What do you make of this announcement by Bigelow?

[Boris_Badenov]

What do you make of this announcement by Bigelow? Personally I think they have sold a full size module to a big cheese. <br /><br />NEWS UPDATES<br />BIGELOW AEROSPACE ACCELERATES FUTURE PLANS AFTER GENESIS I SUCCESS<br /><br />August 11, 2006 - 3:15 p.m. PDT<br />Due to a number of factors related to the outstanding performance of Genesis I, the hoped-for adequate performance of Genesis II and various additional factors—including, but not limited to, domestic and international issues forecast over the next four to five years bearing upon America's transportation and launch deficits—we have made several bold decisions. An important announcement early in 2007 subsequent to the launch of Genesis II shall expose some of our plans. <br /><br />Due to this change in direction, the Genesis II will be the only opportunity to fly photos and items for the "Fly Your Stuff" program. The general public is being urged to act quickly or they will lose their chance to be a part of this exciting program. Items and photos will be accepted only prior to November 1, 2006, or until all reservations are sold out on Genesis II, whichever comes first. Please be aware that there will be no second chances to fly personal items or photos in space through the "Fly Your Stuff" program. <br /><br />Additionally, we are pleased to announce the "Fly Your Stuff" Money Back Guarantee. If, after 90 days, we cannot produce a recognizable image of a customer's specific photo or item within Genesis II, Bigelow Aerospace will refund the entire purchase price to that customer. For full details, please see the Money Back Guarantee. <br /><br />Reservations are limited, and photos and items are accepted on a "first come, first served" basis. <br /><br />- Robert T. Bigelow <br />http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/multiverse/news.php<br /><br /> <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]

Wouldn’t that be a real kick in the teeth to NASA? <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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Once in a while, they could probably use one, and this is better than some of the other ways it's happened <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <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>

 

[edkyle98]

The original plans called for 6-10 "pathfinder/demonstrator spacecraft" to fly by 2010. This update hints that Bigelow will not be flying that many "pathfinder/demonstator spacecraft". There will apparently now only be two "pathfinders", followed by whatever Bigelow's "bold decisions" bring next. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">Personally I think they have sold a full size module to a big cheese.</font><br /><br />Personally I think they have sold one of these beauties. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Wouldn’t that be a real kick in the teeth to NASA?<br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Well, not really. NASA sold the rights to Transhab to Bigelow hoping he could finance the development. NASA wants Transhab/Bigelow Modules but didn't have the budget to develop it themselves. If anything I would be willing to bet that NASA may have contracted with Bigelow for modules--possibly for testing as habitation modules for a future mars mission.

 

[crix]

Wow, that's a very important article (as far as a commercial space enthusiast is concerned). I'm surprised I haven't seen it reported anywhere. <br /><br />I had no idea that NASA was talking to Bigelow anymore but it makes sense; it totally fits into COTS and the Griffin's overall mission to stimulate commercial space industry.<br /><br />Good find! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I had no idea that NASA was talking to Bigelow anymore but it makes sense</font>/i><br /><br />Early on Bigelow had nothing but bad things to say about NASA, but over time relationships have warmed considerably. I don't know if it is Griffin or changes elsewhere (including at Bigelow)</i>

 

[publiusr]

If Biegelow wants to work with NASA fine. Maybe if Rutan and Gump hadn't been so shrill--they would have gotten some action COTS-wise.

 

[rocketman5000]

rutan is in a totally different market than what NASA wants from COTS

 

[josh_simonson]

Rutan was on the T-Space team though. I figured NASA wouldn't buy into building a mega white knight, but political animosity may have also come into play.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

At about $160,000,000 each, do you think just one entity can afford to put up an entire complex? I am more inclined to think that Bigelow has sold one to NASA & somehow wrangled an agreement to hook up more modules to the ISS as they are purchased. That would allow for safety in numbers, & a real LEO space complex. <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>

 

[spacester]

That's very close to my guess, but ISS is not designed for big inflatable habitats. <br /><br />I think they are prepared to build multiple habitats and lease them to a public/private entity which would act as a property manager with NASA as an anchor tenant. NASA and Bigelow co-design but do not provide (pay for) the nodes and trusses, Bigelow's business partners take care of that part. That would be going from alt.space to mainstream in a flash, huh?<br /><br />An orbital industrial park. A facility like in the graphic I linked to. So no, no one entity is going to finance this.<br /><br />That won't happen overnight, what maybe 2010 at the earliest for start of construction, so ISS is scheduled to finish in what, 2010, so it works politically.<br /><br />The ultimate leveraging of COTS would be the dramatic reduction not only in cost, but in flight frequency - regular access - of LEO access for humans and cargo. Remember that there is America's Space Prize out there, if not for the losers in the COTS Phase I competition, then for low cost cargo operators - cheap rockets lobbing up cargo containers with minimal systems to LEO, for retrieval by a space tug based at this facility.<br /><br />These things can all be in place or nearly so by 2010, with a system of systems in operation by 2012. Then we'll be ready to make our jailbreak from LEO.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Bigelow did have this to say in their mission statement, <br /><font color="yellow"> With only two modules (BA 330's) in orbit the flight rate demand in the third year of operation alone is 16 rockets the size of the Atlas V-401s or Falcon 9s to transport people and cargo. Perhaps, we will even use a foreign transportation system if a domestic alternative is not available or is too expensive. We just don't know. I have recognized all along that we may be ready with a destination but must wait for the progress of affordable, available transportation to catch up. </font> <br /> Thats around the total number of flights, manned & unmanned by both us & the Russians each year right now made to the ISS, isn't it? <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>

 

[PistolPete]

Perhaps Bigelow scored a slot on the ISS for a comercial module, much like what SpaceHab was cooking up a few years ago. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Thats what I am really hoping for. First one, then an entire complex. Can you imagine what it would look like from the ground.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> If there were 4 modules attached it would be easily visible, if there were 50, OMG<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>

 

[frodo1008]

While I have been a supporter of both the shuttle and the ISS all along, I do believe that it IS time for NASA and private industry to design and buld the NEXT space station.<br /><br />It should be in a far more accessable orbital inclination.<br /><br />It should have a high enough orbit to not need orbital reboost using propellents brought up from the Earth. And also be in such a high enough orbit to avoid almost all human space junk!<br /><br />It should have a non-rotating central hub to both facilitate docking, and continue weightless research. (actually, the entire station itself could rotate, with docking and weighless areas on the axis of the station, as that would simplify the design, this IS an area of flexibility of design)<br /><br />But at the same time it should have rotating equalized outer rings (that probably stert as equalized modules on opposite sides of the station) to facilitate partial gravity research, and also facilitate the comfort of future tourist passengers!<br /><br />It should be both a research facility for NASA, and a tourist platform for private industry to place large numbers of admittedly weathy people (at least in the beginning) into LEO for extended stay.<br /><br />It will probably be built up from Bigelow inflatable habitats (with other modules also, and reinforced to take such stresses as rotating would bring).<br /><br />It would become the chief way stop on the way further out into the solar system (hence the much more accessable inclination).<br /><br />It should be built as soon as possible with the least cost as possible, by cooperation (not compitition, we have had far too much of that on the Earth itself) between NASA, private industry, and even other governments if they wish!<br /><br />It CAN be built simultaneously with the current moon and possible Mars program!<br /><br />It CAN and SHOULD be done! And I would hope that this would become a prevailing goal of both NASA and Bigelow together! <br /><br />Live Long and Prosper!<br /><br />

 

[spacester]

frodo, you'll have to look a while to find someone who would love to see a spinning space station more than myself. I can make a really good case for why such a thing needs to be built by someone. Good points about the inclination and altitude, and I like the solid wheel for the first spin-g station.<br /><br />But the next space station is going to be all about regular access to a *microgravity* facility inside a shirtsleeve environment in LEO for private, proprietary R & D in protein crystals and other biotech stuff.<br /><br />The station you describe needs to be built as well. It would be just the ticket to really establish the demand for commercial service to LEO. A Casino / Resort / Research facilty needs to have spin-gravity. <br /><br />Starting design work on such a thing right now would not be too soon.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

My take on the Bigelow announcement: I think they've sold a BA330. Not sure what it's for: ISS, "stealth" application (see patent), or fast-tracked private facility. It also means they are getting much better results than expected from Genesis I.<br /><br />The only bummer about it for me is that I was planning to fly Postcards To Space on several of the test modules using Fly Your Stuff. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br /><i>> The station you describe needs to be built as well. It would be just the ticket to really establish the demand for commercial service to LEO. A Casino / Resort / Research facilty needs to have spin-gravity.</i><br /><br />I have to disagree on a new single, do-it-all station. <br />The need is for multiple space stations - if not this simple step, then there will be no real space "development". The ISS vibration environment is significant due to human activity and life supp. It's much easier to dampen vibrations by not having those systems in the first place - crystal/protein growth might require months of freefall with no stabilization to achieve proper geometries. Separate facilities, including many different man-tended research/factory units, will help drive a market for new types of space hardware. Building many space destinations is the only way for a company like Bigelow to profit, they have never talked about supporting a singular facility. This announcement is potentially really good news for both alt.space and Bigelow itself. <br /><br />Building a spin-gravity station should be possible with BA330s or derivative: picture something like the "Space Island Group" stations. The BAs have a C-shaped core not straight axis, combined with angled Nodes many BAs could be docked in a circle and spun up. The cores should provide enough strength for a 1/6th or 1/3 G spin. You'd want to build a BA-based spin-G torus as light as possible, so this probably cancels using water blankets there. <br /><br />I was writing a set of stories that incl <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacester]

Nice post, very much echoing my thoughts. <br /><br />I was wondering about your project. :-( Ah the life of a space pioneer, eh? <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> Sorry to hear that.<br /><br />Yeah, the only real diff is that I think they sold several of them. I am definitely in the more stations the better camp, each one specifically designed for its niche. This first one I hope to see announced in January is likely to be based on an FGB equivalent, and if the financing is in hand, that contract could be awarded by Bigelow alone in January.<br /><br />I just combined that stuff together in order to bring our readers along slowly. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I figure they're still getting used to the idea of more than one space station within 5 years. I was upping the ante to three until they get used to it. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> hehehe <br /><br />Will we see a population of 6 to 15 space stations on orbit or under construction by 2016? There are lots of customers out there.<br /><br /><i>Braziltown!</i> is very cool sounding, and based on solid knowledge as we here can see. Writing near-term science fiction takes guts. Maybe you should start a thread on it? Is it confidential material? Need help getting it on the web?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

It isn't 'bold' to announce a sale. It's bold to reduce the number of genesis demonstrators and perhaps skip the midsize 'guardian' demonstrator alltogether and build a demonstration BA 330 earlier.<br /><br />The best place for a commercial space station is in the same orbit as the ISS, but only 10-20 miles in front of or behind the ISS. That way ISS and CSS could use eachother as lifeboats in an emergency, and one launch could deliver cargo/crew to both stations at once.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

What does it take to keep a spacecraft in an orbit that close, 10 to 20 miles, consistently? Could it be closer? What kind of Delta-v would it take a Dragon or a Soyuz to go from one to the other? Could a Dragon visit 3 individual stations on the same trip, & reverse the trip to pick up the technicians before reentry? <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>

 

[rogers_buck]

The roaches got such a kick out of flying in space, they booked the next 10 modules. You'll notice your change start to dissapear when you leave it on the bathroom sink.<br />

 

[mithridates]

That sounds just about right. There's also a nice psychological component as well if you're able to just about glance the other space station floating just in front or behind you and know that you're not the only ones floating up there in orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

"and perhaps skip the midsize 'guardian' demonstrator alltogether and build a demonstration BA 330 earlier. "<br /><br />I don't recall Bigelow mentioning that the Guardian demonstrators were cancelled.<br /><br />"The best place for a commercial space station is in the same orbit as the ISS, but only 10-20 miles in front of or behind the ISS."<br /><br />The best place is at either 46° or 62°55' (I'm sure the Russians want to abandon Baikonur). The second best place is at 9°05', easily accessable from both Kourou and the Marshall islands.