Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (2)

[Orbital Debris]

There seem to be quite a few people left working there. What would they be doing?

cheers, Martin

Good question. While I sure appreciate the insight of Orbital Debris, his very cynical view of Bigelow Aerospace doesn't explain why the company exists at all right now. 50 people can't be sitting around doing absolutely nothing.

CCDev tasks for Boeing and BEAM.

There are less than 40 engineers, the rest are security guards and admin personnel.  The balance of those not working on those projects are pretending to overcome the challenges left on BA330.

[Orbital Debris]

There seem to be quite a few people left working there. What would they be doing?

cheers, Martin

I thought I saw the company had shrunk from about 150 employees down to around 50. Hopefully some of them are watching their existing Genesis modules, making sure they don't collide with anything else.

They can't observe their positions or watch for collisions.  They don't  have the high precision data base of other satellites or debris, and I  don't think they have any ability to maneuver.  The US Government does  that tracking and hopefully any live satellites approaching will do  their own Avoidance Maneuvers.
 
 Bigelow should be able to monitor the internal pressures and verify that the containment has not been compromised.

As Mr. Bigelow has stated in the press, there have been "communication difficulties".  A euphemism for something much greater. No communication means no data. 

Comga's assessment is correct for the rest.  The last person at the company capable of a conjunction analysis left last week.

[Orbital Debris]

I would imagine their biggest problem right now is the lack of a customer, as well as the uncertaintly over when commercial crew would be ready.  But when they are ready, how soon do you think Big could come back to life?

Their biggest problems are internal.  I think SpaceHab would be a good parallel, but there are is a lot of 'group think' to overcome.  Some prominent folks with significant spaceflight experience were not able to over come it.

I would think it would take 3 years to get back up to speed.  From experience there, I know that even if you have a good talent pool, rapid growth and hiring is not trivial.  And no one that has been there is going back.
Yes, I've got some cynicism. I believe the concepts have a lot of potential.  I put years of effort into making things work, and finally decided to leave when I realized that it was not about making it work.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Bigelow is currently at this time focused on work pertaining to CST-100 and BEAM and the stated goal of eventually starting a BA-330.  The below seeks to outline a different path that is much less ambitious and hopefully much more attainable:

1.  Test BEAM at station, simple enough.  Tests thermal and folding methods, basic understanding of how the inflatable concept works.

2.  Take inflatable BEAM shell as basis for man-tended microgravity research facility.  BEAM shell would already be a proven asset at this time, and would be combined with an existing service module (thinking Cygnus STAR bus).  Would provide a much more ideal microgravity environment than ISS could provide, and as such NASA/US customers with clean microgravity requirements would be primary customers along with ESA/JAXA/CSA. The CBM would be replaced with a passive iLIDS, while any manned visiting spacecraft would provide ECLSS as the Industrial Space facility called for.  Eventually might have own ECLSS, but not essential.

3.  Upgraded BEAM/Bus with rear docking port and ECLSS, would be expensive but the intermediate step should cut down the costs.

[RocketmanUS]

What are the specs for BEAM?
Out side diameter?
Inside diameter?
Length?
Radiation shielding for LEO?
How would it handle radiation shielding if placed in L1/2 or lunar surface?

[Comga]

What are the specs for BEAM?
Out side diameter?
Inside diameter?
Length?
Radiation shielding for LEO?
How would it handle radiation shielding if placed in L1/2 or lunar surface?

L1, L2, & the lunar surface are totally irrelevant.

What is the FUNDING and funding mechanism for BEAM?  Is it anything more than a study?  Is NASA paying BA or is it another unfunded SAA?

[Orbital Debris]

What are the specs for BEAM?
Out side diameter?
Inside diameter?
Length?
Radiation shielding for LEO?
How would it handle radiation shielding if placed in L1/2 or lunar surface?

Dimensions would be very close to those posted on wikipedia for Galaxy:  About 16 m3, 4m long, ~3.5m wide.

There would not be "radiation shielding" other than the actual soft goods that make up the shell.  Rather like saying the ISS outer shell provides shielding.  Shielding qualities of the Bigelow softgoods are not fully known.  Assuming the softgoods construction is similar to Genesis, they would be on the order of the ISS hull.

[RocketmanUS]

What are the specs for BEAM?
Out side diameter?
Inside diameter?
Length?
Radiation shielding for LEO?
How would it handle radiation shielding if placed in L1/2 or lunar surface?

Dimensions would be very close to those posted on wikipedia for Galaxy:  About 16 m3, 4m long, ~3.5m wide.

There would not be "radiation shielding" other than the actual soft goods that make up the shell.  Rather like saying the ISS outer shell provides shielding.  Shielding qualities of the Bigelow softgoods are not fully known.  Assuming the softgoods construction is similar to Genesis, they would be on the order of the ISS hull.

So safe for crew in LEO?

But not good enough for habitat on moon if used same shell material?

[simonbp]

For above the van Allen belts, you could just increase the amount of water in the shell. Also recall that Al is not a great material for radiation shielding as it tends to create lower energy cascades, so it's not hard to be better than Al.

[Danderman]

Bigelow is currently at this time focused on work pertaining to CST-100 and BEAM and the stated goal of eventually starting a BA-330.  The below seeks to outline a different path that is much less ambitious and hopefully much more attainable:

Their biggest problems are internal.  I think SpaceHab would be a good parallel, but there are is a lot of 'group think' to overcome.  Some prominent folks with significant spaceflight experience were not able to over come it.

I would think it would take 3 years to get back up to speed.  From experience there, I know that even if you have a good talent pool, rapid growth and hiring is not trivial.  And no one that has been there is going back.
Yes, I've got some cynicism. I believe the concepts have a lot of potential.  I put years of effort into making things work, and finally decided to leave when I realized that it was not about making it work.

These two posts paint a very different picture of what is going on at Bigelow.

[Robotbeat]

For above the van Allen belts, you could just increase the amount of water in the shell. Also recall that Al is not a great material for radiation shielding as it tends to create lower energy cascades, so it's not hard to be better than Al.

The secondaries are slightly over-rated in importance, IMHO. It's an important effect, but usually the effect is just to reduce the effectiveness of the shielding, not to make the shielding actually counter-productive. I'm not saying that that is what you're saying, though.

The shielding is also valuable for solar particle events (SPEs), which are IMHO more important since the radiation can be acute and in very, very rare cases can cause enough radiation if unprotected to cause nausea, which is a problem if you're in a space suit... Secondaries aren't as big of a deal for SPEs as they are for GCRs (galactic cosmic arrays), so aluminum can work just fine, though you need a little more of it than you would plastic or water. By the way, we already have water shielding on ISS to a very limited extent (there's a "water wall"). It's not a huge issue and extra shielding just means extra mass, it's that simple.

Even passing through the Van Allen belts isn't a problem as long as it's done relatively speedily.

One thing, though, is that the larger the diameter of the pressure vessel you're in, generally the better shielding you get just by how much material is needed to maintain enough tensile strength (assuming the same material is used). The amount of inherent shielding is roughly proportional to the diameter of the pressure vessel.

[Orbital Debris]

What are the specs for BEAM?
Out side diameter?
Inside diameter?
Length?
Radiation shielding for LEO?
How would it handle radiation shielding if placed in L1/2 or lunar surface?

Dimensions would be very close to those posted on wikipedia for Galaxy:  About 16 m3, 4m long, ~3.5m wide.

There would not be "radiation shielding" other than the actual soft goods that make up the shell.  Rather like saying the ISS outer shell provides shielding.  Shielding qualities of the Bigelow softgoods are not fully known.  Assuming the softgoods construction is similar to Genesis, they would be on the order of the ISS hull.

So safe for crew in LEO?

But not good enough for habitat on moon if used same shell material?

Safe?  Well, that is rather hard to define. Probably.  It should really be expressed in terms of accumulated dose.  NASA astronauts accumulate a dose that exceeds terrestrial radiation worker legal limits. Although NASA operates under OSHA, but if you dig deep enough, NASA functions under a caveat that allows them to justify exceeding legal dose limits. Current limits are based upon a percentage increase in the incidence of cancer over a lifetime. 

There is no guidance yet on how a company would legally deal with exposure that exceeds legal limits.  It would be very hard to provide informed consent when there is not enough data to estimate exposures. 

[RocketmanUS]

If BEAM works I was thinking that the inflatable material could be used for a lunar habitat and life support and all the extras could be supplies by others. So the inflatable hab is just a shell like a tent. At least capitalize on the inflatable part.

[A_M_Swallow]

Was a BEAM contract/SAA ever signed?

[Ronsmytheiii]

Bigelow is currently at this time focused on work pertaining to CST-100 and BEAM and the stated goal of eventually starting a BA-330.  The below seeks to outline a different path that is much less ambitious and hopefully much more attainable:

Their biggest problems are internal.  I think SpaceHab would be a good parallel, but there are is a lot of 'group think' to overcome.  Some prominent folks with significant spaceflight experience were not able to over come it.

I would think it would take 3 years to get back up to speed.  From experience there, I know that even if you have a good talent pool, rapid growth and hiring is not trivial.  And no one that has been there is going back.
Yes, I've got some cynicism. I believe the concepts have a lot of potential.  I put years of effort into making things work, and finally decided to leave when I realized that it was not about making it work.

These two posts paint a very different picture of what is going on at Bigelow.

I would defer to OD on this one.....

[subzero788]

Dimensions would be very close to those posted on wikipedia for Galaxy:  About 16 m3, 4m long, ~3.5m wide.

Thanks for the info OD, I had no idea it was going to be that small. I know it is primarily about demonstrating the technology, but it's really not going to contribute much in the terms of extra space for the ISS, is it.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Dimensions would be very close to those posted on wikipedia for Galaxy:  About 16 m3, 4m long, ~3.5m wide.

Thanks for the info OD, I had no idea it was going to be that small. I know it is primarily about demonstrating the technology, but it's really not going to contribute much in the terms of extra space for the ISS, is it.

Was not meant to, the most it is intended to do is act as a "closet" with demonstrating the inflatable technology being its primary reason for existence.

[Robotbeat]

Dimensions would be very close to those posted on wikipedia for Galaxy:  About 16 m3, 4m long, ~3.5m wide.

Thanks for the info OD, I had no idea it was going to be that small. I know it is primarily about demonstrating the technology, but it's really not going to contribute much in the terms of extra space for the ISS, is it.

Was not meant to, the most it is intended to do is act as a "closet" with demonstrating the inflatable technology being its primary reason for existence.

Yeah, closer to an MPLM. But that's okay... Extra space is still pretty useful.

[Atlan]

Does anyone here actually have some insider knowledge if BEAM could actually be on NASAs plans in this decade?

[Jim]

Does anyone here actually have some insider knowledge if BEAM could actually be on NASAs plans in this decade?

If it is not in the budget, it is not in the plans