Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (2)

[Robotbeat]

Yes and they also interviewed a formal Bigelow employee. I wonder if that isn't Orbital Debris.

...might also explain his more positive outlook on the company in his latest update.

Bigelow or companies like Bigelow are really vital for this industry. We have 4 commercial crew companies each with their own spacecraft (not even counting other possible future entries like Lockheed Martin, Virgin, XCOR, Orbital, etc) and only one space station. Sure, they will probably do orbital tourism/research free-flights as well, but a space station ensures a far higher launch volume. Come on, Bigelow!

[Orbital Debris]

It wasn't me that talked to Space News.  I actually don't even know who it was, but there is a wide circle of folks now that it could potentially be.  From the tone of the article, it seemed that Bigelow Aerospace responded to inquiries, and did not announce the news of their own accord.  I would hope that the company does not react negatively if there was a current employee that provided information to the outside.  The company is very sensitive to release of information without permission. 

The control of information was very haphazard, there were many times I was told not to talk about the condition of the satellites, even to people within the company.  (I've had security clearances before, so it was a ridiculous to have an IT person butcher the concept of 'need to know' while explaining it to me)  Of course, then Mr. Bigelow would casually mention the same information in an interview, but that was his prerogative.

[Ronsmytheiii]

This article has a little more detail into Orbital Debris update from last week & has a little more info too.

The former employee added that the new hires would likely be model makers who will start construction of a mock-up for the company’s BA-2100 Olympus module.

Maybe its time to put the models down, and hire engineers to actually build the thing.....

After all, some time in CAD/3DS Max or even google model maker would give them an idea, as a customer I would be more impressed with mature systems and metal bending...erm fabric folding in this case.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, have to agree... Building a model or mockup of a yet-bigger space station seems kind of silly right now.

[QuantumG]

The company is very sensitive to release of information without permission. 

Umm.. is there any company that isn't? If it were my company I'd fire anyone who talked to the press, unless they were my press officer, or otherwise had my permission. Maybe it's different in other industries, but every job I've had in IT came with a non-disclosure agreement - usually one that lasts some number of years after the employment is terminated.

[go4mars]

If it were my company I'd fire anyone who talked to the press, unless they were my press officer, or otherwise had my permission. Maybe it's different in other industries, but every job I've had in IT came with a non-disclosure agreement - usually one that lasts some number of years after the employment is terminated.

Same in oil and gas.  Perhaps to an even greater degree.

[Aeroman]

Am just curious, but can anyone tell me if Bigelow has completed any habitats at all (i.e. Sundancer, BA-330) not counting the two test articles already in space.

Aeroman

[simonbp]

Same in oil and gas.  Perhaps to an even greater degree.

Considering how market oil prices jump every time someone in the middle east sneezes, that's quite understandable.

Bigelow, though, is a private company with little competition, so the secrecy is probably more about keeping the customers privacy than their own.

[jongoff]

Same in oil and gas.  Perhaps to an even greater degree.

Considering how market oil prices jump every time someone in the middle east sneezes, that's quite understandable.

Bigelow, though, is a private company with little competition, so the secrecy is probably more about keeping the customers privacy than their own.

Have you ever been to Bigelow Aerospace? At least to me the privacy seems to be more a personal preference of Mr Bigelow's, not some business-driven necessity. SpaceX, which has a lot more competition, is far more open.  But of course, Mr Bigelow is entirely within his rights running his company however he likes, and I hope he's wildly successful, even if I don't personally follow his privacy approach.

~Jon

[Orbital Debris]

The company is very sensitive to release of information without permission. 

Umm.. is there any company that isn't? If it were my company I'd fire anyone who talked to the press, unless they were my press officer, or otherwise had my permission. Maybe it's different in other industries, but every job I've had in IT came with a non-disclosure agreement - usually one that lasts some number of years after the employment is terminated.

Perhaps I understated that somewhat.  I expect most places to restrict statements to the press, and "my views on the internet do not represent the views of any previous or current employers", and standard procedure is to refer all inquiries to the PAO.  Restrictions upon company information are any company's prerogative.  I was trying to express that the response can be rather reactionary.

There was once a minor witch hunt when Genesis 1 videos were discovered on youtube.  After much angst and finger pointing, it was discovered that the company publicist had in fact uploaded them to youtube himself, and they forgot that they were downloadable from the public website. 

The phones would not work properly because the anti-surveillance contractor did not put them back together after sweeping for listening devices.  I came into work one morning to find several screws lying around the phone and a horrible buzz.  Very Keystone Cops (I'm not referring to the regular security officers - they were very professional).

[grr]

Same in oil and gas.  Perhaps to an even greater degree.

Considering how market oil prices jump every time someone in the middle east sneezes, that's quite understandable.

Bigelow, though, is a private company with little competition, so the secrecy is probably more about keeping the customers privacy than their own.

Have you ever been to Bigelow Aerospace? At least to me the privacy seems to be more a personal preference of Mr Bigelow's, not some business-driven necessity. SpaceX, which has a lot more competition, is far more open.  But of course, Mr Bigelow is entirely within his rights running his company however he likes, and I hope he's wildly successful, even if I don't personally follow his privacy approach.

~Jon

Actually, I have some acquaintances that work there. They used to work in centennial. While I have not talked to them over a year, they commented long ago about the secrecy.  Said it is a bit overboard, but they are more worried about China then anything. As such, Bigelow makes certain that none of their employees have ties back to China or Taiwan who have any real knowledge.

Personally, I would say that is smart. Even SpaceX does a lot of hiding from China and other competitors.

[RDoc]

I don't want to get too far off topic, but one comment on China and secrecy at Bigelow, SpaceX, et al.

American Superconductor had it's IP stolen by a Serb working in Austria who was paid by the Chinese company Sinovel, the biggest client of American Superconductor. It's nearly, and may yet, kill the company.

Chinese IP theft, private and official, is a serious and ongoing problem. Paranoids sometimes do have real enemies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/world/asia/chinese-official-to-hear-trade-theft-tale.html

[manboy]

Some news on BEAM from John Mulholland, vice president and program manager for Boeing Commercial Programs.

"[Robert Bigelow] has been a great partner and provided us a lot of value," Mulholland said. "They are about to sign a contract with the International Space Station to put an inflatable module up there. Getting that NASA seal of approval will really help stimulate the market."

http://www.space.com/15173-boeing-cst100-spaceship-update.html

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Some news on BEAM from John Mulholland, vice president and program manager for Boeing Commercial Programs.

"[Robert Bigelow] has been a great partner and provided us a lot of value," Mulholland said. "They are about to sign a contract with the International Space Station to put an inflatable module up there. Getting that NASA seal of approval will really help stimulate the market."

http://www.space.com/15173-boeing-cst100-spaceship-update.html

I would expect it to be at least an unfunded SAA possibly funded with ISS funds so that Bigelow could do the integration work to the ISS with NASA support. Boeing must be pushing at NASA very hard for its exploration hardware concepts which include a Bigelow module as a DSH. A module attached to the ISS would be a prototype of the DSH.

I wonder if the module would be a Sundancer or a BA330?

[Robotbeat]

Some news on BEAM from John Mulholland, vice president and program manager for Boeing Commercial Programs.

"[Robert Bigelow] has been a great partner and provided us a lot of value," Mulholland said. "They are about to sign a contract with the International Space Station to put an inflatable module up there. Getting that NASA seal of approval will really help stimulate the market."

http://www.space.com/15173-boeing-cst100-spaceship-update.html

+1
If that happens, it will be a real boost for Bigelow's credibility (while also providing NASA with some valuable hardware that would come REALLY handy for beyond-LEO exploration), which should help them attract other customers. And a very successful Bigelow Aerospace would greatly expand the commercial crew market.

[go4mars]

I wonder if the module would be a Sundancer or a BA330?

Why wouldn't they go for the bigger option?

[Robotbeat]

I wonder if the module would be a Sundancer or a BA330?

Why wouldn't they go for the bigger option?

More massive, thus more expensive.

[go4mars]

More massive, thus more expensive.

As in launch costs?  Or a big diffence in module price tag?

[ChefPat]

I wonder if the module would be a Sundancer or a BA330?

Why wouldn't they go for the bigger option?

IIRC, BEAM was going to be smaller than either.

[Robotbeat]

More massive, thus more expensive.

As in launch costs?  Or a big diffence in module price tag?

Both. But even more importantly, for the in-space propulsion system to push everything from LEO to EML1/2 and possibly to NEAs or Mars orbit and back. Mass isn't such a premium to LEO, but it is for those sorts of mission profiles.

Also, I think BEAM would require some sort of tug to dock/berth it to ISS. Perhaps a modified Cygnus or something.