yet at the same time it seems many have the knee jerk reaction to blame NASA.
Is there any particular reason the BA330 would have to be flown to its launch site?
Quote from: Orbital Debris on 10/03/2011 01:25 amQuote 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!Really??? If the stowed BA-330 was a small as you suggested earlier (less than 5 m diameter), it seems far-fetched to believe that air-transport was not an opinion. I know you try to come off an unbiased ex-employee (and perhaps you are) - but this seems like a trivial issue to solve compared to the other issues BA is and was facing.
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 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: mmeijeri on 10/02/2011 02:40 pmIs there any particular reason the BA330 would have to be flown to its launch site?No particular reason, it could be barged. Flight from Las Vegas would be preferable than trying to wide load it across America. However you would still need to get to to an airport for a large enough transport.
Quote from: Orbital Debris on 10/05/2011 04:21 amQuote from: mmeijeri on 10/02/2011 02:40 pmIs there any particular reason the BA330 would have to be flown to its launch site?No particular reason, it could be barged. Flight from Las Vegas would be preferable than trying to wide load it across America. However you would still need to get to to an airport for a large enough transport.Bigelow is 1.5 miles from North Las Vegas Airport, and there are hardly any structures in between.
Quote from: Jason1701 on 10/05/2011 04:40 amQuote from: Orbital Debris on 10/05/2011 04:21 amQuote from: mmeijeri on 10/02/2011 02:40 pmIs there any particular reason the BA330 would have to be flown to its launch site?No particular reason, it could be barged. Flight from Las Vegas would be preferable than trying to wide load it across America. However you would still need to get to to an airport for a large enough transport.Bigelow is 1.5 miles from North Las Vegas Airport, and there are hardly any structures in between.you forget the bigger bet that would be Nellis AFB.
A lot of it would seem far-fetched, but like I said, there are a lot of details that are not locked down. Would it seem far-fetched that they post claims about radiation shielding, and they don't have conclusive data? I know for a fact that no conclusive testing has been performed on their softgoods. And the Genesis data is insufficient to extrapolate to the future softgoods. They have not actually performed trade studies on the shipment. Another facet of this is that they truly don't know the stowed diameter of even a Sundancer, because they don't have a folding scheme that has been tested on real hardware. They built a Sundancer outer layer out of canvas, and folded it around a non-flight test core. In no way did it simulate the stiffness of folding the multiple layers of carbon-fiber and thermal layers that would make up the MMOD. Nor have they developed tooling to perform the folding. Genesis was strong-armed and cinched into place, but the SD and BA330 need to be craned into place.
Quote from: Prober on 10/05/2011 04:00 pmQuote from: Jason1701 on 10/05/2011 04:40 amQuote from: Orbital Debris on 10/05/2011 04:21 amQuote from: mmeijeri on 10/02/2011 02:40 pmIs there any particular reason the BA330 would have to be flown to its launch site?No particular reason, it could be barged. Flight from Las Vegas would be preferable than trying to wide load it across America. However you would still need to get to to an airport for a large enough transport.Bigelow is 1.5 miles from North Las Vegas Airport, and there are hardly any structures in between.you forget the bigger bet that would be Nellis AFB. Nellis is more than 11 miles away. North LV Airport is 1.5 miles away.Of course, it depends on what can land there.http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Nellis+AFB,+NV&daddr=Bigelow+Aerospace,+West+Brooks+Avenue,+North+Las+Vegas,+NV&hl=en&ll=36.245104,-115.107536&spn=0.148689,0.21801&sll=36.21187,-115.176201&sspn=0.148752,0.21801&geocode=Fd8xKQIduEEk-Sk5RRqfl93IgDHvta1vKUoKiQ%3BFSKNKAIdEbAi-SGAZW7rozj0_SkHV_tsE8LIgDEguSpwnoPRvg&vpsrc=0&mra=ls&t=h&z=12http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=north+LV+airport&daddr=Bigelow+Aerospace,+West+Brooks+Avenue,+North+Las+Vegas,+NV&hl=en&sll=36.20623,-115.1427&sspn=0.037191,0.054502&geocode=FcKFKAIdlFwi-SHTBHQPUmjYrA%3BFSKNKAIdEbAi-SGAZW7rozj0_SkHV_tsE8LIgDEguSpwnoPRvg&vpsrc=0&mra=ls&t=h&z=15
Quote from: HIP2BSQRE on 10/03/2011 03:16 amQuote 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..IMO, there was value from a marketing standpoint, and value to be gained beyond the MMOD development of Genesis. Comparison side by side of radiation shielding, thermal qualities of the flexible MMOD vs. ISS hull sections. In addition, producing spaceflight hardware for an external customer would be a training for the when Bigelow would need to produce documentation for external customers.
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: 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 10/02/2011 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: Lars_J on 10/03/2011 02:56 amQuote from: Orbital Debris on 10/03/2011 01:25 amQuote 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!Really??? If the stowed BA-330 was a small as you suggested earlier (less than 5 m diameter), it seems far-fetched to believe that air-transport was not an opinion. I know you try to come off an unbiased ex-employee (and perhaps you are) - but this seems like a trivial issue to solve compared to the other issues BA is and was facing. A lot of it would seem far-fetched, but like I said, there are a lot of details that are not locked down. Would it seem far-fetched that they post claims about radiation shielding, and they don't have conclusive data? I know for a fact that no conclusive testing has been performed on their softgoods. And the Genesis data is insufficient to extrapolate to the future softgoods. They have not actually performed trade studies on the shipment. Another facet of this is that they truly don't know the stowed diameter of even a Sundancer, because they don't have a folding scheme that has been tested on real hardware. They built a Sundancer outer layer out of canvas, and folded it around a non-flight test core. In no way did it simulate the stiffness of folding the multiple layers of carbon-fiber and thermal layers that would make up the MMOD. Nor have they developed tooling to perform the folding. Genesis was strong-armed and cinched into place, but the SD and BA330 need to be craned into place.
.. and crew transport is taking longer?
Quote.. and crew transport is taking longer?All four leading contenders for commercial crew are building, testing, one is even flying. Bigelow is now falling behind.
Quote from: jedsmd on 10/08/2011 05:48 pmQuote.. and crew transport is taking longer?All four leading contenders for commercial crew are building, testing, one is even flying. Bigelow is now falling behind. The pace of commercial crew is irrelevant to Bigelow's current situation, where he has no viable business case. Even if Dragon were flying, which it is in its cargo variant, Bigelow cannot demonstrate profitability even at Elon's quoted numbers. To get a Dragon into space is so expensive relative to any potential Bigelow customer revenues that to add the cost of a space platform blows any business case out of the water.My personal opinion is that Bigelow's real goal was sale of a module to NASA for ISS, and he has given up on that at last.
The pace of commercial crew is irrelevant to Bigelow's current situation, where he has no viable business case.
My personal opinion is that Bigelow's real goal was sale of a module to NASA for ISS, and he has given up on that at last.
I think bigelow needs to launch a ba330 test module in to orbit as a full sized demonstrator like they did with genesis. A full up test would be worth it. Perhaps have a dragon berth to it to test that out until the other capsule is ready ( modification required to dragon?).
Either BA-330 needs an arm to capture the berthing Dragon, or Dragon needs a docking mechanism.
