From an engineering standpoint, it is all possible. However, there would have to be sacrifices in module lifespan and mission scope.
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.
Quote from: Orbital Debris on 10/02/2011 06:46 amFrom an engineering standpoint, it is all possible. However, there would have to be sacrifices in module lifespan and mission scope. Are you able to expand on the part I bolded in a general way without upsetting anyone over concerns of trade secrets?
I think there is a slim chance of success, but that is said with a lot of 'ifs".
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.
You could barter resupply services and launches against leasing parts of a station.
Quote from: Orbital Debris on 10/02/2011 05:51 amRelocation 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.
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)
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??
Quote from: Orbital Debris on 10/02/2011 05:51 amRelocation 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.
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.
Quote from: Danderman on 10/02/2011 02:40 pmQuote from: Orbital Debris on 10/02/2011 05:51 amRelocation 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.Bingo!
Quote from: Orbital Debris on 10/02/2011 07:01 amWRT 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???
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.
Quote from: HIP2BSQRE on 10/02/2011 04:56 pmQuote from: Orbital Debris on 10/02/2011 07:01 amWRT 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???My statement was based upon reports of the speech on Thursday of "lack of NASA funding for an ISS module". Prospects for BEAM looked dim when I left. The only provisions in the CR before the ISS board were for developing requirements, no funding for hardware. The CR was not funded and there were a lot of objections within NASA for funding it. Within the company, management did not see the value (not something I agreed with, I thought there was great value, to the point of subsidizing the hardware).So, I can't say for sure that it is dead, but it seems likely.
Quote from: Orbital Debris on 10/03/2011 02:57 amQuote from: HIP2BSQRE on 10/02/2011 04:56 pmQuote from: Orbital Debris on 10/02/2011 07:01 amWRT 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???My statement was based upon reports of the speech on Thursday of "lack of NASA funding for an ISS module". Prospects for BEAM looked dim when I left. The only provisions in the CR before the ISS board were for developing requirements, no funding for hardware. The CR was not funded and there were a lot of objections within NASA for funding it. Within the company, management did not see the value (not something I agreed with, I thought there was great value, to the point of subsidizing the hardware).So, I can't say for sure that it is dead, but it seems likely. What value did you see for Bigelow?? This is your opinion..
Quote from: grr on 10/02/2011 04:24 pmIIRC, 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
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.
Apparently NASA is looking to use these for spare parts in a couple of years.That would be kind of sad considering that these have undergone extensive modifications for supporting these big bulky loads.Hopefully, Evergreen or some other group will decide that these would be useful to keep going and perhaps trade for one of their own older equipment. Heck, these could be modified to be water tankers for firefighting before being let go, with the ability to still carry large loads.
The Competitor must not accept or utilize government development funding related to this contest of any kind, nor shall there be any government ownership of the competitor.
