Air & Space Bigelow interview (6 pgs)

[docm]

Link...<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Mr. B’s Big Plan</b><br /><br />Robert Bigelow has put two mini-space stations in orbit. Now comes the hard part.<br /><br />By Geoffrey Little<br /><br />FLYING INTO LAS VEGAS on a westbound airliner, I gaze down at the casinos along the famous Strip, miles long, glowing in the night. It occurs to me that the city where Robert T. Bigelow—owner of the first privately held real estate in space—lives and works is itself a kind of satellite outpost, surrounded by harsh, empty desert. It’s a fitting spot from which to control a pair of mini-space stations, Genesis I and II, launched in July 2006 and June 2007. The van-size modules are currently orbiting Earth, with daily operations run out of Bigelow Aerospace’s mission control in north Las Vegas. Cost so far: under $100 million.<br /><br />“If a few years ago anyone in the space industry told you they could develop, launch, and control two new satellites for less than $1 billion or $2 billion—let alone under $100 million—they’d be stringing you along,†says former Bigelow consultant and NASA chief of staff Courtney Stadd. “But Bigelow has done it.â€<br /><br />Having pledged five times that much—more than half his net worth—to build inflatable space habitats using technology pioneered, then abandoned, by NASA, Bigelow, with a company of roughly 125 employees, is aiming even higher. His goal is to send people to a larger, habitable module called Sundancer by 2010. By 2012, he hopes to place a full-size, 330-cubic-meter (11,700-cubic-foot) module, the BA 330, in orbit, with more to follow later.<br /><br />For a company that’s barely eight years old, it’s an audacious plan, and I’ve come to ask the reclusive real estate mogul, who rarely grants interviews, how things are going. (Employees refer to him as Mr. Bigelow; those</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Haven't read the article yet . . . <br /><br />Would ITAR get it the way of putting a Lockheed capsule on a Proton? Does SpaceX have an edge here? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

<Would ITAR get it the way of putting a Lockheed capsule on a Proton?><br /><br />That is the key point. ITAR would stop use of an American capsule on a Proton. So who outside of the U.S. is able, and willing, to make a 7-person spacecraft? Most likely the Russians.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">That is the key point. </font><br /><br />Aw shucks. I do occasionally show a flair for the obvious, don't I? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> lol<br /><br /><font color="yellow">ITAR would stop . . . </font><br /><br />. . . unless ITAR is revised. Perhaps a Democratic Prez and Congress will move the authority over this stuff back to Commerce instead of State, where it belongs.<br /><br />How amused would you fellas be if the Dems ride to the rescue on this? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

That article revealed several things that Bigelow never mentioned on their web site. Like that all the bugs were dead before launch, due to sitting in Russia for 6 months, all sealed up. And how unhelpful NASA was with the transfer of technology, until they tracked down the original Transhab designer who apparently was keeping it all in his head. And how they have to keep rebooting the computer.<br /><br />Radiation hardened computers are certainly possible, but they are larger and slower, due to using less micro-miniaturization. I doubt the Genesis craft have any of the water jackets that Sundancer will have.

 

[docm]

I never presumed that the Genesis craft had the water jackets for weight reasons. As for hardened computers....likely but IIRC prices have been coming down so later might be better and cheaper. Put the money in when it counts and just work on the software now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>