Talk:Bigelow Aerospace/Archives/2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genesis-1

Can anyone find a time for the G1 launch? --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

According to this article it launched at 6:53 PM Moscow time, which I believe would be 15:53 UTC. --StuffOfInterest 23:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The following Dnepr was a failed launch. Any impact on the second Genesis ? Hektor 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Discounts/Sales Info

Not sure that "A quantity between 3 to 5 items will receive a 10 percent discount, making the price $265.50 each." belongs. Removing it for now. Augustz 16:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Expanding my previous reasoning per a question. To have a 10% discount on some product if you buy between 3 and 5 of that product is not really notable. The pricing information is short lived as well (the program that this level of pricing detail is given for is only going to be around 30 more days). Wikipedia is not an advertising service for products and promotions. I left that the price was $295 for the fly your stuff program, so it's not pricing info, but special promotions and sales info that was removed. It may be interesting to get some more viewpoints on this, as I haven't done a lot of editing, but have followed wikipedia a long time. Augustz 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Not that I'm wildly opposed to the edit (though I did ask about it) but I'd think maybe something like "$265-$295, based on quantity" (or whatever) might have been fair. I see the issue with the potential advertising view of things. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Module names

Why are the Genesis modules named with Arabic numerals rather than Roman Numerals? The Bigalow site uses Roman format, so one would think that would be the proper method on here as well... Any specific reasons? -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Roman numerals is the correct usage. I've fixed a few in the Bigelow Aerospace entries. Spitwater 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, always nice to have a person on-board with inside knowledge. Just avoid the conflict-of-interest thing, eh?  ;) -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Durability

The statement that an inflatable space station should be more durable, while plausible, is not backed up. The link given as a reference is just an MSNBC story that mentions, among other things, that "in theory" an inflatable station should be more resistant to micrometeorite damange than other designs. That's pretty weak sauce.

Again, the statement doesn't seem outrageous, given that there is some easy way to patch the inevitable punctures, but whose theory are we talking about here? Are there any competing theories? Has any of this been tested? I would expect that actual technical papers on the subject are not hard to come by, and these would be much more convincing. -Dmh 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article does not state the modules will be more durable than conventional stations, it states that Bigelow Aerospace anticipates that they will. I'm still not sure that article is a good source on that either. --Sindri 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed the source to a more detailed article from the BBC. Spitwater 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Two modules

Why launch two near-identical modules into two near-identical orbits? Are they gonna dock at some point..? — Jack · talk · 04:46, Monday, 27 August 2007

No, these two modules have no docking capability. This orbit was simply one easily reachable from their launch location, and one that would make it easy to communicate with the craft via Bigelow's various ground stations. Remember, these Genesis modules are just test beds for technology. See their respective articles for more information. -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is - why would Bigelow Aerospace pay to produce a second Genesis module? What do they stand to gain from manufacturing and launching two modules of such similar design? Why not do Genesis I, and then move on? — Jack · talk · 01:06, Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Considering that such a technology has never been launched by a government, much less a private company, there is much to gain from launching multiple small modules. Why pay even more to develop an entirely new design when you can reuse the same design and just upgrade? Just because they look similar on the outside does not mean they are exactly alike: Genesis II includes a significant number of upgrades to both interior and exterior systems. Read Genesis II (module) for more info. The Genesis craft are termed "pathfinders" for precisely this reason...they forge a road toward the end product, but everything has to start somewhere. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. Thanks very much for your help :) — Jack · talk · 22:13, Tuesday, 28 August 2007
No problem. Ask any time ;) -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Orion Lite

It may be too soon for its own article, we should work towards crafting something on the proposed LEO version of Orion that Bigelow put forward this past week. Here are some articles from a basic Google news search. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Since my last note, I have gone ahead and created Orion Lite. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

2006 Interview with Bigelow

I just learned that there is a one-hour first-person interview by Art Bell with Robert Bigelow that was made in 2006 following the successful launch of the Genesis I spacecraft. I have listened to it and found it filled in a number of holes with respect to what I know about Bigelow and about Bigelow Aerospace, his company. The interview is available in four-parts on YouTube: here (part 1), here (part 2), here (part 3), and (part 4) here. Perhaps the links could be added to the external links section of the article; I'm not sure. N2e (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, because the YouTube uploader is not the copyright holder, the recording there is a copyright violation and we cannot link to it. However, that doesn't mean the interview itself cannot be cited. Just use {{cite video}} (which really should be renamed "cite media") and provide as much information as you can, citing the actual Art Bell show and date of airing. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I see your point. Perhaps the new one, from a media site (Space.com) will be more easily used within Wikipedia. See below. N2e (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

2007 Interview with Bigelow

I just found another first-person interview with Robert Bigelow, much shorter but more recent. This one is by Space.com, Space News editor Lon Rains. Link is here: Robert Bigelow: Lessons, Visions, Realities..., four minute duration. This one is definitely appropriate for sourcing within the article itself, should some editor have the time and inclination to do so. Notably, this includes Bigelow's claim that his entrepreneurial endeavor at Bigelow Aerospace is about being a "space wholesaler", and that is the role he sees being filled by the Genesis module and the BA330s he intends to place into Low Earth orbit. He does not think it correct to merely call, as some media have, his modules a "space hotel," although that will clearly be one potential use of the orbital craft.N2e (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And here is yet another slice of that same interview, also apparently from the same conference as above, in 2007: Robert Bigelow: Who owns the next five decades in space?, Space.com Space News, about seven minutes duration.

These could potentially be the basis for expanding the article with verifiable citations. But in any case, they will be of interest to encyclpedia reader's who wish to know what's up with Bigelow Aerospace and its' plans. N2e (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Over the next couple of weeks, I hope to clean up and expand the BA 330, Bigelow Aerospace, and Robert Bigelow articles, as I've previously done with the Genesis, Galaxy and Sundancer articles. I'll incorporate as many of these sources as I can in the appropriate articles. At this point, I don't think we have to worry about having too many! — Huntster (t @ c) 04:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bigelow update -- January 2010

Recently published interview by Leonard David here: Private Space Stations Edge Closer to Reality. I hope to get back to the WP article later and update a few things based on the article. Other's are welcome to do so as well. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

2011 launch date for Bigelow payload on SpaceX Falcon9?

This and other articles contain the claim (repeated several times) that Bigelow has reserved a Falcon9 rocket in 2011. The cited SpaceX page does not show this. Rather, it shows Bigelow scheduled for 2014. 72.177.12.71 (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. The SpaceX launch manifest has changed; it used to show 2011. The new manifest looks like the government has bought, and therefore filled up, the SpaceX launch manifest with a lot of NASA missions to service the space station.
As for fixing the article, that definitely needs to be done. One of the three references (currently, ref. no. 10) has only the URL and the "SpaceX Launch Manifest" meta info, so no date of when that might be valid is known. The other two refs that support the 2011 claim both include the date the info was retrieved from the SpaceX source: one was in Sep 2009 and the other Oct 2009. So if those are correct, then SpaceX has radically changed their Falcon9 launch manifest in the past four months. Anyone else have better info? Or a better non-primary source, a reliable secondary source? N2e (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is a ref from a Space newswire that confirms that, at least as of March 2008, Bigelow did have plans to launch in 2011 on a SpaceX Falcon9: First SpaceX Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle Remains on Schedule for Delivery to Cape Canaveral, March 3, 2008 N2e (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I have attempted to update the article to reflect what we know about the SpaceX/Bigelow launch dates, both as previously planned and as best as one can tell from the current source, the SpaceX Feb 2010 launch manifest. Note that the previous claims of a Sundancer launch on SpaceX Falcon9 in 2011 were speculative, as they were never really supported by any valid source; the 2011 launch was sourced but that source did not ever specify what particular Bigelow module would be onboard, Sundancer, BA330, or ???. N2e (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sure the Sundancer mention got grandfathered in somewhere as simply being the next logical step in the launch sequence. From my quick look, your edits look good. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I just added a link to the Talk Page section below (July 2010: new Bigelow info) with a link to substantially more detailed claims about which module launches first, what launches follow in sequence to construct the space station, and in what years this is planned. See that link for a source that might allow us to clean up a number of claims in the article. N2e (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

CSS Skywalker image

Regarding the recent removal of the "non-free" image of the CSS Skywalker: I have doubts that the removal was the correct thing to do for the article. Rather than reverting, let's discuss it here.

Image:Cssskywalker.jpg

That image, and the descriptive text describing the CSS Skywalker space station concept formerly were in a separate article on the CSS Skywalker. There was a decision to merge the CSS Skywalker article into the Bigelow Aerospace article in mid-2009. I think that Merge was correct.

But that leaves this article the one place the CSS Skywalker -- as a historical concept, and one not unimportant to the grander plans of Bigelow Aerospace -- is documented. The image is an important part of this historical documentation.

As to the "free" or "non-free" status of the image. I looked at the image file and metadata on wikimedia, and the image has a valid "Licensing" statement that indicates the image is okay for use inside various Wiki-projects. I'm not an image expert but I do know that the Wiki-editors who are heavily involved in the Wiki image game are serious about deleting images that are not appropriately justified with a license rationale. Given that the image is still there, my take would be that it is okay to use it in a relevant Wikipedia article. As discussed above, I categorically think the image is appropriate to this article. N2e (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm one of those editors who gets heavily involved in the image game, except I do things mostly at Commons. We can barely justify any non-free images for a website that runs on a free license, so having even one non-free image in an article can be considered pushing it. But, it is generally allowed. However, having multiple non-free images in a single article gets increasingly hard to justify. In this situation, the CSS Skywalker image is a proposed construct, and is extremely fanciful in its portrayal. I can't even justify it being a "historical concept"...this is just an artist concept of something cool-looking. I strongly suspect Bigelow never really considered that their first space station would be as complex as the thing in that illustration. The picture is also entirely illustrative and serves absolutely no educational purpose, unlike the remaining three images. For that matter, I'm very likely to remove the BA 330 mockup image as having no real purpose here; while it is somewhat educational in its reach, it is a third non-free image that can be removed with no real impact to the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, I had to remove the actual image from your post, N2e, as non-free images are prohibited outside of the article namespace. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I haven't played in Wiki image debates so am unfamiliar with the rulz, which I'm sure are complex and convoluted. I have no problem with you removing the image from the Talk page; I didn't know about that rule.
I do think the article would be better with at least one image of a proposed multiple-component Bigelow structure, since that element has been important to all of Bigelow's plans since the beginning. In my simple-minded view, if there is a problem with some particular "non-free" image, that case should be made on the image's File page, not on every Wikipedia page that has used the acceptably-wikilicensed image. Then, if an image is removed, it will automatically (via bot?) be removed from any pages that are using it.
I do not support the removal of the last (of the three) images; as long as the image is licensed into Wikipedia, I believe this article documenting a major spacecraft project, one with substantial resources employed supporting it and development ongoing, should include at least one image illustrating the encyclopedic content we are trying to illustrate for readers!
All that being said, I appreciate your contributions Huntster, and I hope you will continue to contribute to the substantive content on the Bigelow and related pages. N2e (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
My point is that two non-free images is more than enough. Keep the logo image (as is standard for businesses), and keep the Genesis picture, as it represents a real, tangible object. The BA 330 mockup is just a pretty picture in this article, and folks wanting to learn about the BA 330 will see that image on that page anyway. Again, the CSS Skywalker image serves no purpose here except as an illustration. Just because you add a fair-use rationale to a non-free image, does not mean it can be used anywhere we want! The whole point of fair-use is that non-free images can be used to a limited extent without first seeking and gaining permission, but this right must not be overextended, and having *four* non-free images on a page is way beyond what is acceptable.
Let me put it this way: two non-free images should be okay, logo plus one other. I consider the Genesis picture most important because it represents something Bigelow has actually put into successful operation. What say you: Genesis (photo of real operational craft), BA 330 (photo of mockup), or CSS Skywalker (illustration of a proposal)? — Huntster (t @ c) 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I concur with your solution to the problem, and your logic. If the logo and Genesis I shots are non-free, than the photo of the real, in-orbit, expandable module technology is probably the best one to keep, especially if the BA-330 mock-up photo remains in the BA330 article. In my heart, I still want to see a multi-module image, but I guess until we can find a "free" one we'll just have to wait. N2e (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :) Yeah, the image at BA 330 is going nowhere. And I'm sure once the modules get built and people start visiting them, I'm more than certain we'll be able to get hold of some free images ;) When the time comes, I'll even try to directly contact a visiting astronaut and work out something. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Atlas V as a launch vehicle

I agree with the recent removal for an old unsourced claim, but there is actually a reference for it: http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/ISSCargoRFIFinal09062007.pdf p.9. All this is superseded by NASA's Commercial Crew Development program and the plans announced in the 2011 budget request. See also EELV for man-rating efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.177.81 (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition of B.A.A.S.S. or Creation of New Wiki Article

NIDs has been dismantled, however it has been reborn by the much larger entity which boasts even more PHD scientists and ample security guards under the umbrella of B.A.A.S.S. Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS)which now operates as a entirely seperate entity from Bigelow Aerospace. http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/careers/

I propose the creation of a seperate unique Wiki article on B.A.A.S.S. "According to the last order by Federal Aviation Administration—issued on December 10— B.A.A.S.S. is now the organization to contact if you are a pilot or an air traffic controller who gets close to an Unidentified Flying Object: Persons wanting to report UFO/unexplained phenomena activity should contact a UFO/ unex­ plained phenomena reporting data collection center, such as Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS)" "NIDS is now defunct and has been replaced by the larger, more capable BAASS," says the FAA. "Therefore, pilot and air traffic control reporting of UFOs in the United States should now go to BAASS, vice NIDS." This would make BAASS the ONLY civilian organization *ever* to have goverment authority to have all F.A.A. ufo reports send directly to BAASS headquarters Hiii98 (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Their page defines BAASS as "Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS), a sister company to Bigelow Aerospace, is a research organization that focuses on the identification, evaluation, and acquisition of novel and emerging future technologies worldwide as they specifically relate to spacecraft. BAASS is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. We are seeking experienced scientists to join our research teams. If you are an inquisitive outside of the circle thinker, who is detail oriented and looking for a challenge, this is a unique and exciting opportunity to advance your career and be a part of cutting edge research."Hiii98 (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Hiii. This sounds like an excellent idea for a new article. The dual nature of the organisation (UFO reporting and technology acquisition) intrigues me. I would suggest, however, that we wait a bit until more reliable sources are published regarding this entity. Right now I'm reading the Gizmodo article and FAA website that your information comes from, and I don't think it quite yet has enough background for a well-fleshed-out article. I've archived everything and will begin to put something together. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thank you i'm not much for being and editor however I am extremely proficient at locating necessary relevant articles and data for such a column. I look forward to your publication and offer any assistance you may need in its development.Hiii98 (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Can't promise it'll be done really soon, as I plan on rebuilding the BA 330, Bigelow Aerospace and Robert Bigelow articles first, but I might switch things up. If you happen to run across any other reliable sources (news articles and the like) post them here so I can use as sources. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what me and my forum members can dig up for you and will post once compiled.69.129.202.197 (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thank you. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

so has anyone started construction on a B.A.A.S.S. page? they have a team of PHD scietists and a army of security personel working for them chasing paranormal reports around the world. They are now the civilian version of project blue book and unlike the goverment they dont have to release their findings to anyone. Why hasnt an article been constructed yet?...even the outdated and completely disbanded NIDs group is still on wikipedia yet BAASS remains an invisible yet very visible entity . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Discovery_ScienceHiii98 (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

July 2010: new Bigelow info

There is a fair amount of new details on launch plans, Sundancer/BA330 space station construction in 2014/2015, Bigelow astronaut training, earth-facility expansion plans, etc. at Bigelow Aerospace Next generation commercial space stations. It is new to me anyway.

As of right now, I have not put any of the new info into the Wikipedia article. N2e (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have created a new article to cover the Bigelow Commercial Space Station, planned for on-orbit construction in 2014-2015 per verifiable claims on the recently revised Bigelow website. I took a major excerpt of the existing CSS Skywalker section of this article (Bigelow Aerospace) to stub out a History section of Bigelow space stations in the new article. Over time, we can probably lessen some of the CSS Skywalker detail that remains in this article.
There is much more information on the new website to be culled that may be appropriate for this and other Bigelow articles (e.g., detailed specs on Sundancer and BA-330 is only one area). N2e (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

NASA considering a Bigelow module for the ISS

NASA is considering the attachment of a Bigelow expandable module to the ISS for a period of two years. The following is from NASA Managers Discuss Prospect of Bigelow Inflatable on ISS, 14 Jan 2011.

The purpose of the ISS inflatable module would be a simple, limited capability stowage volume, similar in purpose to the currently on-orbit Japanese Logistics Platform (JLP), which serves as a stowage module for scientific equipment from the Japanese Pressurised Module (JPM) laboratory. The module would be certified to remain on-orbit for two years.

The module would be a collaboration between NASA and Bigelow Aerospace, with NASA HQ providing funding, the ISS National Laboratory Program providing project management, and NASA providing all Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), which includes the Passive Common Berthing Mechanism (PCBM), Flight Releasable Grapple Fixture (FRGF), smoke detector, fan, and emergency lights.

Bigelow would provide the inflatable and inner core structure of the module, and perform all required flight analysis.

Notably, the design appears to be rather different in shape than any of the known Bigelow space habitat modules (Sundancer, BA 330, etc.)—it is much more donut shaped. Several graphics are provided in the linked article. I have not yet added any of this information the article. N2e (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'm disappointed to see them go back to the torus design of the early days, but I have a feeling NASA would not approve anything so radical as a fully-inflatable structure. I would also guess that the module would be kept fully sealed when not in active use, due to fear of failure of the outer shell. Another point to keep in mind is that this may not even happen...it will require Node 4 to be installed, and that has yet to be funded (and from what I see, it has probably less than 50% chance of being completed). So, hopefully it'll get up there, but I'm not holding my breath. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Inflatable Module Mission --Craigboy (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Huntster. If you want to see learn about the engineering logic that makes NASA like toroid shapes, take a look at the new External link that Craigboy added to the TransHab article in the past couple of days, or see the Talk page there where I made a few comments. I don't THINK it is the same doc he just added to this comment section (but I haven't had time to look at his new link here). N2e (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

THREE production lines for THREE spacecraft designs

I just updated the article on Bigelow's new production facility, now under construction in Nevada. The source makes it explicit that Bigelow is building THREE production lines for THREE distinct spacecraft designs.

"The only purpose this addition has is for production. We have three spacecraft, three production lines and the assembly plant you would normally have," and "three different designs that each offer much more than the cramped modules that make up the International Space Station." (8NewsNOW, 4 Feb 2011)

From myriad sources over the past few years, we know about Sundancer and BA 330. What is the third module? Could it be the "central docking node"? ... for the "propulsion, solar arrays, and attached crew capsules." that the Wikipedia article mentions in the Bigelow Commercial Space Station section? The 8NewsNOW source would seem to indicate that is not the case, as it refers to "each [design] offer[ing] much more [interior volume] than the cramped modules that make up the International Space Station." So what is the third module? The BA-2100 is pure concept, and would require a super-heavy lift launcher in any case--so no need to build for it now? Has Bigelow announced a third expandable module for the near term? Something I've missed.N2e (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

<SPECULATION> Per the NASA photograph taken at Bigelow in early February (now shown in the Orion Lite Talkpage section below), and the NASA BEAM module for ISS contract negotiations underway, it could be that the third production line is for the BEAM module. A BEAM is definitely shown in the background of the NASA photo. On the other hand, if the contract is only for a single module for the ISS, a one-time technology demonstrator and test article, why would an entire "production line" need to be dedicated to that task?
</SPECULATION} N2e (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Orion Lite

A full scale mockup of Bigelow Aerospace's Space Station Alpha inside their facility in Nevada.

This is Orion Lite in the background of the NASA photo? This project is not cancelled? The Orion Lite article isn't clear... Artvill (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered the same thing when I looked at the full size photo. On the other hand, given that Bigelow started a development program of some sort for building Orion Lite, and given that they got far enough along to build either a mockup, boilerplate, or test article, it would make perfect sense that the thing might still be sitting in the back corner of their R&D facility in Nevada, and merely sitting there wouldn't tell us very much. And of course just looking at the photo doesn't confirm that it is an Orion Lite anyway. So without a reliable source of verifiable information, I don't think we know much more with this photo than we did before we saw this early Feb 2011 NASA photo. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
According to FlightGlobal its the Orion Lite, why its still there I don't know. Maybe its being used as a stand in for the Boeing CST-100. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/09/331968/us-russian-capsules-vie-for-orbital-domination.html --Craigboy (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This presentation seems to calling the mock-up the CST-100. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGZWIR0Prhk&t=26m30s --Craigboy (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bigelow Aerospace Discussion Board

Bigelow has started a discussion board, at the Bigelow Aerospace website. Here is the link: http://forum.bigelowaerospace.com. In addition to some opinionating from random internet souls, the company itself has made some statements, as well as released graphics of nearly all of the artist representations that were presented by Bigelow at a 2010 conference (up to now, the only graphics of these posters were photos taken by a German person who attended the conference, and he placed his/her photos up on a blog.

Here is what Bigelow said about the concept drawings: "until the designs are finalized & construction begins, these are all just artist representations. Once a commercial Station is up, economics will determine what follows." (3 Dec 2011). However, this company website release of photos is much closer to a reliable source than a bunch of unattested Flickr photos. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

March 2012: Bigelow is hiring again; has ended employee furloughs

2013 Sources

  • Another: Bigelow Urges Lunar COTS Program, Wants Moon Property Rights Review, 12 Nov 2013, Parabolic Arc. Bigelow apparently "applying to the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Tranportation (AST) for a policy review of lunar property rights by the end of this year."
  • And another: Bigelow report calls for use of COTS model for cislunar transportation, NewSpace Journal, 12 Nov 2013. "A report prepared by Bigelow Aerospace for NASA concludes that the commercial approach that the space agency used successfully for developing commercial cargo transportation to the International Space Station should also be applied to developing transportation beyond Earth orbit, including in the vicinity of, and to the surface of, the Moon." ... " the company’s first two BA 330 expandable habitats, modules with an internal volume of 330 cubic meters once deployed in orbit, will be ready for launch by the end of 2016. Bigelow Aerospace is also working on a version called the BA 330-DS for missions beyond Earth orbit; this will be very similar to the basic BA 330 but with improved rad-hardened avionics and additional shielding, as well as a larger inventory of spare parts for deep space missions. A modified BA 330-DS would be capable of landing on a planetary body, like the surface of the Moon. The report also outlines additional hardware, including tugs and power modules, that could be used in conjunction with the BA 330-DS modules to support missions beyond LEO."—N2e (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

2014 Sources

  • Bigelow VP talking to the media about BA history and current status: How Soon Can We Check in to a Space Hotel?, Popular Mechanics, 16 May 2014. There may be more here to back up some of the general "soft materials" are better than "[hard shell materials once humans are beyond low-Earth orbit]" than I've seen discussed before. Includes some description of their environmental ground testing of the BA 330 with human subjects locked inside. Emphasizes (once again) that Bigelow prefers the moon to Mars for the next location of these habitats on some celestial object. (but I'm guessing they'll sell into whatever market emerges).N2e (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

More sources

More for improving the article at some time:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bigelow_Aerospace/Archives/2015&oldid=1136563562"