Bigelow AerospaceVerified account @BigelowSpace10:23 AM - 8 Feb 2018Commercial space is not just about hardware, itís about doing business differently. Bigelow Aerospace is ready to lead that charge. More details coming soon... http://www.bigelowspaceops.com
Also have launch mass for these habitats. NG could easily support 8.4m fairing but couldn't deliver 70t of BA2100. If fully expendable with maybe some SRBs eg GEM63XL it could do it. Would be expensive launch but cheaper than SLS.
Cargo BFS as rendered at 2017 IAC will not fit B2100 because of the way the spacecraft tapers. It can fit a 7m diameter by 7m long payload. Anything longer than 7m in length needs to be skinnier in diameter.
Dave Mosher, Business Insider: "Hi, Dave Mosher from Business Insider. Thank you so much for doing this, by the way. I want to go back to BFR for a second since you were talking about that. ...."Elon Musk: ".....The BFR, 9 meter diameter, 30 feet roughly. Diameter. Which is, yeah, you can fit a lot in 30 feet diameter. 110, 120 meters long. Yeah. Big.....
Quote from: butters on 02/10/2018 09:05 pmCargo BFS as rendered at 2017 IAC will not fit B2100 because of the way the spacecraft tapers. It can fit a 7m diameter by 7m long payload. Anything longer than 7m in length needs to be skinnier in diameter.BA-2100 is said to require an 8 meter fairing, indicating somewhat less than that internally. Are we 100% sure that in a BFS's 9 meter hull the walls are >1 meter thick?
>>Dude, just look at the thing. It's not an cylindrical, axisymmetric volume. It flattens like a wedge and tapers to a rounded nose for reentry aerodynamic reasons. BA-2100 was designed with an 8m cylindrical volume in mind. BFS is not a cylindrical volume. It can hold 8-9m diameter payloads, but only it they have a short and squat aspect ratio.
I can see Musk rounding 106m to 110m, but that 120m comment is another matter.
Quote from: docmordrid on 02/11/2018 07:34 pmI can see Musk rounding 106m to 110m, but that 120m comment is another matter.My guess is he meant to say feet. Musk looked exhausted and was trying to answer the question in the engineering units he probably actually knew to colloquial units for the press. If he meant to say "120 ft" having converted the units, but then said the wrong unit while trying to do the math in his head, then that might make more sense: 36m long sounds a lot more like the design we saw most recently. Certainly less strangely shaped than a 9m x 120m cargo bay would be.
Personally, and I know this isnít exactly the right thread for this, Iím surprised Bigelow didnít develop their habs with fairing integrated, so that...Then the LV provider doesnít need to provide a fairing. It will, of course, have to work with Bigelow to ensure the design will fly stably on the LV through all modes of flight, but with the level of sophistication that currently exists with simulation and modeling, I think this is quite doable.
>Because Bigelow habs seemed to be designed with minimal propulsion meant mainly for station-keeping, they're seen primarily as suitable for space stations. Could they be used as manned deep space vessels, perhaps after some modifications? What kind of modifications would be required?
It's too bad that a large interplanetary-class rocket like BFR (or New Armstrong, etc) can't be equipped with some kind of temporary Bigelow-style expanding hab section. Because then shortly after the rocket leaves the atmosphere, the hab section could expand outward to provide much more habitation space during transit to a far location like Mars. Then as it nears that destination, perhaps the hab could be re-compressed again, before the vehicle undergoes EDL. Then after landing, maybe the hab section could be expanded again, to provide a roomier space on Mars.Because Bigelow habs seemed to be designed with minimal propulsion meant mainly for station-keeping, they're seen primarily as suitable for space stations. Could they be used as manned deep space vessels, perhaps after some modifications? What kind of modifications would be required?