The picture of the Olympus carrier module was a bit of a shock. Would you want to bring a spacecraft with (I assume) live thrusters inside? Even inhibited from operating, they could leak. Seems some provisions for purging would have to be created.
Bigelow will have to recruit a lot of people to make those spacecraft. IMHO He should have accurate cost estimates when a BA-330 has been in use in LEO for a year.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/07/2014 05:40 pmBigelow will have to recruit a lot of people to make those spacecraft. IMHO He should have accurate cost estimates when a BA-330 has been in use in LEO for a year.I hope no one here expects that Bigelow is actually going to build any of this stuff.Be prepared to see iterations of these cartoons over the years.As for "BA-330 being in use", there are no concrete plans today for that to happen.
Nice written and presented Yves!
Bigelow is building the BEAM for NASA. His website shows a vacancy for an ECLSS specialist. He has orbited 2 unmanned space stations. He has subcontracted and fired a thruster suitable for station keeping. First flights of manned Dragon, CST-100 and Dream Chaser spacecraft are 3 - 4 years away.I would say there was a reasonable chance Bigelow Aerospace would build a BA-330 if someone gave them a contract.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/07/2014 06:25 pmBigelow is building the BEAM for NASA. His website shows a vacancy for an ECLSS specialist. He has orbited 2 unmanned space stations. He has subcontracted and fired a thruster suitable for station keeping. First flights of manned Dragon, CST-100 and Dream Chaser spacecraft are 3 - 4 years away.I would say there was a reasonable chance Bigelow Aerospace would build a BA-330 if someone gave them a contract.If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.We have had people here posting for almost 10 years that BA was just about ready to fly a large platform IF "X" were to happen.All I am saying is that X hasn't happened, and so Bigelow has no concrete plans to fly any of those concepts.I am not saying that Bigelow won't fly subscale models, or build mockups, or more new buildings until X happens.
Great article Chris! Very happy to see that Bigelow is considering the FH as a means to transport the large modules into space. That could make the project a lot more affordable and realistic from a financial point of view.Would it be possible to have larger versions of the pictures?
Taking Bigelow at his word, X = cheap Soyuz or commercial crew.
Since Soyuz is becoming more expensive as time passes, if we were to trace back to the time when Soyuz WAS cheap, back in the 1990s, then that is when Bigelow presumably should have flown his modules.There is little evidence that a future "commercial crew" vehicle would have seat costs low enough to warrant a space platform to accommodate passengers or research. The numbers don't add up.
Quote from: dcporter on 02/07/2014 07:56 pmTaking Bigelow at his word, X = cheap Soyuz or commercial crew. Since Soyuz is becoming more expensive as time passes, if we were to trace back to the time when Soyuz WAS cheap, back in the 1990s, then that is when Bigelow presumably should have flown his modules.There is little evidence that a future "commercial crew" vehicle would have seat costs low enough to warrant a space platform to accommodate passengers or research. The numbers don't add up.
Is there any way of finding larger versions of the pictures that they had in the article?I'd like to have a better look at what he has in mind before I say anything about the article.
Mr. Gold also noted that Bigelow is currently in negotiation with NASA for further activities and is cautiously optimistic that they will be able to make an announcement soon.
From the article:QuoteMr. Gold also noted that Bigelow is currently in negotiation with NASA for further activities and is cautiously optimistic that they will be able to make an announcement soon.This is interesting if true. What near-term "further activities" might they be discussing?
Didn't Space Adventures claim at some point that they have more interest than they can currently serve?
I hope no one here expects that Bigelow is actually going to build any of this stuff.Be prepared to see iterations of these cartoons over the years.As for "BA-330 being in use", there are no concrete plans today for that to happen.
Bigelow is building the BEAM for NASA.
Quote from: Danderman on 02/07/2014 06:02 pmI hope no one here expects that Bigelow is actually going to build any of this stuff.Be prepared to see iterations of these cartoons over the years.As for "BA-330 being in use", there are no concrete plans today for that to happen.So how is that any different than all the NASA programs over the last few decades. The BA-330 is in good company, wouldn't you say?They are clearly in idle mode biding their time until a customer appears. I hope one will - either NASA or commercial.
Enjoyed reading the artical, waiting for part 2.Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/07/2014 06:25 pmBigelow is building the BEAM for NASA. I take that this is the demo unit, to be eventually attached to the ISS.Has anyone heard any estimates, on when this will fly to the ISS?
Quote from: Danderman on 02/07/2014 06:02 pmI hope no one here expects that Bigelow is actually going to build any of this stuff.Be prepared to see iterations of these cartoons over the years.As for "BA-330 being in use", there are no concrete plans today for that to happen.So how is that any different than all the NASA programs over the last few decades. The BA-330 is in good company, wouldn't you say?
Well, there aren't too many NASA programs that have remained in limbo for 10+ years, like the BA orbital space platform.
The issue then becomes do we really want to judge private companies by the same standards as NASA, when it comes to making public proposals?
In 2013, Bigelow indicated that the reason he went into the commercial real estate business was to obtain the requisite resources to be able to fund a team developing space destinations.
But many people don't realize that people at JSC were pushing inflatable modules [...]
As someone else wondered, how does Bigelow pay his people? What is their source of income to keep generating new concepts to pitch?
I am listening to the announcement of the Space Act Agreement between NASA and Bigelow Aerospace; I think it would be informative if people on this thread stood back and listened again to what was being discussed as the reason for and the what was looked for in the SAA. This from the key players at NASA, Bill Gerstenmaier and at Bigelow Aerospace, Bob Bigelow. To be informed, is to be knowledgeable and to be knowledgeable, is to be intelligent..... Regarding customers for Bigelow Aerospace, this is a quote from Yves impressive article:Despite these attractive prices, Bigelow confirmed – during the press conference that followed the release of the Gate 2 report – that no agreement has yet been signed with customers for his BA-330 but he indicated that this was on purpose. He said that until commercial crew is ready, he cannot finalize any contract with potential customers.edit, forgot the link to the audio presentation
NASA received a report from Bigelow - could one do a freedom of information request to get an electronic version?
Quote from: DMeader on 02/07/2014 05:23 pmThe picture of the Olympus carrier module was a bit of a shock. Would you want to bring a spacecraft with (I assume) live thrusters inside? Even inhibited from operating, they could leak. Seems some provisions for purging would have to be created.The reason people are unhappy about the Olympus Carrier is that rocket fuels are very dangerous and are likely to kill the astronauts. Some propellants, including hydrazine, are poisonous. Even non-toxic ones like hydrogen and methane can burn in oxygen. Consequently astronauts will have to wear spacesuits when working on fuel tanks and engines. It is easier and safer to leave the spaceship outside and work on it using robotic arms.A space dock will need a control and living cabin to house the repair astronauts. See the attached picture for a suggestion.The ability to bring a cabinet full of electronics inside may be useful. Possibly even an engine, providing all the fuel has been vented to space first. Arms will still be needed to insert and remove the item being repaired.
The more interesting scenario that nobody has mentioned so far is how the vehicle gets from the airlock to the docking port seen in the slide.
I'm interested that nobody's calling out hydrazine toxicity with the indoor Dragons. Is it sort of assumed that nontoxic dracos are on SpaceX's roadmap somewhere?
Wouldn't it be possible to unload the fuel at the external dock into some storage system and decontaminate, then take it in?
Quote from: mfck on 02/10/2014 05:15 pmWouldn't it be possible to unload the fuel at the external dock into some storage system and decontaminate, then take it in?Anything is possible, but is it worth while?
Quote from: Space Junkie on 02/07/2014 10:40 pmFrom the article:QuoteMr. Gold also noted that Bigelow is currently in negotiation with NASA for further activities and is cautiously optimistic that they will be able to make an announcement soon.This is interesting if true. What near-term "further activities" might they be discussing?My guess, probably the Asteroid Mission that the president seems so fixated upon.
Diring the November press conference, Gerst was asked if the Bigelow tugs could be useful for the asteroid capture mission, he said no, NASA is trying to push SEP and improved solar arrays for the asteroid capture mission, so they are not looking for a commercial tug.
I don't think we should take that drawing in any way seriously. There are many other issues with the concept. For instance, where are the Dragon trunks? No trunks...no solar panels...no power. Just about any spacecraft would have protruding booms/panels/antennas that would make fitting through the airlock problematical.
Quote from: yg1968 on 02/10/2014 05:34 pmDiring the November press conference, Gerst was asked if the Bigelow tugs could be useful for the asteroid capture mission, he said no, NASA is trying to push SEP and improved solar arrays for the asteroid capture mission, so they are not looking for a commercial tug. Hmm. The tugs have a habitat. So if NASA wants astronauts to stay at the captured asteroid for several weeks a tug could be used as living quarters and field laboratory. However that would be a later mission.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/10/2014 05:39 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 02/10/2014 05:34 pmDiring the November press conference, Gerst was asked if the Bigelow tugs could be useful for the asteroid capture mission, he said no, NASA is trying to push SEP and improved solar arrays for the asteroid capture mission, so they are not looking for a commercial tug. Hmm. The tugs have a habitat. So if NASA wants astronauts to stay at the captured asteroid for several weeks a tug could be used as living quarters and field laboratory. However that would be a later mission.I think that Gerst meant that the spacecraft capture tug wouldn't be used to capture the asteroid for that mission.
Quote from: mfck on 02/10/2014 05:15 pmWouldn't it be possible to unload the fuel at the external dock into some storage system and decontaminate, then take it in?When speaking about hypers, it's not just fuel (MMH typically) but also the oxidizer (N2O4). Both are quite toxic when exposed to the right levels.Is that possible, sure, but also problematic due to all the necessary equipment, storage tanks, time to load/unload, etc. Also these are pressure fed systems. Once of the easiest ways of "safing" the tanks are to isolate the high pressure system from the prop tanks. One could then vent the respective prop tank ullage so there is no further driving force should a leak occur (outside of some much smaller pad pressure). However even this would require a umbilical to the spacecraft and a way to properly vent the gas as it would also contain hyper vapors.
Supposing we are still in vacuum on the outer side of the habitat entry airlock, proper venting does not seem too problematic, or does it? As for the umbilical, I recon they'd have some sort of it anyway, like a robotic arm, for many other purposes as well as for actually getting the incoming craft into the airlock (I am assuming they won't rely solely on the propulsion to enter an airlock of a habitat containing functional humanoids. Maybe I am too cautious in my assumptions though)
Quote from: mfck on 02/10/2014 06:34 pmSupposing we are still in vacuum on the outer side of the habitat entry airlock, proper venting does not seem too problematic, or does it? As for the umbilical, I recon they'd have some sort of it anyway, like a robotic arm, for many other purposes as well as for actually getting the incoming craft into the airlock (I am assuming they won't rely solely on the propulsion to enter an airlock of a habitat containing functional humanoids. Maybe I am too cautious in my assumptions though)It is actually. Because now you are not just venting the ullage in a controlled manner to some lesser pressure. You are exposing the entire tank to vacuum and very well could damage any propellant acquisition device (such as screens) if they are in there. Remember there are no g-forces to settle the prop in any particular manner. So just opening up to vac, beyond potentially damaging hardware, could easily suck not only the ullage but the prop out of the tank. Honestly, I am not familiar with the Dragon design to know if it uses screens, a bladder or some other method to pressurize the prop tank. But as you can see it would be a complicated process, one that seems unnecessary. Just keep them externally docked.
Propellant tanks are not just "empty tanks" with prop sitting inside them. They have to have a method to get the prop to the engines that will use them. In other words a constant flow of liquid prop (no gas, etc) to meet the mixture ratio the engine is designed to operate at. These are commonly referred to as Propellant Acquisition Devices. So what I was saying earlier to vent a prop tank in the vacuum of space where there are no g-forces to settle the prop from the ullage is difficult. Just "opening it up" could damage the prop acquisition device (whatever method is used).
Go4TLI, am I correct in assuming that your work next to a hypergol system would not have been possible if the system had recently fired and not been decontaminated?
most spacecraft use diaphrams
{snip}I'm not sure what you mean by "decontaminating". There was none of that done ever to the system unless we were intentionally breaking into the system.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 02/10/2014 05:00 pmQuote from: Space Junkie on 02/07/2014 10:40 pmFrom the article:QuoteMr. Gold also noted that Bigelow is currently in negotiation with NASA for further activities and is cautiously optimistic that they will be able to make an announcement soon.This is interesting if true. What near-term "further activities" might they be discussing?My guess, probably the Asteroid Mission that the president seems so fixated upon.During the November press conference, Gerst was asked if the Bigelow tugs could be useful for the asteroid capture mission, he said no, NASA is trying to push SEP and improved solar arrays technology for the asteroid capture mission, so they are not looking for a commercial tug.
Quote from: dcporter on 02/10/2014 07:39 pmGo4TLI, am I correct in assuming that your work next to a hypergol system would not have been possible if the system had recently fired and not been decontaminated?No. I was standing next to the orbiter within an hour or so of the engines (OME and thrusters) after they last fired. I was certainly standing next to them within several hours to a day after we went into the OPF and did not have plugs installed, etc. We did of course verify there were no gross leaks.I'm not sure what you mean by "decontaminating". There was none of that done ever to the system unless we were intentionally breaking into the system.
How likely is it that Draco/SD could be adapted to use H2O2/alcohol?
Better to start from scratch.
Quote from: Jim on 02/11/2014 01:09 pmBetter to start from scratch.The phrase "methane superdracos" pops up pretty regularly round these parts. I have a feeling that people think of superdracos as any engine that fits in the side of a Dragon and works as both a LAS and as landing engines. Is it realistic to expect an engine to be developed that isn't hypergolic (assuming still that having hypergols in an enclosed zero-g space station is bad) but can handle the (very different) needs of a LAS and landing engines?
Quote from: dcporter on 02/11/2014 01:50 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/11/2014 01:09 pmBetter to start from scratch.The phrase "methane superdracos" pops up pretty regularly round these parts. I have a feeling that people think of superdracos as any engine that fits in the side of a Dragon and works as both a LAS and as landing engines. Is it realistic to expect an engine to be developed that isn't hypergolic (assuming still that having hypergols in an enclosed zero-g space station is bad) but can handle the (very different) needs of a LAS and landing engines?For that purpose it would have to be a pressure fed engine. I would guess that a turbo engine cannot spin up fast enough to do a launch abort. It would need a very efficient ignition, maybe laser initiated? Methane, because it is what they would use for MCT. But what about the oxidizer? Could H2O2 be used? I imagine it would be difficult to store LOX in a Dragon at ISS doing life boat function.
Trying to retrofit this into dragon, would likely alter the mass properties of the vehicle leading to even more design changes.
I highly doubt this is being considered just to validate a conceptual picture of a couple of *notional* Dragon vehicles sitting inside a TBD giant balloon in space.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 02/11/2014 02:08 pmTrying to retrofit this into dragon, would likely alter the mass properties of the vehicle leading to even more design changes.Just clarification for others, he means the H2O2/alcohol tanks would have different mass properties than the current NTO/MMH tanks due to different mixture ratios and fluid densities.
I still have hopes that Bigelow Aerospace, via the BEAM project, will progress from FauxCAD to real CAD to real hardware to flying hardware, but so far I think these pictures are mostly begging for the appropriate sized grain of salt.
Yeah, swapping propellants on a tightly intregrated vehicle like Dragon would be very tough.IIRC while NTO/MMH results in tanks that are close to the same size, HTP/Alcohol should have a very high O/F ratio, and with how much denser HTP is than Alcohol to start with would result in very different tank size, valve sizes, etc. Even for an open-frame vehicle like Xombie that would be a nontrivial change, but for a tightly structurally integrated vehicle like Dragon, you'd like be redesigning very significant parts of the vehicle.What Jim and GO4TLI said--ain't likely to happen.~Jon
To be fair, it's been so long since Genesis I and II went up that we tend to forget their existence. But they're still there, and they do certainly qualify as flying hardware. In some respects BEAM is a big step forward, but it's only slightly larger than either of the Genesis modules.
A move to a nitrous monoprop or biprop would also fulfill the artist's conception. SpaceX is certainly aware of NOFBX, if it doesn't turn out to be an explosive.
IIRC while NTO/MMH results in tanks that are close to the same size, HTP/Alcohol should have a very high O/F ratio, and with how much denser HTP is than Alcohol to start with would result in very different tank size, valve sizes, etc.
For that purpose it would have to be a pressure fed engine. I would guess that a turbo engine cannot spin up fast enough to do a launch abort. It would need a very efficient ignition, maybe laser initiated? Methane, because it is what they would use for MCT. But what about the oxidizer? Could H2O2 be used? I imagine it would be difficult to store LOX in a Dragon at ISS doing life boat function.
Quote from: jongoff on 02/11/2014 02:46 pmIIRC while NTO/MMH results in tanks that are close to the same size, HTP/Alcohol should have a very high O/F ratio, and with how much denser HTP is than Alcohol to start with would result in very different tank size, valve sizes, etc.I really liked the idea of HTP/IPA until someone (Ben Brockert?) pointed out that if you mix them, you get what's called a Sprengel explosive.
More seriously, and this may be a bit off topic, will the desire for a shirtsleeve environment drive changes in propellants used (or other aspects of spacecraft design) even a little? I would think, today, that the answer would be no...
Quote from: Lar on 02/11/2014 06:43 pmMore seriously, and this may be a bit off topic, will the desire for a shirtsleeve environment drive changes in propellants used (or other aspects of spacecraft design) even a little? I would think, today, that the answer would be no... I believe we are a long way off from that and the missions we are looking at in the nearer term are not going to require auxiliary craft like shuttles on the starship Enterprise. There are a couple of reasons I say that. 1. Is there really a need to do repairs, etc to these vehicles? Today on ISS, they remain docked externally docked/berthed for long periods in quiescent mode. 2. Look at the ISS itself and other vehicles that came before it to a certain extent. Repairs, mods and general sustaining tasks are done all the time (especially internally on ISS) but the vehicles were all designed from the outset to have this work done in-flight (more generically referred to as IFM, or In Flight Maintenance). 3. Does Bigelow or anyone else have a true requirement that drives the necessity for these changes? Certainly none that I have heard or can foresee and Bigelow or someone is then responsible for footing the bill. At that time it will be interesting to see if this is a true requirement when the sticker shock hits. Summing it up, there is literally no need to have these vehicles, whatever they may be, located internally to the larger craft. From the data available, it introduces far more complications than any benefit it provides.
The BA-330 will use the appropriate NASA Docking Systems (“NDS”) to support visiting vehicles, in order to attach multiple modules.
I have a question about this photo.In the article is writtenQuote The BA-330 will use the appropriate NASA Docking Systems (“NDS”) to support visiting vehicles, in order to attach multiple modules. Soyuz uses APAS-95 docking system, not NDS. Is it a mistake with sojuz docked to the Biglewo station?
old picture
Please, you know what i mean.If Sojuz can docked there, american's ships could not.
Soyuz uses APAS-95 docking system, not NDS.
Quote from: kicaj on 02/15/2014 09:52 amSoyuz uses APAS-95 docking system, not NDS. No.
He [Gerst] explained that the next step beyond the ISS will be a crew-tended habitat in cis-lunar space. It builds off the ARM and the ISS and allows for Mars operational strategies to be developed.
