What is Bigelow up to?

[Boris_Badenov]

Bigelow just added propulsion engineer to their list of job openings.<br /><br /> Systems Engineer, Propulsion <br /><br />And there is this post in HobbySpace : I heard from one of my buddy "Bigelow Originals" that Mr. B. is now looking for propulsion engineers. That's kind of funny since both my friend and I THOUGHT that was why we were being given a job down there back in 2000! It would be some comfort if Bigelow realized that money is what makes "cheap access to space" possible and started throwing some in that direction again. I understand he was involved in Rotary Rocket. That may have soured his interest in the candle burning side of things for a few years.<br /><br />Posted by Tony Rusi at 04/20/07 21:24:15<br /><br /> And this in Selenian Boondocks : 04 April 2007<br />Random Thought: Dragon + Sundancer = CEV? <br /><br /> Is Bob Bigelow preparing to build his own LEO taxi? Is he simply manufacturing the propulsion busses? Or is he in the beginning phase of building a Lunar Cruise Ship <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]

Here are the details for the Systems Engineer, Propulsion job description: Requirements:<br />Demonstrated 3-5 years experiences as a 'hands-on' spacecraft propulsion engineer. Experience with hypergolic bi-propellant, monopropellant, and 'green' propellant systems a plus. Must include full-life cycle skill sets, from preliminary to detail design, analysis, manufacturing, integration, test, launch, mission operations, and anomaly resolution. Requires aerospace or mechanical engineering bachelor's degree.<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>

 

[gunsandrockets]

I think too much is being made of this propulsion hiring.<br /><br />The Bigelow modules will need some kind of limited propulsion for stationkeeping, docking, and de-orbiting, just as a Soyuz spacecraft does. The Bigelow habs will probably have some built in 'green' bi-propellant RCS and OMS rockets with a total delta-V in the ballpark of 300 meters per second.<br /><br />I doubt any kind of signicant propulsion systems adequate for orbital tugs or Earth departure stages are in the works.

 

[docm]

Those + the moonbase landing propulsion buss? <br /><br />It does seem part of the master plan & has been in their illustrations.<br /><br />They do like their little hints. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Here's an interesting concept . The Bigelow/Orion.<br /> It seems to me that Lock/Mart could do this without much problem. <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>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Except the agreement is ULA and Bigelow. There is no LM - Bigelow agreement

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> There is no LM - Bigelow agreement </font><br /><br /> In September, Bigelow Aerospace announced a partnership with Lockheed Martin to explore the capability of launching passengers to Bigelow-built commercial space complexes on human-rated Atlas V rockets. <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>

 

[claudeparis]

Why should a Bigelow modul be part of an earth reentry modul? What ist the bonus? I don't see any. <br /><br />I prefer a solution where transport capabilties to earth orbit (and reentry) , a station or transfer to moon and beyond aren't strongly coupled.<br /><br />One lesson we should have learned from the shuttle is : Don't overload a system with requirements. Keep it simple stupid.<br /><br />

 

[docm]

That was just a graphics exercise so don't overheat.<br /><br />A real spacecraft based on Bigelow modules would likely involve their metal hub with a power buss opposite the hab and a lander and return capsule on either side. At least that's how I'd do it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"There is no LM - Bigelow agreement<br /><br />In September, Bigelow Aerospace announced a partnership with Lockheed Martin to explore the capability of launching passengers to Bigelow-built commercial space complexes on human-rated Atlas V rockets."<br /><br />Atlas is no longer part of LM <br /><br />DENVER, Dec. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- United Launch Alliance (ULA), the new joint venture combining the Delta and Atlas rocket programs of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, officially opened its doors today as a new enterprise focused on providing world-class space launch services for the U.S. government at lower cost.

 

[claudeparis]

I would prefer a two station solution with a reusable lunar lander.<br /><br />Travel plan:<br /><br />Step 1 : Send crew (Ares I, Falcon 9,...) from earth to low earth orbit station (Bigelow)<br />Step 2 : Lunar clipper (Bigelow) transfers crew from earth orbit station to lunar orbit station(Bigelow). <br />Step 3 : Reusable lunar lander (???) gets crew down to moon station (Bigelow?) and back up to station.<br />Step 4 : Lunar clipper transfers crew from lunar orbit station to earth orbit station<br />Step 5 : Crew returns with vehicle docked at earth orbit station<br /><br />The lunar orbit station could be a design equal to the lunar clipper(which also delivers the lunar lander ?)<br /><br />During early iterations you need a second (automatic?) clipper for fuel supply.<br />If possible, the lunar station may later be supplied with fuel generated at the moon base.<br /><br />What can one do with a lunar orbit station? I.e. 0-G material science with lunar rocks an soil. <br /><br />And by the way - why should we need an Ares V?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> Atlas is no longer part of LM </font><br /><br /><i> DENVER, Dec. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- United Launch Alliance (ULA), the new joint venture combining the Delta and Atlas rocket programs of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, officially opened its doors today as a new enterprise focused on providing world-class space launch services for the U.S. government at lower cost. </i><br /><br /> When you quote an article like this you are required by the TOS to provide a link to the article.<br /> <br /> These statements were also included in the article you quoted;<br /><br /><i> United Launch Alliance (ULA), the new<br />joint venture combining the Delta and Atlas rocket programs of Boeing and<br />Lockheed Martin, officially opened its doors today as a new enterprise<br /><b><font color="red">focused on providing world-class space launch services for the U.S.<br />government.</font>/b> at lower cost.</b></i><br /><br /><i> Lockheed Martin and Boeing will continue to utilize their respective<br />marketing, sales and contract organizations -- Lockheed Martin Commercial<br />Launch Services for Atlas vehicles, and Boeing Launch Services for Delta<br />vehicles -- for commercial and other non-government missions not associated with ULA. </i><br /><br /> United Launch Alliance Begins Operations <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Except the agreement is ULA and Bigelow. There is no LM - Bigelow agreement .</font><br /><br /> Provide a link for this statement or retract 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>

 

[jimfromnsf]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5070<br /><br />Spacedev agreement is with ULA, not LM.<br /><br />The same applies now for Bigelow

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> The same applies now for Bigelow </font><br /><br />Prove 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>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Boris I think you've got him.<br /><br />The only evidence present in the article jimfromnsf linked to is another link...<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4823<br /><br />... to an article which says exactly what you have claimed, that the Bigelow agreement is with Lockheed-Martin. Nowhere is ULA mentioned. Here is a small excerpt...<br /><br />"Again, the Lockheed Martin/Bigelow agreement could drastically change the ISS resupply equation. A man-capable Atlas V with capsule and docking hardware could threaten direct competition with any successful COTS winner on competitive ISS crew rotation contracts."

 

[gunsandrockets]

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-01-2006/0004483584&EDATE=<br /><br />I've been carefully reading this link and I think this whole Lockheed-Martin vs ULA disagreement is an enormous tempest in a teapot. And I think the matter is best dropped.<br /><br />I don't blame you for rushing to your own defense Boris, and jimfromnsf is being petty in constantly 'correcting' anyone who mentions Lockheed-Martin instead of ULA. But I think this disagreement is over issues about as arbitrary as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.<br /><br />According to the article ULA is a 50/50 joint partnership between Lockheed-Martin and Boeing. Plus L-M uses it's own assests for marketing non-government contracts. So it's silly to keep claiming that ULA is some kind of wholly independent entity from Lockheed-Martin as jimfromnsf keeps claiming.<br /><br />But on the other hand ULA does now directly control the Atlas V assets "...including mission management and support, engineering, vehicle production, test and launch operations, and, most importantly, the people whose intellectual capital will enable the new venture." So technically the Atlas V is now a creature of ULA.<br /><br />But folks this is space.com NOT corporations.com and getting steamed over arcane corporate business relationships is wasted energy. My advice is to drop it.

 

[jimfromnsf]

My point is that the ULA Atlas program no longer has access to Lockheed Martin spacecraft programs. ULA must make agreements with a spacecraft org to provide access to anything on orbit. When LM made the agreement with Bigelow, it was really making an agreement for the use of the Atlas. LM has no manned spacecraft that can fly on an Atlas and he LM Atlas people were looking inward and outward for another org to provide a spacecraft. LM corp was relucant to compete internally with the CEV, so the real hope was an outside org and Spacedev is it. <br /><br />Also the LM-Bigelow agreement was before ULA was formed. So now who do we think the agreement with?<br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

[Here's an interesting concept . The Bigelow/Orion. <br />It seems to me that Lock/Mart could do this without much problem.] <br /><br /><br /><Except the agreement is ULA and Bigelow. There is no LM - Bigelow agreement /><br /><br />The Atlas V and ULA have nothing to do with the Orion spacecraft. Your response is completely irrelevant to post you responded to.

 

[j05h]

<i>> The Atlas V and ULA have nothing to do with the Orion spacecraft. Your response is completely irrelevant to post you responded to.</i><br /><br />And it's a Gaetano Marano "concept" that includes using the inflatable as an aerobrake (opposite the Orion heat shield). Tempest in a teapot, indeed.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"The Atlas V and ULA have nothing to do with the Orion spacecraft. Your response is completely irrelevant to post you responded to."<br /><br />Wrong again. Know something before you post. <br />My point is LM (ULA) and Bigelow MOU is about Atlas and has nothing to do with Orion

 

[gunsandrockets]

Man are you clueless.<br /><br /><My point is LM (ULA) and Bigelow MOU is about Atlas and has nothing to do with Orion /><br /><br />They why the heck did you post that in response to a post ABOUT ORION! Hello?<br /><br />Boris was talking about a hypothetical union between the Lockheed ORION and a Bigelow inflatable. And then you slammed him for saying Lockheed instead of ULA. Hello? ULA and ORION are not related! Orion is completely Lockheed-Martin! Orion has nothing to do with ULA or the Atlas V rocket! Don't you pay any attention?<br /><br /><Wrong again. Know something before you post. /> <br /><br />Didn't you note what post I linked to? Or the quotations my post was directly addressing? What is your malfunction? Is wild contrariness built into your brain?<br /><br />The whole ULV vs Lockheed nonsense which you originally inserted into this thread was irrelevant from the very beginning. It's like you have some kind of automatic response when you see the words 'Lockheed' and you immediately bring up ULA regardless of what the context is. <br /><br />I think I've made my point. And in deference to poor Boris who has seen his suffering thread needlessly dragged into the Lockheed vs ULA swamp, I am going to drop the matter now.<br /><br />Continue on if you must jimfromnsf, but ULA vs Lockheed is off topic and always has been for this thread. I suggest you drop it.

 

[jimfromnsf]

Read the link<br />" "can the BigelowOrion even born someday"?<br />My answer is yes since Bigelow Aerospace and the Orion's manufacturer Lockheed-Martin have signed an agreement to man-rate the AtlasV to launch manned private's capsules for space tourism."<br /><br />My point is that the MOU doesn't do anything for this concept

 

[j05h]

<i>> My point is that the MOU doesn't do anything for this concept</i><br /><br />You guys are using a crazy man's web page to continue a previous argument. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[arobie]

On Bigelow's website, I find this very interesting:<br /><br />Bigelow Aerospace is expanding its workforce and we want to work with you! We are hiring 80 <b>engineers</b>, <b>technicians</b>, <b>managers</b>, and <b>astronauts</b> to join our teams in both Las Vegas, Nevada, and Houston, Texas.<br /><br />From the careers page.<br /><br />Bigelow Aerospace is hiring Astronauts. Interesting. Very interesting.

 

[soyuztma]

<p>Via Hobbyspace comes &nbsp;this news: <em>Orion Propulsion, Inc. to Provide Attitude Control System to Bigelow Aerospace Sundancer Program&nbsp;</em></p><p><em>Orion Propulsion, Inc. is pleased to announce our selection by Bigelow Aerospace to provide the forward attitude control system (ACS) for the Sundancer, the world&rsquo;s first commercial human space habitat. <br /><br />Orion Propulsion will provide the four ACS bi-propellant modules,</em> </p><p><em>which will be used for attitude control and desaturating momentum wheels. The modules utilize proven Orion Propulsion thrusters that operate on hydrogen and oxygen.<br /><br />Orion Propulsion CEO Tim Pickens said, &ldquo;We are very excited about the opportunity to support Bigelow Aerospace&rsquo;s Sundancer program, which is placing the first commercial human rated space habitat in Earth orbit. This kind of trailblazing opportunity is in line with Orion&rsquo;s commitment to commercial space efforts. Affordable thrusters and systems are centerpieces of Orion Propulsion&rsquo;s product line."<br /><br /></em><br />&nbsp;http://www.orionpropulsion.com/index.html</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>