First Commercial Crew Test Flights in 2017
NASA News Conference: Update on the Commercial Crew Program, SpaceRef Business
“NASA, Boeing and SpaceX will held a news briefing on NASA Television at the agency’s Johnson Space Center in Houston on Jan. 26, to highlight key development activities, test plans and objectives for achieving certification of two American crew transportation systems.”
Marc’s note: Missed the news conference? Watch it from the link above.
Bolden "I don't ever want to write another check to Roscosmos"
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) January 26, 2015
Upshot of CCtCAP presser: SpaceX & Boeing on track for cmrl crew to be ready by 2017. Bolden optimistic Congress will fully fund in FY16.
— Marcia Smith (@SpcPlcyOnline) January 26, 2015
Shotwell: @SpaceX Pad abort test at KSC coming up soon.
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) January 26, 2015
Boeing claims that they will fly a Boeing employee and a NASA astronaut to ISS in July 2017
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) January 26, 2015
Interesting that Bolden sees Bigelow as sort of replacing ISS over time.
I think it will happen much faster than they contemplate, but he thinks that LEO essentially becomes private.
Amusing was when SpaceX’s Shotwell was asked (paraphrasing) – “Hey, aint you guys going to Mars your own way?” She most diplomatically said it will be collaborative. What she didn’t say was that it has nothing to do with NASA’s projects and plans, and that they see NASA as joining SpaceX’s project.
Gerstinmeier has alluded to that also, NASA will just go commercial when a new station is needed.
Makes sense. Transhab was the technology that Bigelow licensed from NASA. It must have been an easy sell for Bigelow to get the BEAM contract for ISS.
19 million, I am curious how much Boeing would have charged for the same sized unit made of metal>
Bigelow’s previous flights have always been un-crewed. This gives him the opportunity to see bacteria and mold buildup, outgassing, radiation levels, and particle shedding. Also its impact and abrasion characteristics.
Well if that’s true they have a lot of basic science research to do on radiation mitigation, QC and reliability, landing vehicles, life sciences, materials etc, etc….it goes on and on. I mean assuming that it’s more than flags and footprints….and that you want to get the crew back after a two year design reference mission … I doubt that NASA will be joining them. Please take a deep breath. I’m still certain that the path to Mars goes through the Moon…if you don’t want a really bad things to happen.
Musk is of course planning a circumlunar flight (its a low hanging fruit), but he also suggested he may do a landing just to do it, but it is not central.
He most certainly is totally uninterested in boots and flags on Mars. That annoyed him about Apollo. He plans (and is building the foundation) for massive permanent migration to Mars.
I suggest not betting against him (and buying in when it goes public).
NASA is already sharing in SpaceXs basic research (its much cheaper than NASA doing it itself).
For example:
https://gcd.larc.nasa.gov/p…
First time I’ve seen that 🙂
So that’s what a landing on Mars might look like?
I wonder how soon we we’ll hear Musk blew up a modified rocket booster trying to do a propulsive landing on Mars. 5 years?? NEWS Musk blows up another mars rocket. Musk fails again 🙂
Musk has said he wants to die on Mars, just not on impact!
Yeah, because folks are going to line up in sufficient numbers to pay more per seat than a shuttle flight just for the taxi ride to have the opportunity to pay the nightly rate at a four room hotel that’s going to cost more to develop than all the casinos in Vegas put together.
At least by the time the math finally catches up with this clown show, Charlie will be far enough into his second retirement to not care about getting the blame for causing the death of human space flight.
I definitely feel that the ISS was a boondoggle and money black hole, but I don’t characterize NASA as a “Clown Show”. They are typical old bureaucracy and need serious reformation to end business as usual.
Anyhoo, the new taxis are vastly cheaper per seat than the shuttle ever was. The integrated cost of shuttle was $1.3 billion per flight. With 4 passengers for ISS that works out to $325 MILLION per seat!
Plus Shuttle had a 2 week endurance and cannot be used. It must be a 6 month lifeboat.
NASA comes up with a 5 year cost per seat of $58 million for the new taxis for round trip and lifeboat service to ISS.
To use the Bigelow BA330s in 2018, the per seat fixed cost is $26 million on Dragon or $36 million on CST-100.
That includes a multi-month stay, with no station responsibilities.
You’re ignoring the cargo capability of STS. It carried humans and cargo.
That said, it was never an operational system as such and was flown in what was really an experimential regime.
Cheers
The CST-100 and the dragon are designed to carry various combos of crew and cargo.
Shuttle was a tremendous all around workhorse, not just a people or a cargo carrier. Its costs could have and should have been reduced and safety increased if NASA had invested a bit in enhancements and redesign instead of putting way too much into the sizeable operations organization they liked running. We lost a tremendous capability way before its time and not likely to be able to replace it for generations. This was NASA mismanagement and leadership vacuum at its greatest.
“if NASA had invested a bit in enhancements and redesign” was not enough. The shuttle was a horror that ate 14 people and drained the resources out of NASA and and our future in space. Nothing would lower the $billion+ cost per flight. It was never going to operate on a launch schedule that mattered. It required massive costly and time-consuming refurbishment for each short flight.
After the Columbia accident the official review board concluded:
The Shuttle has few of the mission capabilities that NASA originally promised. It cannot be launched on demand, does not recoup its costs, no longer carries national security payloads, and is not cost-effective enough, nor allowed by law, to carry commercial satellites. Despite efforts to improve its safety, the Shuttle remains a complex and risky system that remains central to U.S. ambitions in space. Columbia’s failure to return home is a harsh reminder that the Space Shuttle is a developmental vehicle that operates not in routine flight but in the realm of dangerous exploration.
To which Bush then proposed:in the plan:
“Retire the Space Shuttle as soon as assembly of the International Space Station is completed, planned for the end of this decade.”
“:Nostalgia is a seductive liar.”
– George Ball
Some nice Bigelow videos:
An external view in orbit from his Genesis 1 prototype:
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
A earth down view from Genesis 2 prototype:
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
Amusing interior view of the “Fly Your Stuff” section of the Genesis II in orbit:
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
Excellent! Cannot wait to see both fly. I have to say that even though I think SpaceX will get up to ISS first it would be poetic if CST-100 made it first with Chris Ferguson aboard. That way he could retrieve the flag he left there.
If Bolden’s wife permits. He could do a farewell visit of the ISS before he retires as NASA administrator. No one who goes up to orbit will turn down a chance to go back up. So Bolden’s comment about no longer a Astronamut is rubbish.
This is not such a bad idea. Bolden was a better astronaut than he has been an Administrator. Maybe we could ease him out of the job sooner? Though his last Shuttle flight was a screw up thanks to Wake Shield-not directly his fault though three of his crew members were involved in the Wake Shield design and preflight testing and should have known better than to let it fly; chalk it up to another leadership vacuum.
Word is that Boeing is going to be awarded the first “official” flight to ISS penciled in for July 2017. (I think early 2018 is more likely.)
This would mean that SpaceX could do it’s two abort test flights this year and then sit on it’s hands for two years while Boeing gets it’s equipment ready to fly. What’s wrong with this picture?
I don’t think SpaceX is going to sitting on their hands for 2 years. I think it is just a different testing method and schedule. Boeing is doing their abort flights in 2017 a few months before the unmanned and manned test flights. My guess is they want to test the spacecraft in the form closest to the final product. SpaceX is doing theirs this year while still nailing down the design of Dragon V2. Then they plan to fly a bit before Boeing’s manned flight.There are arguments in favor of both methods.
“Boeing is doing their abort flights“
Abort “flight”. They cancelled the in-flight abort test.
The US. A little bit behind Russia and a little bit ahead of India in crewed spaceflight. Oh and we’re behind China, also.
Well on the face of it, that would seem to be the case however I would like to mention a couple of points:
1. The US is pursuing a commercial approach to leo crew transport and as such is transferring knowledge from the public sector to the commercial sector where it can be more freely disseminated. Demonstrated by 2 providers Boeing and SpaceX developing crew transport capability to leo.
2. The Russians have been using a model that hasn’t really changed all that much. They most recently are reverting to a centralised ginormous conglomerate. This has obvious weaknesses and in addition, there will be no transfer of knowledge to their commercial sector. This will simply exacerbate the issues they have been experiencing.
3. Indians have barely started their journey.
4. Chinese are doing stuff that the US and Russia has done years ago and continues to do on the ISS. They’re making good progress but they aren’t in any hurry or so it would appear.
5. US commercial company SpaceX has made rapid progress from a startup to a full-fledged space company. They are undertaking things never before attempted and they have an ongoing plan to get to Mars. It’s their company’s no. one objective. Take it for what it’s worth but my view is that since they are driven to achieve this and have actual hardware flying and in development to assist them on this pathway, then they are out in front of any country so far as hsf goes.
Cheers,
Between now and 2017 who will launch a crew first? The US or China? I would put my money on China.
China’s first crewed launch was in Oct 2003. Since then they have launched an additonal 4 times or once every 3 years. The last launch was 2013. Next scheduled crewed launch 2016.
Between now and 2025, who will have launched more crewed missions into space, the US or China? I would put my money on the US.
China has been performing manned launches since 2003, and their next launch is scheduled for 2016; don’t think that anyone is going to take your bet…
Point proven. China and Russia will launch crews before the US. Therefore, they are both currently ahead of the US. Will do, have plans to do, are going to do, doesn’t count. What can we currently do? Since mid 2011 the US hasn’t even had the immediate capability to launch a simple Mercury type of manned mission. We have had to bum rides from a former (and maybe current) adversary.
point pointless. the ability to launch a person into space isn’t the end-all be-all of a space program. Read NASA’s charter sometime.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices…
“Objectives of Aeronautical and Space Activities.–The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space.
(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles.
(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space.
(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.
(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.
(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency.
(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this chapter and in the peaceful application of the results thereof.
(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.
(9) The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing processes.”
Over the long run the issue will be pretty simple: who owns the asteroids? It’s where the wealth and, barring a really huge drop in launch costs of at least one order of magnitude, it’s where our tech can operate, far from gravity wells.
While NASA goofs around with no apparent aim (not their fault, entirely, but a case can be made for leadership vacuum) but aimed squarely at Mars, expect the Indians and Chinese to recognize reality. Late in this century it will be control of these gold mines that will determine Earth politics and relative country strength. I hope they have fun. I’ll be gone.
The only fly in this theory? Elon Musk, who presumably knows more than some guy with a computer in Florida. And Musk is going to Mars. I wish I knew more about his thinking.
You guys all seem to think that Elon Musk is the next Christopher Columbus; well …maybe but he may just be like the hundreds of others that tried the trip before Columbus and were lost to the deep. I sense that when we do make the trip to Mars it will be a lot tougher and more expensive than we think; and it won’t be done for a profit. Not initially, and not for a long time. Come on gentlemen, I read Robert Heinlein too, but The Man Who Sold The Moon is science fiction; not prophecy.
Well, he is planning on it and spending long green on it, and he aint no fool. He may fail, but HE IS TRYING! And he has a great track record.
Nobody goes anywhere unless they TRY.
He could always fail and go to the moon to sulk.
That’s what I thought until I read a couple of books about Chris Columbus. Pretty good parallels. There were lots of dreamers amongst the Portuguese, but CC couldn’t get the cash anywhere except from the Spanish, as we all know the story.
He paid a price for it later. But he made it. Elon has many more opportunities and importantly is in charge of his own destiny.
As to Heinlein and Bova, they were right, at least in the sense that the mineral rights to the asteroids will create fortunes. It’s not a done deal; witness the problems the Russians have managing mineral wealth. And mineral wealth does tend to quash other sorts of national exuberance and invention. Complex story.
Still.
“maybe but he may just be like the hundreds of others that tried the trip before Columbus and were lost to the deep.”
?
Who before Columbus tried to reach Asia by sailing west? All educated people knew the Earth was 25,000 miles around and no sailing ship could survive that distance.
Columbus read a book that said, no, the Earth is only 18,000 miles around and so the voyage would be 7,000 miles shorter. He then was inspired by contact from God that the number was correct. He also believed that Eurasia was vastly wider (wrongly) than others thought (correctly).
After being rejected by all sane sponsors, Spain decided to roll the dice (on the cheap) and take the chance to break the eastward route monopoly.
Columbus reached “Asia” exactly where predicted and died in the belief of his Divine Inspiration. Unfortunately it was not Asia.
Lucky for him an unknown continent existed.
The Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference, and he would have died if America wasn’t luckily in the way.
Fishermen from northern Europe routinely travelled to the Grand Banks off of Newfoundland. It’s likely that they resupplied off of the mainland/islands occasionally, certainly they’d be aware of it. Hence the rumours of a land to the east of Europe was pretty solid.
Columbus wrongly assumed it was Asia, but other than that, “land to the East within sailing distance” is not such an extraordinary leap when there were actual people sailing to the north east and coming within sight of land. 🙂
Because he believed it was Asia, he believed the Dutch East Indies would be the closest point to Europe and the easiest to reach. (He was wrong and the trip was much further and harder than anticipated.) Had he not suspected that, he may have taken the more conservative northern route to Newfoundland/Nova Scotia/etc.
I am more of a SpaceX kind of person than Boeing. However, we need both. Frankly, SpaceX needs competition. Boeing is not competition for SpaceX.
I agree. I think Boeing is more reliable, SpaceX is cheaper.
I assume you are making a funny.
From earlier:
http://www.theheraldbusines…
http://seattletimes.com/htm…
http://spacenews.com/39833b…
http://articles.chicagotrib…
http://www.insidegnss.com/n…
http://www.aviationnews.eu/…
http://www.komonews.com/new…
Alot of your links are of the same GPS problem. You’ve left out their many successful missions. One of your links points out that the Delta 2 vehicle is built by Boeing. Delta 2 is probably the most reliable launch vehicle.
no it isn’t
2 links overlap
Boeing is not more reliable. Boeing proves the point that if you throw enough money at something you can do it. When the MCT flies more than SLS the point will be proven.
I think Spacex waiting for 50 flights of a falcon before putting humans on board is absurd! No rocket has ever had to meet that standard.
Will cargo dragon continue to fly same design through 2017 or will it morf at all testing Dragon v2 features?
I’d still fly in a cargo dragon for 20 something million a seat instead of 58 million? Seems anything NASA touches gets unnecessarily expensive.
Thought Shotwells comment when she said paraphrasing “flying humans is much different than flying cargo at least that’s what we have been told” was interesting. Gives me the feeling Spacex has said you want safety?? We’ll give you safety plus!!
Shotwell said NASA and Spacex are still discussing who will ride in dragon first, Spacex pilots or NASA pilots. I thought a while back it was likely/possible that SpaceX could do non ISS flights with their own crew first on their own dime if they wanted? That is no longer possible right??
I think Shotwell was just approximating how many Falcon 9 flights will happen before their first crewed mission, it may or may not be a requirement.
I’m just excited by the fact that commercial companies will launch people into space for a profit. Who knows where it will lead to?
50 flights? I think I missed something?
Its in there Shotwell said it. Not sure if in her opening remarks or in an answer to a question
She pointed out that by the time crew dragon flies that +50 plus F9 flights will have occurred. She was saying that it will be a demonstrated mature and reliable booster that will safely carry people.
Roger that.
I agree on cargo Dragon. Some oxygen, a co2 scrubber, like Apollo 13, seats. Put a solid abort motor in the trunk. With pilot controls or not.. NASA does not try to economize. I am boring people with my repeats, I think.
SpaceX has pointed out that if anyone had stowed away on the cargo dragons they would have had no problems.
Shotwell said she’d like to see 50 flights of the Falcon 9 before putting people on it, not that SpaceX was going to wait until that number had been achieved.
this isn’t a SpaceX policy, just an off the cuff remark that people are paying way too much attention to. that said, 50 launches by late 2017 is ambitious, but they could get to that number.
Does a Falcon Heavy launch count as 3 (booster) flights?
Probably not. If crossfeed is used, the fuel flow design is different enough i’d call it a subtype of the F9. i’d count it as one launch.
I agree. But i also would use that to count how many successful flights in to space the Merlin 1D engine achieved (28 per FH, 10 per F9).
I think they have already surpassed the RD-180’s of Atlas V.
particularly if they include F9 v1
I would, many of the subsystems on the v1 were carried over into the v1.1
LOL
what is funny?
I am a SpaceX fan but 50 F9 launches by early 2017? I’m thinking… more like 35 if they include FH single cores.
why do you think that SpaceX will only launch 7 times per year?
they launched more than that last year – they had 9 launches. why do you think they cannot improve on that number?
especially with 2 active launch sites? soon to be 3 with Pad 39A coming online this year! and then 4 when the Boca Chica launch site comes online in 2016!
Nine? Thaicom 6, CRS-3, Orbcomm OG2, AsiaSat 8, AsiaSat 6, CRS-4. That’s six. What am I missing?
you’re missing the fact that i can’t hold numbers in my head very well lol. sorry, you are right. i don’t know why i thought it was 9
With SpaceX’s launch abort testing running at least 15 months late, I would extend SpaceX’s predictions by at least a year. My bet is that Boeing launches a crewed vehicle first in 2017 and SpaceX in 2018.
I expect SpaceX to meet their schedule. What is the wager? Admit here that we guessed wrong?
What schedule dates have they made so far?
Saturn13 asked if you are willing to admit an error.
Where did he say that? All he asked about was a wager. Perhaps you should admit your error.
You said you bet that Boeing beats spacex to crewed flight. He asked what was the terms of your bet. That the loser admits that they were in error? You replied with a non-sequiter. I requested that you respond to his proposal.
Read the string again.
“You replied with a non-sequiter.” Wrong, I didn’t reply at all.
Please explain how making a bet for something 2 years+ in the future with someone one with a handle that may not even be on this forum is even worth the time to respond.
The Falcon 9 heavy is now over 2 years late from when they first announced it.
You said this in other thread too so I’ll respond again.
Better than 2 decades late?
http://www.space-access.org…
what previous big hardware test leads you to believe that Boeing is going to make the 2017 date and not SpaceX?
Boeing has made many large aircraft, Saturn 5 2nd stage, ISS, numerous satellite buses to name a few.
Boeing has a simply horrendous record for delay, mismanagement, and outright failure.
SpaceX is downright prompt compared to most of Boeing’s endeavors!
Just a teeny-weeny sprinkling of Boeing blundering around:
http://www.theheraldbusines…
http://seattletimes.com/htm…
http://spacenews.com/39833b…
http://articles.chicagotrib…
http://www.insidegnss.com/n…
http://www.aviationnews.eu/…
http://www.komonews.com/new…
Multiple links are about the same problem. What about the Delta 2? And all of the other launch vehicles they make? What about all of the other spacecraft they’ve made?
Really?
Which links have the same issue?
I see 2 with overlap.
Please, be my guest…
The other GPS problems are for DIFFERENT series of satellites. Boeing has continuously crapped out.
Plus I did not mention the rudder failures that may have crashed multiple 737s.
The problems with the 777?
A series of delta failure videos;
Delta 2?
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
maybe the delta 3?
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
Or maybe this Delta?:
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
In reference to the Cape employees cars: “Could you possibly try NOT to hit EVERY SINGLE ONE?”
I left some out. Always keep a reserve.
The sudden flood of bizarre calls into car insurance claims desks must have been baffling.
What about them? They’re Obsolete!
I will also take your bet.
I say the first crewed flight will be Feb-March 2017.
I have bookmarked this thread and will link to it then.
Boeing said last year they would have a CST-100 done by the end of the year. Nothing. SpaceX has a new video of the Super Dracos firing and moving mounted on Dragon. They had to get that done before the abort test.
Water landing. I was wishing for the parachutes, with rocket softening. Actually I will repeat my wish for steerable parachutes. Nice slow soft landing anywhere. I have not come up with a reason it would not work. SpaceX is a space company. They don’t show any aviation thinking. I like Boeing air bags. Shotwell said they would charge the same as cargo missions. 220 million?
They are being incremental for NASA’s sake. They will go 100% retrorockets as soon as they can.
As soon as they find Astronauts brave enough to ride it anyway. 🙂
This is going to make the Soyuz ride home look tame…
And its with the lowest bidder!
The CRS contract was for 1.6 billion for 12 flights or 133 million per flight.. where is the 220 million from? Musk has stated 20 million a seat or 140 million a flight.
Bigelow stated it costs about 3 million a month to keep someone on their station. The spacex cost is 26.25 million per seat and a 60 day stay on orbit. So 20 million plus 3 mill/month . 26 million.
The BA-XXX space stations are not hotels.
As he is a hotel guy, I would not doubt that he has had dreams of a space hotel (and I see no reason why not), but that is not what these are.
BTW – if you take a 60 day stay for 2 on a BA-330 pair at $26million per person (using a Dragon), then it would cost about $875K night – reasonably close.
The cost with a CST-100 is $1.2 million per night for 2 persons.
Astronaut Flights
For countries, companies, or even visiting individuals that wish to utilize SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule, Bigelow Aerospace will be able to transport an astronaut to a B330 habitat for only $26.25 million. Using Boeing’s CST-100 capsule and the Atlas V rocket, astronauts can be launched to a B330 habitat for $36.75 million per seat. In stark contrast to the short stays of a week or so aboard the ISS that we have seen wealthy individuals pay as much as $40 million for, astronauts visiting Alpha Station will enjoy 10 – 60 days in orbit. During this time, visiting astronauts will be granted access to Bigelow’s shared research facilities. Examples of available equipment include a centrifuge, glove-box, microscope, furnace, and freezer. Also, potential clients should note that as opposed to the ISS, where astronauts dedicate the lion’s share of their time to supporting station operations and maintenance, astronauts aboard Alpha Station will be able to focus exclusively on their own experiments and activities, ensuring that both nations and companies can gain full value from their investment in a human spaceflight program.
Lease Blocks
For clients that wish to enjoy exclusive access to and control over their own on-orbit volume and facilities,Bigelow Aerospace customers can lease a third of a B330 habitat, roughly 110 cubic meters (equal to an entire ISS module), for a period of 60 days, for only $25 million. This unprecedented amount of volume will allow clients to utilize a significant portion of a space station for their own uninterrupted work and use to fly experiments or other payloads. For example, if a client chose to fill a single lease block with 50 or more experiments, the flight cost of sending an individual experiment to a Bigelow habitat would only be $500,000 or less for two months.
Per the information above, utilizing a Falcon 9 and Dragon, for only $51.25 million, a client can travel to Alpha Station for two months and enjoy dominion over 110 cubic meters of volume for 60 days.Additionally, Bigelow clientele will be allowed to sublease their on-orbit volume or resell purchased astronaut seats. This flexibility will provide clients with the opportunity to reduce their own costs or even make a profit.
Clients may also be interested in the enhanced visibility that Alpha Station naming rights can offer. For $25 million, a corporation or nation can purchase the naming rights to Alpha Station for a year. Alternatively, year-long naming rights for an individual B330 will be available for $12.5 million. Either of these options will provide a company or country with unique and unparalleled global media attention and exposure.
Mention of deorbiting the ISS in 2024/5 and a new spacestation, possibly from Bigelow, in about 10 years time. Things are going to get busy at NASA.
I can just ISS finally getting a bit of news coverage when it’s splashed “NASA Blows $100 Billion”, or equiv.
The ISS has been, at the very least, a place to go, which provided a reason to fund SpaceX as well as the other programs. Coulda been cheaper for sure. But in the end we’ve got a couple of viable ways to get to space and a new space company with a new way of thinking.
Money well spent? No. But mission accomplished? Yes, at least in this limited way.
Glass half full, not a bad way of looking at it. I also think the ability to work with many other countries in space will pay off handsomely later this century.
You’re far more charitable, than I.
I am not convinced of the viability of the Bigelow inflatable as habitat or space station. It sounds like a great idea to gain some pressurized volume, but the inefficiencies of an inflatable, and then having to carry up and integrate and make functional all the inside and outside systems seems inefficient. Its the same reason why the Skylab wet workshop idea never flew. Also why 135 Shuttle External Tanks were never used though there were lots of ideas for converting them to habitats or space stations. Someone needs to study the viability.
what “inefficiencies of an inflatable” do you mean?
the viability has been studied, NASA studied it a lot for TransHab and Bigelow has flown two prototype modules. soon BEAM will be on the ISS for a few years. inflatable modules are a perfectly viable idea.
No, NASA works in silos. The Transhab people looked at whether an inflatable was possible and viable, not whether it would be more efficient than an aluminum cylinder. In fact because the Transhab people owed their livelihood to the inflatable Transhab, the only thing you would get out of the Transhab community would be how wonderful it is. Bigelow has flown a couple of empty toroidal shapes that hold air. How difficult is it to configure into a functional space habitat?
I wonder if this isn’t an example of ‘old think’- the notion that integration must be done on the ground, rather than building integration facilities on-orbit.
It is the first step towards in situ manufacturing. Living in space will never happen without both.
You’re concerned about in-orbit interior setup? that’s hardly an “inefficiency,” since it’s something that’s done in hard-walled modules also.
so really that’s not a big deal. i’d imagine most of the dividers and racks would be launched folded up in the center core, so probably astronauts would just need to unfold them and affix them to the walls. as for how easy or hard that is, that’s just a matter of designing and engineering of the useful space within the inflatable module. and like i said, it’s something that’s done with the hard-walled modules also, so not much is changing in terms of in-orbit setup with an inflatable module.
Bigelow has been developing and testing and integrating the systems to make it functional for many years. They are experts in ECLSS.
Unlike BEAM and the Genesis modules, Bigelow’s proposed production modules all have a rigid core and end-caps. That’s where infrastructure like power/thermal/ECLSS is fitted before launch (along with all the necessary connections for subsequently installed equipment like racks.)
This is quite different from a wet-lab proposal, like ET-stations and the pre-Skylab ideas.
[ETs also had other problems. They weren’t suited to being on orbit for long periods and the Shuttle system was too fragile and close to its engineering limits to allow the tanks to be modified to make them do both jobs. Had the Shuttle been a launch system with the flexibility of most, it would have probably been possible to modify the ET into something suitable for a wet-lab. (Certainly for less than the eventual cost of ISS.)]
News flash SpaceX has confirmed that the first few flights to ISS will be water landings???
Here is the reason Mr. Bolden is pretty sure we will be on Mars in less than twenty years.
http://www.universetoday.co…