Space Island Group

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

edeewildwild

Guest
I agree about needing pioneers.<br /><br />Pioneers tend to be a bit maverick, just pioneering is a tad risky at times. Yet, if carefully planned, they are successful in the basic mission. If given a little flexibility, Pioneers go over the top. Think the wildest areas of Alaska for a slight indicator of the kind of survival personality that might be needed...independent and intelligent and able to think outside any box then add the technical education to that...
 
P

publiusr

Guest
Gene Meyers of SIG is not talking about dozens of shuttle flights, just simple payloads for CaLV like deployable SPS demonstrators. I think he is more credible than Bigelow in that he wants to work with VSE and Griffin and find uses for CaLV--instead of bashing it like Gump's t/Space fraud.
 
N

nyarlathotep

Guest
I can't really seem to figure out exactly what this VSE thing is, because as far as I could tell from presidential statements, there appears to be no vision. Is it supposed to be ironic, like PATRIOT, and Safe Simple Soon? I also fail to see how SIG is more credible than Bigelow, considering that Bigelow has an integrated payload sitting in Russia right now.<br /><br />And SPS demonstrators? What the hell are you smoking? Launch costs need to come down to $100 per kilogram before SPS's even begin to become competitive with PWR's. The cheapest an Aries V (or as I prefer to call it, Delta V) is going to get is $5000 per kg, and only at very high launch rates.
 
B

bamabuc

Guest
Is SIG credible? It all depends on the China/India power deals. If the deals fail, I think we can all agree that SIG is probably not credible. If one or both of the deals are a success, and SIG is making 200 to 400 billion per year, I think they would definately be credible. Whatever you may think about him, Gene Myers is a smart guy. He knows his plans have problems that only real engineers can fix. And he knows that with the money from the power deals, he will be able to hire plenty of engineers to fix those problems.
 
S

strawshort

Guest
I think that after Bigelow's launch last week, we know who is credible and who isn't.
 
P

publiusr

Guest
Don't be so sure. Bigelow's craft is small--though it is closer to being a real spaceship in my book than Rutan's useless contraption.
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"...though it is closer to being a real spaceship in my book than Rutan's useless contraption."</font><br /><br />Both entrepreneurs are doing their own thing toward private enterprise in space. Both deserve respect for their accomplishments. Denigrating either is counterproductive. What <b><i>is</i></b> your point in saying this? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
No kidding! Bigelow and Rutan are at least cutting metal, laying resin and getting their hands dirty. This is more than you can say for some government agencies who do more high cost mental mast*****ion than anything else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
P

publiusr

Guest
You mean like OAK, which has MiG nowadays, or the Soviet Design bureaux? I think NASA and Griffin deserves our respect--and I'm fed up with seeing him attacked.
 
S

strawshort

Guest
OK.... That's now two spacecraft in orbit for Bigelow....<br /><br />And how many for Space Island? I hear they may have come out with new drawings however.<br /><br />
 
S

spacelifejunkie

Guest
"It all depends on the China/India power deals. If the deals fail, I think we can all agree that SIG is probably not credible."<br /><br />On The Space Show about a year ago, Gene Myers claimed to have nearly secured a $10 Billion dollar deal. Where is it? It should have been made by now according to his admission. I hope I'm wrong. I hope SIG can do everything they say. But I'll believe it when I see it.<br /><br />http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=545<br /><br /><br />SLJ<br />
 
Q

quantump7

Guest
Anyone have any news on Space Island Group? How are those deals coming through?
 
N

nexium

Guest
If Space Island group had the hardware in orbit to collect, tether and boost the ET = external tanks to higher orbit, NASA would likely modify the shuttle launches to give SIG a shot at catching the ET. As far as I know SIG does not even have a detailed plan for tethering 17 ET together. Neil
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"NASA would likely modify the shuttle launches to give SIG a shot at catching the ET."<br /><br />No they wouldn't. It would be any benefit to NASA and more costs
 
J

j05h

Guest
Space Island Group is not interested in using ETs from Shuttle launches. They want to buy ETs and SRBs and build their own "Shuttle-C" type craft. They gave up on catching ETs a long time ago.<br /><br />http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/dual-launch.html<br /><br />The real interesting thing to me is that they want to redesign the tank to be a wet station. While maybe "ET derived" the end product would be much different than a current ET.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
S

spacelifejunkie

Guest
Everytime I have heard from Gene Myers (CEO) in the media he has claims of being on the verge of a multi million or billion dollar deal to finance those space stations. He is way over due on the promises. I wish everyone luck in success but I'm still not sure why SIG even still exists. They haven't done anything. Big money changes a few things but I don't think they'll ever get it.<br /><br /><br />SLJ
 
Q

quantump7

Guest
"This was never a viable concept for many reasons."<br /><br />Could you name some reasons?
 
Q

quantump7

Guest
What about their private space station ideas? Is their plan viable?
 
N

nexium

Guest
The SIG may get advance money for delivery of electricity from space in 2030 or some such date, but they will not deliver significant electricity from space, unless someone develops very cheap access to space in the next few years. Neil
 
S

solarspot

Guest
Well, at least http://www.orbit6.com/et/ seems to have a few ideas for how to make it work... I personally think SIG could potentially deal with the afore mentioned problems for not much more than the cost of launching their imaginary space stations in the first place... which is admittedly hopelessly optimistic at best.<br /><br /><br />
 
M

MannyPim

Guest
Re: SIG space station / hotel designs....<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> No not practical. </font><br /><br />What would you say are the biggest technical challenges they would have to overcome in order to build a rotating inhabitable space structure from expended shuttle External Tanks? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>
 
M

MannyPim

Guest
<font color="yellow"> Foam flaking off due to UV radiationcontaminating the area around the tank. </font><br /><br />Agree that this is a diffcult problem.<br />Do you know anything about what possible solutions have been considered?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> the ET is in a very low orbit at sep and must be grabbed very quickly. </font><br /><br />I thought the idea was not to separate but to take the tank along to or very near it's final orbit.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> The added ET weight pound for pound reduces the Shuttle payload. </font><br /><br />Understood.... This doesn't seem to be a show stopper however. If it can be done, you loose a few pounds of payload but you get an orbting module that can be made into a habitable environment. Not a bad tradeoff.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"you loose a few pounds of payload but you get an orbting module that can be made into a habitable environment. "<br /><br />That is the falacy.<br /><br />1. It is not a "few" pounds<br />2. It is not a habitable environment.<br /><br />It is unworkable. See Skylab as an example of a dry stage
 
N

nyarlathotep

Guest
<font color="yellow">What would you say are the biggest technical challenges they would have to overcome in order to build a rotating inhabitable space structure from expended shuttle External Tanks?</font><br /><br />The $600M+ launch cost per tank.<br /><br />What the powerpoint engineers conveniently omit is that modifications to an ET to make it suitable for habitation would mass in the tens of tonnes. This would prevent you from carrying any payload in the shuttle payload bay to split costs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY