Bigelow: accelerate straight to Sundancer

[docm]

Link....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Special Announcement from Robert T. Bigelow<br /><br /><b>Bigelow Aerospace to Expedite Schedule and Move Ahead With First Manned Module</b><br /><br />August 13, 2007<br /><br />First, I would like to thank all of you who have written, called and otherwise expressed congratulations to myself and our team on the successful launch of Genesis II. The energy, enthusiasm and encouragement that we receive both here in the U.S. and abroad are an inspiration to us and part of the reason that we believe so strongly in the dream of entrepreneurial space development. I would like to take this opportunity to honor the interest and support that we’ve received from the general public by providing you with this update in regard to our future plans.<br /><br />As anyone associated with the aerospace industry is aware, global launch costs have been rising rapidly over the course of the past few years. These price hikes have been most acute in Russia due to a number of factors including inflation, previously artificially low launch costs and the falling value of the U.S. dollar. What this now means for Bigelow Aerospace is that to conduct another subscale demonstrator mission would cost two to three times what it has in the past.<br /><br />This dramatic rise in launch costs has forced us to rethink our strategy with Galaxy. Due to the fact that a high percentage of the systems Galaxy was meant to test can be effectively validated on a terrestrial basis, the technical value of launching the spacecraft — particularly after the successful launch of both Genesis I and II — is somewhat marginal. <font color="yellow"><b>Therefore, we have decided to expedite our schedule yet again, and are now planning to move ahead directly with Bigelow Aerospace’s first human habitable spacecraft, the Sundancer.<br /><br />We still intend to construct</b></font></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Cool. Must have an Ace or a straight buried in his hand, but what the heck.<br />The Genisi <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> have been successful and visible, maybe he's feeling it's time to jump the field.<br />I wish them all the best!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

Excellent news! Thanks for posting. I wish them all the luck.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[docm]

The acceleration is at least partly due to rising Russian launch costs, but if this <i>could</i> be manned I wonder if its first visitors could be a Soyuz crew? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

It'll have at least one Russian docking port, not sure if it's APAS or probe-n-drogue. It's entirely likely that it will be serviced by Soyuz/Progress, whatever the launch cost. Bigelow's current best American entrant would still be SpaceX and the Dragon, followed by any ULA or Lockheed offerings. <br /><br />This shows how much confidence Mr. Bigelow has in the system he is developing. Rising launch costs are part of the equation, but he is also saying that they have a lot of ready hardware and tech. <br /><br />On another pseudo-Russo angle: what about launching and docking the existing "FGB2" (Enterprise, MLM, whatever it's called this year) that is sitting in Star City, or the Almaz (that is supposedly in Virgina) to the first SunDancer? This would put two control units together, waiting for the Nautilus.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[Huntster]

Yes, it should be Soyuz-dockable. One side of the module has a Soyuz-type dock, the other has a NASA Low Impact Docking System.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundancer should have everything publicly known about it. I've spent a considerable amount of time compiling data for this and the two Genesis modules, but do point out any errors or additions needed..<br /><br />Now I've got to add this new material in, but I don't mind that little inconvenience for such great news. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

Well this seems to confirm that with the announcement of the European space hotel by 2012 and now this anouncement by Bigelow, there's a hotel race starting.<br /><br />Good Luck Bigelow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Who says they're competing? Bigelow could be the supplier and the Europeans the end user. A share of that $3 billion could certainly help Bigelow speed up the project. <br /><br />Waiting for the other shoe to drop: who flies the customers? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

When you get lemons (higher launch costs), you make lemonade (skip ahead to Sundancer)! <br /><br />Good going Bigelow Aerospace.

 

[gunsandrockets]

Re: higher Russian launch costs<br /><br />This could be great news for SpaceX, making them even more competitive in the international marketplace (assuming they get the Falcon rockets to work of course!)

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Bigelow could be the supplier and the Europeans the end user. A share of that $3 billion could certainly help Bigelow speed up the project.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Agreed Docm. <br /><br />This makes far more sense, given the current technical credibility of Galactic Suites.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"what about launching and docking the existing "FGB2" (Enterprise, MLM, whatever it's called this year) that is sitting in Star City,"<br /><br />It isn't at star city, it is at Energia and it is going to the ISS

 

[holmec]

Perhaps. I'm just connecting dots here. <br /><br />I'd like to see a hotel race for space. I know there's been a Japanese one proposed, now a European one. Rutan mentioned one, so showed interest. Bigelow is the only one with actual hardware in space going for that goal and others.<br /><br />http://www.galacticsuite.com/<br /><br />The Galatic Suite orbital hotel looks nothing like Bigelow's modules. My opinion is that they are not involving Bigelow at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[dreada5]

Call me unimaginative, but I can't really concieve of a space hotel race in the immediate term, because wouldn't that require a competitor(s) with a design on par with or superior (in terms of cost/performance) to Bigelow's inflatables?<br /><br />I don't think a project involving conventional ISS-like metal modules will be able to compete with inflatables if successful... but the big question is "if". Thus I'm inclined to think that either stakeholders will buy into Bigelow's idea or wait to see if he's successful before trying to better him.<br /><br />Well thats just my ramblings...

 

[docm]

Mine;<br /><br />Bigelows modules are based on TransHab, originally intended for use on the ISS. It was canceled and the patents sold to Bigelow a few years ago. <br /><br />Since then he's made numerous improvements and patented every single one. These cover everything from improved pressure bladders to the framework of the core, "safe harbor" areas, window frames etc. A <i><b>very</b></i> long list.<br /><br />As such IMO it would be very difficult for anyone to build their own inflatable modules without getting a Bigelow license, presuming he wants to sell them. It's far more likely he wants to build and sell ready made habs to the end users.<br /><br />As for durability: according to Bigelow their structure has withstood metal balls fired from NASA's hypervelocity gun that has shred the materials used on an ISS module. That and Genesis I has a year+ in orbit with no leaks and the system has been improved frequently since then. Genesis II has some of these. Others were to be in Galaxy, and presumably more are to be in Sundancer.<br /><br />If this system holds up it could also revolutionize spaceship construction. I can easily see a BA-330 as the hab and Sundancer as the command module for manned Mars missions, and beyond. This would allow the RV to be made in minimalist fashion, like Soyuz, further lightening the mission. <br /><br />The potential upside to this tech is nothing short of enormous. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Huntster]

Last I checked, Bigelow had drawing-room plans for a lunar cruise ship utilising BA 330 components, basically a train of the modules linked together. Given the massive volume each module allows, it isn't a far stretch to add on more extensive propulsion and life support equipment and sent it toward Mars. Considering Bigelow had an approximate price tag of US$100 million per BA 330, one might think it would be cheaper than developing everything in-house.<br /><br />Makes me want to put pencil to paper and doodle something up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

Some starting points....<br /><br />One Bigelow MoonCruiser comin' up. Lots of potential there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

This is a NASA concept based on TransHab, presumably using nuclear power & electric drive. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

And this is a TransHab based Mars lander/hab/ascent stage. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Here's a montage of Bigelow concepts. You'll see a couple of Ship configurations above Mars in there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[Huntster]

I find it interesting that each design includes only one BA 330 or equivalent module. One would think that, especially for the NASA transit vehicle, additional modules could be attached with little impact. Certainly the extra mass plays a function, but the added room would do wonders on crew health and general well-being on such a long-term voyage.<br /><br />What I don't like seeing is the use of purely stacked units in these vehicle concepts. Given the potential versatility of docking nodes, would it not be possible to utilise outriggers for the service modules to allow for more of the centreline for habitable space?<br /><br />I know that for the nuclear/electric drive option you have to maintain definite separation, but these examples seem awful limited in scope. But I'm not the expert.<br /><br /><i>Note: Sorry Boris, was replying to docm's posts, your images hadn't popped up when I wrote this.</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Huntster]

Interesting that they show the same configuration in orbit of Mars and then down on the surface (presuming that second image is of Mars and not Luna). How might you deorbit such a vehicle and maintain integrity, even through such a tenuous atmosphere like what Mars has? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Look at the pix in the montage. There are a couple of multi module configurations.<br />These are base configurations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

And station configurations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

They really are quite large. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>