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

[Kansan52]

Couple of things come to mind, Genesis I and Genesis II.

Also, the original concept had the equipment preinstalled in a central column that was surrounded by the expandable structure.

[DecoLV]

So...there is a conversation nobody seems to be having much, which is the commercial financial support for passengers. We sort of assume that initial Bigelow habitats would be used for science, for crews riding Dragon or SS or Starliner, for example. But especially when you get into space hotel fantasies you wonder who will pay for it. Thing is, you actually might be able to, IF passengers rode on the same vehicle as a payload. If the flight for a comsat or other payload would happen anyway, then the passengers are effectively subsidized, at least for the trip. So how come we haven't seen rocket architectures for dual purpose cargo-and-humans? Starship could probably do it, and actually would have to for a Mars journey. So why not LEO as well?

[meberbs]

So...there is a conversation nobody seems to be having much, which is the commercial financial support for passengers. We sort of assume that initial Bigelow habitats would be used for science, for crews riding Dragon or SS or Starliner, for example. But especially when you get into space hotel fantasies you wonder who will pay for it. Thing is, you actually might be able to, IF passengers rode on the same vehicle as a payload. If the flight for a comsat or other payload would happen anyway, then the passengers are effectively subsidized, at least for the trip. So how come we haven't seen rocket architectures for dual purpose cargo-and-humans? Starship could probably do it, and actually would have to for a Mars journey. So why not LEO as well?

You would need a reasonable number of satellites going to the same orbit as the space station. There just isn't a use case where that makes a lot of sense. (Some cube sats and demo missions that don't really care about orbit have launched from the ISS, but that is for the reasonable rideshare price for them on a fully paid for ISS flight, the inverse of what you are talking about) Any extra capacity on the launch is generally better used for supplies for the station.

Starship is an entirely separate can of worms, it is so big you start asking questions like "why bother having a separate space station, just outfit the Starship for a 6 or 12 month mission." There actually has been plans for cargo plus crew for Artemis stuff, but that is just a way to showhorn in the SLS capacity, and isn't actually a good architecture, especially given the SLS cost.

[DecoLV]

Good point, but one commonality is GTO, and that raises the potential for human eyes in a specific place (YOUR place) as a use case. (Sort of like the old MOL, ha ha). Just thinking out loud....something like fire spotting or atmospherics that you would normally use NOAA or similar  sats, but don't want or can't use those assets?

Now, getting a B330 into GTO is a whole other matter...

[meberbs]

Good point, but one commonality is GTO, and that raises the potential for human eyes in a specific place (YOUR place) as a use case. (Sort of like the old MOL, ha ha). Just thinking out loud....something like fire spotting or atmospherics that you would normally use NOAA or similar  sats, but don't want or can't use those assets?

Now, getting a B330 into GTO is a whole other matter...

Do you mean GTO or GEO? (GTO=geosynchronous transfer orbit, GEO=geosynchronous orbit) Many satellites initially deploy to GTO to get to GEO, but you would not put a manned station there because constantly passing through the van Allen belts is not a good idea. There really isn't a good reason to ever stay in GTO for an extended time period.

If you meant GEO, the problem is not just getting the station there, but also the regular flights. GEO comsats only go to GTO for initial injection because the rockets generally can't direct inject them to GEO, while some satellites do get directly injected into GEO, there certainly wouldn't be spare capacity for a crew to ride along.

[DecoLV]

Do you mean GTO or GEO? (GTO=geosynchronous transfer orbit, GEO=geosynchronous orbit)

I did actually mean to say GEO. I know the difference, but I get distracted by the thought of comsats looking fine with three deuces and a 4-speed.

[groundbound]

Do you mean GTO or GEO? (GTO=geosynchronous transfer orbit, GEO=geosynchronous orbit)

I did actually mean to say GEO. I know the difference, but I get distracted by the thought of comsats looking fine with three deuces and a 4-speed.

FWIW, in early 2020 I don't think there exists any possible combination of launch vehicle and crew vehicle that can even get to GEO, let alone carry enough propellant to return. Certainly there are paper rockets and paper capsules that can do it, but that has always been true since the 1960s.

[JonathanD]

FWIW, in early 2020 I don't think there exists any possible combination of launch vehicle and crew vehicle that can even get to GEO, let alone carry enough propellant to return. Certainly there are paper rockets and paper capsules that can do it, but that has always been true since the 1960s.

F9 second stage has demonstrated the coast capability to get there.  I'm sure if you threw it and Dragon on top of a Falcon Heavy it could get there, but getting home might be more of a challenge, especially now that the Super Dracos are an "all or nothing" proposition.

[Zed_Noir]

FWIW, in early 2020 I don't think there exists any possible combination of launch vehicle and crew vehicle that can even get to GEO, let alone carry enough propellant to return. Certainly there are paper rockets and paper capsules that can do it, but that has always been true since the 1960s.

F9 second stage has demonstrated the coast capability to get there.  I'm sure if you threw it and Dragon on top of a Falcon Heavy it could get there, but getting home might be more of a challenge, especially now that the Super Dracos are an "all or nothing" proposition.

If tossing up a Dragon to GEO with a Falcon Heavy. You don't need the Super Dracos to get back. Just need a propulsion module with enough Hypergolics and a ring of the regular Dracos added to the Dragon stack.

Of course there is no reason developed the propulsion module with the development of the Starship.

[PM3]

Isn't Bigelow rather obsolete, now that NASA has replaced them by Axiom - for both, ISS tourism and the commercial space station? How should Bigelow compete with that?

[Kansan52]

Isn't Bigelow rather obsolete, now that NASA has replaced them by Axiom - for both, ISS tourism and the commercial space station? How should Bigelow compete with that?

Depends on the size of the market. If there is room for only one (Axiom) the no room for Genesis. If the market needs more, than a Genesis freeflyer could be the solution.

[Tomness]

Isn't Bigelow rather obsolete, now that NASA has replaced them by Axiom - for both, ISS tourism and the commercial space station? How should Bigelow compete with that?

Bigelow needs to stop fireing people. Listen to the engineers. Build a better business model. Finish BA-330 & BA-3000? Launch then both & marvel team up with Axiom build a bad a** space station. I don't see why BA-330 can't be added on to Axiom station on ISS before it's retired.

[meberbs]

Isn't Bigelow rather obsolete, now that NASA has replaced them by Axiom - for both, ISS tourism and the commercial space station? How should Bigelow compete with that?

They explicitly chose not to compete for those. They intend to compete for the free-flyling station contract. As far as I know, nanoracks is the other plausible contender for that contract. Apparently they decided not to compete for the attached to ISS contract because they misinterpreted the amount of money NASA projected as available for the total of both contracts as a hard cap. That logic doesn't make sense to me though, since even without them competing for it, Axiom still is getting money for the attached to ISS portion, so the available budget for the free flyer is still reduced by whatever Axiom is getting.

https://spacenews.com/bigelow-aerospace-sets-sights-on-free-flying-station-after-passing-on-iss-commercial-module/

[Roy_H]

My proposal on what Bigelow should be aiming for attached.

[Comga]

My proposal on what Bigelow should be aiming for attached.

OK, but what's the point?



edit: SO because Bigelow could not launch a single BA-330, their goal should be to launch a construct with 56 of them?

[ChefPat]

Now that Inspiration 4 has been a success Space X says that they're getting more requests for flights than they can accommodate for the next 3 years. Will this level of interest be enough for Bigelow to launch a BA-330 as a destination for commercial missions?

[su27k]

Will this level of interest be enough for Bigelow to launch a BA-330 as a destination for commercial missions?

Unfortunately Bigelow Aerospace is pretty much dead now (see Bigelow Aerospace thread for details), so I wouldn't count on them for anything, a commercial destination should emerge from NASA's new Commercial LEO Destination program