Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Unmanned Spaceflight.com _ Private Missions _ Bigelow Aerospace
Posted by: ljk4-1 Jun 1 2006, 07:18 PM
To quote:
On June 16, he'll use a Russian Dnepr rocket to launch a 1/3-scale Genesis model of his planned commercial orbital space station. That much has been public for a while. What I didn't learn until just now is what will be on that module.
Freefloating inside will be 1,000 photocards and small personal objects contributed by Bigelow employees. If all goes well, those items will be continuously blown throughout the pressurized module in a kind of space collage. Six onboard cameras will stream video to Bigelow's new website, which will launch tomorrow or Friday. Seven external cameras will provide views of the Earth from space and the outside of the module.
If that doesn't get even the most disinterested member of the public at least intrigued about the possibilities of space travel, I don't know what will.
But it gets better. Subject to a successful launch of the first module, Bigelow will launch a second Genesis module in September, and that one will contain photos and other small items contributed by anyone who cares to pony up $295.
Full article here:
http://michaelbelfiore.com/blog/2006/05/bigelow-to-launch-space-fans-to-orbit.html
Posted by: chris Jun 2 2006, 09:10 AM
Given that its an unmanned flight, the idea of sending up something like one of http://www.cafepress.com/unmannedspace.21566675 on behalf of us all has some appeal 
Chris
Posted by: AndyWard Jun 2 2006, 11:52 AM
And since it's an inflatable module, the button pin has a small chance of making things really exciting... :-)
Presumably these things are designed to be robust to small holes.
Andy
Posted by: ustrax Jun 2 2006, 02:01 PM
Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 2 2006, 02:40 PM
Presumably these things are designed to be robust to small holes.
Andy
Andy:
All joking aside, the TransHab technology is in many ways *more* resilient than 'traditional' metal spacecraft pressure vessels - and in any case, both are actually inflated structures. The benefits of the TransHab/Genesis way of doing things are actually numerous - it's very, very attractive as a way to build decent-sized habitable spaces.
Bob Shaw
Posted by: ljk4-1 Jun 7 2006, 04:04 PM
Test flight for space hotel delayed
Russian launch of Bigelow's inflatable module now set for July
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13171475/
By James Oberg, NBC News space analyst
Special to MSNBC
The much-anticipated first orbital test of technology that could lead to
a "space hotel" will be delayed, Bigelow Aerospace announced Tuesday. The
blastoff, widely believed to have been planned for June 16, will now not
take place before early July.
"We have just been informed that there will be a three- to four-week
delay of our first launch," Chris Reed, publicist for the Las Vegas-based
company, said in an e-mail advisory. "We are told that if there are no other
delays, our new launch time frame will be between July 4th and July 14th."
The Genesis 1 payload will be a one-third-scale model of an inflatable
habitation module that could form the backbone of an orbital facility for
space tourists and commercial space researchers sometime in the next decade.
NASA experimented with the concept early in the international space station
program, but budget cuts forced them to terminate research. Bigelow
Aerospace has picked up that approach and has perfected the technology,
observers say.
The test flight is expected to subject the flexible exterior wall
material to space conditions for an extended period of time, while interior
instrumentation will monitor pressure and temperature. In theory, a flexible
wall should be even more resistant than a metal wall to penetration by
micrometeorites and space debris.
In addition to the space hotel angle, the mission is of high interest
because it would be the first commercial satellite launch from an active
Russian military missile base, where dozens of SS-18 Satan intercontinental
ballistic missiles remain aimed at the United States, each with 10
thermonuclear warheads.
The launch vehicle, a commercialized version of the SS-18 called the
Dnepr, has already made several successful satellite launches from the
Russian main spaceport at Baikonur in Kazakhstan. Commercialized by the
Kosmotras Corp., it can carry up to 3 tons of cargo into orbit.
Two years of preparation -- For the past two years, officials of the
Russian Defense Ministry have been
preparing to launch the same commercial configuration directly from this
military base. In that way, the operational budget will go to the Strategic
Rocket Forces, the agency that runs the base at Dombarovsky, rather than the
Military Space Forces, which until recently ran most of the Baikonur
operations.
Genesis 1 will be only the first of a long series of commercial satellite
launches that it is hoped will be made from Dombarovsky, a missile base just
east of Orsk in the southwest corner of Siberia.
According to Reed, the reasons for the Genesis 1 delay are "due to
special preparations that the launch provider is continuing to make for our
flight." Bigelow Aerospace only last week unveiled new pages on its Web site
dealing with hitherto-undisclosed features of the payload, involving views
that will be transmitted to Earth.
"This flight contains our Genesis 1 spacecraft with a total of 13 cameras
inside and outside the spacecraft," Reed explained. External cameras will
show scenes of Earth. The interior cameras will show floating personal items
placed aboard the spacecraft by the firm's employees.
Fees for flying mementos -- Bigelow Aerospace is now seeking private
customers willing to pay modest fees to place their own personal items on
the next payload. "The Genesis 2 spacecraft scheduled to fly this coming
fall will be our first commercial effort," Reed continued, "and it is for
that flight that we are currently taking only reservations.
"If the Genesis 1 spacecraft functions as anticipated," he said, "we
shall then proceed to contact all of the parties who have made Genesis 2
reservations and complete the transactions to 'Fly Your Stuff.'"
Reservations are still being taken, he added.
"Only after we have launched our first spacecraft and obtained
satisfactory results from a variety of information sources onboard the
spacecraft will we then actually convert reservations to purchases," he
explained.
Photo: Eventually, Bigelow Aerospace hopes to dock inflatable space
modules together in orbit to construct a hotel, as shown in this artist's
conception.
Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 7 2006, 07:50 PM
A new updated news about an inflatable spacecraft. A silly thing! 
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9290-launch-of-inflatable-spacecraft-delayed.html
Rodolfo
Posted by: hal_9000 Jul 12 2006, 02:43 PM
From http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/07/10/998.aspx
It's taken months longer than he hoped, but real-estate billionaire Robert Bigelow might just see his first orbital spacecraft take flight at last on Wednesday, courtesy of a converted Russian intercontinental ballistic missile.
If Bigelow Aerospace's Genesis 1 inflatable space module lifts off successfully, the test mission could mark a significant step toward an era of hotels and even sports complexes in space.
Russia's Federal Space Agency lists Genesis 1 for a Wednesday launch from the Dombarovsky military missile base in southwestern Siberia. This would be the first on-orbit test of Bigelow's inflatable-module concept, which was actually developed at NASA for future space station modules or Mars ships. When NASA canned the concept, which was known as Transhab, Bigelow bought the rights to commercialize the idea - and hired some of the original designers.
The concept calls for sending up a compressed, soft-sided spacecraft that could be inflated once it's in orbit - sort of like one of those blow-up kiddie play chambers you see at carnivals. Only in this case, the walls are made out of graphite-fiber composite materials that would be tough enough to stand up to encounters with micrometeoroids and orbital debris.
Posted by: argv Jul 12 2006, 05:16 PM
space.com reports the thing has been launched into orbit.
Posted by: nprev Jul 12 2006, 06:12 PM
Pretty cool, and definitely ambitious. Here's the story link:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060712_genesis-1_launch.html
You know, one definite advantage of this concept is that there's a LOT less risk of secondary radiation from cosmic ray impacts... pretty hard to blow a carbon nucleus apart!
Posted by: DonPMitchell Jul 12 2006, 07:11 PM
There is a famous architecture book entitled Learning from Las Vegas, often praised for examining the interesting and original designs of its casinos and hotels without condescension. Kind of ironic that a Las Vegas company (Bigelow Aeorspace) is taking this step now.
I'm somewhat skeptical about this particular mission, but I applaud the general idea. If people can find a practical and economically viable reason for people to go into space, it could encourage private sector R&D and provide inncentives for the development of cheaper technology. More and more, I feel that organizations like NASA and ESA are a hinderence, planning the development of space around burocratic, politcial and academic goals that are often very short sighted. I think much more rapid and practical progress will be made if captialism can get a better toe hold in space.
Posted by: argv Jul 12 2006, 08:03 PM
the bbc science/technology website has a little more info on the launch now.
Posted by: mars loon Jul 13 2006, 01:20 AM
There is also a mention on NASAWATCH today July 12
http://nasawatch.com/
and some more info in this AP article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_sc/private_space_station
Posted by: tfisher Jul 13 2006, 01:42 AM
This is exciting for the reason that it is something completely different than anything that has been done before. Different because it is a pure research and development payload. Different because it is the first inflatable design tested in orbit. Different because it is actual hardware in space by one of companies that wants to build up private access to orbit. This is, along with Rutan's spaceshipone, one of strongest indications that private manned spaceflight is finally coming of age.
Posted by: hal_9000 Jul 13 2006, 02:31 AM
From http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/leonarddavid
Bigelow Module: Orbital Updates
Posted on July 12, 2006 @ 18:57:51 EDT
Author Leonard David
Robert Bigelow, head of Bigelow Aerospace has confirmed that the Genesis-1 spacecraft has successfully expanded. “We have also confirmed that all of the solar arrays have been deployed,” he noted.
At the firm’s mission control center in Las Vegas, Nevada, information has been acquired from Genesis-1. “The ISC Kosmotras Dnepr rocket has flawlessly delivered the Genesis-1 into the target orbit of 550 kilometers altitude at 64 degrees inclination,” Bigelow said.
An early look at the telemetry indicated that the module’s internal battery is at a full charge of 26 volts – indicating that the solar arrays were deployed.
“The internal temperature of the spacecraft is reported to be 26 degrees Celsius and we have acquired the spacecraft’s Global Positioning System (GPS) signal that will enable us to track the ship in flight,” Bigelow reported. “We have initiated communication with the ship’s onboard computers and expect to download more information over the next few hours.”
Mark Pierson a key Genesis-1 architect told SPACE.com late Wednesday that “Genesis-1 is alive and well…and it’s talking…and we have a valid ground track.”
“The telemetry tells us that we’re inflated and deployed,” Pierson said. The expandable module has reached 8 feet in diameter under an automated sequence.
“It’s going better than we would have anticipated,” added Mike Gold, corporate counsel for Bigelow Aerospace in Washington, D.C. Both he and Pierson, and other Bigelow Aerospace personnel were on hand for the Dnepr liftoff that placed Genesis-1 into Earth orbit.
Posted by: nprev Jul 13 2006, 05:50 PM
...completely nominal, then? I'm surprised that the big media outlets like CNN aren't covering this in depth...there haven't been too many success stories in private spaceflight, you'd think that this launch would receive more media exposure!
Posted by: ljk4-1 Jul 13 2006, 05:56 PM
...completely nominal, then? I'm surprised that the big media outlets like CNN aren't covering this in depth...there haven't been too many success stories in private spaceflight, you'd think that this launch would receive more media exposure!Considering that the idea apparently came from NASA's rejected TransHab concept,
perhaps that's the way they want it.
Plus with the mainstream media, it seems that space events either have to be
either really spectacular successes or failures to merit a report.
BTW, I love their little Mission Control in Las Vegas, complete with really cool
space images. See the Space.com item for the MC photo.
Posted by: Toma B Jul 13 2006, 06:10 PM
As I understand it, there are few cammeras onboard Genesis-1...but I haven't seen any images yet... 
Posted by: Adam Jul 13 2006, 06:46 PM
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/leonarddavid
Apparently they're going to download more information soon, perhaps we will see images then.
Posted by: Toma B Jul 13 2006, 06:59 PM
That's what I was talking about...That aricle was posted on July 12, 2006 @ 18:57:51 EDT...no news for more than 24 hours...
Posted by: Bob Shaw Jul 13 2006, 08:11 PM
One thing about the Bigelow website is the, well, tastelessness of the whole thing! You can barely see the information for the PR bling. Perhaps Elvis is their web designer - or Liberace! And, as for the business of space bingo, and an ant farm...
...I wish them well, but their web presence is far from serious.
Bob Shaw
Posted by: Comga Jul 14 2006, 03:09 AM
B)-->
That's what I was talking about...That aricle was posted on July 12, 2006 @ 18:57:51 EDT...no news for more than 24 hours...
[/quote]
July 13, 2006
Genesis I Mission Update
4:30 PDT
All Systems are operating within expected parameters. Temperature, avionics, solar arrays and battery power all remain positive. All of our initial orbits have had direct sunlight, which has helped in charging the main battery to maximum capacity.
Pressure onboard the spacecraft has remained constant at 7.5 pounds per square inch (PSI).
We have had multiple contacts with the ship, and received several data streams. While most of these current communication streams are dedicated to command and control of the spacecraft, we have downloaded several small images from the onboard cameras and hope to get more as more bandwidth in the data stream becomes available.
- Robert T. Bigelow
Now we are waiting for him to SHARE the pictures.
Posted by: djellison Jul 14 2006, 06:58 AM
B)-->
That's what I was talking about...That aricle was posted on July 12, 2006 @ 18:57:51 EDT...no news for more than 24 hours...
[/quote]
This isn't NASA or MER or even ESA. This is a corporate exercise and they don't owe anyone anything ( except investors and shareholders) , and wont release anything unless it's got a nice spin in it and a positive reflection on B.A. - that's just the way corporate stuff is. If you're looking for regular updates...prepare to be disapointed, they're not going to come. What will come is general back slapping and lots of pomp, circumstance and self promotion and 'we told you it would work'. Someone will probably be on the TV saying "NASA should be flying these for the ISS but they didn't choose to do so" making it appear as if they actually had a choice when financially, it was never an option.
Doug
Posted by: ljk4-1 Jul 14 2006, 01:48 PM
So many pro-space folks want the space industry to go private - well, now you
have a taste of what it is probably going to be like.
And if you think the government is bad about not supporting projects, just wait
until private industry finds that their lunar colony isn't making the money their
stockholders thought it should.
Science? Exploration? Colonization to spread humanity to the stars? It's the
bottom line that counts.
The predicted words of the first human on Mars:
"That's one small investment gain for the stockholders, one giant potential profit
margin for Wal-Mart!"
Posted by: Bill Harris Jul 14 2006, 08:13 PM
From Wikipedia:
'Nuff said?
--Bill
Posted by: DonPMitchell Jul 14 2006, 09:13 PM
I disagree. Real advancement in space exploration requries a radical paradigm shift.
NASA and the ESA have limited budgets and limited agendas. On a few billion a year, space exploration wil never go beyond sending a small probe to a planet every few years. From Sputnik to Apollo to Venus Express, space exploration has only been viewed by politicians as an exercise in boosting nationalistic pride. Some scientists have a greater vision, but many of them just see it as an exercise in promoting their academic careers. And tax payers are only willing to spend so much for this sort of exotic entertainment.
If you look at the history of automobiles, airplanes, computers, telephones, etc.; there is no case where major innovation and expansion has occured as a burocratically supervised government program. Furthermore, when a technology does expand and become economically viable, there is inevitably a flurry of new invention. This is already true about many aspects of space. A university scientist might be able to build a camera or a radiation detector, but big engineering efforts like rocket engines and spacecrafts are the exclusive domain of industries like Lockheed and Boeing and TRW.
The bulk of work and innovation in space is dictated by the market for commercial and military satellites. It's like the days of the $100,000 UNIX workstation and 10,000 sites on the internet in the 1980s. It is commercial, but nothing like the subsequent era of personal computers and 100,000,000 sites on the net. If you want that kind of revolutionary change in space exploration and cost reduction, you must open up a real market and engage professional labor on a larger scale.
Bigelow Aerospace is kind of a joke, like a lot of the small private space efforts now. But it is still remarkable that a private company has put such an object in orbit. And what if a serious player like Boeing or Lockheed decided this was economically viable? Then it would be a whole different game, and a vast pool of inventive and experienced people would begin to turn their attention to the task.
Posted by: tfisher Jul 15 2006, 01:27 AM
Bigelow has posted a first picture from the orbiter:
Not very pretty, but at least its something...
Posted by: DonPMitchell Jul 15 2006, 02:51 AM
I don't think I've seen a link here yet, but this is the http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/multiverse/news.php website.
Posted by: Bill Harris Jul 15 2006, 08:56 AM
>Real advancement in space exploration requries a radical paradigm shift.
True. "Bigelow Aerospace" is a parallel to "Hughes Aircraft": "got money, got enthusiasm, let's conquer the world (universe)". But can that approach be transferred from the air to space? I'm conservative and am not sure.
--Bill
Posted by: The Messenger Jul 15 2006, 05:39 PM
???
- Rural Electrification, and virtually all research into plant, irrigation and dairy science was paid for by government programs for decades - At least in the US.
- Tennessee Valley authority - and most hydroelectric programs.
- The development of the modern airplane (Mostly in France).
- All fighter jet and military aircraft development, Hughes debunkles not withstanding.
- Most rocket developments
- Nuclear submarines, and the nuclear industry in general.
- Miniturization of SS circuits (originally funded by NASA for space applications in the 60's)
- The internet, airbag research, broadband- the list is endless
In many cases, the efforts have been a combination of private researchers and government funding, but even in 'truly independent' research, tax breaks for R&D have been an important incentive. Ronald Reagen banned private satellite launches from shuttle missions in an effort to help develope a private sector rocket industry, but the principle result is that many other governments are now launching many private satellites. The ugly fact is, the truly private sector does not risk capital on truly innovative approaches.
Posted by: dvandorn Jul 15 2006, 06:01 PM
Let's face up to it -- the days in which a lone inventor could cobble together innovative uses of materials, electricity or applications of basic Newtonian physics, without far more capitalization than an individual is generally capable of generating, are pretty much over. We've simply plumbed the depths of technologies available to those who cannot apply truly expensive technologies in their assistance.
Until and unless a vast paradigm shift makes possible the creation of spacecraft and motive forces capable of delivering them into space using only those odds and ends found around the home, we are limited in terms of new technologies and innovations to what can be created by well-funded corporations and governments.
Well-funded corporations and governments have a remarkably strong antipathy towards innovation.
-the other Doug
Posted by: DonPMitchell Jul 15 2006, 09:03 PM
I think for plant irrigation and dairy farming, I would have to give credit to the ancient Sumerians. And let us not forget that thanks to NASA, my CorningWare casserole could probably survive atmospheric reentry. You can argue about the causal relationships here, but I would argue that consumer electronics drove technology far more than NASA contracts.
Certainly the military drives the market, but the R&D gets done by corporations like Electric Boat Company or Boeing or Hugues or Lockheed. Very little gets done in the style of the Manhatten Project, with direct government control. France invented the modern airplane? When?
I grew up in the rural midwest, and the electrification was a co-op enterprise owned by the farmers. The technololgy of power distribution was largely made by Westinghouse and General Electric.
The original internet was developed under a DARPA grant, but at that time, there were extensive private computer networks owned and built by IBM and Control Data. I used the CDC PLATO system during the late 1970s, and it was damn impressive technology. The internet as it exsists today, with 100,000,000 sites is made possible by drastic redesign of routing and link-level protocols by Cisco and many others. And it has always run on top of privately built lines like AT&T's photonic trunk lines.
Government plays a role, but without professional commerical engineering and market incentive, these big projects would not exist.
So getting back to space exploration, I still believe that the current programs by NASA and ESA are short sighted and in a steady state. Commercial and military satellites create the market and technology now.
Posted by: The Messenger Jul 16 2006, 12:48 PM
Fair assessment, Don.
I am anticipating new, fundamental breakthroughs, that are the result of planetary probes and deep space imaging. So I don't see a lot of value-added in launching a new generation of space bouncy room and sight- seeing craft, like the shuttle.
That said, if Bigalow is willing to fund high risk technologies and fringe science...where do I sign up:)
Posted by: edstrick Jul 17 2006, 08:07 AM
There are fundamentally different types of breakthroughs: scientific, engineering, and economic. The NASA and ESA of today are capable of the first, fumble the second increasingly badly with time (Aerospace plane, X-33, etc.. Hermes...), and are transcendentally incapable of the third.
We can have a space "program" with more of the same only better, but we can also have a "breakout" program that will give true access to space, and the ability to make a space-based industrial civilization a real possiblity. Elon Mus, Bigelow, Paul Allen, Jef Bezos and the space activists like Rick Tumlinson, Peter Diamandis, and the Ansaris the names our descendents will learn the way they learn of Heinrik Hudson, Vasco da Gama, Francis Drake and James Cook.
Posted by: crabbsaline Jul 17 2006, 09:46 PM
New images up for 7/17/06:
Posted by: djellison Jul 17 2006, 10:32 PM
Reminds me of the emails I get from Uni of Tokyo's Cubesats
http://www.space.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cubesat/index-e.html
Doug
Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jul 17 2006, 11:42 PM
The Aerospace Plane was DOD not NASA
Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jul 17 2006, 11:48 PM
Those are explorers. We are ready have them: Shepard, Armstrong. The new people are not the others ones you listed.
They will be the "exploiters" and will run companies like the Dutch East Indies Company. Who learned who ran that company?
Posted by: lyford Jul 18 2006, 04:49 AM
short videos up at
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/video.php
i can see how they need to fix that circulation issue before they start charging 300 bucks a picture to go whizzing by....
Posted by: AndyG Jul 18 2006, 12:05 PM
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/video.php
i can see how they need to fix that circulation issue before they start charging 300 bucks a picture to go whizzing by....
...presumably "mission end" is when all the pictures flock to one spot on the wall and disappear one-by-one?
Andy G
Posted by: DonPMitchell Jul 24 2006, 09:56 PM
"Where American entrepreneurs go, European bureaucrats are sure to follow..." A typically irreverent but interesting article today in the The Register.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/24/esa_grants/
Posted by: lyford Jul 24 2006, 10:27 PM
Now that would be a video feed I would pay to see... rocket cam on the way back down!
Posted by: hal_9000 Jul 24 2006, 10:57 PM
more pics
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/index.php
Posted by: dvandorn Jul 24 2006, 11:09 PM
Hmm -- in all three of the interior shots they have up, many, many details in the interior (which appear to be signs for businesses and things) are intentionally blurred out. Must be eight or ten places where the image has been rather crudely blurred. In all three images.
Anyone have a clue as to why?
-the other Doug
Posted by: um3k Jul 24 2006, 11:32 PM
Other Doug, http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/pixilation.php
Posted by: remcook Aug 2 2006, 04:30 PM
new pictures:
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/index.php
Posted by: PhilHorzempa Aug 4 2006, 04:59 AM
My take on the flight of Genesis 1 is this - we are seeing the first
flight of a type of craft that will one day be flown to Mars. In fact,
this TransHab-type craft will be used for crew quarters on the way
to Mars, and as modules for a base on the surface of Mars.
I applaud Bigelow in his efforts. He gets to pursue his business
of orbital hotels, while at the same time, proving out the technology
that NASA will need for advanced manned planetary missions.
I see this as a Win-Win situation.
Another Phil
Posted by: PhilHorzempa Aug 6 2006, 04:04 AM
A few more thoughts on Genesis 1/Transhab.
First, check out this excellent article on the history and
important advances of Transhab (from Hobby Space).
It features a detailed interview with Constance Adams,
one of the key contributors to the Transhab project.
http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/Interviews/Systems/ConstanceAdams.html
Second, here is the link to an article from Popular Science that
highlights Transhab, but also gets into the challenge of "Knowledge
Capture" at a place like NASA.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/18e05b4a1db84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
And for your viewing pleasure, here is an image from the NASA History
book, "Spaceflight Revolution." It shows a 24-foot inflatable toroidal-shape
structure on display during a visit to Langley by Jim Webb in December 1961!
Everything old is new again.
|
One more thought concerning inflatables. As I recall, Mike Griffin made
mention, about a year or so ago, of an Earth orbital fuel depot that might be used
in future manned Mars expeditions. He was pointing out that one way that Commercial
space companies could make "easy" money was by hauling fuel to Earth orbit.
It is now extremely expensive to launch anything into orbit, but if it could be done
cheaply, then the start-up space companies could earn a niche in the space
exploration architecture.
I mention this because Griffin went on to say that this fuel depot could be
man-tended, i.e., not permanently manned. This may then lead one to imagine
that these temporary quarters could be inflatable modules bought from
that pioneer of orbital motels, Bigelow Aerospace.
Another Phil
Posted by: jabe Sep 13 2006, 02:51 PM
I wonder if Bigelows "hotel" or some other version will ever be attached to the ISS for crew quarters.
Be a cheap addition to the ISS and give Bigelow lots of credibility. Since it was to be installed initially, I wonder if the idea was/will be ever approached.
Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Sep 14 2006, 03:44 AM
Be a cheap addition to the ISS and give Bigelow lots of credibility. Since it was to be installed initially, I wonder if the idea was/will be ever approached.
No, Bigelow never was or will be part of the ISS plans
Posted by: jabe Sep 14 2006, 05:36 PM
I was dissappointed that transhab was cut from the station plans way back when (2001??).....
Side note..what plans do they have for the habitat..just saw an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitation_Module saying it was canceled in feb 2006
Posted by: dvandorn Sep 15 2006, 01:52 AM
How the heck do they think they're going to expand the ISS crew to six people if they only have two sleeping berths on the whole complex???
-the other Doug
Posted by: Drkskywxlt Sep 15 2006, 06:50 AM
-the other Doug
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts115/fdf/manifest.html
6-person capability will be established with STS-128 slated for early 09. They're adding sleeping berths and facilities.
Posted by: jabe Sep 21 2006, 05:57 PM
interesting..
LM and bigelow..
http://nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4823
Posted by: AndyG Sep 22 2006, 08:29 AM
6-person capability will be established with STS-128 slated for early 09. They're adding sleeping berths and facilities.
The romantic in me would rather like to see one of the shuttles left at the ISS. Endeavour on STS-133 perhaps, the crew - if it's a logistics mission - not necessarily being large, and able to nip home on a Soyuz. Or two.
Why shouldn't a last flight be a one-way-ticket, a symbol of the work the shuttles have done in ferrying stuff to orbit for 25 years? That'd leave Discovery and Atlantis for museums (Smithsonian and the Cape, no doubt), and Endeavour as - urrrr - a "test article" for investigations on the long exposure to vacuum. Or something.
Andy
Posted by: Drkskywxlt Sep 22 2006, 12:11 PM
Why shouldn't a last flight be a one-way-ticket, a symbol of the work the shuttles have done in ferrying stuff to orbit for 25 years? That'd leave Discovery and Atlantis for museums (Smithsonian and the Cape, no doubt), and Endeavour as - urrrr - a "test article" for investigations on the long exposure to vacuum. Or something.
Andy
That's an interesting idea, but that would add so much mass to the ISS that I wonder if it would be able to maintain it's orbit with normal reboosts. Whatever remaining propellent would be left in Endeavor would be used up eventually and then you'd just have a really heavy anchor weighing down the station.
Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Sep 22 2006, 12:45 PM
How are you going to power it? Also, how do get rid of it at the end of the ISS? The additional habitable volume is insignificant
The orbiter would detiorate quickly. It would be worse that sitting on the ground.
"Symbol of the work"? It is an inanimate object, it doesn't need a "reward". Your "reward" would give it a fate like Columbia
Posted by: ugordan Sep 22 2006, 12:49 PM
What's the full mass of ISS compared to an empty shuttle? Anyway, it's not the mass that determines the need for reboosts, but the amount of drag. Granted, a bigger mass will require more fuel, but I wouldn't be surprised if the new solar panel area actually costs more than a shuttle due to increased drag surface, so more frequent reboosts are needed.
Posted by: paxdan Sep 22 2006, 12:52 PM
You seem to be forgetting one of the crucial rules of flying:
"Always try to keep the number of landings you make equal to the number of take offs"
Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Sep 22 2006, 12:54 PM
the orbiter at 230K lb would be a significant portion of the ISS mass. Also, it would change the mass propertities. even though the solar array may have more drag, the shuttle still would cause a moment that would have to be compensated for
It would block the docking ports.
Posted by: ugordan Sep 22 2006, 01:12 PM
I just love it when you aerospace guys talk pounds, feet, yards, statute miles, nautical miles, imperial miles and god knows what other combinations. MCO, anyone?
Just the other day, while watching STS-115 launch replay, I realized that the miles up and downrange they were talking about weren't nautical but statute. I was under the impression nautical miles were widely used and assumed.
Posted by: AndyG Sep 22 2006, 01:15 PM
Last issue first: it need not be. There's, what, ~300 cubic metres of payload bay not including the docking adapter. I can't believe that a small hab module - not a working volume, just additional space for the crew and/or tourists - couldn't be built in the next four years, providing more much-needed room. Power - for lighting, ventilation and heating - needn't be a huge amount.
I'm reminded of military aircraft. They look ok in museums, but nothing is as inspirational as seeing them fly. Post 2010, to know there's a shuttle permanently berthed at the gleaming, magnitude minus whatever-it-is ISS, rather than slowly falling to pieces as a museum piece, would be a wonderful reminder to people around the planet regarding that "magnificent flying machine" - and maybe it could just spur peoples' memories to recall the second half of Tsiolkovsky's famous quote: "...man cannot stay in the cradle forever."
Andy
Posted by: paxdan Sep 22 2006, 01:18 PM
LEO is the cradle.
Posted by: djellison Sep 22 2006, 01:21 PM
Then why take up the docking port with a Shuttle - just take this small hab module you propose and bolt it onto the end of Node 2 and put the last PMA on the end of it?
It's seems like you've thought of a solution for a problem that doesn't actually exist.
Doug
Posted by: Drkskywxlt Sep 22 2006, 01:39 PM
The US Hab is fully completed, but won't be launched due to the additional cost after the ISS redesign a few years back.
If someone could foot the bill for the launch and attachment, then that would be plenty of room and facilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitation_Module
Posted by: AndyG Sep 22 2006, 02:41 PM
Bah-humbug! 
Ok, I can see that they're no takers for the Tsiolkovsky Orbital Museum. Indeed, there's a bit of hatred at the mere romanticism of it all. That, and the current 20M$ a ticket entrance fee.
Right - you asked for it. Here's the hard-engineering-headed side of me talking.
The orbiters have been operating as a fleet of space shuttles up until now. When the last two (Atlantis is to be a hangar queen, I think?) are on their last trip in one direction (given the crew can return in a safer capsule) and the vehicles are no-longer needing to shuttle anywhere, has anyone asked whether flying brakes, wheels, and TPS upstairs makes any sense at all? Think of the mass you could throw out of each orbiter, and the resultant payload you could get in...
Once you consider that, there's a <ahem> further option:
While the angle-grinders are out, if the wings and stabiliser were removed for two one-shot shuttle C-equivalents, NASA would be not be that far off getting a brace of orbital ETs as part of their future freelance LEO gas station. Or at least a bit of orbital real estate that Mr. Bigelow might fancy.
How's that for unromantic?
Andy
Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Sep 22 2006, 03:19 PM
If someone could foot the bill for the launch and attachment, then that would be plenty of room and facilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitation_Module
Not "fully completed". The shell was only completed. It was never outfitted. Also the shell is being used for other ground tests.
Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Sep 22 2006, 03:22 PM
All these proposals, ignore the fact that disposing of dead orbiter art the completion of the ISS program is a problem, since it has TPS and aerosurfaces. It won't follow a typical ballistic entry
Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Sep 22 2006, 03:24 PM
Once you consider that, there's a <ahem> further option:
While the angle-grinders are out, if the wings and stabiliser were removed for two one-shot shuttle C-equivalents, NASA would be not be that far off getting a brace of orbital ETs as part of their future freelance LEO gas station. Or at least a bit of orbital real estate that Mr. Bigelow might fancy.
How's that for unromantic?
Andy
Who is going to fly it up. you made if go from a few abort options to none
Posted by: djellison Sep 22 2006, 03:27 PM
And what payload are you intending to put in? The current last shuttle launch is volume packed with Node 3 and the Cupola.....
What you're talking about is all great for the pages of a Simon Baxter novel, but it has little relation to what is possible in reality.
You're making up a solution that isn't even slightly feasable for a problem that doesn't exist still.
Doug
Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Sep 22 2006, 03:32 PM
What "much needed room"? They are adding at least 5 more modules.
Bring the $. The ISS and the shuttle are not Legos. PPT engineering is easy and cheap, real engineering isn't
Heating isn't required. Cooling is and the payload bay would be required to be open for the radiators. more things to break down
Posted by: DonPMitchell Sep 26 2006, 02:53 PM
http://nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4823
"Lockheed Martin and Bigelow Aerospace have entered into a deal to move towards the use of the Atlas V for private manned space flight..."
Posted by: Drkskywxlt Sep 27 2006, 02:45 PM
"Lockheed Martin and Bigelow Aerospace have entered into a deal to move towards the use of the Atlas V for private manned space flight..."
Does anyone have a good answer why NASA didn't look harder at the Atlas V or Delta IV for the Crew Launch Vehicle? Are they expecting the CLV to be cheaper/safer in the long run?
Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Sep 27 2006, 03:56 PM
They say the CLV is safer. It definately won't be cheaper. Just the opposite. Read the ESAS
Posted by: Rakhir Jan 16 2007, 10:02 AM
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4996
The launch of Bigelow Aerospace's Genesis II has suffered a delay of at least 60 days.
Extra time is required by the launch provider to complete a review of the Dnepr vehicle.
Posted by: Rakhir Jun 28 2007, 03:53 PM
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5150
The status of the spacecraft's health is reported to be good.
Posted by: jabe Jul 12 2007, 12:18 PM
There have been lots of updates at http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/ site.
They have a neat vid of the http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/video_inside_genesis_II.php posted there.
curious to see how the bingo will work...
cheers
jb
Posted by: jabe Aug 30 2007, 10:34 PM
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/ has update of a picture..
pretty neat one http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/images/how_did_they_do_it.jpg
Posted by: stevesliva Aug 31 2007, 01:13 AM
Looks like a fisheye lens was used.
Posted by: jabe Oct 16 2007, 11:37 AM
looks like they are ready to play http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/video_bingo_in_motion.php
Posted by: jabe Apr 19 2008, 12:27 AM
update at http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis_II/?Recent_Images
Question..how do you "tweak" the camera to Hi-def...???
cheers
jb
Posted by: tfisher Apr 19 2008, 02:39 AM
From one of the image captions: "The image shows recent improvements by Bigelow Aerospace controllers on the resolution of images beamed down from the unmanned pathfinder module." Sounds to me like they used to be decimating or severely compressing the images and they changed their software to send full (or at least higher) resolution. I wonder if they have an extremely limited downlink bandwidth? Reminds me of Galileo with its stuck high gain antenna...
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)