looking at the fairing vs expanded diameter size I didn't use that radio since the fairing was actually bigger then the expanded size. I don't know how much clearance is actually needed. A ratio of 1.5875 is in the neighborhood  the ratio of 1.37 that I got for the Sundancer. That give an expanded diameter of 9.24 meter to a original size of 6m. A gap between the fairing and payload would lower the expanded diameter.

Edited to reply to Docmordrid's last post.

[Sen]

     I dont think you would launch the modules on a delta HL varient for 400 million, nor would it be necesary. Bigellow has estimated the asking price for  BA330 module at around 100 million. You can round the actual cost of a falcon 9 launch to around 100 million from the 89 or whatever they are currently quoting. So modules + 4 launches for 800 million. A bit cheaper then 2.4 billion. Even if the falcon 9 had a 60-70% failure rate, it would be cheaper then the EELV's, and cetainly any HL varients. Granted, a failure rate like that would mean no spacex OR Falcon 9. (This also requires fueling from a depot to get the assembled caft to the moon...this could take the form of a Dragon module purposed as a fueler, from a depot, etc.)

     The crew you might want to send up on a Delta/Orion lite, if the falcon 9 still is on questionable reliability footing by that point/Crewed dragon isnt selected for development, etc.