Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (2)

[ChefPat]

Bigelow put a few new pix of the new factory. Not much new.

As I have said many times

You sure have. I wonder what you think you're contributing to the conversation by repeating the same thing over & over ad nauseum?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

[mmeijeri]

Well, David does have a point, some people act as if BA-330s and (semi-) commercially viable private space stations are a given, when they're not, just as with SLS / Orion / FH / Dream Chaser. There's a lot of overenthusiasm (and spin).

[ChefPat]

Well, David does have a point, some people act as if BA-330s and (semi-) commercially viable private space stations are a given, when they're not, just as with SLS / Orion / FH / Dream Chaser. There's a lot of overenthusiasm (and spin).

While I'm sure David will thank you for answering for him, my question still stands.

[Danderman]

Well, David does have a point, some people act as if BA-330s and (semi-) commercially viable private space stations are a given, when they're not, just as with SLS / Orion / FH / Dream Chaser. There's a lot of overenthusiasm (and spin).

While I'm sure David will thank you for answering for him, my question still stands.

I generally repeat the description of what Bigelow does when newbies here get all excited about there being ponies.

My opinion about Bigelow is that the subscale modules, buildings and mockups are all about winning a NASA contract to build a module, either for ISS or Exploration.  I believe that all of the talk about a Bigelow Space Station was developed back in the day when NASA could not tolerate a competitor to ISS, but rather attempt to compete with NASA, Bob Bigelow's plan was to be "co-opted" by having NASA buy hardware to be attached to ISS.  To the extent that Bob Bigelow believes that there is no NASA contract in the offing, then he will dial back spending on the buildings, subscale mockups, and models.

One reason that I believe this is that Bigelow development of hardware that could be used in an ISS module was quite advances, where development of hardware for a free-flyer, not so much. AFAIK, spending on a propulsion bus was very limited, ECLSS spending was limited, equipment for rendezvous didn't exist, so Bigelow was many years away from a free-flyer that could support actual operations. On the other hand, an ISS module developed with the support of NASA would have been much easier for Bigelow to finalize.

[Bernie Roehl]

My opinion about Bigelow is that the subscale modules, buildings and mockups are all about winning a NASA contract to build a module, either for ISS or Exploration.

My opinion is that Bigelow is a businessman, who will (quite sensibly) pursue a variety of markets.  Sure, a module for ISS is one of those markets, but certainly not the only one (or even the major one, long-term).

AFAIK, spending on a propulsion bus was very limited, ECLSS spending was limited

If he weren't interested in creating a free-flyer, he wouldn't have spent any money *at all* on those things.  The fact that he invested some of his personal savings on propulsion, life support, etc tells us that he's quite serious about it.

It's clear that a commercial HSF infrastructure that will support delivery of paying customers to a free-flyer is still several years away.  In the meantime, Bigelow was hoping to pursue a contract for ann ISS module that could generate some short-term revenue.

If I were him, I'd probably do the exact same thing.

[ChefPat]

I generally repeat the description of what Bigelow does when newbies here get all excited about there being ponies.

Since everything after this sentence is simply a long winded version of your previous post, we'll focus on just this one.
If you are referring to me as a "newbie" because I alerted the board there are new pix on the Bigelow site, please be aware of a little of my background.
I am a successful businessman. I have a scientific background that includes biology, chemistry, physics & astronomy. I founded a local space advocacy group 7 years ago that now has one member in the US Air Force Academy & another flying helicopters in the US Army.
While I'm not an engineer, one member of our group worked in the Apollo program through Apollo 15 & another gentleman retired from OSC some years ago.
Our group designed a paper entry into the Bigelow America's Space Prize based on the "Big Gemini."
I have also been a contributor here (albeit on the periphery) for more than 4 years.
So, do you still wish to refer to me as a "newbie"?
As for the "ponies" insult, is this how you conduct business at Constellation Services International? If not, why do you feel it's appropriate here?

[mr. mark]

Interesting, in this interview, Bigelow states that Bigelow Aerospace is a subcontractor for Boeing. In other words his company is building space modules for Boeing. No wonder you never hear mention of other spaceflight providers, such as Spacex, being considered.

http://moonandback.com/2011/11/29/moonandback-interview-with-robert-bigelow-part-2-space-stations-and-transport/

[Jim]

Interesting, in this interview Bigelow states that Bigelow Aerospace is a subcontractor for Boeing. In other words his company is building space modules for Boeing.

Wrong, they are providing support to CST-100. It is detailed in the CCDev status.

[mr. mark]

I'm not making the claim, Bigelow is. Bigelow says he is not a partner but a subcontractor building specific things for the Boeing company. Bigelow says at the end of the interview "I do feel we act as a subcontractor to Boeing and I think Boeing would agree with that".

[Robotbeat]

Doesn't mean they're building space modules, it means Bigelow is helping Boeing with CST-100, which we've known for a long time.

[ChefPat]

I'm not making the claim, Bigelow is. Bigelow says he is not a partner but a subcontractor building specific things for the Boeing company. Bigelow says at the end of the interview "I do feel we act as a subcontractor to Boeing and I think Boeing would agree with that".

I didn't hear anything about "modules." Bigelow very clearly said they were a subcontactor for the Boeing CCDev program.

[A_M_Swallow]

I didn't hear anything about "modules." Bigelow very clearly said they were a subcontactor for the Boeing CCDev program.

Mr Bigelow confirmed that Sundancer has been cancelled and replaced by the larger BA330.  There was no report on the current state of the BA330, although that may be in the next 2 parts of the interview.

[ChefPat]

I didn't hear anything about "modules." Bigelow very clearly said they were a subcontactor for the Boeing CCDev program.

Mr Bigelow confirmed that Sundancer has been cancelled and replaced by the larger BA330.  There was no report on the current state of the BA330, although that may be in the next 2 parts of the interview.

I was talking about his comments concerning Boeing. Nothing in the interview led me to believe Bigelow Aerospace is building BA-330 module(s) for Boeing.

[Orbital Debris]

Interesting, in this interview, Bigelow states that Bigelow Aerospace is a subcontractor for Boeing. In other words his company is building space modules for Boeing. No wonder you never hear mention of other spaceflight providers, such as Spacex, being considered.

http://moonandback.com/2011/11/29/moonandback-interview-with-robert-bigelow-part-2-space-stations-and-transport/

Bigelow is not providing space modules to Boeing. 

Bigelow has provided services and products to Boeing to support Boeing's contract for both CCDev phase 1 and phase 2 in return for compensation.  This is the basis for RTB's statement.

[ChefPat]

Part 3 of the interview talks about launch vehicles, SpaceX & CCDev.

Moonandback Interview With Robert Bigelow, part 3 – Pluses And Minuse

[yg1968]

This isn't new but hasn't been linked in this thread before. For historic purposes, here's what Bigelow's CCDev-1 capsule would have looked like (see at 2:50 of the video):
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/Video/videos/NASAULA_SSA.wmv

[Ronsmytheiii]

This isn't new but hasn't been linked in this thread before. For historic purposes, here's what Bigelow's CCDev-2 capsule would have looked like (see at 2:50 of the video):
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/Video/videos/NASAULA_SSA.wmv

That capsule was the Lockheed martin effort for Bigelow, Bigelow later switched to Boeing.

[yg1968]

This isn't new but hasn't been linked in this thread before. For historic purposes, here's what Bigelow's CCDev-2 capsule would have looked like (see at 2:50 of the video):
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/Video/videos/NASAULA_SSA.wmv

That capsule was the Lockheed martin effort for Bigelow, Bigelow later switched to Boeing.

No Bigelow had its own capsule proposal for CCDev-1 (and I don't think LM was involved with it). Boeing had a separate proposal. See the selection statement for CCDev-1.
http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/Reference/CCDev_Source_Selection_Statement_signed-1.pdf

[mmeijeri]

No Bigelow had its own capsule proposal for CCDev-1 and LM was not involved with it.

Didn't Bigelow have two proposals, one of which was in collaboration with Boeing?

[yg1968]

No Bigelow had its own capsule proposal for CCDev-1 and LM was not involved with it.

Didn't Bigelow have two proposals, one of which was in collaboration with Boeing?

Yes in one proposal, Bigelow was the main participant. But for the CST-100, Boeing is the main participant.