Slashdot Mirror


Lockheed and Bigelow to Build Space Hotel

simonbp writes "Lockheed Martin and Bigelow Aerospace have entered into a deal to move towards the use of the Atlas V for private manned space flight ... A formal agreement between the two companies to study Atlas V feasibility for space tourism — including up to 16 launches a year — will be announced shortly. The initiative could radically transform both the 'New Space' and traditional launch marketplace... Bigelow Aerospace plans to build an orbiting hotel from inflatable modules for space tourists. The company is interested in Lockheed Martin's Atlas V to provide human and cargo transportation to their planned space station."

5 of 46 comments (clear)

  1. atlas vs ares by Keebler71 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Before someone asks... The reason NASA chose to develop a new vehicle instead od using an EELV was because it was deemed practically impossible to modify the exisiting designs to accomodate humans. Specifically, these vehicles fly an extreme loft trajectory. In the event of an abort... the re-entry loads would likely not be survivable. By comparison, human-rated vehicle fly much 'flatter' trajectories.

    and yes...IAARS.

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    1. Re:atlas vs ares by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Before someone asks... The reason NASA chose to develop a new vehicle instead od using an EELV was because it was deemed practically impossible to modify the exisiting designs to accomodate humans. Specifically, these vehicles fly an extreme loft trajectory. In the event of an abort... the re-entry loads would likely not be survivable. By comparison, human-rated vehicle fly much 'flatter' trajectories.

      and yes...IAARS.


      I'm curious about what your thoughts are on this part of the article:

      The reason for the NASA ESAS man-rating concerns was due to the 25mT CEV mass requirement, which ESAS maintained could not safely even be met by the massive Atlas V Heavy variant. According to a Lockheed Martin paper unveiled this week at the Space 2006 conference, the basic Atlas V 401 can meet FAA and NASA man-rating requirements with little modification with a much smaller capsule mass of 20,000 lbs.

      At 20,000 lbs, there is enough margin in the Atlas V 401's flight envelope to allow the crew to safely abort at any time during launch, closing all unsafe 'black-zones'. Also, at 20,000 lbs structural loads on the vehicle are decreased enough so that a detailed Lockheed analysis indicates that all primary structures meet NASA 1.4 Factor of Safety margins.

      Analysis also shows the Russian-built RD-180 engine in this regime revealed only one component that fell a hair below the 1.4 margin, at a 1.38 Factor of Safety.

    2. Re:atlas vs ares by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 3, Insightful


      I was the chief engineer of a CEV interested party and COTS bidder. The statement that "in the event of an abort, the re-entry loads would likely not be survivable" depends entirely on vehicle and vehicle heatshield design specifications, and abort scenario assumptions. Using parametric vehicle design assumptions as weak as early CEV assumptions, yes, you lose the vehicle and crew within a certain abort window when you're high but not moving fast enough sideways yet, and you end up with a rather brutal nonlifting reentry back into very dense atmosphere. Taking surviving that abort as a design requirement is a perfectly reasonable design constraint, and our COTS vehicle had lineage from that design requirement (for the Atlas-V, Delta-IV, and Falcon-0).

  2. Not what I heard... by everphilski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason for the NASA ESAS man-rating concerns was due to the 25mT CEV mass requirement, which ESAS maintained could not safely even be met by the massive Atlas V Heavy variant. According to a Lockheed Martin paper unveiled this week at the Space 2006 conference, the basic Atlas V 401 can meet FAA and NASA man-rating requirements with little modification with a much smaller capsule mass of 20,000 lbs.

    At 20,000 lbs, there is enough margin in the Atlas V 401's flight envelope to allow the crew to safely abort at any time during launch, closing all unsafe 'black-zones'. Also, at 20,000 lbs structural loads on the vehicle are decreased enough so that a detailed Lockheed analysis indicates that all primary structures meet NASA 1.4 Factor of Safety margins.


    It had more to do with the payload than the man-ratability. The design is "perfectly man-ratable" and has been discussed for **years**. Check out this article (which is what I cited) which states that with the reduction in mass full aborts from launch to orbit are attainable: here.

    By the way let me be the first to say this is freaking cool. Between the quater billion LM has on the COTS and the design of the CEV they have the potential to drastically reduce the cost of space flight for tourists and eventually private research. The reason the Atlas is so darn expensive is there are only a few launches a year. The bigleow deal increases that five-fold. Increasing launches decreases cost due to limited manufacturing runs. And repeated reliability is a Good Thing for the new emerging commercial space market.

    (IAARS)

  3. Re:Radiation? by RecycledElectrons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > I wonder how they plan to shield inflatable modules
    > from radiation outside the atmosphere. "Inflatable"
    > conjures up images of centimeter-thin latex in my
    > mind, like a giant beach ball.

    1. If you had bothered to read http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/ you would have found that this is an 11" thick kevlar structure. Think of 11 inches of bullet proof vest material.

    2. Some say that it is impractical, but there is a module flying. Anyone who doesn't know that is not a nerd, and does not need to be on /. Please go away.

    3. The radiation shielding is done with a trash compactor. You drop your trash into a bag, it's compacted, and that's placed in either bags or delapidated modules, which are placed on the sun side of the module. NASA considered this on the ISS, but decided that the knowledge from failed equipment would be extremely valuable, early on. They were right, at first. They learned amazing things about what fails and why. Now, 99% of equipment failures are predictable, and they just bring home the trash as a matter of habit - a stupid habit. They use the shuttle to bring home 3,000 pounds of trash, then add 3,000 pounds of shielding to modules - unbelievably stupid.

    Andy Out!