Bigelow Aerospace, A new Genesis in space Options

[nprev]

...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!

[ljk4-1]

...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.

[Toma B]

As I understand it, there are few cammeras onboard Genesis-1...but I haven't seen any images yet...

[Adam]

http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/leonarddavid
Apparently they're going to download more information soon, perhaps we will see images then.

[Toma B]

...going to download more information soon, perhaps we will see images then.

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...

[Bob Shaw]

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

[Comga]

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.

[djellison]

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

[ljk4-1]

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!"

[Bill Harris]

From Wikipedia:

Robert T. Bigelow is a hotel entrepreneur with a keen interest in space flight. He made his fortune through the hotel chain Budget Suites of America and is the founder of Bigelow Aerospace. He has used some of his millions to found the National Institute for Discovery Science as a means to bring proper funding and serious scientific research to bear on the study of paranormal phenomena.

'Nuff said?

--Bill

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

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.

[tfisher]

Bigelow has posted a first picture from the orbiter:


Not very pretty, but at least its something...

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

I don't think I've seen a link here yet, but this is the Bigelow Aerospace website.

[Bill Harris]

>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

[The Messenger]

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.

???
- 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.