Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (2)

[Ben the Space Brit]

That was it, and checking it again this AM it tracked back to Ars.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/spacex-announces-deal-to-shuttle-tourists-to-private-space-stations/

and here's a zoomed & gamma adjusted shot of the LIDS & the presumed viewport (round area just above the solar array.)

Ah! I see it now! I'm not convinced that it's an optical viewport as it's VERY far forward.  Could it be a HD camera feeding real-time video to the pilot?

Why the heck would it be just a camera?

Because, unless I'm mistaken, the upper equipment bay is in between that transparency and the pressure vessel.  There might be (probably is) a pilot's window elsewhere on the spacecraft but I don't think that is it.

[Robotbeat]

That was it, and checking it again this AM it tracked back to Ars.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/spacex-announces-deal-to-shuttle-tourists-to-private-space-stations/

and here's a zoomed & gamma adjusted shot of the LIDS & the presumed viewport (round area just above the solar array.)

Ah! I see it now! I'm not convinced that it's an optical viewport as it's VERY far forward.  Could it be a HD camera feeding real-time video to the pilot?

Why the heck would it be just a camera?

Because, unless I'm mistaken, the upper equipment bay is in between that transparency and the pressure vessel.  There might be (probably is) a pilot's window elsewhere on the spacecraft but I don't think that is it.

You're missing something pretty important, here: SpaceX has to have an optical viewport/window, per NASA requirements. Whether or not they have to slightly modify the pressure vessel is kind of besides the point.

[Ben the Space Brit]

That was it, and checking it again this AM it tracked back to Ars.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/spacex-announces-deal-to-shuttle-tourists-to-private-space-stations/

and here's a zoomed & gamma adjusted shot of the LIDS & the presumed viewport (round area just above the solar array.)

Ah! I see it now! I'm not convinced that it's an optical viewport as it's VERY far forward.  Could it be a HD camera feeding real-time video to the pilot?

Why the heck would it be just a camera?

Because, unless I'm mistaken, the upper equipment bay is in between that transparency and the pressure vessel.  There might be (probably is) a pilot's window elsewhere on the spacecraft but I don't think that is it.

You're missing something pretty important, here: SpaceX has to have an optical viewport/window, per NASA requirements. Whether or not they have to slightly modify the pressure vessel is kind of besides the point.

No, I think that you're the one who's missing something.  I'm not saying that SpaceX won't put an optical viewport on the spacecraft; I'm saying that I don't think that particular transparency is it.  And modifying the pressure vessel in the way you suggest is, to say the least, non-trivial.

[Robotbeat]

That was it, and checking it again this AM it tracked back to Ars.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/spacex-announces-deal-to-shuttle-tourists-to-private-space-stations/

and here's a zoomed & gamma adjusted shot of the LIDS & the presumed viewport (round area just above the solar array.)

Ah! I see it now! I'm not convinced that it's an optical viewport as it's VERY far forward.  Could it be a HD camera feeding real-time video to the pilot?

Why the heck would it be just a camera?

Because, unless I'm mistaken, the upper equipment bay is in between that transparency and the pressure vessel.  There might be (probably is) a pilot's window elsewhere on the spacecraft but I don't think that is it.

You're missing something pretty important, here: SpaceX has to have an optical viewport/window, per NASA requirements. Whether or not they have to slightly modify the pressure vessel is kind of besides the point.

No, I think that you're the one who's missing something.  I'm not saying that SpaceX won't put an optical viewport on the spacecraft; I'm saying that I don't think that particular transparency is it.  And modifying the pressure vessel in the way you suggest is, to say the least, non-trivial.

It shows the manned Dragon, so if it doesn't have the viewport, then it's a mistake.

And I don't think a small modification like that is that big of a deal. Compared whatever they'll have to do for the Superdracos, etc.

[subzero788]

We all know the dangers of speculating on artistic images. Besides, you should take this to the Dragon discussion thread

[Orbital Debris]

I'd have thought a rationale for seven seats would be to allow for the possibility of rotating crews of six with a taxi business model rather than a rental-car model.  In other words, following arrival at the station with the new crew, the pilot immediately returns to Earth with the old one.

who said pure commercial human transport will require a pilot?

At least for the time being, the concept is to have a trained pilot onboard.    However, man-in-the-loop rendezvous would be at least 2 failures deep; Nominal plan is for an automatic rendezvous and docking capability.

The nominal occupancy for a BA330 is 6 crew, but that does not preclude temporary occupancy of additional crew.  At this early stage, a few extra man-days of ECLSS is in the noise - they still have yet to prove out all the systems for the nominal occupation.

[Orbital Debris]

That was it, and checking it again this AM it tracked back to Ars.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/spacex-announces-deal-to-shuttle-tourists-to-private-space-stations/

and here's a zoomed & gamma adjusted shot of the LIDS & the presumed viewport (round area just above the solar array.)

Ah! I see it now! I'm not convinced that it's an optical viewport as it's VERY far forward.  Could it be a HD camera feeding real-time video to the pilot?

Why the heck would it be just a camera? NASA requirements say they need an optical viewport for some reason (and apparently no amount of redundancy matters, and for whatever reason the viewport can't be on the hatch itself, according to NASA). So, SpaceX is complying. Probably a periscope or something.

It is an "artist's conception" attached to a Bigelow Space Complex.  Why the heck would you assume that it would be designed to NASA requirements?     And I would agree with the caution against reading too much into models and 'marketing' representation.

Has anyone considered that it might be better if SpaceX was NOT selected to continue with CiCCAP?  It would allow SpaceX to design a crew transport free of the driving requirements of NASA.  As mentioned, penetrations of the pressure structure, in particular viewports/windows, are non-trivial.
Bigelow is much less risk averse, and could allow cost saving measures (such as eliminating viewing ports and fully autonomous docking). 

[Lurker Steve]

I'd have thought a rationale for seven seats would be to allow for the possibility of rotating crews of six with a taxi business model rather than a rental-car model.  In other words, following arrival at the station with the new crew, the pilot immediately returns to Earth with the old one.

who said pure commercial human transport will require a pilot?

At least for the time being, the concept is to have a trained pilot onboard.    However, man-in-the-loop rendezvous would be at least 2 failures deep; Nominal plan is for an automatic rendezvous and docking capability.

The nominal occupancy for a BA330 is 6 crew, but that does not preclude temporary occupancy of additional crew.  At this early stage, a few extra man-days of ECLSS is in the noise - they still have yet to prove out all the systems for the nominal occupation.

How many concurrent visiting vehicles is it designed for ? For instance, can it handle a visiting crew vehicle, a separate crv for the current occupants, and a separate cargo vehicle, all at the same time ?

Are there different sized docking ports for Crew and Cargo vehicles ?

Is it a challenge to support multiple visiting vehicles until they get multiple BA330 modules launched and linked together ?

[mmeijeri]

As mentioned, penetrations of the pressure structure, in particular viewports/windows, are non-trivial.

 

[ChefPat]

Congratulations SpaceX!
Statement from Robert T. Bigelow
May 22, 2012

[Robotbeat]

That was it, and checking it again this AM it tracked back to Ars.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/spacex-announces-deal-to-shuttle-tourists-to-private-space-stations/

and here's a zoomed & gamma adjusted shot of the LIDS & the presumed viewport (round area just above the solar array.)

Ah! I see it now! I'm not convinced that it's an optical viewport as it's VERY far forward.  Could it be a HD camera feeding real-time video to the pilot?

Why the heck would it be just a camera? NASA requirements say they need an optical viewport for some reason (and apparently no amount of redundancy matters, and for whatever reason the viewport can't be on the hatch itself, according to NASA). So, SpaceX is complying. Probably a periscope or something.

It is an "artist's conception" attached to a Bigelow Space Complex.  Why the heck would you assume that it would be designed to NASA requirements?     And I would agree with the caution against reading too much into models and 'marketing' representation.

Has anyone considered that it might be better if SpaceX was NOT selected to continue with CiCCAP?  It would allow SpaceX to design a crew transport free of the driving requirements of NASA.  As mentioned, penetrations of the pressure structure, in particular viewports/windows, are non-trivial.
Bigelow is much less risk averse, and could allow cost saving measures (such as eliminating viewing ports and fully autonomous docking). 

It's so obvious, but it should be said: SpaceX doesn't think it'd be better for SpaceX to lose CCiCap. It almost certainly would be better for SpaceX's competitors (and enemies of SpaceX with their own programs who feel threatened by SpaceX) if SpaceX weren't selected. And it'd almost certainly be worse for NASA and America, since it'd push out the initial operating capacity for crew to a significantly later date (no one is quite as far as SpaceX is), meaning that many more Soyuz seats to buy.

You're bullish about Bigelow's business chances and viability all of a sudden? Is Bigelow willing to sign a big fat contract with SpaceX, and you're not telling us? From what we know, Bigelow wanted to wait until NASA had proven the commercial crew vehicles first. In other words, Bigelow would be almost guaranteed to pick a winner or two of CCiCap, which puts SpaceX at a disadvantage if they aren't picked.

And no, I don't think that adding a small extra window/viewport is that big of a deal (compared to the challenges of integrating/testing/etc the Superdracos). SpaceX added several windows to cargo Dragon just to show that they could, so I doubt it'd be so terribly impossible to add another single window to Dragon. There's also the possibility of making a very compelling case to NASA that they've reached an equivalent level of safety.

[clongton]

I am in the non-enviable position of having to state the obvious.

*FIRST* we *ALL* want to see a viable Commercial Crew program. All of us, every single one of us. Having said that;

*IF* we are forced into a down-select to just 1, and
*IF* Space is selected, which it certainly deserves to be
*THEN* that will be the end of the dream of commercial manned spaceflight for a long time
*BECAUSE* none of the other potentials will continue to develop and deploy - they can't afford to without a NASA contracted destination. We will drop from 3 commercial carriers to just 1, almost overnight.

SpaceX will become just another NASA contractor, just like Boeing and Lockheed, being the sole provider of crew access to space.
Government business will continue the same as before, divided in thirds instead of halves.
The dream may very well be dead. Long live the dream.
I hope that I am wrong, but I don't think so.

All imho: ymmv

[robertross]

I am in the non-enviable position of having to state the obvious.

*IF* Space is selected, which it certainly deserves to be

I'm sure that should read SpaceX...

[robertross]

SpaceX will become just another NASA contractor, just like Boeing and Lockheed, being the sole provider of crew access to space.
Government business will continue the same as before, divided in thirds instead of halves.
The dream may very well be dead. Long live the dream.
I hope that I am wrong, but I don't think so.

All imho: ymmv

Yeah, well I continue to hope (pray) that the down-select is to (at least) Boeing's capsule, because I can't see SpaceX going in any other direction but manned Dragon - so that solves that little dilema   

[Lurker Steve]

That was it, and checking it again this AM it tracked back to Ars.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/spacex-announces-deal-to-shuttle-tourists-to-private-space-stations/

and here's a zoomed & gamma adjusted shot of the LIDS & the presumed viewport (round area just above the solar array.)

Ah! I see it now! I'm not convinced that it's an optical viewport as it's VERY far forward.  Could it be a HD camera feeding real-time video to the pilot?

Why the heck would it be just a camera? NASA requirements say they need an optical viewport for some reason (and apparently no amount of redundancy matters, and for whatever reason the viewport can't be on the hatch itself, according to NASA). So, SpaceX is complying. Probably a periscope or something.

It is an "artist's conception" attached to a Bigelow Space Complex.  Why the heck would you assume that it would be designed to NASA requirements?     And I would agree with the caution against reading too much into models and 'marketing' representation.

Has anyone considered that it might be better if SpaceX was NOT selected to continue with CiCCAP?  It would allow SpaceX to design a crew transport free of the driving requirements of NASA.  As mentioned, penetrations of the pressure structure, in particular viewports/windows, are non-trivial.
Bigelow is much less risk averse, and could allow cost saving measures (such as eliminating viewing ports and fully autonomous docking). 

It's so obvious, but it should be said: SpaceX doesn't think it'd be better for SpaceX to lose CCiCap. It almost certainly would be better for SpaceX's competitors (and enemies of SpaceX with their own programs who feel threatened by SpaceX) if SpaceX weren't selected. And it'd almost certainly be worse for NASA and America, since it'd push out the initial operating capacity for crew to a significantly later date (no one is quite as far as SpaceX is), meaning that many more Soyuz seats to buy.

You're bullish about Bigelow's business chances and viability all of a sudden? Is Bigelow willing to sign a big fat contract with SpaceX, and you're not telling us? From what we know, Bigelow wanted to wait until NASA had proven the commercial crew vehicles first. In other words, Bigelow would be almost guaranteed to pick a winner or two of CCiCap, which puts SpaceX at a disadvantage if they aren't picked.

And no, I don't think that adding a small extra window/viewport is that big of a deal (compared to the challenges of integrating/testing/etc the Superdracos). SpaceX added several windows to cargo Dragon just to show that they could, so I doubt it'd be so terribly impossible to add another single window to Dragon. There's also the possibility of making a very compelling case to NASA that they've reached an equivalent level of safety.

I was actually wondering how much time the new capsule design has to spend in the wind tunnel, both for ascent and descent. Those extra protusions for the "super" dracos are definately going to catch some heat on re-entry, right ? If you look at how the scarring from the heat flow and heat shield residue worked it's way up the sides of the first Dragon capsule, it looks like something is going to end up inside those "nostrils".

The addition of the those thrusters and the corresponding GNC software is definately going to be more complicated that a view port for the pilot.

SpaceX deserves a pat on the back for finally completing the COTS 2 milestones, and getting ready to complete their final COTS 3 milestones. It looks like the ISS will have some US capability for cargo delivery this year. That is not the same Dragon craft that will be carrying crew however. Much work still remains.

[Orbital Debris]

I was simply pointing out that NASA requirements drive costs and are not necessarily Bigelow requirements.  Other than the hatch bullseye, I don't see any windows on the Cargo Dragon currently on orbit.

Back to the thread topic...

Bigelow Aerospace has posted two new job requisitions of note in the last couple of days. 

Production Manager and Sewing machine operators.

From this I would infer that they are going forward with BA330 testing.  They would need these skills to produce a full size restraint layer for a pressure test in their test tank.

[Robotbeat]

I was simply pointing out that NASA requirements drive costs and are not necessarily Bigelow requirements.  Other than the hatch bullseye, I don't see any windows on the Cargo Dragon currently on orbit.

Oh, I understand that, I just don't think the enormous blow SpaceX would suffer from losing CCiCap (if that happens, which I actually doubt, thankfully) would be made up with not having to put a little window in the front area. Also, part of the reason NASA's requirements are stricter than Bigelow is probably partly because Bigelow has no experience operating a manned space station.

The COTS demo 1 Dragon had several windows on the side.

Back to the thread topic...

Bigelow Aerospace has posted two new job requisitions of note in the last couple of days. 

Production Manager and Sewing machine operators.

From this I would infer that they are going forward with BA330 testing.  They would need these skills to produce a full size restraint layer for a pressure test in their test tank.

That's good news. Hopefully they can get flying soon!

[grr]

SpaceX will become just another NASA contractor, just like Boeing and Lockheed, being the sole provider of crew access to space.
Government business will continue the same as before, divided in thirds instead of halves.
The dream may very well be dead. Long live the dream.
I hope that I am wrong, but I don't think so.

All imho: ymmv

Yeah, well I continue to hope (pray) that the down-select is to (at least) Boeing's capsule, because I can't see SpaceX going in any other direction but manned Dragon - so that solves that little dilema   

I would think that it depends on what is funded.

If there is a down-select (which would be foolish, but congress has proven that they do not have a brain), I would love to see SpaceX get it, along with making sure that Atlas is human-rated, and most importantly, Bigelow to be added to the ISS.
SpaceX has the best chance of being ready the soonest (safe, simple, and soon?). 
Basically, having a human-rated craft and helping Bigelow get to orbit quickly, it will push the other companies (boeing, SNC, Blue Origin) to get and spend the money to finish the job.  IOW, we will see 3-4 companies with human rating by 2017.

Of course, the best approach is to spend the 3/4B for the next couple of years and get multiple crafts ready by 2015.

[clongton]

SpaceX will become just another NASA contractor, just like Boeing and Lockheed, being the sole provider of crew access to space.
Government business will continue the same as before, divided in thirds instead of halves.
The dream may very well be dead. Long live the dream.
I hope that I am wrong, but I don't think so.

All imho: ymmv

Yeah, well I continue to hope (pray) that the down-select is to (at least) Boeing's capsule, because I can't see SpaceX going in any other direction but manned Dragon - so that solves that little dilema   

I would think that it depends on what is funded.

If there is a down-select (which would be foolish, but congress has proven that they do not have a brain), I would love to see SpaceX get it, along with making sure that Atlas is human-rated, and most importantly, Bigelow to be added to the ISS.
SpaceX has the best chance of being ready the soonest (safe, simple, and soon?). 
Basically, having a human-rated craft and helping Bigelow get to orbit quickly, it will push the other companies (boeing, SNC, Blue Origin) to get and spend the money to finish the job.  IOW, we will see 3-4 companies with human rating by 2017.

Of course, the best approach is to spend the 3/4B for the next couple of years and get multiple crafts ready by 2015.

Sorry, but you're not listening. Nothing else will get funded - nothing. That's what down-select means; pick 1 to get the money. Everybody else goes home broke. Everyone is so (justifiably) enthralled with SpaceX/Dragon that they are not seeing the forest for the trees. IF there is a downselect to just ONE and SpaceX wins, not only will there be no other commercial spacecraft fielded, but all work on man-rating the Atlas will stop. Why, you ask? Because (1) no other spacecraft manufacturer can afford to continue to develop and field a spacecraft without a NASA destination contract and (2) because of #1 there is no longer any financial incentive to man rate the Atlas. Why man rate a rocket when there are no manned spacecraft to fly on it?

[Chris Bergin]

This is a Bigelow update thread. It is not a "Kent Brockman Two Cents" thread

Back on track or this is getting trimmed right back.