Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (2)

[Danderman]

Is there much chance that R.B. did these layoffs (keeping management types primarily) because he has relocation plans?  Vegas might not be the best business decision for a large, expansionary phase...   Just the abject optimist in me hoping for the best...

Since you are an abject optimist, let me suggest that Bigelow is planning to move to a place where there are more and better ponies.

For the rest of us, there is little chance that the Vegas location would be closed in favor of another site.

[hop]

Is there much chance that R.B. did these layoffs (keeping management types primarily) because he has relocation plans?

Laying off the only engineers in the world who know your unique high tech product would seem to be a poor way to go about that.

[Orbital Debris]

Relocation of the operation is always a possibility.  There is no practical way to transport a stowed BA330 from Las Vegas to a potential launch site. When I pointed this out I was told "we are working on it".  I suspected that meant assembly at a different facility. 
 
That quote could have come from any number of former co-workers, and they would be right.  I could get into a lot of that, but I don't want to get too derivative on this thread.  Suffice to say that I've left the space industry, and this is an interest now, rather than a career.  Thanks.

While employed there, I was hesitant to post here at all. Now that I am firmly out of the company, I feel more free to answer specific questions that anyone here has, as long as the information isn't too proprietary.

(Or is NOT AT ALL "prop" - as that is a complete no no - Chris)

[Robotbeat]

Relocation of the operation is always a possibility.  There is no practical way to transport a stowed BA330 from Las Vegas to a potential launch site. When I pointed this out I was told "we are working on it".  I suspected that meant assembly at a different facility. 
 
That quote could have come from any number of former co-workers, and they would be right.  I could get into a lot of that, but I don't want to get too derivative on this thread.  Suffice to say that I've left the space industry, and this is an interest now, rather than a career.  Thanks.

While employed there, I was hesitant to post here at all. Now that I am firmly out of the company, I feel more free to answer specific questions that anyone here has, as long as the information isn't too proprietary.

Thank you!

Yeah, the larger modules (especially, for instance, the ones that require a true HLV) have no way of getting to the launch pad... We've talked about that, as you know... I didn't know that was the case even for the BA330. How big is a stowed BA330? 5m in diameter? Could it fit inside the ~5m Delta IV or Atlas V fairing? Is it possible a guppy aircraft could be used to transport it out of Las Vegas?

Do you think Bigelow has a chance in hell of still pulling it off, assuming Commercial Crew gets sorted out? And by pulling it off, I mean launching and having occupied any manned independent space station of any size. Or even an ISS module.

[Orbital Debris]

The 330 was planned to fit into a 4 meter fairing.  However, the stowed configuration was not finalized, and the transport mechanism would have to include extra width for tooling. 

I think there is a slim chance of success, but that is said with a lot of 'ifs".

From an engineering standpoint, it is all possible.  However, there would have to be sacrifices in module lifespan and mission scope.

From an organizational standpoint, Bigelow Aerospace will never have success.  It will be mockups and pretty pictures unless it is overhauled from the top. 

[Robotbeat]

Thank you very much for your reply.

Okay, so assuming the initial funding is there, commercial crew works (and is close to, say, the prices Boeing is quoting or maybe SpaceX's pricing), and an effective organization is working the whole thing, is there a sufficient market and customers for what Bigelow is trying to do, in your opinion?

[Orbital Debris]

WRT to an ISS module, that is a possibility.  The BEAM project was scoped as a galaxy size (like Genesis, but slightly larger diameter) shell.  When I left, the status was in doubt, and based on the comments from the layoff, I would think that NASA balked at funding it.  The largest part of the funding would have been the integration tasks, which may have killed it.  I felt that Bigelow had seriously underbid the hardware, which stemmed from being naive on the level of effort required to deliver an ISS payload. 

[MP99]

I disagree on a point - As I see it, HSF in America is about technology push, the technology developed for HSF translates directly into new products, fabrication and manufacturing techniques and services.  The faster we can get the private sector to utilize the new market space (no pun intended), the better our economy will become.  If the US govt. can help foster a positive business environment then it will benefit all of the tax payers.  I was hoping - out of blind optimism - that Bigelow really does have other clients besides the U.S. government.

ISTM, ISS  is predicated on two things - learning how to live in space, and undertaking research in zero G.

I'd also remimd that PL111-267 requires fuller utilization of ISS, ie to ramp up the science undertaken on ISS.

ISTM Bigelow could make that sort of research facility available to other governments, and there is some cachet in doing that sort of high tech stuff.

Whether there are commercial opportunitirs that could get payback at the price Bigelow would need to charge. . .

cheers, Martin

[mmeijeri]

In the former case, you don't get much technology or know-how. You just get the results of whatever experiment you flew, and some minor HSF experience. Virtually all the money goes to foreign suppliers. Political backlash is likely.

In the latter case, you get a bunch of technological capability that is yours to keep and exploit forever. Maybe a decent down payment on your own HSF program. You get a big propaganda bonus too, and most of the money you spend goes into your own economy.

On the other hand, French astronauts have flown on the Shuttle and on Soyuz and have visited Salyut 7, Mir and ISS. ESA astronauts have flown on the Shuttle and have visited ISS. A barter agreement could take care of the pork considerations.

[baldusi]

The 330 was planned to fit into a 4 meter fairing.  However, the stowed configuration was not finalized, and the transport mechanism would have to include extra width for tooling. 

I think there is a slim chance of success, but that is said with a lot of 'ifs".

I've wondered how the flexible material was folded. In particular, an An-124 can fit a 36m x 6.4m x 4.4m. So I was wondering, if you could have folded one way for air transport, and another for launch. In other words, for air transport you fold it in two bulges to the sides (6.4m wide should be enough), and for launch in a more radially symmetrical way. Assuming 40cm for the storage container, that would need to be fit into a 6m x 4m profile. The current fairings are 4.6m (internal) anyways. So it doesn't seems so difficult, on principle, right?

[mmeijeri]

Is there any particular reason the BA330 would have to be flown to its launch site?

[Danderman]

Relocation of the operation is always a possibility.  There is no practical way to transport a stowed BA330 from Las Vegas to a potential launch site. When I pointed this out I was told "we are working on it".  I suspected that meant assembly at a different facility. 

What you are really saying is that Bigelow, to this point, never addressed the issue of transport of a large module from Las Vegas.

In my experience, the "we are working on it" response doesn't mean that the issue is being worked, just that you have raised an inconvenient fact.

[Danderman]

For historical comparison, the MirCorp business case kind of did close, even with standard Soyuz transport costs. Mir re-entered, not because it wouldn't make money, but due to political reasons that had nothing to do with business.

[Blackstar]

For historical comparison, the MirCorp business case kind of did close, even with standard Soyuz transport costs. Mir re-entered, not because it wouldn't make money, but due to political reasons that had nothing to do with business.

MirCorp always claimed that they knew how to make money, and nobody on the outside (by definition) had access to how they were really planning to do this so we cannot call them outright liars. As far as I know, I was the only person to actually write about their stated business plans, in an op-ed for Florida Today ca 2000. I pointed out that a number of their public statements (such as using Mir as an "internet portal," or assembling comsats on the station) made no sense at all. Most media reporting on MirCorp was pretty shallow, usually simply repeating their press releases.

Absent any insider information, however, all we had to go on was what became public, and that was not encouraging. In effect, there were several things:

-statements by MirCorp that were almost instantly (and repeatedly) contradicted by the Russians
-a number of missed payments to the Russians
-several missed deadlines, such as hints of an IPO that kept getting delayed
-a founder who gleefully attacked NASA, and then expressed shock that NASA officials would oppose him
-a founder who got thrown in federal prison
-the collapse of the internet bubble, which made the company's investors unwilling to continue spending money on it when it was not likely to return their investments anytime soon

It's become common for MirCorp's creators to put all the blame on NASA administrator Dan Goldin, but that conveniently obscures their own failings and raises questions about how sound their plans were if they could be undone by one person.

[grr]

The 330 was planned to fit into a 4 meter fairing.  However, the stowed configuration was not finalized, and the transport mechanism would have to include extra width for tooling. 

I think there is a slim chance of success, but that is said with a lot of 'ifs".

I've wondered how the flexible material was folded. In particular, an An-124 can fit a 36m x 6.4m x 4.4m. So I was wondering, if you could have folded one way for air transport, and another for launch. In other words, for air transport you fold it in two bulges to the sides (6.4m wide should be enough), and for launch in a more radially symmetrical way. Assuming 40cm for the storage container, that would need to be fit into a 6m x 4m profile. The current fairings are 4.6m (internal) anyways. So it doesn't seems so difficult, on principle, right?

IIRC, A 747 cargo can do over 5 meters both ways in the first half. Considering its length, it would have little problem taking one BA-330, probably more.
Something bigger would be problematic.  However, the simple answer is that when they get the company going,they can simply buy one of the old shuttle's 747 transports and then place it on a container on the top of it.  I suspect that NASA would part with one of them esp. if they can make use of it every so often.

[Chris Bergin]

Relocation of the operation is always a possibility.  There is no practical way to transport a stowed BA330 from Las Vegas to a potential launch site. When I pointed this out I was told "we are working on it".  I suspected that meant assembly at a different facility. 
 
That quote could have come from any number of former co-workers, and they would be right.  I could get into a lot of that, but I don't want to get too derivative on this thread.  Suffice to say that I've left the space industry, and this is an interest now, rather than a career.  Thanks.

While employed there, I was hesitant to post here at all. Now that I am firmly out of the company, I feel more free to answer specific questions that anyone here has, as long as the information isn't too proprietary.

(Or is NOT AT ALL "prop" - as that is a complete no no - Chris)

Everyone please take note of my addition to OD's post. You can imagine the alarm bells which went off over OD's post.

[Robotbeat]

You could possibly define "proprietary" to include ANY insight a former Bigelow employee would have. That's not fair. I think "trade secrets" should be a better definition of something prohibited.

[HIP2BSQRE]

WRT to an ISS module, that is a possibility.  The BEAM project was scoped as a galaxy size (like Genesis, but slightly larger diameter) shell.  When I left, the status was in doubt, and based on the comments from the layoff, I would think that NASA balked at funding it.  The largest part of the funding would have been the integration tasks, which may have killed it.  I felt that Bigelow had seriously underbid the hardware, which stemmed from being naive on the level of effort required to deliver an ISS payload. 

So is the BEAM project dead???  What do you think is needed to make it viable???

[Jim]

IIRC, A 747 cargo can do over 5 meters both ways in the first half. Considering its length, it would have little problem taking one BA-330, probably more.
Something bigger would be problematic.  However, the simple answer is that when they get the company going,they can simply buy one of the old shuttle's 747 transports and then place it on a container on the top of it.  I suspect that NASA would part with one of them esp. if they can make use of it every so often.

See SCTS.

NASA is using SCA's for spares on SOFIA

[HIP2BSQRE]

The bottom line is that Bigelow cannot afford to 'hibernate' and wait for transportation.  The company needs years of development on its products.  I've sat through Boeing CCDev design reviews, and Bigelow design reviews.  I can tell you, the thought that Bigelow can rest on its laurels and wait for Boeing to catch up is ludicrous.  They have not begun construction on any of the future vehicles.  Anyone here that has experience with building space hardware can tell you, until the pieces begin to come together, there are many things that will come to light in end to end testing and integration.

In addition, with this last round of layoffs, Bigelow has eliminated the last of the engineers that worked on the restraint and MMOD layers of prior vehicles.  Not to mention, almost all the the engineers that were associated with the Genesis program are gone. The 37 or so people that are left in the plant are extremely management heavy.

I realize that Bigelow Aerospace represents hope for commercial aerospace.  However, every worker there is taking a bigger risk than Robert Bigelow.  He could walk away tomorrow and still have assets, but there are workers betting their livelihood and career on it.  I believed in the potential of inflatables, and worked hard at it. After several years of trying to create something, it was time to move on to greener pastures.
I've been behind the wizards curtain. And nothing is there.

I apologize for the rant, but I actually respect most of the dialog that goes on here, and wish to contribute.

How many of the engineers that worked on the Genesis program are still there?  Maybe Robert feels that he may be able to hire them or others back in a year or two?  Why do you think he let go of most of the workers but kept most of management???  Maybe he feels that worker bees can be replaced relatively quickly??