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.



Next up ... a new space station?

Posted: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:05 PM by Alan Boyle


Bigelow Aerospace
This graphic shows the comparative sizes
of Bigelow Aerospace's Genesis, Galaxy,
Sundancer and BA-330 space modules.

Bigelow Aerospace's billionaire founder says he'll be skipping a step in his grand plan to send up an inflatable space habitat capable of hosting humans, due to escalating launch costs. That means Bigelow's Sundancer module, which will be designed to accommodate three people, could be ready to go even before 2010.

Word of the schedule change came in an announcement e-mailed today from the venture's Las Vegas headquarters on behalf of Robert Bigelow - who made his fortune in construction and the hotel industry, and has committed to spending $500 million on his private space program.

Bigelow has successfully launched two prototype inflatable modules (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2) on Russian rockets, and he had been planning another test launch in late 2008 or 2009 with a larger prototype, dubbed Galaxy. All these tests would blaze the trail for Sundancer, the first module designed for human habitation.

Now that plan has changed. Here's the word from Bigelow:

"First, I would like to thank all of you who have written, called and otherwise expressed congratulations to myself and our team on the successful launch of Genesis 2. The energy, enthusiasm and encouragement that we receive both here in the U.S. and abroad are an inspiration to us and part of the reason that we believe so strongly in the dream of entrepreneurial space development. I would like to take this opportunity to honor the interest and support that we've received from the general public by providing you with this update in regard to our future plans.

"As anyone associated with the aerospace industry is aware, global launch costs have been rising rapidly over the course of the past few years. These price hikes have been most acute in Russia due to a number of factors including inflation, previously artificially low launch costs and the falling value of the U.S. dollar. What this now means for Bigelow Aerospace is that to conduct another subscale demonstrator mission would cost two to three times what it has in the past.

"This dramatic rise in launch costs has forced us to rethink our strategy with Galaxy. Due to the fact that a high percentage of the systems Galaxy was meant to test can be effectively validated on a terrestrial basis, the technical value of launching the spacecraft - particularly after the successful launch of both Genesis 1 and 2 - is somewhat marginal. Therefore, we have decided to expedite our schedule yet again, and are now planning to move ahead directly with Bigelow Aerospace’s first human habitable spacecraft, the Sundancer.

"We still intend to construct and test the Galaxy spacecraft and/or various parts of it in order to gain familiarity and experience with critical subsystems. However, by eliminating the launch of Galaxy, we believe that BA can move more expeditiously to our next step by focusing exclusively on the challenging and exciting task presented by the Sundancer program.

"With this decision made, the future of entrepreneurial, private sector-driven space habitats and complexes could be arriving much earlier than any of us had previously anticipated. While recognizing the inherent difficulty, all of us at BA are eager to begin work on an actual human spaceflight program, which is the reason that I and others began this effort in the first place.

"In the meantime, we now have two spacecraft in orbit - both of which we hope will produce invaluable data for years to come. It's upon this solid foundation that we will be constructing our most ambitious spacecraft yet, the Sundancer. I will continue to keep you all apprised of our progress, and promise that every effort will be made at BA to ensure that this bold next step into human spaceflight will be a successful one."

Sundancer had been set for launch in 2010, but Bigelow's comment that a habitable complex could be available "much earlier than any of us had previously anticipated" implies that 2009 or perhaps even late 2008 might be in the cards.

Just don't chisel those dates in stone: Sure, Bigelow Aerospace has been successful so far, but schedule snags could still develop during the Galaxy testing phase. And Bigelow might decide to wait until there's an orbital spaceship available to transport passengers to Sundancer. That could be a SpaceX Dragon, or a Rocketplane Kistler K-1, or a SpaceShipThree, or even an extra Russian Soyuz craft.

Bigelow Aerospace spokesman Chris Reed told me that the schedule change has energized the team, and hopes are rising in Vegas that the world's first private-sector space station will be in orbit sooner rather than later.

But when would it be safe to say that Sundancer will be scheduled for launch? "It's safe to say not to say," Reed replied.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I think that maybe NASA and the government, are holding back space development progress.  It,s not that they are doing it on purpose, they just go by the book.  If it works, keep it going.  They already have a 100% functional space station in orbit.  Why don,t they just let big business corporations help with funding and expand what is already there?
GEEZ!
Just when it seemed Bigelow was literally taking the HI-ROAD, he goes and starts with the bogus advance hype in the wake of his publicity over the billboard thing.
Are these guys ever going to figure out that they aren't trying to sell their product to Trash Rag influenced shoppers...it ain't dish detergent.
Yada...yada...yada...the same context as Paris Hilton's Uncle pitched in the Fifties...
ever closer...ever closer...please stay interested...please?
Kudos to Bigelow on their first two successes.  However, I think Bigelow is going to find a human-rated station (let alone human-attended) is a giant leap forward.  Some may criticize NASA and other government agencies for going to slow, but lives are on the line--and it's hard to overcome negative publicity in this modern, press-present world.   Then, Bigelow has to find a man-rated transport system, capable of not only inserting, but returning humans safely to the ground.  Currently, there are only three nations with man-rated launch and recovery systems, no commercial ones.  Bigelow seems to be taking a large risk that something will "happen" along at the right time, forgetting that not everyone is on his timetable.
Let's say Bigelow gets Sundancer up then completes his station as previously described with a hub, propulsion module and 2 BA-330 modules.

Sundancer: 180 cu/meters
2 BA-330's: 660 cu/meters
Total: 840 cu/meters, not counting the hub module

International Space Station: 425 cu/meters

Hmmm....
The primary costs in current launch vehicles is personnel; Mike Griffin said that the primary expense in launching the shuttle is the highly paid workforce that processes the shuttle.  This is where SpaceX (and Rocketplane/Kistler? remains to be seen) come in.  The Falcon 1 demonstrated rapid turn around and launched with a tiny support crew (12 people iirc) by using highly automated systems.

Keeping high paying jobs is one of the main reasons why Shuttle component reuse in the Orion replacement is such a great idea.  Nasa can tell Congress their districts won't be losing jobs == Congressional support.

This is the paradigm SpaceX is trying to change.
CD Wrote:
> I think that maybe NASA and the government, are
> holding back space development progress.  It,s not
> that they are doing it on purpose, they just go by
> the  book.

One must remember that government agencies do not have the same economic incentives as you and I and any business that operates in the free market. The main goal of any bureacracy is to perpetuate its existence; government bureacracies do this by employing lots of people (because that's what gets them funding), not by producing things that people want to buy.

Government space programs exist to put government people into government-operated space. The free market is a threat to that paradigm. I don't believe that there is a serious deliberate effort on the part of most NASA people to hinder private spaceflight; I suspect that most of them would be thrilled to see cheap, industrially-operated spaceflight. The problem comes in that there is *no* economic incentive for NASA to help the commercial development of space. It doesn't benefit the bureacracy. The only way that commercial benefits accrue from government bureacracies, is from individuals within the system who are actively fighting for it.

We need to make the almighty dollar work for us, and not against us. I think the best way to do that is to keep money out of the hands of government. To quote P.J. O'Rourke: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." Guess what? NASA is sending people on joyrides with your money and mine.

-- Redchrome
Because, CD, it would be a horrible idea to let big business have yet another stranglehold on government.  Just as it's important to have a seperation of Church and State, it should also be important to have a seperation of big business and State.  Now, whether NASA should even still BE government run or become a private organization that could be contracted by our government remains to be seen.. but that will probably never happen ;-).
The amazing thing is that in less than 10 years from 1959 to 1969 this country went from NO manned space flight capacity to putting a man on the moon...and with no deaths in space. It wasn't until they build the space shuttles and tried to create a bus service style of space program that we started having deaths in space, (about 14 so far)...

The shuttles have had a 50% fatal failure rate (two destroyed in service, only two left)...What could American manned spaceflight have accomplished by now if we had stayed with the tried and effective rockets and just upgraded them as technology allowed.  The "new" Nasa plans for manned space flight seems to be just that...Upgraded capsules on top of Upgraded Rocketry. What took NASA so long to go back to the things that work?
It won't be SpaceX or RpK -- their new launch services will be on board a SpaceDev Dream Chaser atop an Atlas VRocket via the United Launch Alliance (ULA).

http://www.spdv.info/index.php/news/dreamchaser-atlas-v-pix/70/
This does sound great.  I do wonder about safety; small things in space that might hit these structures.  What kind of danger do these micro-particles pose as well as radiation?  How do the various types interact or can they be connected.  I guess there are questions about interior; space for labs as well as docking with other space craft and expansion?

Are thse structures able to be launched into space so that they could reach either the moon or Mars?  I would think if these can be built and assembled in space safely, "cheaply," and consistantly, then it is a good start for habitats on other planets like Mars.  
It would be nice to see the private sector produce something that is profitable enough to encourage other companies to participate.  It is only through competition that the costs of something like this will come down to a level that a larger number of people can afford and not just the affluent.  I would love to be able to plan my next vacation around the schedule of launches to recreational space stations...
I guess I will never understand what wealthy people have in mind when spending billions while there is so much strife on earth especially the poor . No medical ins. twelve humans in a two room apartment Etc.It appears they are trying to show the goverments they are smarter???????
I think I'll get excited about SpaceShipThree when SpaceShipTwo flies.  Or SpaceX's Dragon, or the K-1.  I've been overjoyed too many times only to have my hopes dashed prematurely.  I just hope I can be medically cleared for flight by the time I can actually pay for the ticket.

This whole 'baby-steps', 'one step at a time' thing is maddeningly slow for someone who wants to see the stars!
I agree with Robert. Yes, space exploration is the next great frontier but before humanity spreads its wings and flies we should take care of the nest first. I find it hard to believe that the United States is willing to spend Billions of dollars on space flight when I can go downtown and talk to families with small children living on the streets without medical insurance, comfortable clothing, or the means to eat a decent meal everyday. Something is very, very wrong.
Get over it people! There are always going to be problems here no matter what we do and that is no reason to stop progress to try and fix something. We can work on solutions to our "terrestial" issues whil still striding forward to the stars. If we had listened to people like R.H and M.G. we would still be sitting in caves scratching at fleas.
>The shuttles have had a 50% fatal failure rate (two >destroyed in service, only two left)...

40% so far, 3 remain in service - Endeavour, Atlantis and Discovery. NASA announced that the three will remain (barring accidents) until retirement in 2010, ensuring flight rates to the ISS and Hubble.
Mike, Robert, NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things.  But without space exploration we wouldn't have many of the life saving technologies we have today.  Without our satellite fleet you wouldn't have nearly the accuracy in hurricane & other weather prediction and coverage that you have today.  Scratch&shatter resistant glasses?  May seem insignificant, but without it... a few accidents on the playground later and there goes a few more peoples' eyesight.  We need to IMPROVE our space based technology, not ditch it to redistribute income.  More lives will be lost if we do abandon space than if we don't.  You don't believe me then just look at Katrina.  You thought that was bad?  Imagine not being able to give sufficient advanced warning for any hurricanes at all.  Practically no one will be able to evacuate in time.  As it is we have a NOAA director resigning over the lack of maintenance on our hurricane satellite fleet, the one we have up there probably won't survive till the next one is launched.  If that one dies prematurely you'll learn a great deal about the tip of the iceberg that you've been taking for granted.
The space shuttle failure rate is less than 2%.  Failure rates are based on the number of launches, not vehicles.  Particularly vehicles which are stripped down and reassembled on the scale of the STS.

Also consider the complexity and scope of the spacecraft.   Space shuttles are more than just cans with people in them, they are space stations with wings.   Science labs, crew habitat and life support in one omnibus package.  

One space shuttle launch is the equivalent of a Skylab/Apollo launch every time it flies.

As for a man rated launch system for crews, I think you'll find the Russians more than happy to fill the stopgap with Soyuz, particularly if the buyers are paying cash for their purchases, with a modest markup.
This is what irritates me about people who complain about the space shuttles.  They don't know what they're comparing it against.  

The space shuttles launched science labs and seven crew.  It does more work in ONE launch than TWO Apollo/Soyuz capsules AND a Skylab/Salyut.    Three for the price of one.   Now shut up about the STS and rot in a dumpster.
Global Warming, our time on Earth is running out, Hawking is right, getting humans into space is most important right now, because it helps guarantee the survival of our race.
To the naysayers who advocate "taking care of the nest" first, I might ask you if the government should abandon the transportation system because the educational system needs help, or get rid of cancer research to fund welfare.
Space exploration isn't beneficial to humanity in a "handing out blankets" kind of way, but those programs exist.  The benefits of space exploration are like the benefits of flight or the industrial revolution - it sure seemed like a waste to have all sorts of people sinking money and time into developing airplanes when the world really needed more cars/doctors/whatever, but the resulting revolution brought with it technology that couldn't have been dreamed of before.
Helping the poor is a worthy goal, but so is spaceflight.  Just because we want to see progress in one area doesn't mean we should hold it back in another.  The money that is currently tied up in the space industry is in actuality not all that significant when you look at much more frivolous expenditures - just look at Hollywood, the sports industry, or the video game industry.  Even though I enjoy these things, I would much rather see them go for the sake of the poor than the space programs, which in my humble opinion stand for a much nobler cause.
Mike and Robert,

It is important to fix the insurance system, and make sure everybody gets enough to eat.  But is it worth sacrificing one of the largest dreams of humanity to get it done right now?  Do you spend every waking minute not devoted to your own survival and well-being trying to improve the lot of those less fortunate than you, or do you also attend to your own dreams, and the dreams of your children?  

Also, there are plenty of resources to fix the problems you describe, and even if there weren't, you could divert more resources to those problems by getting out of Iraq or cutting our reliance on expensive imported oil than you could by cutting the entire space program.
Personally, I would like to know whether the REAL reason Bigelow is moving ahead of their schedule, has more to do with the announcement made by a company in Barcelona of putting their own private orbiting hotel, than with the rising launch costs they are talking about in their press release...

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/
2196487/space-hotel-welcome-guests-2012


What do you think, Alan?
To Mike Geniuk:

Let me remind you that NASA's entire budget is less than 1% of the entire U.S. Federal budget. Private space projects amount to even less. Do you really think that diverting less than 1% of the Federal budget to any social problem is going to solve anything?

Further, NASA's budget is spent right here on Earth.  It supports scientists, engineers, technicians, mechanics, cooks, janitors, etc. Cutting of their funding only increases the problems you wish to solve.
Mike,
    Space is not a dream..its a necessity. The US needs to take a leadership role in this to provide jobs for our citizens. Lower and middle class jobs are flowing over to countries like China and India.
Instead of strip mining huge swaths of land we can harvest astroids that are VERY rich in iron,nickel,gold etc. Solar Satalights that beam their power down to earth could solve many problems.

Every US citizen can get foodstamps, welfare, social assit programs if they apply and qualify. There are a multitude of charities.

I am not trying to be insensitive to those in need..but we as a race are expanding like locus. We are continue to use more resources on a limited planet.
I like the skipping of a step and I've been very glad overall to see that despite the cost increases using Russian hardware people continue to use the Russian space infrastructure.  The Russians always had a very good space program and launching ability and I was very affraid that it would vanish after the early 1990 Soviet collapse.  Seeing this indurstry still active and even growing gives all of humanity another arm to work with should we ever need it.    
  Yes, something is very wrong with the most powerful government on earth when they spend multi-billions on space programs and wars while their own people starve and die of curable diseases due to lack of affordable health-care.  Let business make space travel possible, affordable and popular.  Let government look after the needs of the populace instead of distracting them with hyperspace hype.
Ooooh, I can play this game too...Every year, Americans spend $17B for pet food, yet only $12B for NASA.  Therefore I vote we eliminate all food/toys/medical treatments for all pets until all Americans have 3 meals a day, a roof over their heads, new clothes on their backs, the best education in the world, guaranteed medical care with personal doctors, etc, etc.
Guys, life is not a zero-sum game.  We have the ability to many things in parallel, including taking care of the poor, and exploring space.  We only lack the political (or individual) will.
Mike, those people are largely where they are because they made poor lifestyle choices.  Why should I be penalized at the point of a government gun to have my wealth confiscated because I did not make thse same poor choices?  Freedom includes the freedom to fail and the consequences thereof.

My dreams of the stars should not be hostage to someone dropping out of school, getting hooked on drugs and having children out of wedlock knowing their behavior would have no consequences due to our elaborate social safety net.

I do not mind helping the genuinely misfortunate but they are not the bulk of the welfare addicts.  I know who these people are all too well, there are plenty of them in this state.  Government redistribution of my hard earned wealth will not fix them.....ever.....EVER!!

I suspect the true solution to need and poverty lies out there and not here.  One cannot become an adult in the nest and neither can mankind.
Hi, Alan --  Abe Lincoln said it, "...government of the people, by the people, for the people..." He meant that government (the agency that regulates, that provides, that protects, that enables its citizens) should, not necessarily would, have as its priority, the welfare of the general public; and that government should be composed of those who are among the governed; and that personal advantage should be secondary to the public good.

I am a Canadian but the same distortion of reality exists here, and around the world also.  The ten-year interval between JFK's proposal and its culmination in the Lunar landings will never be experienced again by the people, because the goal has been changed from getting into space to having fun in space, being the 'first,' and making a profit.  More's the pity.  
Mike Geniuk, think of this another way. If Bigelow et al. can prove that commercial entities can operate a space station and transportation system for less than a billion a year, we can safely reallocate the completely wasted $7B per annum of NASA's budget to social problems.

That sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Sigh....Robert, Mike, and everyone else that brings this same argument that "We should fix things down here first" to the table. As noble as that sounds, the fact is....
#1. Life's not fair.
#2. A large space program has far reaching economic benefits for the entire nation.

Don't get me wrong, I think its a shame that anyone goes to sleep hungry or without shelter, not just here in the USA, but all over the world as well. But if you look at the amount of money spent on the entire space program versus the amount of money spent on social programs over the same timespan you will see a tremendous difference. At the peak of the Apollo program we only spent 4% of the national budget on the space program. That 4% "investment" created thousands of good paying jobs, here in USA I might add. The technologies we created and learned during that decade of investment carried our economy through the next 30 years, indeed up to this day.
How many people do you think are employed now because of satellite television? What about the computer industry? More than just a few million would be my guess.
All that came from the investment we put into the space program.  What if we had never stopped investing that 4%? What if we actually increased that investment over these last 30 some years?
I would wager there would be a lot less people going hungry under a bridge tonight.

That said, I do agree with Redchrome's view of the state of the system. We need a bigger space program and not a bigger bureacracy. The greatest benefit of a goverment run program is the amount of money that can be thrown into it. As a matter of fact, if we cracked down on the money being wasted in social programs by the system of bureacracy, those dollars would probably go a lot further as well.
Just remember there are millions of people out there using the welfare issue not to work and get a free ride.  Just try and find out how many people in your city are on section 8, using food stamps, "getting free health care" yes free health care for people who don't work!!  If you think I'm making this stuff up just ask around, so to help these "people" out more we sacrifice our hopes and dreams for a better tomorrow, we will always have corrupt people in office, we will always have criminals, we will always have people addicted to drugs.  We will always be this way because there will people out there that are crazy.  Until we pass laws that will get rid of these people, these animals we will never be any better off.  So go right ahead and destroy are hope for a better tomorrow and shut down all research to fix all our woes, if it where that simple...
I am curious. For those of you saying to fix the nest, which countries have done so? Is there 1 country where they have taken care of ALL major issues, let alone ALL of their issues? To kill off  NASA at this time, would be very harmful to us. Space flight is becoming a reality. We are on the edge of exploring other planets, not with quick walks, but with colonies. To withdraw now, would be to make the same mistake that China made when they pulled back from exploration more than a 1000 years ago. It cost them all of Europe and Africa, and probably America. Within a decade whoever  has made it to the moon will own the most expensive land that there ever was. It is the poles on the moon. It will enable colonization of the moon at a fraction of the price. Why? Because it is the only place that has >98% sun. Otherwise, you have to bring your energy with you (heavy shielded nukes) AND you will have to build very expensive housing because of the wild temperature extremes. Right now, China will not be there before 2025. NASA is looking to be on the moon by 2017. Western Private enterprise may actually make it there by 2015.  And PE would have a full plan in place. for rapid expansion. That rapid expansion will mean LOADS of new jobs, along the lines of what the internet did for us. NASA is who has made it possible for PE to do this.
Uh, getting back to Bigelow Aerospace, I'm delighted they've accelerated their schedule, based on their successes to date. But it's worth pointing out that there is much more to do before they achieve their vision. One thing I don't hear much about is what's going to be involved in developing and launching the central node to which the Sundancer and BA-330 modules will connect. It will provide several key functions, including propulsion, and sounds to me like a very complex spacecraft in its own right. They've had great success with their inflatable habitation modules, but this will be a new kind of effort for them. I can't wait to see how they do.
Can anyone speak to what Rocket BA is planning on using for launching Sundancer?  Is it an Atlas V?  Delta IV?  Falcon 9?  One of the foreign rockets?  
As far as I can tell, Bigelow has basically been watching to see what will be available. Here's how he put it last year:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/22/4632.aspx

Quote from last year's item:

Bigelow has contracted with SpaceX, an upstart "New Space" company, for a Falcon 9 rocket launch that could put the 19,000-pound (8,600-kilogram) Sundancer into orbit. SpaceX's current manifest lists that launch in late 2008, but Bigelow told me that the latest timetable calls for the Sundancer to go into orbit in late 2009 or early 2010.

"We would not be ready in '08, and I'm not sure they would be, either," he said.

The Falcon 9, which is still in the design and development phase, isn't the only rocket in the running. "That is a potential lifter for our payload," Bigelow said. Lockheed Martin's Atlas 5 or the Russian Soyuz or Proton rockets could conceivably be used instead.

End quote....

Not too much has changed since then, except that the SpaceX manifest lists Bigelow's launch for the third quarter of 2010. I suppose that might change if Bigelow thinks SpaceX can match his plans.
okay well mr bigelow . has a great idea.. and the nasa people should take heed ..its better thann our old i mean>>OLD space shuttle system. mr griffin,please moth ball this delapdated sytem and go on with "orion".thanks a us citzen thats concerned with the future of spaceflight..and other u.s astronauts..being sacrificed..
Why is it that for over 30 years not a single government or entertainment company has ever bothered to send a remote control rover to the moon? It's a 3 day trip and it's right there. Can you imagine what people would pay at a theme park to drive a moon rover in real time? This seems like a relatively simple task. Are we truly under an alien "quarantine" and we aren't allowed to go to the moon (if we ever did) ala Kubrick's 2001?
what will the government say or do when the guests start seeing E.T.'s craft flying around the space hotel as has been videotaped by NASA?
You've got Branson and others building in New Mexico, and Bigelow doing his thing. Sure, it's going to take more time than we think it will --lots of curves, bumps and surprises-- but the fact is, we are witnessing mankind becoming a space faring race!

Personally I'm glad China has entered the game as nothing could be more stimulating than that for the US Space Race. Do US Citizens really want China to colonize the moon and Mars before we do??
I believe that the future of human  space travel and exploration will come from the Orville and Wilbur Wrights out there, putting it all on the line for the advancement of all humankind to be able experience space flight, not just a select few.
 Both Shuttle tragedys were caused by White House interference, the Orbiters have performed almost flawlessly, and if NASA had been left to it's own devices, it is of My opinion, both orbiter losses would never have happened.
 Yes the Shuttles are old, but so is My 1978 Toyota pickup, it has 275,000 miles on it, the engine has never been apart and runs like a charm, and I won't be scrapping it today either.
 Mr. Bigelow's plan for a Ramada Inn in the sky is great, the vacation place of the future, where an average person can afford a trip to outer space. There is plenty of room for Big business to make a buck, while providing good jobs for Americans.
To t. burke: It should be remembered that three crewmembers were lost in their spacecraft while on the ground (Apollo 1), and it was luck, and some clever and fast engineering that saved the crew of Apollo 13. (and the same thing happened to Apollo 8, the remains of the crew might well be orbiting in cisclunar space today...)

  To others: Though I may argue that your understanding, if not priorities may be misplaced, US citizens have every right to question wether that part of the budget used by NASA (far smaller than you might think, BTW), or any other branch of government, might be spent better in some other way....

...This is not NASA we're talking about there. This is a private company, seeking to start a new business that happens to be in space. Who are we to say that private money (including yours or mine) should be spent in some other way, as long as it's legal? This is something which employs people today, and possibly more in the future (as could be said of most of the NewSpace efforts out there). Why is it an issue because the first people with the ability to participate in them would necessairily be above some arbitrary definition of 'wealth?' Is there some 'unfairness' with providing a product or service that can't be bought off the shelf of Wal-Mart? (much of which is imported, but that's another story...) If we disallow high-end cruise ship travel, because people (who already pay taxes on those incomes) should spent it on something 'better,' what happens to all the non-rich people who earn their livings in support of such activities? Who benefits from that?

Bill Gates (whatever your opinion of his company's business prcatices) does turn over a big piece of his personal wealth to charitable uses. Is HE entitled to go into space, if he so chose?

Heaven forbid I might enter that income bracket, and use it to do that which I might never do via the luck of the NASA draw...
Please stop attacking rob and mike for caring about the poor. Like my grandfather used to say, the bigger the heart the smaller the brain!
The question is, are we a civilization that can only do one or the other? I don't believe it to be a mutually exclusive choice. How we treat our poor and disadvantaged is a spereate issue, and would be, even in the total absence of any space activity....
please, Canadians dont attack america's welfare system-i seen more homeless bums in canada then the us-altho they did get on welfare alot easyer then here.

if we scrapped nasa it would be less the 1% of the budget, if you want to shift money to help americans there is much better things to go after-like the billions going to fight coca in columbia-but theres still coke all over so thats a waste-or all the billions in forigne aid-or stopping outsourceing to india-china create jobs here-free money for israel(we give them a few hundred billion a year) - theres lots of ways to get money to help the poor then cutting NASA if anything we should be increseing science and space funding in the USA.

Mineing the moons of jupiter for methane would free us from needing outside oil/energy.

My question is two things
1) its a inflatable space station-So can it shield inhabitants from cosmic rays-and small micro-meteroids? i would worry if i was on it....

2) what happenerd to the idea of a cylinder with 1.5 rpm/sec to create 1g of gravity-i assume the bad medical effects of lack of gravity is still a issue.

3) how about fabricateing a large,rotateing station on the ground cheaply and then launching it in one go with multiple attatched heavy lift rockets-kinda like the boosters on the h2 fule tank of a shuttle....maybe those ARES rockets there talking about..
Art your message - "Mr. Bigelow's plan for a Ramada Inn in the sky is great, the vacation place of the future, where an average person can afford a trip to outer space. There is plenty of room for Big business to make a buck, while providing good jobs for Americans."
Last time I looked...the "average person" does not have $15 miilion sitting in his bank account for a 4 week trip to a Bigelow space station....and that is per Bigelow's recently announced (Space 2007) Space Conference : http://www.space.com/news/070410_nss_bigelow.html

If you google Bigelow and look at all his announcements and intentions over the last 7 years...going back to 1999 and his annuncement taht he was going to build a 100 person Moon Crusier to go do tours of the moon ( http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2005/jul/21/519085594.html?moon )...what makes you think he is going to build and fly a human rated habitat of any kind after flying his first two vehicles that had cockroaches as 'life systems' that did not survive even a week. Heck the Russians and then the Americans were flying mammals/dogs and returning them back to earth alive starting in 1951 !
Even funnier is that over these years Bigelow is all over the place on how much it is going to cost to fly...etc.
He so far has flown two really simple satellites at best....based on NASA developed technology and he has done it with NASA engineers and NASA money influxes.....he had the NASA Transhab engineers working in his plant...he paid half their salary and NASA paid the other half...and that's government money folks!


I think that we shoukld STOP spending all of this money on trying to get the man on the moon ...instead we can be stopping poverty and get better trained police officers.
My wife worked for Mr. Bigelow at Budget Suites in Las Vegas before she passed away on 2002.  He ran a very sucessful business and I think he is a visionary light years ahead of his time.  My father was a EE on mercury, Gemini, and Apollo at Kennedy Space Center, and worked with the original 7 Astronauts and have always been interested in Space Flight.  Mr. Bigelow has invested his own money in these projects and wish him only the best in his quest.


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=315578

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

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