From Space Station to Moon Base – Bigelow expands on inflatable ambitions

[john smith 19]

I saw in another thread people were talking about landing a cluster of BA300 modules on the Moon and people wondered how you could do that as a BA300 weighs about 20 000lbs.

Is that 20 000 on Earth or the Moon?

If it's 20 000 on Earth a 6 module cluster would be about 20 000 Lunar lbs.

So 1 RL10 with propellant tankage could bring it in to land on close to full thrust just as long as the whole dry weight came below 24 000 lb (to match its thrust) when it came time to cut the engines.

[yg1968]

Great report Chris and Yves, as usual.

Wow....if this were to come together things could get real exciting around here - and the bandwidth will go geometric. There goes the L2 prices

Thanks for the compliments on the article. It was good team work. Chris G. improved the article a lot. He deserves a lot of the credit on this article. 

[notsorandom]

I wonder where Bigelow will be getting the $8-10 billion to develop a lunar lander. Someone's accounting is not adding up. Perhaps NASA and the White House should have asked for this type of information from the industry and vetted it before deciding to avoid the Moon. Still it is better late then never.

[yg1968]

I wonder where Bigelow will be getting the $8-10 billion to develop a lunar lander. Someone's accounting is not adding up. Perhaps NASA and the White House should have asked for this type of information from the industry and vetted it before deciding to avoid the Moon. Still it is better late then never.

It's my personal opinion. But I think that is Bigelow is expecting the Moon to be back on the table in a couple of years once there is a new President. Until that time, I doubt that commercial companies will go to the Moon without any NASA funding.

[notsorandom]

I wonder where Bigelow will be getting the $8-10 billion to develop a lunar lander. Someone's accounting is not adding up. Perhaps NASA and the White House should have asked for this type of information from the industry and vetted it before deciding to avoid the Moon. Still it is better late then never.

It's my personal opinion. But I think that is Bigelow is expecting the Moon to be back on the table in a couple of years once there is a new President. Until that time, I doubt that commercial companies will go to the Moon without any NASA funding.

There are a few companies which do have their sights on the Moon. There would likely be more if NASA expressed interest (and money) in using a privately developed lander. The main question I am wondering about is the discrepancy between NASA's cost estimates and these private ventures. They can't both be right. Bigelow would not be talking about landing a whole base if they thought a simpler lander would be that expensive. If the estimate that Bolden recently gave is much higher than what the rest of the industry thinks then NASA really needs to be talking to these companies and maybe rethinking their lunar ambitions.

[yg1968]

Bolden said $8-10 billion for a lunar lander but that was based on what Altair would have cost. A simpler lander would cost less. Golden Spike says that their cost is about $8B for their entire lunar architecture. But I don't know how much their lander would cost.

[Chris Bergin]

I wonder where Bigelow will be getting the $8-10 billion to develop a lunar lander. Someone's accounting is not adding up. Perhaps NASA and the White House should have asked for this type of information from the industry and vetted it before deciding to avoid the Moon. Still it is better late then never.

Incidentally, I was told Bolden/NASA failed to supply the requested overview as to where he got $8-10 billion figure from.

Anyway, that conversation can go on the relevant thread...

[yg1968]

I wonder where Bigelow will be getting the $8-10 billion to develop a lunar lander. Someone's accounting is not adding up. Perhaps NASA and the White House should have asked for this type of information from the industry and vetted it before deciding to avoid the Moon. Still it is better late then never.

Incidentally, I was told Bolden/NASA failed to supply the requested overview as to where he got $8-10 billion figure from.

Anyway, that conversation can go on the relevant thread...

A price taf of $8B to 10B sounds about right based on the Sally Ride Charts from the Augustine Committee:
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt

[ChefPat]

I saw in another thread people were talking about landing a cluster of BA300 modules on the Moon and people wondered how you could do that as a BA300 weighs about 20 000lbs.

Is that 20 000 on Earth or the Moon?

If it's 20 000 on Earth a 6 module cluster would be about 20 000 Lunar lbs.

So 1 RL10 with propellant tankage could bring it in to land on close to full thrust just as long as the whole dry weight came below 24 000 lb (to match its thrust) when it came time to cut the engines.

A BA-330 is 23 metric tons.
The Lunar Base they're suggesting would be 3 BA-330's assembled at EML-1 & landed on the Lunar Surface in one piece as illustrated below.

[ClaytonBirchenough]

Very exciting times! Can't wait to here about the lunar lander demonstrations in the future!

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
But he also needs NASA as a customer. The good news is that NASA seems to be open to the idea of using Bigelow's Alpha Station as either a complement or successor to the ISS.

If you want a simple spacestation to support exploration and transporting people to EML-1/2 and the lunar surface then this two BA-330 design in the diagram could work.

The capsule from Earth would dock on the lower port and the lander dock on the upper port.  People and cargo can wait at the spacestation for a few days until the other vehicle arrives.

A propellant module will also probably be needed to store fuel for the lander.

[Lobo]

I wonder where Bigelow will be getting the $8-10 billion to develop a lunar lander. Someone's accounting is not adding up. Perhaps NASA and the White House should have asked for this type of information from the industry and vetted it before deciding to avoid the Moon. Still it is better late then never.

Incidentally, I was told Bolden/NASA failed to supply the requested overview as to where he got $8-10 billion figure from.

Anyway, that conversation can go on the relevant thread...

That's the number you throw out when you want people to stop asking you about it...

[ChefPat]

A propellant module will also probably be needed to store fuel for the lander.

I've long wondered if a BA-330 can be re tasked into a propellant storage module.

[docmordrid]

Something task specific, possibly smaller?

[Lar]

I think Gerst is playing a long game with this Bigelow gambit. He must know, as the NRC report indicated, that there is zero support for the asteroid thing outside the White House and upper NASA management. But a simple return to a Constellation style return to the moon may be a hard sale as well. This will develop a plan for the next administration to focus back on the moon, but do it in a new, innovative way.

A new innovative way... like cheaper! That would be neat. I wish him luck with his stealth plan. Dubious that the rest of the 'cracy won't deride the costing.

 I have a hard time understanding how leg rockets actually can land the thing though.

[Robert Thompson]

A propellant module will also probably be needed to store fuel for the lander.

I've long wondered if a BA-330 can be re tasked into a propellant storage module.

Interesting reflection of habitable Centaurs. What would you do about the common wall in a Centaur? Or just go with hypergolic? Would you need linings and reinforcements, etc.

[D_Dom]

I have a hard time understanding how leg rockets actually can land the thing though.

I also struggle to understand this configuration. Neat powerpoint slide, I keep reminding myself that just because I never imagined landing a structure that complex doesn't mean it can't happen. I will have to review the internal structure of his inflatables.

[A_M_Swallow]

A propellant module will also probably be needed to store fuel for the lander.

I've long wondered if a BA-330 can be re tasked into a propellant storage module.

Anything is possible but a BA-330 is over kill.  The propellant module just needs a large tank, insulation, a docking port come connector and a solar powered pump.

A luxurious version would have a homing beacon, station keeping engine and an arm to permit berthing.

[A_M_Swallow]

I have a hard time understanding how leg rockets actually can land the thing though.

I also struggle to understand this configuration. Neat powerpoint slide, I keep reminding myself that just because I never imagined landing a structure that complex doesn't mean it can't happen. I will have to review the internal structure of his inflatables.

Alternatively land each of the 3 modules vertically and winch them down to the horizontal.  How heavy an 'A frame' is needed to prevent the module crashing down?

[Orbital Debris]

I have a hard time understanding how leg rockets actually can land the thing though.

I also struggle to understand this configuration. Neat powerpoint slide, I keep reminding myself that just because I never imagined landing a structure that complex doesn't mean it can't happen. I will have to review the internal structure of his inflatables.

There is a simple reason that you and most people struggle to understand the configuration is that you are applying engineering principles to a configuration that was drawn up with any consideration of engineering principles. 
There is apparent when you look at any of the configurations and consider the axis of thrust.  Almost all of them have a configuration that puts the c.g. off the main axis of thrust, which does not make sense.  These artist's representations were created to match RTB's aesthetic, and nothing further. 
You'll notice in the patent application that it only refers to a module of substantial stiffness.  The BA330 is designed with launch loads along the central axis, not cantilevered bending loads, so I don't think it has enough stiffness.  I don't think anywhere in that patent does it reference the connection mechanisms between the modules, which is literally the linch pin when trying to land the complex even in a lunar gravity field.  That is because they don't have mechanism that would stand up to those loads.  Another example is the picture with the Soyuz's attached - that is a very old picture with early concepts due to the fact that was the only capsule at the time, not because there was any agreement to fly Soyuz.

I hope the full report resulting from the SAA is made public, because it will be informative.  However the skeptic in me knows what it will say, here is my prediction (horrible grammar intentional):

Inflatables good.  Lots of history of inflatables.  Bigelow build many inflatables, test much, know much.  Bigelow 2 to 3 years from having on orbit station.  SpaceX, Boeing can get us there if government gives them money.  SLS good, SLS need money.  America need big rocket for commercial space.  Commercial space good, create lots of jobs, Bigelow hire lots of people soon.