Affordable habitats means more Buck Rogers for less money says Bigelow

[Jcc]

I wonder how Bigalow pays their employees currently. Is BEAM the only source of income? Investor money?

I love how they dream big, and I thing many of these ideas will be realized, although maybe not only by Bigalow.
What would stop China or Russia from developing inflatable modules?

SpaceX appears to the the wake up call for the space industry and nations that pay for it to restructure to dramatically lower costs. Bigalow has the same message but they are not flying hardware and taking billions in contracts. They are trying to be in the position to so that if cheap space transport and higher ambitions really takes hold.

[kevin-rf]

Well, there aren't too many NASA programs that have remained in limbo for 10+ years, like the BA orbital space platform.

From concept to launch Gravity Probe B was how many decades again?

[Lar]

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?

No, far more stringent standards should apply for NASA.

Stay on topic.

[cro-magnon gramps]

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

[Herb Schaltegger]

This is a well-written article and you have to hand it to Bigelow for grandiosity.

But many people don't realize that people at JSC were pushing inflatable modules as replacements for the extant designs for the Lab/Hab/Nodes/International modules  during the final restructurings of the Space Station Freedom program in the early 90's; this idea has been around for LONG time.

As someone else wondered, how does Bigelow pay his people? What is their source of income to keep generating new concepts to pitch?

[mheney]

Bigelow is in many ways a lower-keyed Elon Musk.  (Of course, almost anyone is low-keyed compared to Musk ...)
He founded Budget Suites and makde his forune there; according to Wikipedia (the premier source of all apocryphal knowledge),

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.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

But many people don't realize that people at JSC were pushing inflatable modules [...]

Yes, Bigelow Aerospace started when Robert Bigelow read an article about the earlier NASA work and was able to do a deal with NASA to use that work commercially.

As someone else wondered, how does Bigelow pay his people? What is their source of income to keep generating new concepts to pitch?

Bigelow is almost entirely self-funded from the fortune he made in real estate etc. But not clear how much longer those funds will last.

[yg1968]

Bigelow said that he has invested $250M into Bigelow Aerospace and he is ready to invest another $250M but that is it after that.

[yg1968]

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

We had also written an article that summarized the first press conference:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/space-station-moon-base-bigelows-expands-inflatable-ambitions/

[yg1968]

I mention in the article that the BA 330-DS can either be launched by the FH or the Atlas V 552. I didn't mention it in the article but the same launch vehicles can be used for launching the BA 330 to LEO according to the Gate 2 Report.

[oiorionsbelt]

Well, there aren't too many NASA programs that have remained in limbo for 10+ years, like the BA orbital space platform.

No, but I'm glad there was a billionaire like Bigelow to keep one of those NASA programs alive long after budget cuts would have sent it to the scrap heap of obscurity. This program, inflatable habitats, may be approaching it's time.

[HIP2BSQRE]

NASA received a report from Bigelow - could one do a freedom of information request to get an electronic version?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

NASA received a report from Bigelow - could one do a freedom of information request to get an electronic version?

NASA didn't pay anything for the report (so no tax payer funds involved) and it's full of proprietary (commercially sensitive) information. So I believe it'll be exempt from FOI requests?

[plank]

As always the articles on the main pages are great and filled with refreshing incite, news and knowledge. Is there a preview of part two of the article?   Basically whats it going to be about? Are there more modules and the like or just an overview?  Because in my opinion the more interesting stuff has already been presented.

[yg1968]

NASA received a report from Bigelow - could one do a freedom of information request to get an electronic version?

There is no electronic version. Only paper versions.

[Go4TLI]

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.

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.

I can't comment on if people are happy or not.  But much of what you said is not quite true, if certain design and/or environmental requirements are satisfied. 

There is nothing inherently dangerous with standing (or floating) next to a stable hypergol system.  I did it for years and have only minor involuntary twitches and spasms now and then, haha. 

If a leak happens, in a closed environment, that is a completely different story.  It could literally mean death not to mention what impact hyper prop would have on the materials and hardware in the hab.  However, that goes back to the design of the system and the environment in which the vehicle is "stored" during non-op periods and the level of risk deemed to be appropriate.

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.  In-module active maneuvering by the vehicle would be a bad idea as the exhaust gases would not be ideal, plume impingement, etc. 

[Elmar Moelzer]

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. 

Ropes, pulleys, we are in zero gravity after all.

[dcporter]

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?

Edit: D'oh yup, 'hidden' two posts up from mine. Thanks Elmar.

[Elmar Moelzer]

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?

But people have... Just above
It is indeed one of the big issues with the concept. I think it is more of a provocative concept study (like a concept car) than anything else.

[JasonAW3]

From 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.

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.