Bigelow Habs - How Big Will They Go? Where Will They Go?

[envy887]

Inflatables still allow much larger volumes, though. And BFR only makes them cheaper.

For example, a single BFR launch could lift a 140 tonne, 100 meter deflated Kevlar sphere with 3 mm thick walls (5x safety factor) and a 10 tonne docking port/service/propulsion module. It would take 5 BFR flights of liquid air tanks to pressurize it to 1 atmosphere, but then you have a volume equal to 635 BFSes or 1600 BA-330s. Figuring out how to manufacture that sounds like a Bigelow specialty.

It would take some outfitting to make that volume useful though, unless all you wanted was an orbital bouncy castle

I wholeheartedly agree that inflatables are in principle cheaper.
But, if your inflatable pricing is not in fact cheaper than just using a BFS (and bigelow hasn't shown any enthusiasm for massive cheap stations), you have a significant illogicality.
Even without inflatables, or on-orbit assembly, 8m diameter * 12m aluminium cylinders tested for several cycles of 140PSI is another obvious backstop to pricing, and it's reasonable to ask if bigelow modules will go anywhere.

Bigelow pricing assumes launch on Atlas V at $10,000/kg to LEO. They have not adjusted their pricing for BFR level launch costs, as far as I can tell. It probably doesn't make much sense for them to do that yet.

I think most of the cost and complexity comes from almost everything other than the inflatable part. Once they re-optimize mass, complexity, and cost against $100/kg to LEO, their prices should be very different.

[johnfwhitesell]

With so many things in space it's hard to judge what the proper price is and what is an issue of scaling.

[Roy_H]

Not heard anything from Bigelow for a long time now. I know they stopped development on BA330 because they were waiting for crew capsules to become commercially available. Now that this is imminent, I would have expected increased activity and announcements of launch of BA330 and/or XBase. Anyone know what is going on?

[Tywin]

Not heard anything from Bigelow for a long time now. I know they stopped development on BA330 because they were waiting for crew capsules to become commercially available. Now that this is imminent, I would have expected increased activity and announcements of launch of BA330 and/or XBase. Anyone know what is going on?

I maked the same question the other day...I wait for more info...I wish Bigelow win something with the station Gateway too...

[docmordrid]

Dunno if that's likely with the much larger & well funded Sierra Nevada also offering inflatable habitats.

[JonathanD]

Not heard anything from Bigelow for a long time now. I know they stopped development on BA330 because they were waiting for crew capsules to become commercially available. Now that this is imminent, I would have expected increased activity and announcements of launch of BA330 and/or XBase. Anyone know what is going on?

Based upon some of the stories about that company, I would be surprised if we ever see a self-sustaining inflatable from them.  BEAM was NASA tech basically gifted to them, and has none of the power or life support systems that Bigelow aspirationally proposes for larger habs.  It was an important accomplishment, but I just don't have confidence they can scale that up and add substantial complexity.

[cferreir]

The problem is how do you fill up that empty space. The inflatable concept is great for habitable volume but how do you furnish that space? It would take a lot of launches to send all the necessary hardware up there. Have not done the math. The volume efficiency of sending stuff up to be assembled onto a blow up station might work but, my intuition says that it will be close.

BTW, BIG fan of Bigelow and strongly believe their technology will make space travel better and cheaper.

[A_M_Swallow]

Additional launches and say 2 years to equip the inflatable in space is a large additional cost. Caravans come with built in kitchens. The expandable trailers in the video below also have kitchens and some even have showers. Such amenities would be expected to fold out from the centre column. Internal walls and walkways could also fold out.

[whitelancer64]

Not heard anything from Bigelow for a long time now. I know they stopped development on BA330 because they were waiting for crew capsules to become commercially available. Now that this is imminent, I would have expected increased activity and announcements of launch of BA330 and/or XBase. Anyone know what is going on?

Bigelow has a launch agreement with ULA to launch a B330 on a Vulcan - and per Bigelow's website, the B330 is now listed at 50,000 lb, which is too heavy for an Atlas V to throw into LEO. So they are waiting on Vulcan to become operational, which is ~2021.

XBASE is a mission-specific B330 for the habitat module for the Gateway. Bigelow has not been selected as the contractor for the Gateway habitat, and several other companies are competing for it, so it may never fly.

[docmordrid]

Sierra Nevada's LIFE  module can fit in a 5m fairing and they quote a "minimal mass."  27x27 feet inflated.

https://www.sncorp.com/media/2393/ssg_nextstep-2-bifold_for-web_4-4-18.pdf

[Comga]

[snip]
.. per Bigelow's website, the B330 is now listed at 50,000 lb, which is too heavy for an Atlas V to throw into LEO. So they are waiting on Vulcan to become operational, which is ~2021.
[snip]

Yeah
"they are waiting"
The business case doesn't close until a new larger rocket is built by someone else.
Sure
Cue the

[spacenut]

Wouldn't conversion of expended upper stages be just as easy or cheaper to use than a Bigelow hab?  Both would have to have interior spaces that would require building rooms or work stations inside.  Both would require a docking port to bring things inside.  A large 5m upper stage or even a 3.7m upper stage would work. 

[docmordrid]

Bogelows time may have come and gone, and requiring a Class 3 fairing doesn't help.

Sierra Nevada's 300 m3 LIFE expandable, proposed for the Gateway hab,

https://www.sncorp.com/what-we-do/space-exploration/

Flexible launch options; compatible with Space Launch Systems (SLS) or five-meter fairing commercial launch vehicles.
>
Minimal mass and volume for efficient packaging in five-meter fairing on commercial launch vehicle.

[Lar]

What's the FH fairing size? I thought it was JUST short of 5M?

[DigitalMan]

What's the FH fairing size? I thought it was JUST short of 5M?

I think it is 4.6 meters x 11 meters inside

[intelati]

What's the FH fairing size? I thought it was JUST short of 5M?

I think it is 4.6 meters x 11 meters inside

4.6x6.4 narrowing linearly to 1.45m at the last 4.6m

[speedevil]

4.6x6.4 narrowing linearly to 1.45m at the last 4.6m

The Starlink launch was without accoustic matting, and that (if your payload can take the noise) may take it to 4.8 rather than the nominal 4.6.
The actual structure interior diameter is unspecified in the manual beyond that it's less than 5.2m-2" (there will be considerable intrusions from various hardware  beyond this)

[happyflower]

Bogelows time may have come and gone, and requiring a Class 3 fairing doesn't help.

Sierra Nevada's 300 m3 LIFE expandable, proposed for the Gateway hab,

https://www.sncorp.com/what-we-do/space-exploration/

Flexible launch options; compatible with Space Launch Systems (SLS) or five-meter fairing commercial launch vehicles.
>
Minimal mass and volume for efficient packaging in five-meter fairing on commercial launch vehicle.

I don't see how SNC is further along than BA (especially in ECLSS since neither has anything built). Although you are right to point out the fairing size issue, however, if anything, the case can be made that the BA team has more experience than the SNC team. maybe I am being a bit naive, but I really want to see RB succeed.

[Comga]

Bogelows time may have come and gone, and requiring a Class 3 fairing doesn't help.

Sierra Nevada's 300 m3 LIFE expandable, proposed for the Gateway hab,

https://www.sncorp.com/what-we-do/space-exploration/

Flexible launch options; compatible with Space Launch Systems (SLS) or five-meter fairing commercial launch vehicles.
>
Minimal mass and volume for efficient packaging in five-meter fairing on commercial launch vehicle.

I don't see how SNC is further along than BA (especially in ECLSS since neither has anything built). Although you are right to point out the fairing size issue, however, if anything, the case can be made that the BA team has more experience than the SNC team. maybe I am being a bit naive, but I really want to see RB succeed.

The case cannot be made that those with experience gained at BA are still with the firm.
There has been a LOT of turnover.
Saying SNC is a lot more professionally managed understates the issue.

I, too, was glad Bigelow brought back inflatables or expandables, and was pleased to see their early progress.
It just wasn't sustainable in the environment he created.
It was important for Bigelow to succeed when he was the only one doing it.
He proved that it could be done, but there are now alternative suppliers. 

[sanman]

SNC's hab seems to be framed in the context of the Lunar Orbital Gateway. Are there any plans to use it for anything else?

Also, I thought Bigelow had licensed the fundamental technology from NASA, which developed it as TransHab. So has SNC developed their tech from scratch, or did they also license TransHab technology?

At least Bigelow's BEAM module has been tested aboard the ISS. Will there be any similar attempts for SNC's module?