Bigelow Current Updates Thread....

[neutrino78x]

I wonder if they'll need a cook? :ugeek:

We have cooks on submarines, the one on the Florida I think used to work at the White House (apparently the Navy supplies some of the cooks there). We are told that the food on submarines is better than surface ships (since he is only cooking for 120 people at most, usually about 40 at a time (three shifts/watch sections)) and better than most of the rest of us military, I wouldn't really know because I only served on subs. We did eat lobster and grilled salmon on occasion. Ten thousand varieties of chicken eventually gets old underway, though. It would probably be that way on deep space missions too!

--Brian

 

[SteveCNC]

I've eaten in the gunny's galley on board the Kitty Hawk back in the late 60's , it was said that it was better than the captain's galley and I have to admit it was pretty good although they were in port at the time so I can't really compare it to underway food . Plus having only eaten it once I had no time to get burnt out on it , that is one thing I tend to get burnt out on certain foods if I have to eat them too often . My ex used to make spaghetti every week and after about 6 months of that I didn't want to ever see spaghetti again , I'm only now after several years able to eat it again .

For space unless some form of centrifuge is created for cooking (that might work even) most things would be prepared on earth well ahead of time and either freeze dried or vacuum sealed . We've all seen the squeeze pouches of food but I think with commercial hitting space new methods of containment and varieties of available foods will increase dramatically . But I am sure that at some point withing the next few years that's something Bigelow will need to address if he want's a hotel in space , if your a good cook you should come up with some good ideas/methods/recipes and pitch them to any and all space faring entities . It's a fairly new thing so there's plenty of room for an inventive person to make a name for themselves in the space food business .

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

You will also need methodologies for capturing the food vapors and filter them out before they are released into the cabin. I am sure that the submarine galley has equipment to do this to keep from smelling up the whole sub. I can’t think that a long duration, one to several years, would be anything else but a spinning environment that would have ¼ to 1 full G. A microwave device that cooks prepackaged foods or even fresh vegetables in specialized containers shouldn’t be too difficult. A standard attachment in the inside of the microwave that sucks off the steam and filters it, even possibly recovering the water, I think would be the most nominal solution.

 

[neutrino78x]

You will also need methodologies for capturing the food vapors and filter them out before they are released into the cabin. I am sure that the submarine galley has equipment to do this to keep from smelling up the whole sub.

Well, the air is filtered, but not specifically for food smells; one of the ways you can tell it is "morning" on a submarine (since there are no windows, and you are usually deep underwater, surrounded by darkness) is by smelling eggs being cooked in the mess deck.

I can’t think that a long duration, one to several years, would be anything else but a spinning environment that would have ¼ to 1 full G.

I fully agree. Any mission that involves long periods of coasting would definitely have artificial gravity.

--Brian

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I was curious about Bigelow’s cash flow and business model so I did a little cash flow modeling using construction loans to push costs to years where revenue for the item produce would start delaying the total out of pocket to just the loan payments and earnest monies for scheduling rocket flights (from Space X). I included in the leasing agreement price, Bigelow supping the station resupply. Lease for a three person station space set at $395 million a year not including the transport of crew. If everything goes as planned then Bigelow could be earning a PROFIT of over $1 billion a year in ten years from now. That’s profit not revenue. Revenue would be about $4 billion, giving Bigelow a 25% profit margin which is about right for a high risk tech company.The highest cumulative total of out of pocket being ~$75 million for Bigelow in 2013, by 2015 a small cumulative profit from the station project would occur but if earlier years of development expense is also added then it may be until 2017 before this happens. At the end of 2020 Bigelow’s cumulative profit would be ~$3.5 billion!!!! Bigelow could easily drop the yearly lease price so that profit margins of only 15% to 20% would occur to attract even more lease customers. The rate of modules delivered to orbit in the cash flow model is of just one per year starting in 2014 for a total of 2 Sundancer, 4 BA330 and 2 docking modules.

The interesting thing about all of this is that Bigelow would be purchasing $2.5 billion in launch services from Space X or others that does not include HSF crew rotation. That’s putting up modules but mostly resupply missions, so many in fact that a Falcon 9 Heavy would have to be used instead of a Falcon 9 just to keep up with the cargo demand. A triple sized Dragon cargo module holding three times the cargo of a regular Dragon on top of a Falcon 9 Heavy. In ten years there would not be just one or two Falcon 9 Heavy flights needed for this support but 12! There would be at least 12 regular Falcon 9 flights a year too for support. Space X’s profit from this activity would be large enough for them to fund out of pocket the $1.5 billion to develop the Merlin 2 and Falcon X by 2020. The development project would start in 2016. The first Falcon 9 Heavy for use to put up a BA330 would be 2017. None of these schedule or assumptions are highly optimistic, actually they are pessimistic in that expansion or development of advanced hardware would not occur until sufficient profit occurred to be able to reinvest toward development.

If you were wondering about my expertise in doing cost and cash flow estimations of a tech company, I am an Electrical Engineer, also a Software Engineer that did financial software applications, and have been heavily exposed to business accounting methodologies and techniques for managing business finances.

 

[job1207]

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/private-space-station-first-clients-101019.html

A question that continues to float through the halls of NASA and the Congress: Is there a commercial market for utilizing space?

"We've got a very certain and loud answer to that. Not only is there a commercial market, but it's a one that's robust and global," said Michael Gold, director of Washington, D.C., operations and business growth for Bigelow Aerospace.

When will the stupid Congress learn? THANK GOD the government is getting out of the launch business. The best thing that could have happened to NASA DID happen. Ares I went bye bye.

While countries in Asia and Europe take commercial advantage of space, "my fear is that this could become yet another extremely lucrative economic opportunity that is engendered here ... and then shipped overseas," Gold cautioned. "The U.S. Congress should spend less time questioning the business case of the commercial market. They need to spend more time trying to figure out how to grow that market and ensure that it happens here in the United States."

Stupid selfish Congress.

Whenever depression about human space flight hits me, I just read something about Mr. Big, or Mr. Musk and I do actually feel better.

I am so very happy that Bigelow is working with Boeing’s CST-100. This will allow Boeing to start learning about a space business model other than “Cost Plus”. I think if all works out there will be plenty of business for CST-100 AND Dragon.

"Gold underscored the "great potential" of the Atlas 5 booster.

"We have much more confidence in regards to the crew transportation solution since there is, arguably, no system safer, more reliable and more cost-effective than leveraging the tried and true Atlas 5 with a capsule built by Boeing on top of it," he said. "It has a track record. It exists. That's a message that has resonated quite well with the international clients."

There has been discussion, Gold said, that cost savings and safety are mutually exclusive."

I thought this was the most important part of that article. Assuming that Spacex goes on to have a track record, will the price of the two vehicles be much different. Net, the price I saw recently for the Boeing answer to the Dragon is about the same as the Dragon. I am not sure how this will work out, but I do know that Musk had talked about Bigelow quite a bit.

In the end, I am thinking that the two will co exist. Spacex price will come up, and the ULA price will come down.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Bigelow is going to work with Boeing and Atlas V. That is stated by Bigelow. However, Mr. Big has stated several times that he is not going to have just one launcher (good business man that he is). So yes, he will give work to SpaceX when that comes around.

There is no doubt that Atlas V is much further along than Falcon, however, the problem in the past has been cost plus contracts. You will never get the best price if you do cost plus. So I think where spaceX will be very important to the lunch business is that they are going to be very price competitive. That will force others to bring their prices down (including the Russians).

I am certain that as SpaceX gets its space legs under it, Bigelow will be more than happy to throw business at them.

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I found an interesting article from NASA on the actual costs of the EELV’s because of the AF subsidies for all the fixed price infrastructure, building maintain pad and launch site buildings and equipment as well as other infrastructure. The non-recurring costs when added to the recurring costs makes an Atlas V cost about $200 mil not the $85 recurring costs that is charged to commercial customers. This is based on 4 flights a year. At ten it would add about $50 mil to the $85 mil for a real cost of $135.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/EELV_main.htm
To say Falcon 9 receives no subsidies for range use and pad would be wrong. But the subsidies are not as large as what the AF pays for EELV. So what is the real difference in the two subsidies?

The problem with assessing Atlas V costs is the strap-on boosters increase payload capability without increasing costs by the same percentage so a 401 and a 431 have dramatic LEO payload cost rates differences. The commercial payload rates for Atlas V vary from $8700 per kg for a 401 to $5800 per kg for a 551. A Falcon 9 is $5400. If Space X still has problems recovering the Falcon 9 first stage their price will go up to cover the costs due to losing the first stage more often than they planned on.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Bigelow Aerospace Shows Off Bigger, Badder Space Real Estate

[snip]

But as large as the BA-330 is, it's dwarfed by the BA-2100, which is six times as large and has multiple decks. The BA-2100's docking ends are about 25 feet in diameter, and one source told PM that the module's dry mass could be as low as 70 tons. In other words, in its uninflated state, it could be placed into orbit by the heavy-lift launcher that the U.S. Senate recently approved for development. The massive structure could then be inflated and subsequently outfitted with materials carried aboard additional launches. With its radiation and micrometeoroid shielding, the BA-2100 could provide a trip for a large crew to the outer solar system.

[snip]

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Boris

You have two kinds of pictures for the BA-2100 in this thread. One with decks horizontal, and one with decks vertical.

It seems that the newer pictures from Bigelow seem to favor the horizontal decking. Do you know if the decking is yet to be determined? Or has the decking been chosen by Bigelow to be horizontal?

Thanks

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Boris

You have two kinds of pictures for the BA-2100 in this thread. One with decks horizontal, and one with decks vertical.

It seems that the newer pictures from Bigelow seem to favor the horizontal decking. Do you know if the decking is yet to be determined? Or has the decking been chosen by Bigelow to be horizontal?

Thanks

The pic with the vertical configuration is actually an old TransHab pic from NASA. Everything that Bigelow has shown has the horizontal setup, but I expect the customer could chose whichever one they need or prefer.

 

[JonClarke]

Two questions.

Does anyone have a link to a pickure of a Bigelow module with horizontally arranged decks?

Does anyone knwo what the status of the Genesis modules is? Are they still inflated?

Thanks

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Two questions.

Does anyone have a link to a pickure of a Bigelow module with horizontally arranged decks?

Does anyone knwo what the status of the Genesis modules is? Are they still inflated?

Thanks

The bottom of page 3 of this thread has a vertically aligned pic & the middle of page 4 has the horizontally aligned model on the floor of the Bigelow factory.
According to the Bigelow website Genesis I & II are doing just fine.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Do they have plans to actually use the Genesis modules?

 

[docm]

First it was said that BA-2100 would mass out at 100 MT, now they quote as light as 70 MT, launchable on NASA's proposed HLV. This is getting intdresting.....

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Do they have plans to actually use the Genesis modules?

No, they're just test beds. They're awfully small & have very little in the way of life support.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

First it was said that BA-2100 would mass out at 100 MT, now they quote as light as 70 MT, launchable on NASA's proposed HLV. This is getting intdresting.....

I caught that too. I wonder just what they're stripping out to lose 30 tons. It could be a mistake too. Jay Ingham says in the video that they have plans for an 1150 CU module in the 70 ton range. Maybe PM is mixing the two together?
The article does say that the end caps on the central core are 25' in diameter. That would provide room for a damned big entry airlock. An HLV orbits the Expandable Hab & a Heavy launcher sends up the interior fittings.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Does anyone have a link to a pickure of a Bigelow module with horizontally arranged decks?

 

[aaron38]

The article does say that the end caps on the central core are 25' in diameter. That would provide room for a damned big entry airlock. An HLV orbits the Expandable Hab & a Heavy launcher sends up the interior fittings.

So the final module can mass significantly more than what the HLV can lift. That large cargo lock also makes the module commercially useful for the long term. The horizontal deck layout allows for a long manufacturing process line, such as for a zero g wafer fab. An IC company would want to be able to bring up new equipment over time that can't fit through an ISS size personel lock. The larger the cargo allowed by the lock, the lighter and larger the empty module can be made.

A vertical deck layout could work well for a hydroponics bay, with the water processing machinery centrally located and the crops laid out in pie wedges. If the water tanks all surround the central core, that makes the farm an ideal radiation shelter.

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

So the final module can mass significantly more than what the HLV can lift. That large cargo lock also makes the module commercially useful for the long term. The horizontal deck layout allows for a long manufacturing process line, such as for a zero g wafer fab. An IC company would want to be able to bring up new equipment over time that can't fit through an ISS size personel lock. The larger the cargo allowed by the lock, the lighter and larger the empty module can be made.

A vertical deck layout could work well for a hydroponics bay, with the water processing machinery centrally located and the crops laid out in pie wedges. If the water tanks all surround the central core, that makes the farm an ideal radiation shelter.

The water tanks should be inflatable just like the module. Rigid tanks for holding water don’t make sense. They could be added as part of the original module. Only the piping would have to be added after module inflation, although water pipes can be inflatable too. Water has several usages when it is stored in the walls. It is a radiation shield, only if the tanks are large enough, I don’t remember the thickness needed for a good shield. It is also a heat sink. The water can be used to stabilize temperature inside the module over a complete orbit, providing cooling during sun cycle and heat during shade cycle of the orbit.

 

[pmn1]

There was a January 1987 JBIS article that discussed a 10m x 6mm Large Volume Habitability Module.

It suggested the horizontal or high-rise configuration of the floors would have a better utilisation of the available extra diameter rather than a longitudinal arrangement - don't know whether there is a diameter where that is reversed.....

 

[RogerPenna]

Suppose a module is a perfect cillinder, 10x6 meters. Suppose the central section is 2 meters wide.

If you position the floors vertically (that is, each floor is the same size), each floor 2,5m in height, you can get four round floors, for a total of 99.39 m²

If you position the floors horizontally (as seen in the BA-2100 config), the first floor must be a few centimeters offset from the wall (otherwise you would be walking on the inside of a sloped surface).

Lets say the first floor is 20 cm offset. It will be rectangular and 20m² in area.

The next floor, 2.5m above, will lose a big part of its area due to the central core. It will consist of TWO rectangles, each one also about 20 m²

But you cant have a third 20m² floor, 2.5 meters above, for it will be only 80cm high!

In fact, even the first floor would have problems, for the central core would be 1,8 meters above the floor.

The best solution, for horizontal positioning, in terms of floor area, would only work for zero G configs (where floor area is not that important anyway, unlike in configs for lunar or martian bases)

Basically, you have two rectangular floors at each side of central 2 meters torus. Each floors will be 56m². But people´s heads will always turned towards the central core.

Between then, you have a lower ceiling floors, of 2m, divided by the central core in two. Disconsidering the area made unavailable by the central core, the total area would be around 30m² for this floor.

The total floor area thus would be around 142m²



Of course, its not even realistic imho to be talking about floor space for a zero g space station. It only becomes important if you are talking about a planetary station (or maybe, a spinning artificial gravity module for a space station or interplanetary ship).

In THOSE cases where gravity plays a role, and you have to measure in terms of floor space, it seems to me that at least in the smaller modules cases, the vertical floor setup (round shaped floors) provide most space.

If anyone can get me the dimensions of the BA2100 module, I can do some 3d graphs of the different floor configurations...

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Bigelow still thinks big

Nice long article from The Space Review. Not too much new stuff, but still informative.

 

[pmn1]

Suppose a module is a perfect cillinder, 10x6 meters. Suppose the central section is 2 meters wide.

If you position the floors vertically (that is, each floor is the same size), each floor 2,5m in height, you can get four round floors, for a total of 99.39 m²

You've read the article......

 

[RogerPenna]

Suppose a module is a perfect cillinder, 10x6 meters. Suppose the central section is 2 meters wide.

If you position the floors vertically (that is, each floor is the same size), each floor 2,5m in height, you can get four round floors, for a total of 99.39 m²

You've read the article......

what article? There are several ones posted in this thread.