Slashdot Mirror

What about Bigelow's Genesis 1 and 2 inflatable modules. They have been on orbit for many years. http://bigelowaerospace.com/bi...

Bob Bigelow. He's the guy whose company is sending an inflatable module to the ISS later this year. They already have a proof-of-concept module in orbit, and would already have launched their much bigger BA330, but there's currently no rocket powerful enough to loft it. But the upcoming SpaceX Falcon Heavy will be powerful enough, and that should be flying by this time next year.

Their plan is to rent space in the BA330 to countries and/or companies that want to do something in microgravity, but can't afford to launch a whole station themselves. When the Falcon 9 and Dragon 2 are man-rated (ca. 2017), the cost of getting humans to LEO will plummet, making this a very attractive option for many entities that currently would never dream of such ventures.

In NASA's defense, Orion is designed for missions away from Earth and Dragon is for LEO. While Orion will be tested in Earth orbit, so were Apollo components and I don't see that as a bad thing.

Dragon is great and I think SpaceX will get pretty good mileage out of it, both manned and unmanned. I think having a private way to get people into orbit will also help other companies like Bigelow.

Orion and Dragon have different design parameters. Orion is designed to pretty much go anywhere and will be expensive because of it. Dragon is designed to go to LEO as inexpensively as possible. Both of these are good things.

Eventually Virgin Galactic's space planes will deliver tourist's to Bigelow's habitats. They can't go that high YET, thus the testing of new engines...testing that lead to this tragedy.

The only two vehicles that will be going to Bigelow's habitats (according to Bigelow) will be SpaceX's Dragon on Falcon 9 and Boeing's CST-100 on ULA's Atlas V.

New engines might help Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo "go that high" (that's not really the issue here) and maybe even "go that fast" (orbital velocity would be required to actually dock with a Bigelow habitat as opposed to merely watching it go flying by). New engines will not help their SpaceShipTwo survive atmospheric re-entry at orbital speeds.

SpaceShipTwo's claim to fame is the "feathering" mechanism (which is what seems to have been the culprit in this tragedy) which allows for a safe and easy way of handling re-entry at suborbital speeds. That's why this analogy isn't entirely helpful. We remember the Hierapolis sawmill because it incorporated a novel mechanism which ended up being instrumental in future cars. SpaceShipTwo's novel mechanism will not be instrumental in future orbital launch vehicles.

That being said, what they're doing is awesome. Anything that increases our access to space, even suborbital space, has the potential to advance the state of the art of spaceflight. Maybe all we get out of Virgin Galactic is a vetting of their thrill-ride business model. Even if that's the case, it's still a step in the right direction.

Screw going to the ISS.. Boeing (and SpaceX for that matter) need to get together with Bigelow Aerospace, one of our local companies here in Las Vegas, and set up a couple of Bigelow's Expandable spacecraft, two of which have been in orbit since 2006/2007 http://bigelowaerospace.com./ Then these "extreme adventure" trips would be totally of a commercial nature.. No government involvement. From the looks of these structures, they'd make a fantastic "space-hotel", and from what I see of the Genesis II, its got a fair percentage of the open space of the ISS..

Bigelow Aerospace plans to launch a habitation module or two in the next few years.

Umm.. They've had two up there since 2006-2007...Genesis I was launched on July 12, 2006, by a converted Russian Dniepr ICBM, and the Genesis II was launched on June 28, 2007, again by the Russians.. According to the Bigelow webpage they're still up there, waiting for visitors... http://bigelowaerospace.com/

Boeing on the other hand is proposing a craft that's clean-sheet new and has no other customers.

That's not true. Bigelow Aerospace is offering rides on Boeing's CST-100 to their planned space station. $36.75M per seat aboard the Boeing craft and $26.25M per seat aboard the SpaceX craft (includes 10 to 60 days in orbit).

Posting anon to preserve mods.

Damn, you beat me to it by a few mins!!!! Good show. Oh well, I'll post my thoughts for the record anyhow.

Funny you should mention that. I would bet seriously that they are going to do the same. In fact, I'll hypothesize that they go so far as collaborate with Bigelow Aerospace http://www.bigelowaerospace.co... and help expand their inflatable modules. Bigelow already has an orbiting station themselves you know? The Genesis II been up there since 2007. I used to know the URL of the tracking website but I have forgotten it now or else I'd post it here.

Anyhow, they'd be able to do a LOT more with these modules if they had a reliable rocket to do things with. Que SpaceX. Bigelow Aerospace isn't a fluke no-name company. They're the real deal and they make shit happen and already have a NASA contract. Combine them with SpaceX and you'll have a serious space powerhouse. These are the modules that make the most sense to ship to Mars and such. I wouldn't be surprised if they put these things on the Moon to get practice too and to establish a moon base.

Actually, SpaceX already has a Bigelow Aerospace launch on their manifest scheduled for 2015.

Bigelow Aerospace makes inflatable space habitats. They have two small-scale prototypes in orbit already, and this next launch is likely to carry their first full-size station.

Bigelow has already partnered with SpaceX (as well as Boeing) for launch services related to crew rotation and supply missions for this endeavor.

Everybody seems to have forgotten that there are two additional space stations currently in orbit besides ISS.. They're the Bigelow Aerospace Genesis I/II habitats, that were launched WAY back in 2006/2007. http://www.bigelowaerospace.co... Bigelow is right here in North Las Vegas, and those habitats are still there and certainly could be commercial staging locations for Mars missions, with SpaceX getting everything into orbit. The ISS is great and all, but its encombered by too many governments.. To use ISS for staging an essentially commericial mission to Mars would be a lesson in futility.. If Musk/SpaceX got together with Bob Bigelow, at Bigelow Aerospace, great things might happen....

The Russians have sent tourists to the ISS, so why not Virgin Galactic?

The company to look at is Bigelow Aerospace. FYI, this company is partnering with Boeing to build a spacecraft that will carry passengers at a fraction of the price that Space Adventures is currently charging for that opportunity.

As for a microgravity lab, note that NanoRacks already provides this service. They are literally open to anybody willing to use their checkbook to purchase a flight spot. This is no longer the time for theoretical rants, but a time to act and do something as the opportunity is here. At best, all you can do now is to find cheaper ways to get these things to happen or simply take advantage of the opportunities that exist.

When does INL turn a profit? Los Alamos? Amundsen-Scott? Those are all major laboratories doing basic research. The ISS justifiably fits right in there with all of those facilities, and I"m glad that it is treated as such.

Part of the problem is that the ISS really is incomplete to be able to support the personnel needed to make it really thrive as a research lab. It was supposed to have a crew of six astronauts on board full-time (that was the original design) where two of those astronauts would deal with station keeping duties (at least trading off the equivalent of two astronauts doing that work) while the other four would be doing basic research.

That hasn't happened The TransHab module in particular is needed to provide additional berthing arrangements (aka sleeping quarters) for the astronauts or at least another lab module that can expand the occupancy as well as one of the other partners (either ESA or NASA) needs to develop another spacecraft to bring astronauts up and down. NASA is working on that so it is just a matter of time.

Regardless, the ISS is doing some tremendous work right now, and it is disingenuous to suggest that spider webs are the only thing being studied. The number of experiments numbers in the hundreds that have already been completed. You can debate the merit of that research based upon the funding being done, but far less has been done with far more money in other endeavors of government activity. The entire ISS program, including all shuttle launches and training and all of the maintenance costs, is still less than the amount of money spent on air conditioning equipment used by the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

As for private stations going into space and trying to duplicate the features of the ISS, I would bet that Robert Bigelow would be willing to help you out if you had a good idea and some funding sources to consider. I agree it would be done much cheaper by private industry, but it already is built... so do you really think it needs to be thrown away and splashed in the Pacific Ocean?

You aren't the only one who can see that scenario occurring. Bigelow Aerospace not only sees it as a possible scenario, they see it as a likely scenario, and intend to make money being the ones to do it. Maybe not full up O'Neill cylinder world-in-a-bottle vacation spot, but something, at least.

But this is the ISS, the over-budget, over-priced lab where the Italians made the trash module (DaVinci Module is a giant trashcan). Let's face it the ISS is a bit boring and dull. Oh look another crew oh look a spacewalk. Sorry if that's cynical but hell, let's go back to the moon, let's go to Mars or further instead of a few miles up.

I just have to chime in here. Things have changed. And whether it was too expensive or not, that's in the past.

Now, the ISS is a critical element in the commercial/private space research and development that will take us to those other places in a real, "moving in and staying" kinda way. Almost every piece of hardware and technology will be tested on the ISS before it goes anywhere. For example, right now on the ISS is a 3D printer being tested to see how it works in microgravity, and learn what engineering changes will be required. 3D printing, or 'additive manufacturing' is one of the critical enabling technologies for long term travel, such as trips to Mars. And a Bigelow expandable habitat will be sent up and attached to the ISS for long term testing, soon.

Believe it or not, today the govt. is actually working to get out of the way, and really allow the ISS to be as useful as it could be. I'm kinda involved in some of the 'New Space' efforts. One very cool thing that the govt has done is designate the ISS as a National Laboratory (like Los Alamos, LLL, Sandia, Argonne, etc.) and has set up a program to provide free access for qualifying research - free launch, free astronaut activities (limited to a bit of button pushing) and free return. Administration has been delegated to an NGO (CASIS). So this is a beyond-world-class scientific laboratory, available for free for whomever comes up with something interesting. And they (not just NASA, but several other agencies as well) _really_ want to show some good results - that's what will justify continued support.

This could be as important for space research and development as anything we've seen. Scheduling of experiments (built into one of the three standard rack systems, from the Nanorack size to full 19" rack) has changed so that, where in the past it could take two or three years to get an experiment approved and launched, now it's possible to get your experiment launched in a few months. It still will cost a company $300,000 or so to design, build, test and get through the approval process (quite a bit less for a volunteer/student project with free labor and scrounged materials) but this is a game changer.

One company I'm (distantly) involved with is doing biotech research, and plans to run two or more experiments per year over the next couple of years. If their research pans out, the fruit of that research may well justify at least the cost of running the station over that time.

TL;DR - the ISS is turning from a government boutique research facility into a major tool for independent R&D, and will be instrumental in making commercial space and space development economically and technically possible.

Call me when they exist.

Ring, ring.

By the time they deliver their first ton of materials to earth orbit (or L2, or whatever), SpaceX will be offering rides to space for less than $10m per seat, and Bigelow will have living quarters and lab space available for rent. The orbital "market" is opening up a lot sooner than you realize.

But seriously, are you going to go with the lowest bidder? I would want the job doing by someone who knows what they're doing, not by someone who's desperate to close a contract.

The point is that, for example, SpaceX is capitalising on 50+ years of space science to lower the cost of getting to space. By building cheaper, but more reliable and reusable boosters and capsules.

Bigelow Aerospace is using discarded NASA technology to innovate cheaper but equally reliable inflatable space habitats.

NASA has been using basically the same space suit design for the last 50 years. Maybe Final Frontier Design can give the same kind of fresh outlook that SpaceX gave to booster and capsule design and Bigelow Aerospace is giving to space habitat design.

I can't say whether Final Frontier Design will succeed, but a new design is needed. NASA space suits are very expensive, custom fitted for each user. Surely there must be some equally reliable, but cost saving design improvements.

Does this count?

There is pretty much zero chance anyone in the private sector is going to sink any money in to interstellar space travel

There's a fair amount of private sector money flowing into space travel now (not specifically interstellar, but have you to walk before you can run). Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas is one example (although they've had some cutbacks recently thanks to what Bigelow refers to as the "Obama recession").

It would be hard to argue that working towards private space flight/exploration won't have a vast effect on interstellar study. It would be equally hard to argue that focusing on interstellar travel (one of many, many things DARPA is doing right now) won't have vast, ongoing short-term effects on space flight (and many, many other types of) research, so I'm not sure why you're criticizing it as a long-term goal.

Prototypes are currently being tested in earth orbit.

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

Aside from the physics behind such an idea amounting to substantially more than a nudge there are plenty of other things to consider. The primary one being that it will be old. Both in the sense of being outmoded as well as in the sense of its systems wearing out. There's a reason most people aren't driving around in their grandparent's 1940s car. In the case of the ISS, one of its primary missions was to develop and prove technologies and methods for future ventures in space. Both in terms of hardware as well as wetware. To my understanding it has done a pretty good job at that. I don't know what NASA and their ilk have or will have up their sleeve beyond 2020 for an orbital research outpost but private industry is set to come online before then (2015) with next-gen research stations that will clearly obsolete the ISS if they're successful. Given that LEO is quickly becoming the playground of private industry it'd probably make a good deal of sense for NASA to move on anyway. Their budget really can't field multiple high expense projects at the same time. A budget that will almost certainly continue to erode given the US government's financial problems.

If you're going to comment on the viability of space tourism you probably should familiarize yourself with the companies producing hardware that is intended for use in the industry. No, nobody is planning on hanging out on a launch vehicle for a week. Most folks are planning on trying their first zero-g experiment with their girlfriend on one of the space stations made by these guys:

Bigelow Aerospace

And before you start ranting about, "Promises, promises...." you should know that Bigelow has multiple spacecraft (space-station modules) on orbit that they are testing, and they are planning on some on-orbit module-docking/mating tests in the next couple years.

And as for what to do in space, people are creative. I wouldn't underestimate their imagination. I figure a lot of the people who would be interested in orbiting the Earth for a week would also be interested in helping trained scientists perform some valuable experiments on those same space station modules. Furthermore, those folks are going to have to spend some time keeping fit, physically. They will spend a few hours working out on things like orbital treadmills and so on. Finally, I wouldn't underestimate the joy that can be had from sitting in an observation deck that looks out upon a truly majestic scene. Unless you're ADD, it's pretty easy to lose yourself in a nice ambiance. I've personally spent upwards of 6 hours staring at the same large tank in a public aquarium before. There's something very calming and Zen about it.

Seriously, start doing some research before ranting. You don't even appear to have a grasp of who some of the major players in the current commercial space market are. Nor do you seem to be very familiar with the projects that are being developed to address the same concerns that you are espousing.

Boeing and Space Adventures are planning on docking with a space station built by Bigelow Aerospace. One of the planned space stations is going to have more volume than the International Space Station... at a fraction of the cost. There is a reason why Bigelow is expanding their manufacturing facilities too, as noted on the main web page for the company... people are starting to put money down on their products.

I think the view will be much nicer than the laptop screen sized window in the spacecraft, and you don't have to squeeze past the pilot in order to get that view as well.

I agree. Why should you have to pay tax dollars on this?

But at the same time, why should you prevent me through silly regulations (hint, ITAR... look it up if you like) and government policies that explicitly keep me from experimenting with or even attempting to build rockets on my own dime. The question isn't that somebody like you needs to be able to pay for me to go into space, but rather that there are people (perhaps you aren't one of them) that explicitly want to keep me down on this rock at gunpoint and will sabotage any efforts I make in regards to getting off of this rock.

Organizations like NASA are quickly becoming a relic of the past, where the money is merely a way to have a bunch of bureaucrats spin their wheels and keep some disenchanted aerospace engineers and munitions workers busy when a war isn't going on. I certainly wouldn't cry too hard if NASA was completely de-funded and disbanded by Congress.... as if they have been making any sort of relevant progress towards cost-effective spaceflight at any time over the past 40 years anyway. Doubling the NASA budget is only going to double the number of bureaucrats working in Houston, Texas. It isn't going to get anybody off of this rock in a meaningful way.

On the other hand, there are many different private spaceflight companies with real hardware that can get people into space. We don't need a government agency to get that accomplished. Yes, government grants are nice, but it isn't needed to get this task accomplished.

For myself, if government is going to get involved at all, I'd rather they simply give a "tax holiday" for all federal taxes (corporate and personal income taxes... and other kinds too) by companies directly engaged in putting equipment into space. It would certainly be far and away more cost effective than doubling the current NASA budget, and perhaps something would actually be flying beyond Low-Earth orbit too. I definitely think that such a move would cause private space investment to roar into life in a manner that has never been seen before. The loss in taxes would be minor, and I could argue that the taxes raised from support industries would by far and away more than make up for any "lost" tax receipts to such companies.... and certainly be quite a bit less than going through the appropriations meat-grinder of the U.S. Congress.

I'm not sure if we can expect much good from "new, revolutionary launch system" - wasn't Shuttle supposed to be one already? (inexpensive, too...)

So you are honestly implying that just because we tried an experimental and non-traditional launch system once and it didn't work out as well as hoped, we should never do it again? IMHO, research and development into alternative launch vehicles is one of the main things of what NASA should be doing. The private sector as a whole is very good at, and usually interested in, incrementally improving existing aerospace technology, not so much (especially the interest part) for very novel and/or unproven things. However, because every, or even a majority of programs, don't have to be financially successful NASA is freer to do ambitious R&D.

Bigelow Aerospace is a good example of how the public-private dynamic should work, their Genesis I and II are remarkable achievements and will likely be the foundation of future commercially owned and operated orbital craft. However, despite their commendable work and accomplishments they didn't start from square one. Instead, they built on years of NASA research on expandable spacecraft, the most recent and important being the TransHab program of the 1990's which was promising but specifically killed by Congress in 2000. I don't think even a wealthy and self-described space enthusiast like Robert Bigelow would have risked starting a company in 1998 whose main product will be inflatable space stations without the existing groundwork provided by NASA.

Especially if we have an almost 70-year old example of what can be accomplished by proper design, production and launch campaign (yes, orbit requires minimum an order of magnitude more work from a rocket, but manufacturing/etc. are less dissimilar)

The fact that the V-2s were sub-orbital isn't the most important difference. IMHO what makes this a faulty analogy is that the conditions of their production would be almost entirely different from the manufacturing conditions used for any modern launch system in the Western World, or at least I hope so (pay special attention to the blue box half-way down). The V-2s were built by what was essentially slave labor! Both skilled and unskilled workers from Nazi occupied territories forced to work over ten hours per day only receiving very basic shelter and clothing, with subsistence level rations (at best). Also worker safety was practically non-existent and since some of these workers were considered "sub-human" their dieing was sometimes not even considered a bad thing! Big surprise that when you treat your workers like chattel many of your per-unit costs are negligible...

billionaire Robert Bigelow (who currently has two prototype space stations in orbit, which he launched on his own dime)

What's the current status on those anyway? The site doesn't show any current status information.

A country like the one where this manned space program and a few others are currently being built ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is all Obama and I am an American but... to think that just because one nation wants to let their science programs slip even more doesn't mean that anyone should pull the plug on anything.

After the ISS is completed, the annual cost of maintaining it will be $4.5 billion a year. By comparison, the total budget of the ESA for 2010 is $5.4 billion (3.74 billion Euros). Keep in mind that's what the ESA spends for all of its projects -- the portion for human spaceflight and exploration is half a billion dollars.

You say it is $4.5 billion per year? I would love to see a private contractor be simply offered the opportunity to:

1. Build a heavy launcher capable of sending large payloads into orbit
2. Put up a privately-built spacestation with interior volume at least equal or greater than the current internal volume of the ISS
3. Have power generation capabilities of at least double the current power levels, including at least double the current energy storage in terms of batteries.
4. Includes facilities, life support, and other ammenities to support a crew of at least 8 astronauts
5. Includes multiple docking berths for both Russian Soyuz and American space craft docking standards
6. Be capable of operating this space station, once built, for at least 5 years including ground support and consumable supplies

I argue that if you offered a space prize equal to $4.5 billion for the first company to put up a space station with a guaranteed lease agreement for $500 million per year after that for an additional 5 years, you would have companies tripping over themselves just to get such a vehicle built. I'm not talking $4.5 billion for the whole thing, but just for competing for an X-Prize type contest to get this as a one time deal.

Instead of one, I bet there would be two or three of these things built as well.

Too bad NASA would never consider doing that. For me, if they could simply de-orbit the ISS today, shut down the Shuttles completely and vacate KSC, and then offer for private contractors to get launch pads at KSC for their own heavy lift vehicles, no only could this happen and be affordable, but I think you would find that such a space station would be built well before 2020.

Heck, Robert Bigelow at Bigelow Aerospace has already offered to send up a space station module with the same volume as the ISS for about $1 billion (give or take some). It is even already designed, and all he is waiting on now is a customer to fly it. BTW, he does have experience operating space stations too, as he has two of them in orbit right now.

I'm not questioning the amount of money you have quoted here, as the number feels correct too. It just seems like NASA is incredibly wasteful of the money they have, and that it practically is the very definition of how to spend money in the most foolhardy method possible. Yes, I do know why it cost so much more to run it as a government operation, which is seriously getting off topic to go further.

Actually, there is an orbital hotel in the works. Most people aren't aware that there are already two orbital space hotel proof-of-concepts. http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

Let's start a commercial space station. First, connect a module to the ISS. Then, when those idiots plan to burn it down in 2016 via re-entry, disconnect it and start a new space station with that single module.

The biggest problem from a space development point of view is that the ISS's orbit has too high an inclination.

So it's useless as a waystation for flights to geosync orbit, the moon or mars, which is where all the interesting stuff is. Anything you attach to ISS is going to have the same problem.

What you want to do is throw some inflatable modules from Bigelow Aerospace into equitorial or near-equitorial orbit and assemble a private, commercial station.

You assume too much about me, and lacks a good "lets try, why not?".

The "why not" is because people have already tried simulations of things like this and discovered that they are basically unworkable. At the relative velocities we're talking about, the bag is likely to be fractured on impact. Ice is brittle. Probably the leading authority in the field today is Bigelow Aerospace which is actually doing something about impactors (i.e. building flexible, nominally self-sealing structures.) But once again, probably the most plausible material for making a space "broom" is Aerogel, because it doesn't fracture and equally importantly, it helps prevent impactors from fracturing. Finally, there is no. fucking. way. we are EVER going to put enough water into orbit to form a substantially-sized shield. Do the math and you will find that it is utterly unfeasible. So the "why not?" comes down to simple questions before we ever even HAVE to talk about whether it would work or not: how many kilos is a liter (for example) of water, and how much does it cost to put that many kilos in orbit? Go forth and do the math and you will give up on this silly icebag idea.

Since NASA wasn't doing anything with the TransHab technology, it was purchased several years ago by Bigelow Aerospace, a company that's using the modules to create a commercial space station. They launched their prototype habitat modules into orbit in 2006 and 2007, and both are still streaming images and video to the surface. They'll be launching the first human-rated module of their space station in 2011 on a SpaceX Falcon 9, and will start launching their larger components and linking them together in 2012.

Once the station's up and running, they're planning on renting out time on the modules for manufacturing, microgravity research, and space tourism. They're also in talks with Lockheed Martin to use their Atlas V vehicle for more economical manned travel to orbit.

Since NASA wasn't doing anything with the TransHab technology, it was purchased several years ago by Bigelow Aerospace, a company that's using the modules to create a commercial space station. They launched their prototype habitat modules into orbit in 2006 and 2007, and both are still streaming images and video to the surface. They'll be launching the first human-rated module of their space station in 2011 on a SpaceX Falcon 9, and will start launching their larger components and linking them together in 2012.

Once the station's up and running, they're planning on renting out time on the modules for manufacturing, microgravity research, and space tourism. They're also in talks with Lockheed Martin to use their Atlas V vehicle for more economical manned travel to orbit.

The private sector doesn't have the money required to make manned habitats cost effective.

Um...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Aerospace
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

You want to look at Bigelow Aerospace. By the time companies like XCOR and Virgin are offering orbital rides, Bigelow is quite likely to have an orbiting hotel for your destination. Note that Bigelow has a launch listed on the SpaceX manifest. They're quite serious, and well funded. They don't always get as much press, because they don't make hot flamey stuff, but they're just as important.

If I were given the job, I'd sent up robots to dig an artificial cave. The robots could be radio-controlled -- the Moon is close enough to the Earth for that to work. Dig a hole, cover it with beams brought from Earth, they layer 4.5 tonnes per square meter of regolith on top for protection from solar radiation events and galactic cosmic rays.

Then deploy one of Bigelow's inflatable habitats in the cave. Then send up the humans...after the robots have set everything up for them.

Without an atmosphere to burn up or dismantle most of what comes at it, is there really a plausible way to shield your structures from essentially anything at any speed?

I don't think meteors would be a big problem, but an underground shelter would protect against those too.

Heh -- the CAPTCHA is 'reactor'. Which reminds me -- I would also power the base with nuclear power. Why saddle yourself with solar power and restrict humanity to the lunar poles?

So, how much would it cost to make a permanent hotel in space? If we don't allow ourselves the luxury of appending it to the ISS, it's going to cost tens of billions of dollars.

Not sure where they get this figure from... Bigelow Aerospace is spending far less than $1 billion dollars total on his private space station, and it isn't going to be attached to the ISS. For those of you unfamiliar with the company, they already have a couple of prototype habitats up in orbit now (launched in 2006 and 2007) sending back data, and will be launching the modules for their commercial space station in the next few years.

Of course, a "hotel" is only one of the marketed uses for it; the impression I get is that Bigelow is much more interested in renting modules for research purposes to interested nations and companies.

Plus, why does something need to advance the state of the art to be cool or worth doing? Making something that's already proven to be possible cheaper and more accesible is a noble goal too (see also: the personal computer revolution).

I think the OP is way off on the estimates. Bigelow Aerospace will have a space station up in running before 2010.

Stephen

2035: Start construction of privately owned space station

I guess you haven't heard of Bigelow Aerospace? They already have launched TWO 1/3-scale prototypes of their orbital habitat, and they recently announced they will be moving UP the development schedule for their first functional habitat (that's right, a space program that is ahead of schedule).

I'm pretty excited about this news, as it seems like Bigelow might have his human-rated space station up and running as early as 2009. Here's the text of the official announcement:

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/multiverse/news.ph p#update

Also, here's a pretty good article from Alan Boyle's Cosmic Log.

Hopefully SpaceX will have some successful launches soon, in order to provide Bigelow with a drastically more cost-effective way to launch modules and people. It'd be beautiful to see a SpaceX Dragon crew capsule taking people up to Bigelow's Sundancer habitat.

>Bigelow put up some cool, REAL pictures from space on this page: http://bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/view_photos. php

Several of the pictures depict a payload plastered with corporate sponsors' logos; did anyone notice that several of these logos are pixelated out?

I mean, the reporter takes their word for it when they say some American who they can't name is giving them $3 billion. I figure I could got to the same reporter and say someone is giving me a couple billion to build the world's biggest saussage and it will make the headlines the next day.

Not sure how much competition to Bigelow they really are, and I also have doubts about their $3 billion funding figure. I think we need more proof than their word.

Bigelow has: - A manufacturing plans currently building the modules for its stations - A corporate structure - Two test modules currently in space - A concrete business plan - More than 100 employees

Galactic Suite has: - A Web site with nice illustrations. Though its strange title font looks like it was done in Microsoft Paint.

This seems like little more than a nice Web site and fancy illustrations. Galactic Suite also seems to indicate it would use the Space Shuttle for construction, which would be news to NASA, which plans to put the orbiters in the Smithsonian by 2010.

Seems like more vaporware to me. I'd rather put my money on Bigelow to build the first private space station.

Bigelow put up some cool, REAL pictures from space on this page: http://bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/view_photos. php.

Alternatively, we could sell it to a private concern, like Bigelow or Virgin or a private consortium who happens to have a few (ok, many, many) billions lying around.

Then again, the buyers might require that the ISS be boosted into a more usable, higher orbit before they take posession.

I don't know exactly what NASA's design is, but the habitats created by Bigelow use a very strong material for the walls, and they create a thick multi-layered system to mitigate the effects of punctures.

I wonder if these structures will be anything like the ones launched by Bigelow Aerospace. Their inflatable space habitat seems to be doing well.

I wonder if these structures will be anything like the ones launched by Bigelow Aerospace. Their inflatable space habitat seems to be doing well.

Of the commercial enterprises, Bigelow has me the most optimistic. They launched Genesis I in 2006, and are scheduled to launch Genesis II in "early 2007".

Of the commercial enterprises, Bigelow has me the most optimistic. They launched Genesis I in 2006, and are scheduled to launch Genesis II in "early 2007".

It's been done already with Bigelow Aerospace - http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/fly_stuff/

You can see the crap floating about in Genesis I in this link to pics :
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/view_pho tos.php