ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Bigelow shoots for the moon

Posted: Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:36 PM by Alan Boyle


Bigelow Aerospace
An artist's conception shows a Bigelow Aerospace complex in Earth orbit. Such a
station could serve as the precursor for prefabricated lunar bases after 2020.

Even as Bigelow Aerospace gears up for launching its second prototype space station into orbit, the company has set its sights on something much, much bigger: a project to assemble full-blown space villages at a work site between Earth and the moon, then drop them to the lunar surface, ready for immediate move-in.

In an exclusive interview this week, Las Vegas billionaire Robert Bigelow confirmed that his company has been talking about the concept with NASA – and that the first earthly tests of the techniques involved would take place later this year. The scenario he sketched out would essentially make Bigelow a general contractor for the final frontier.

That role would be a good fit for Bigelow, who made his fortune in the real estate, hotel and construction business and is now focused on developing inflatable modules (or as he prefers to call them, "expandable systems") that can serve as the building blocks for orbital living complexes.

The first big step down that path came in July, when a Russian booster put Bigelow's Genesis 1 prototype module into orbit. Bigelow has said even he was surprised by the success of that mission, and he has committed himself to spending hundreds of millions of dollars to follow up on that first launch.

The next test module, Genesis 2, is due for launch in April – with a larger prototype, known as Galaxy, tentatively scheduled for liftoff next year. Bigelow's plan calls for launching the company's first space "hotel" capable of accommodating guests (or researchers, for that matter) in 2010.

Getting all that right is "Job One," Bigelow told me. But by 2012, the focus could start shifting from low Earth orbit, or LEO, farther out into space. One of the key places in Bigelow's plan is a point about 200,000 miles (323,000 kilometers) out from Earth in the moon's direction, where the pulls of terrestrial and lunar gravity balance each other.


This diagram shows gravitational
balance points L1 through L5.
Earth and the moon are not
drawn to the orbit's scale.

Bigelow would turn that region of space, called L1, into a construction zone. Inflatable modules would be linked up with propulsion/power systems and support structures, and then the completed base would be lowered down to the moon's surface, all in one piece.

Once the moon base has been set down, dirt would be piled on top, using a technique that Bigelow plans to start testing later this year at his Las Vegas headquarters. The moon dirt, more technically known as regolith, would serve to shield the base's occupants from the harsh radiation hitting the lunar surface.

Bigelow is not alone in thinking about ways to do all this. In fact, Bigelow Aerospace arranged the interview in response to last month's story about NASA's plans for building infrastructure on the moon after 2020. At the time, NASA's Larry Toups had mentioned that the space agency was discussing its options with Bigelow as well as other aerospace companies, such as ILC Dover (which has its own inflatable-module project), Lockheed Martin and the Boeing Co.

Bigelow's latest comments bring the concept of inflatable modules full circle. NASA pioneered the technology for space habitats that could be folded up into a small space for launch, then inflated with pressurized gas after their deployment. Bigelow licensed the technology, known as the Transhab system, for his own private-sector space program – and is now working with the space agency to adapt the system for its original purpose.

That was the starting point for our interview, which appears here in full (with minor editing):

Bigelow: These expandable systems were part of NASA’s architecture for going to Mars, and then they became the architecture that NASA was going to use for the dormitory for the international space station. And of course, Congress cut the program. So these systems have applications for deep space missions as well as for missions on the moon and the surface of Mars.

We’ve had some discussions with NASA regarding lunar activities using these structures, and we’ve presented NASA with two concepts for our approach as a private company to creating a lunar base and also providing the regolith insulation protection

Cosmic Log: So those are two separate opportunities – one would be creating the base and the other would be providing that regolith protection. Am I reading that right?

Bigelow: You are. Our concepts are completely different from all the other concepts that have been kicked around about how to deploy the regolith. We have our own approach about how to create the base and the provision for gathering that lunar material and placing it over the modules. And that’s been the focus of our discussions with NASA, on just that particular subject of lunar interest.

Our company does have a lunar interest. It’s obviously secondary to our activities in low Earth orbit, which we certainly want to successfully accomplish first.

Q: I’ll definitely return to that in a second, but I did want to ask you about your approach to the base and the regolith insulation. Someone coming in from the outside might say, “Well, you just take one of those inflatable modules and you plunk that down on the lunar surface and pile moon dirt around it. It doesn’t sound that complicated.” Is the devil in the details, or is there some radically different way in which Bigelow would approach that challenge?

A: Yes, there’s a significant difference, because both of those are very significant challenges.

The regolith is made up of very, very fine, talcum-powder-type of glass particles. As you probably know, these particles are a significant abrasive, and they are able to penetrate the smallest of joints in any moving system. So what you don’t want to have, if possible, is a reliance on any moving systems to deploy that material.


AP file
Robert Bigelow meets
the press in Las Vegas.

Now, all the architectures for deploying the regolith involve some kind of conveyor belt, or a tractor or some other kind of large equipment that rolls around the surface, scoops up the material and transports it like you see on construction sites terrestrially. Usually, that type of solution is imagined because people look to construction excavation as the methodology to deal with the lunar regolith problem. Being a general contractor as we have for over 30 years, we’ve been on an awful lot of construction sites, and we’ve excavated an awful lot of material.

If people have ever been around a construction site at night, they’ll see a bunch of lights on those machines, and some service trucks there. Those service trucks aren’t there just because there’s nothing better to do than visit the machinery. It’s because that machinery breaks down constantly on Earth, all of the time. Every construction site has that feature to it.  People who have never been to construction sites are completely unaware that this is a habitual problem on Earth, let alone the moon.

The last thing you want to do is handcuff yourself to an Earth solution for moving material – a strategy that would be just crazy to apply to a lunar application. We have enough problems as it is keeping the machinery running – Caterpillars, loaders, excavators, all kinds of machinery.

So our solution is something entirely different, involving a method where no machinery actually is used. We’re going to be trying the method this year, using one of our steel simulators as a prototype, because it’s the size of vessel that mimics the full-scale module. We’re actually going to try in Las Vegas to apply our solution for covering up a full-scale module, involving only two people, with a depth of soil on the crown of at least 2 or 3 feet. We’ll give you more on this later as we progress with this experiment.

Q: You don’t want to go into detail on the particular strategy involved?

A: Well, part of it is because we would prefer to actually implement our approach first. The other part is that I don’t have a lot of time left right now to explain it. It would take me probably 15 minutes to describe the process to you. … Maybe another time.

Q: Well, I guess we’ll just have to stay tuned for more on that. So in terms of the lunar habitat, would it be another version of the habitat that you’re using for orbital operations?

A: Yes, our concept of lunar base construction would be to assemble various modules and propulsion/power buses in L1, and that would constitute the base. Those propulsion systems are full of fuel, and they are integrated into the overall structure in such a way that the entire structure lands as a unified base – which essentially was once a spaceship in L1, but is landed on the surface of the moon.

This way, you avoid the significant issues that surround having to gang modules together on the lunar surface on topographical surfaces that are not perfectly even. You avoid having to connect the air locks of modules that maybe weren’t able to be brought close enough together. You avoid having to transport modules across the lunar surface, even if they were only a matter of a few hundred yards apart, and assembling them so that you have an airlock-to-airlock connection.

One module really isn’t the issue. It’s a matter of how you get three or five or seven down as one overall complex. Our architecture addresses that as a potential solution, using a combination of our propulsion buses and these expandable systems. The propulsion buses would have stanchions on them that act as the rigid points, to be able to deal with uneven topographical surfaces. The expandable systems themselves don’t mind at all being set upon a solid surface because of the shields that they have and the durability of the overall system. The rigidity of the system is such that they don’t mind at all. Even under a 1-g influence on Earth, there’s no problem – so under one-sixth it would be much less.

They come equipped with their own insulation, by the way, for space debris in low Earth orbit, and to a certain extent for micrometeoroids. So they’re already better insulated than the international space station is currently. Of course, the regolith is a significant additive that would be a great enhancement of the protection.

So anyway, the base is assembled in L1 and proceeds to the lunar surface. Because it’s not having to fly direct, it has wider opportunities: Bases can be sent to multiple alternate landing sites. It can be occupied or unoccupied at the time it is deployed to the lunar surface. So you save a lot of time, a lot of money, and lots of lives potentially during assembly, because it’s going to be a very risky situation to assemble modules and try to gang them together on the surface.

Q: The idea is that the L1 balance point would provide a relative stable place where you don’t have to worry about things wandering away all that much, and it’s a stable place to work with multiple systems to put it together.

A: Well, yeah, and furthermore, as a precursor to that, we will have already assembled those spacecraft in theory in low Earth orbit. If they can be congregated and ganged together in low Earth orbit, then we’re fairly optimistic that can also be done in L1.

Q: On that topic of orbital operations, can you give me an update on your plans for the next orbital launch, for Genesis 2?

A: We’re making preparations for sending various folks to Russia. We have a sizable crew of people who go back and forth – I think it’s on the order of 21 or 22 people we send over there. And I will be adding myself to that number over there as well. We’re looking forward to the launch in April, and things are good to go.

We have a replacement Biobox that we’re putting in the spacecraft. Since we have the extra time, we want to give the little living animals that we’re flying the best chance for longevity in space. So we had a duplicate Biobox, and we are in the process of replacing the old one with the new one, with the same constituents of ants and beetles and scorpions. In fact, we are outfitting a scorpion with the same identification marks that the fifth-grade class that named that particular scorpion is going to recognize. We’ve added some color to that scorpion so that the fifth-graders will recognize it.

So everything is going to be replaced in the new Biobox as it was in the old one, with the intent that we’ve provided some extra lifetime in orbit.

Q: And the time frame of sometime around or after April 1 still applies?

A: Yes, we expect to have updates over the next couple of weeks, before the 15th of March. We will be making more announcements as to the accuracy of that time. We are getting ready to ship the spacecraft out. We still anticipate an April launch, so we’re good to go.

Q: In terms of the time frame for this larger lunar infrastructure project, you mentioned that there would be a test of the regolith transfer system later this year. Are there any other milestones you’re looking forward to? Do you expect to make some sort of full-featured presentation to NASA at a particular time, or do you just take each step as it comes, leading to the post-2020 time frame?

A: Our Job One is to take care of our business in low Earth orbit and try to perfect our spacecraft through these Pathfinder launches. Then try to launch our Sundancer spacecraft in 2010, our Galaxy spacecraft in ’08 – and perfect our propulsion buses and our power systems, and start assembly of our first commercial space complex in 2010, 2011, 2012. By 2012, we should have two habitable modules in orbit, and one large propulsion and power system.

That will constitute the beginning of our opportunity. If we can do that, I would say that’s an exercise that’s applicable to the L1 scenario.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

When you look at that beautiful photo and realize that a PRIVATE person is putting it up there, just remember that it was our beloved BOEING who petitioned congress to pass a law prohibiting NASA to spend money to develop that much more affordable technology… When looking at what a small company is planning, it's also hard to believe how little NASA has accomplished with its expensive shuttle.

As for the lunar base, I really don't thing that would be as attractive to people as, say, flying around the moon, which would be very scenic.  On the moon, will people be able to look outside, go for a moon buggy ride, or just sit inside saying they made it?  I guess you could have a fairly huge arched structure where you could even play basketball of sorts.  Any such plans should be as multi-functional as possible should vacationers not be as interested as expected.  Do some sketches of what a mining operation would need just in case and always plan for major expansion if things go better than expected.
The solution to the abrasive regolith is to make an electric hauler that's inside a large flexible cylinder. The ends of the cylinder would be stiff and incorporate a hole and hook to pull a sled as well as a door to enter and exit the cylinder. Inside the cylinder would be an electric engine running on rubber tracks. No joints would be exposed to the regolith.
It is certainly satisfying to hear that someone with experience in Earthside construction realizes that earth moving and lunar (regolith) moving do not have to be approached in the same manner.

I have been anticipating the lunar base being killed when NASA realized that they couln't get bulldozers into any of the planned lift vehicles.
There's still a long way to go before Bigelow has a base on the Moon, but he has a significant head start over most New Space companies: he already has working hardware in orbit (Genesis One).

Here's hoping his business plan works out as well as his technology appears to be.  I can just see arriving NASA astronauts checking in to the Budget Suites of Luna now. :)
Thank God for the visionaries!

It pleases me beyond measure that this is a commercial venture and completely beyond the reach of apathetic and misinformed taxpayers.

This country needs inspiration, not American Idol, not Posh Spice, not more Anna Nicole Smith coverage...

Thank God for the visionaries...

Thank God for the visionaries...
Hi, Alan -- What can I say? Bigelow has answers for all questions, even ones he didn't get to answer. I can only hope that he and NASA are willing to share and share alike, since information at this point is more valuable than gold. My personal impression from the upper end of a long life is that,while competition can sometimes be a good thing as in the Olympics, co-operation is always the better option for human beings.
In summer 2006, I detailed a business plan - Lunar Voyages - for private spaceflights around the Moon from Earth orbit based on a modified BA Nautilus. This is the term paper for the Personal Spaceflight Venture Viability independent study at the Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland.

http://www.stellarlink.org/academic/lunarvoyages.doc
I understand the need for insulating against outer space radiation. Its an immediate killer. However, I am having difficulty understanding why someone would use already radiated regolith? Isn't this defeating the purpose of the covering? Or am I missing something all together about the properties of regolith that make it have a half-life holding radiation?
The concept of inflatables is all well and good for an initial shape. I would suggest the creation of a dual layer balloon or envelope as you may where in between the layers a mixture of self hardening foaming epoxy might great a durable rigid structure. This providing inherently more strength and self protecting the inner layer so that its surface will remain air tight for that much longer.

I really like the concepts but frankly do not believe this will ever come about in reality.

Please prove me wrong....
In the hypothetical arched structure for worker recreation; how could anyone play any type of ball games? Am I missing a something or would throwing or kicking anything result in it travelling the entire length of the structure? A great environment to invent some new games!
The regolith just acts as an insulator to absorb the radiation .... I don't think the soil itself poses a radiation risk.
At last we will be able to expand humankind in outerspace. I do believe that this is a big step forward but it's really sad to see that the ordinary man on the street doesn't always see or takes intrest to the big issue that space is becoming. Good show, and hopefuly the scientists can contineu that good work.
Hi Alan & wooch

The radiation takes two forms - solar protons and cosmic rays. The protons don't have the energy to induce (much?) radioactivity and are dangerous merely because of the energy they dump directly into tissue. Cosmic rays are much more energetic and cause all sorts of transmutations in materials they collide with - that's how carbon-14 is made in our atmosphere and beryllium-11 is made in surface materials. Other things are made in lunar regolith, and measured thanks to Apollo, showing that the real health issue is from the energy released into tissue - cosmic rays can "electrocute" neurons directly, causing an as-yet unmeasured cognitive decline and increased cancer risk.

My personal preference is for a Bigelow blow-up habitat to be inflated inside a pre-existing lava-tube, of which there are many signs on the Moon. Thus the hard work is already taken care of by Mother Nature.
During last July's plant tour at Bigelow Aerospace, they were a lot more open about the details of their technique for emplacing regolith as a radiation shield -- and it was an amazingly logical engineering approach. But if they've decided to withhold details in public, now, for whatever reason, that's their right and their business decision, and as for now I'll go along with it. But I can hardly wait to discuss it in full, when they're ready.
I'd like to second that "thank God for the visionaries" comment. April should be a good month - the first good results from COROT should be coming in at that time too. Private industry in space + potential discovery of almost Earth-sized planets is exactly what we need.
"The regolith just acts as an insulator to absorb the radiation .... I don't think the soil itself poses a radiation risk."

Hi Alan,

It's true that the regolith per se doesn't emit radiation (except for some extremely low level natural radioactivity), but if you use regolith to shield that habitat, high-energy cosmic rays can induce secondary radiation from the regolith layer through the interaction of cosmic rays with the regolith shield.

The solution to this problem is probably a combination of regolith burial (largely for thermal control) and jacketing the habitat with a layer of water, an excellent radiation shield.
I think he is going to propel the regolith with some kind of electrostatic charge. The machine would never touch the regolith as it is being moved. Kind of like a leaf blower.
We need Grand Challenge's for space: $? awarded to first privately funded space station, moon base, 'probe' to go to moon... get dust... and bring it back, etc. to encourage innovation.
THIS is the future I was promised as a youth!  Lunar bases, space stations...maybe a Mars colony.  Now NASA needs to graciously step aside so it can happen.  

Good luck getting around the static cling of lunar dust tho'.
Cox, did you not read? Bigelow already has a prototype on orbit, it's been up there with living creatures onboard for several months now and it's performing perfectly by all accounts.

I've been folowing these guys since I first heard about them like two years ago and I'm excited because is the kind of thing that holds the future of human space flight.

Smart, determined, risktakers who don't have to deal with the risk-adverse culture that's brought NASA to a nearly grinding halt.

I look forward to spending a couple of weeks at one of Mr. Bigelow's "Budget Suites of Luna" as one of the earlier posters put it.

Viva la Bigelow!
Alan: That is mostly true. However there is a risk of high energy radiation creating radioactive elements as it interacts with the regolith. The recent edition of Discover mag describes all this and more about the possible trials and tribulations of dealing with regolith. One scientist estimated the minimum cover of regolith to be 10 feet for insulation.
EJ Cox "...between the layers a mixture of self hardening foaming epoxy..." Good idea, but if they simply microwave the regolith every couple of feet of depth while they are covering the structure (it turns into a glass-like substance), it should provide the same net effect with no epoxy.
I'd just like to add a shout-out to Jim Oberg, and particularly to Paul Spudis, who is one of the country's top experts on lunar science. For more from those worthies, you can click over to:

http://www.jamesoberg.com/
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/
So we have nearly destroyed the earth we live on and now we are going to start in on the other bodies in space? Rather than spending billions on vacationing on the moon, how about we fix our planet and the things living on it first? Mr. Bigalow has enough money to help billions of people,yet he wants to cater to the rich who have nothing better to do. I'm no tree hugger but I would like to see the starving people on this earth get fed before we venture into hotels in space.
Thi is inspiration of the highest order. It's a wonderful thing, truly.
The comment by EJ Cox about dual layer balloon construction with a layer of hardening foam inside is similar to an idea I have for Mars. Mars is intrinsically more challenging than the moon because of the need to safely deliver habitat systems through an atmosphere, making lightness and small volume necessary. I picture a hemispherical balloon, inflated on the surface, with a hemispherical geodesic dome of like size constructed inside. The dome would be strong and rigid, with components such as carbon filament materials that are now used in airplanes and other applications where price is no object. They could be light and take a small space, and could be designed for snap-together construction. Once done, the inside of the dome could be affixed with wiring, plumbing, and other support systems, and then sprayed with the self-hardening foam. Another balloon could be inflated inside to form an inner surface. Then regolith could be layered on the outside of this structure, which would have the strength to bear a layer sufficient for radiation protection. This system could be useful on the moon and Mars.
I would have to agree with Mr. Michael A. Thomas, about using some form of electrostatic charge, seeing as how the talk was about a 'Steel Simulator', all one would have to do is set the dome to one charge and use some method of inducing the opposite charge into the regolith. Most likely done with no actual 'moving' parts. I applaud this idea and hope I have not inadvertantly disclosed too much info already. I, for one, would enjoy the idea of inhabiting just such a structure. My dream as a child, growing up with NASA's Apollo Space Program, was to help assemble space platforms in orbit. Those dreams were shelved as the Apollo program was disassembled and have sat on the shelf, hoping to be able to see the light of day again. The idea of being able to design a space habitat as a modular system form is an extremely exciting prospect to me. The concept of assembling a habitat in orbit and then soft-landing it, intact, to form moonside structures just seems like an "Of Course" type of idea to me. Offhand I can think of several reasonable configurations that such a structure could be assembled into and landed on the surface in order to form such things as living space, work centers, observatories, scientific labs, posh hotels for tourists and even hospitals and geriatric centers. The possibilities once we get there are totally endless. I can see methods of forming regolith into structural members that could be virtually 'grown' to any size one needed, the only limitations are of the imagination since most of the needed materials are there, waiting to be utilized, and there is probably more energy falling on the surface of the moon daily than we could possibly hope to use in a hundred years. All there for the taking. The first step, historically, has been taken, the next steps in our walk forward to a prosperous future in space and on the moon are being taken as we speak, and the carefull, wide, firmly planted steps that Bigelow Aerospace is taking now are the ones that appear to have the best chance of advancing our Species' dream of inhabiting bodies other than this single planet Earth and allow us a place to safely stand while we consider where to go next!
.

big orbital and moon projects are very interesting... but...

ready available rockets (Ariane, Atlas, Delta, ecc.) costs (around) $10M per mT launched to LEO

the new Ares' family (including the shared R&D costs) may reach $20-30M per mT to LEO

also IF a 20 mT manned capsule or module unit price will fall to $1M its "total price" will still be:

20 mT x $10M (Ariane5 pric- per-mT to LEO) = $200M + $1M = $201M

so (assuming this very low "$1M" price for a manned 4-seats private capsule) the "price-per-seat" is:

$201M / 4 seats = $50.5M per seat...

but, since (at least) one of them MUST be a professional pilot, the real price per-passenger is:

$201M /3 = $67M per-passenger-seat

same problem to launch a space module or an unmanned robot or EVERYTHING you want

all space project will always face a "problem" our planet has from 4.5 billion years: "gravity"

then, the step/effort #1 of ALL space projects/companies must be: "LOW PRICE PER mT TO LEO"

IF companies like SpaceX will (REALLY) succeed in build cheap (but RELIABLE) rockets, all plans may happen

while, if they don't succeed (or the price will remains in the EELV/Ares range) they will remain DREAMS

so, my suggestion is: LESS time and money "payloads dreams" and MORE money and efforts on "rockets"

.
Bigelow Aerospace, known for their unique approach towards orbital space stations may have concrete plans for establishing lunar colonies on a world all too familiar to the space industry.
As interesting as all of this sounds, shouldn't we try solving the problems here on earth first? Who is this project really going to help? Oh, let's move to the Moon so that we can dominate and pollute another place. We can't get the earth right. How are things going to be any better on the Moon? Sorry to burst your bubble. I just think there are better ways to spend money.
Ashley Searle,

You bring up a familiar argument and some interesting points, however, great things seldom happen without great inspiration and the goals of Bigelow Aerospace are not simply for the benefit of "rich people with nothing better to do." Rather, Mr. Bigelow’s vision (and the visions of so many like him) is for the benefit of the people of our world.

Getting to orbit and to the moon for less money than is spent by world governments will require cheaper technologies, new ideas and smart people—all things this world also desperately needs.

There are certainly challenges to overcome on Earth, but it will take ambition and inspiration to find realistic solutions to them.

Witnessing great things inspires, and that is what is being done here.
The part I like to the notion of using the EML1 position to assemble Lunar stations. If you use L1 as an assembly point, then you have an entire construction depot at L1. That means manned station, fuel depot, tools. Think of the places where they assemble the large off-shore oil platforms, prior to them being taken to their planned location. Lets also not forget the crew filming it for the Discovery Channel special as well. We're talking serious amounts of "Man In Space" Action- the type of stuff that was portrayed in Space Odyssey. To get there, we're going to need to ditch the whole Ares I, V & IV family - they're too darned expensive when we have the likes of Atlas, Delta and Falcon.
For the people who are whining about "should we not solve our problems here..." , you would tried to stop Columbus from landing in americas.  You are using the same agrument that could have been used against Lewis and Clark.  If Bigelow wants to spend 'his' money, let him spend it any way he wants.

Please remind me what Spain got out of sending a few ships across the Atlantic?  If I remember correctly they got most of South America, Texas, California.  Now if I could have made that investment for that type of return..Spain made millions.  I would.  

Bigelow wants to invest in the moon, what will be bring for us?  I don't know.  It may bring new art work, new materials, new sciences..If someone had given the right to a piece of CA land for approx $1/acre would you have taken it?  100 years ago you could have had a lot of CA.  Now, what would all those acres be worth?  The moon has plently of land---maybe I will look a little to the future.  If someone sells me 1 arce of moon land for $1.  I might buy it--30 years for now, it might be prime real estate.
Fuzzy... you don't want to go, cool. But can you please bring a better argument about not doing this to the table? The folks pushing development of near earth space and the Moon are spending their money here on Earth. Pay attention.
One thing not solved to my satisfaction is oxygen supply. I know of no place in space, on the moon or on Mars that can guarantee humans a reliable supply. Is there an inherent assumption oxygen will be continually removed from Earth's atmosphere to supply all future space colonies. If so ,does this not proportionally increase carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, and other atmospheric gases?

Does someone have a practical method of providing oxygen to space travellers without extracting it from Earth's atmosphere?
Great idea, I've been waiting thirty years for something like this.  I've thought for a long time that when NASA goes back to the moon they will be paying passengers on a Virgin Galactic flight, and staying at a Bigelow hotel.

Only question is: will NASA be able to aford first class?  
Dear Ed Trask, Lunar ice= water, oxygen and rocket fuel. Same as any other ice found in space, and there is a lot of it on many moons and I belive asteroids. Perhaps one day we will be importing it...
Oxygen is easily removed from water by electrolysis, creating not only oxygen but hydrogen as well, which can be used as a fuel, so having water reservoirs onboard any space habitat, which will be needed anyways, will also provide a backup for the O2 supply.  Having plants onboard a permanent station, for oxygen replenishment and scrubbing of carbon dioxide as well as producing part of the food for said station would seem to be a necessary part of any permanent station as well, this point has been brought up in nearly all realistic 'hard' science fiction stories concerning space habitats.  It is an idea that has been studied since the 20's I do believe, and I know for a fact that there have been space station designs that have been drawn up on the premise of orbital farms even in the 30's.  So the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle is just another facet that has been thought about and there are indeed plans out there to deal with.  I hope that answers your question Ed Trask.
Those who express concern about the purpose of Bigelow's project are correct to do so. It seems that he has already shown a certain defect in his goal by acquiring a license for modules conceived of by NASA at taxpayer expense. The problems we as a species face here on earth are more as a result of a mental illness (war for power and PROFIT, deceit for more PROFIT, etc.,etc.,etc.... Buy land on the moon now to sale for Profit later; do this so you can make billions in the future. If this remains the true reason for going to the stars then the rest of the universe better hope we destroy ourselves soon before we get a crack at them|
My guess is that Bigelow is going to soft-land his inflatables at the bottom of a crater, then place explosives into bores in the regolith around the perimeter and detonate them.  The resulting "landslide" down the sides of the crater covers his inflatables at the bottom.  A pre-inflated tower section sticks up above the buried main compartment and contains the airlock for getting in and out.

There is probably some trickiness about properly anchoring the inflatable at the bottom so it doesn't buoy up through the fluidized landslide... though maybe the regolith doesn't fluidize since there is no air.  I'd also want to detonate portions of the perimeter one at a time, stopping in between to check how well I'd backfilled the crater.
Ashley --

Few decades ago air travel was available only to very rich -- the term "jet set" existed for a reason, and disappeared for a reason. Few decades before that, automobiles were impractical toys for millionaires. Few decades earlier still, indoor plumbing was a luxury of the wealthy.

Every new technology is always expensive -- at first. When enough rich people buy it, it becomes mass-produced and cheap.

As for "fixing the planet" -- any conceivable solution requires energy, and a lot of it. Energy production on Earth is either expensive, polluting, has finite supply, or any combination of the three. Total amount of energy in the Solar System exceeds world's current production by about 1 trillion. When rich vacationers buy enough orbital rides to bring the price down, tapping some of that energy (and moving polluting industry into orbit, where it belongs) will become economical.
The best answer to the oxygen question would be resource extraction from lunar water ice ... This wouldn't be chunks of ice, but probably frozen water intermixed with the soil, from falling comets, basically. Oxygen can be extracted from the minerals in the soil itself, and this is the subject of a $250,000 NASA competition called the MoonROx Challenge:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7913785/
http://www.californiaspaceauthority.org/moonrox/

Here's more information about oxygen extraction from lunar regolith:

http://www.physorg.com/news4443.html
Thank you, Alan!

This is fascinating!  Absolutlely the most interesting proposal for private and government space ventures that we've heard of.  Looking forward to seeing some artwork on this -- soon we hope.  Given any thoughts to placing inflatable habitat bases on near earth asteroids, especially those in transit orbits? It seems that about 50% of the habitat shielding would be automatic.  On an Earth / Mars transit, having a large space rock to explore for six months or more would give Astronauts something useful and valuable to do while transiting.
Landing a fully constructed lunar base on the moon in one go is a brilliant engineering solution to the problem of constructing the base on the surface from separate modules. Last year I constructed a scale model of a Bigelow lunar base which was displayed at the Space Frontier Foundation NewSpace 2006 conference. While I was constructing the model I realised that there was a problem of aligning the various modules up with one another on the uneven surface and that this would also happen on the moon. I got around this problem with the addition of a bull dozer which levelled the surface and also designed trestles to vary the heights of the modules laying on the surface so they lined up. The completed model showed the bull dozer in action. How the modules were to be landed on the moon and moved into their final location I never looked into in the limited time I was had building the model which incidentally only showed the completed moon base. What Bigelow Aerospace have done is solve 2 engineering problems in one go: Joining the modules on the moon and the problem of moving them around has been eliminated. How they plan to bury them is eagerly anticipated. They should be congratulated on their engineering brilliance. The only problem I can see is in landing a fully constructed base . It will be interesting !
It's one matter where tax money is concerned (we are, after all, compelled to pay them, and elect people who represent us in its use), but I continue to be surprised at those who would presume to tell wealthy individuals what legal pursuits they can apply that wealth to...

It should be noted that Bigelow and related 'New Space' projects are hardly frivolous hobbies (not that those would need justification, and it is even possible to enjoy one's work), but attempts to start new businesses that will employ others (and posibly inspire other support business that currently doesn't exist). That the first users (space tourists) of some of these new services are also well-to-do is irrelevant. Those who are employed in jobs that provide hight-end goods and services, don't seem to have an issue with the fact that only the so-called 'rich who don't have anything better to do' (and how did they get rich?) are their customers.

Do you work on a cruise ship? Are you on the assembly line of luxury cars? Do you build yachts? Private jets? Would you be better off if those markets dried up?

I'd be perfectly okay with building suborbital (and eventually, orbital) spaceships I couldn't afford to fly....

Is there a problem with creating/having a job that doesn't make something inexpensive enough to be at Wal-Mart?

And will both the company and I, not pay taxes on our earnings? Increasing the tax base can only be good for everyone, including those who benefit from those government programs we 'should' be spending money on.

This makes far more sense that expecting Mr. Bigelow to simply give his own money to those 'billions' (and  I don't believe his pockets are that deep) he 'should' be helping. The more wealthy people that New Space efforts generates,  the better. (and more wealth also means more opprotunities for philanthropy, if [hopefully] your personal ethics lean that way. Ask Bill Gates.)
The article was great.  Wish Bigelow had granted a lot more time.

As for those who wish the money was spent on the earth to solve our problems, I say have at it, knock yourself out, get to it, by spending your own money the way these private entrepreneurs are spending theirs.  How you spend your money is nobody's business but your own.

As to solar powered moon bases, give me a break ... give me a proven technology nuclear reactor any day over pie in the sky solar panel that delivers minimal energy for short life cycle.  Now solar ovens maybe ....
Of the 5 Lagrange points, only two (L4 and L5) are stable, the other three are unstable and an object placed there tends to drift off. So, if Bigelow tries to build at L1, they will have to frequently expend fuel to stabilize the orbit and stay there. Any loose objects will tend to drift away.

Interesting how Bigelow starts out trumpeting his privately financed space effort, but is now looking to get money from NASA. Maybe he is realizing that it won't be profitable unless he can get the US government to pay most of the bill.
CM, it's really not much of a problem. At EML1 you only need about 100m/s dV per year for stationkeeping.
Capture a near earth asteroid using ion engines and park it in L1. Use it as an anchor point for an elevator. Put four more in the other points. L2 would be perfect for Hubble 2 with communications relayed through L4 or L5. Put five more rocks in geosynchronous orbit around Earth 72 degrees apart with the first above Chimborazo. Don't forget the Earth Sun L points. They also offer opportunities.
Bigelow Industrial Space Park

I'm ready to invest - my money.  


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=65477

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google