Bigelow shoots for the moon

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:05:53 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Don Pointer, PhD, MD, Buckhorn, New Mexico 88025 — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:21:43 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Patrick Coyle, Seale, AL — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 03:02:12 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Rob Wilson, Christchurch, New Zealand — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 03:11:57 GMT

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. :)

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Andy Motherway, Minneapolis, MN — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:01:00 GMT

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...

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Des Emery, The Caborundum Chronicles, St,Thomas,ON,Canada — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:10:19 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

John Kavanagh, Buffalo, NY — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:19:55 GMT

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

Bigelow shoots for the moon

wooch — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:30:57 GMT

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?

Bigelow shoots for the moon

E J Cox Sanatoga, PA — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:48:01 GMT

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....

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Dave Hoelzley, Langley — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:39:30 GMT

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!

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Alan Boyle — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:40:24 GMT

The regolith just acts as an insulator to absorb the radiation .... I don't think the soil itself poses a radiation risk.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Bert Dermaut, Ghent, Belgium — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:51:26 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Adam — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:56:14 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Jim Oberg — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:05:25 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Dave MacLeod, Seoul, South Korea — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:12:25 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Paul Spudis — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:34:00 GMT

"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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Michael A. Thomas, Seabrook TX — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:24:50 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Michael Hubbard — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:43:40 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

JC, Riverton, CT — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:17:17 GMT

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'.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

David W, Monroe, LA — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:54:21 GMT

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!

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:03:54 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

anonymous — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:52:49 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Alan Boyle — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:39:36 GMT

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/

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Ashley Searle, St. George, UT — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:28:20 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Montie Adkins Bellvillle Michigan — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:47:38 GMT

Thi is inspiration of the highest order. It's a wonderful thing, truly.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

James Pugsley, Atlanta, Ga. — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:29:02 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Chuck Sweet, Portland Oregon — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:00:21 GMT

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!

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 00:50:53 GMT

.

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 shoots for the moon

Anonymous — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:17:44 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Fuzzy, Orlando, FL — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 02:15:43 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Andy Motherway, Minneapolis, MN — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 03:10:27 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

David Stever — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:19:16 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

PHILLIP GEORGE, LA — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:54:14 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

JLR, Great Falls, MT — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:47:20 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Ed Trask, Cornwall, Canada — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:21:40 GMT

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?

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Gerard Whittaker, Lancashire, UK — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:00:26 GMT

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?

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Gerard Whittaker, Burnley, Lancashire, UK — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:09:57 GMT

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...

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Chuck Sweet, Portland Oregon — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:38:45 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

William — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:09:36 GMT

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|

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Iain McClatchie — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:27:42 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Ilya, Boston, MA — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:05:42 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Alan Boyle — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:06:43 GMT

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

Bigelow shoots for the moon

edgemugga, Austin TX — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:06:47 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Philip Mills,Worksop, United Kingdom — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:41:26 GMT

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 !

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Frank Glover — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:00:43 GMT

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.)

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Fascist Nation — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:19:24 GMT

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 ....

Bigelow shoots for the moon

CM, Modesto CA — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:29:21 GMT

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.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Adrasteia, Sydney — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:34:34 GMT

CM, it's really not much of a problem. At EML1 you only need about 100m/s dV per year for stationkeeping.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Roger Yaste, Pikeville, TN — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:21:02 GMT

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 shoots for the moon

larry, snohomish wa — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:46:08 GMT

Bigelow Industrial Space Park

I'm ready to invest - my money.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Chad, AZ — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:40:52 GMT

Just an off-the-wall idea:

Zero Gravity + external space walk + compressed air jets + GPS positioning + license agreement = space Quiddich = 1 billion additional space enthusiasts.

I think the killer app will be something that takes place outside the walls of the Bigelow module.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

thomas schroeder, palm beach, FL — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:32:39 GMT

so will space residency be a reality for only the super wealthy? will capitalism corrupt space?

lets take this in a different direction.

here's the deal. were creating a new culture, and a new nation if you will. what will be the governmental structure? how will our relations with the planet be determined. what do i say? i say break away from earthly political ties. and start a new society dedicated to the advancement of mankind into the frontier. its a PERFECT OPPORTUNITY. dont let it pass us by. only at this point can we begin to concieve a utopian society. all residents striving for common goals. i believe residency should not be based on our monetary possesion. but should be reserved for those who contain the knowledge for advancement of the colony. let this be a breeding ground for new technologies and thought. with a high concentration of scientific minds and with high funding avaiable from bigelow, anything can be created. although this opens up markets for new endeavors such as zero gravity sports. i believe that capitalizing on these new markets should be a means of funding the entire colony. not one residence pocket.

just a rough outline of my beliefs on the topic. i'd love feedback.

reef_madness@adelphia.net.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Joseph Lindsey, Newport, NC — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:38:54 GMT

I am continually surprised, though I shouldn't be, at those individuals that constantly find reason and/or excuses for not advancing humanity. It is our nature to explore that which is beyond us; be it through science, philosophy, or theology. We are a species of adventurers and searchers. Our very nature is to see and experience that which is over the next bluff.

I too thank god that there are individuals that are ready use their fortunes to expand humanity's knowledge in such ventures. My only regret is that it has not been attempted sooner.

bravo for Mr. Bigelow and those that also embrace these challenges. If our forebearers had not; most of us wouldn't be here, plus we would still be hunter-gatherers.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:56:18 GMT

.
.

Bigelow inflatable modules for NASA?

Happy to see that my suggestion of a Bigelow/NASA module seems come true just a month after my (Jan 14, 2007) BigelowOrion's article!

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/016_BigelowOrion.html

Lunar Space Station and “base first” NASA decision?

Happy to see that, three years after the VSE announcement and one year after the ESAS plan (both based ONLY on a few RISKY Apollo-like lunar sortie-missions) three months ago NASA has turned 180° its strategy, as explained in this (Jan. 15, 2007) The Space Review's article:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/782/1

and as suggested NINE months ago in my (June 5, 2006) "Lunar Space Station" article:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/009_LSS.html

from my article:

"...the only way to reduce (very very much!) the risk to fail many moon missions and lose many crews, is to increase the astronauts' life support time on the moon, with 2+ Crew Habitats and a 6+ months of extra life support, and in lunar orbit, with this modular Lunar Space Station and 6+ months of life support, to be used for standard (very long!) moon missions and if something goes wrong on the moon or in lunar orbit, to wait for a manned rescue or a new remote-controlled CEV or LSAM sent from earth or for one or more automated re-supply vehicles and, of course, the Crew Habitats and the Space Station, must be sent before the first manned missions..."

"...the REAL (and GIANT) money saving (and a moon exploration "quantum leap"!) may happen if NASA changes (now!) its (bad!) "100% expendable" rockets/vehicles/moon-missions' architecture to use only a 20+ times reusable LSAM for moon exploration, that will reduce the missions' costs, needs only ONE mid-size rocket to launch all the moon hardware and will MULTIPLY by TEN the number of moon landings/missions because each Crew may stay 3+ months on the LSS and accomplish 10+ moon landings/missions (with multiple LSAM re-supply/re-fuel/maintenance) then, they come back to earth..."

"...the "LSS/moonHabitats/reusableLSAM" architecture may have a (very intersting) POLITICAL ADVANTAGE for NASA, because, if they use the (very expensive!) "all-in-one" ESAS architecture, the ENTIRE plan may delay many years after the first (little!) "shuttle-like" problem or may END if some crews will die on the moon (or if the TV audience after 3 missions will be too low...) while, if NASA will use the early VSE funds to build some (20+ years stable) "infrastructures" on the moon and in lunar orbit, they can be sure to receive all the funds to maintain/re-supply/support the LSS and (maybe) also the funds to accomplish many moon missions..."

.
.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Des Emery,The Carborundum Chronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 03:53:57 GMT

Thomas Schroeder wanted some feedback on his idea of an apolitical new world order for off-Earth society. His Utopian ideas should be encouraged even though they will probably never be implemented. The human race needs a goal always in front of it to stimulate our better instincts. Unfortunately, some politicos here on Earth always act against our common interests and for their own personal welfare. They are usually the ones who have the power, love the glory, and forever and ever will look out for their own interests. 'Twas ever thus, and will continue to be so. Too bad. Keep dreaming, Thomas.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Thomas Schroeder, Palm Beach, FL — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 05:47:08 GMT

This is a cultural phenomenon. And I cant stress enough the importance of who gains a foothold on space colonization. And I believe its the sole duty of the private scientific community to establish this foothold. There are patterns in human cultural evolution, some observable some not. And from what I see this may be the most pivotal event in centuries. If a single nation claims the moon? how will this tip the global balance? I dont necessarily believe that a utopian society can exist. To many variables beyond our control. But I speak of it as more of a metaphore for the necessary paradigm shift. A paradigm shift that is essential to usher us into a new age.

Hunter-gatherer > lower,middle,upper barbarianism > civilization...stellar civilization?

whats next?

I think we need to appreciate the fact that what will be done in the next 10-20 years pertaining to colonization, will have its place in shaping the future of mankind. A very powerfull keystone that needs to be seized by the right hands.

???

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Hollis Kimball — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:52:22 GMT

Remember this famous quote?
'Why climb Mt. Everest?'
'Because it'e THERE!'

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Maurizio Morabito, London, UK — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:20:28 GMT

Bigelow is right and wrong at the same time. He mentions a structure only buried under a couple of feet of soil, not the 12 or more required.

In fact it has been computed (*) that on average a maximum 20% of time should be spent by humans outside the protection of a minimum 4 meters of regolith.

(*) R Silberberg et al, ‘Radiation Transport of Cosmic Ray Nuclei in Lunar Material and Radiation Doses’, in W W Mendell, ed, ‘Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century’, Lunar and Planetary Institute, 1985, p668

If we seriously consider going back to the Moon, resources should be spent investigating how easy it will be to bury those Habitats (inflatable or otherwise).

But excavated regolith is only one option and not the most practical one given the amounts of soil that will have to be moved to make comfortable living out of a stay on the Moon.

Other ideas involve lava tubes, of which there should be aplenty, and artificial giant caves.

Especially the caves should be easy to create with explosives, if there is no water in the lunar rocks.

http://omnologos.wordpress.com/2007/
03/02/where-to-build-inflatable-lunar-structures/

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Anonymous — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:21:11 GMT

CosmicLog (read through Larry Kellogg&#8217;s &#8220;Lunar Update&#8221; mailing list) has an interview about innovative lunar structures with Robert Bigelow of &#8220;Inflatable Space Station&#8221; fame.
Bigelow does mention of an

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Derrick L.Coles Sr. — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 03:43:46 GMT

Bigelow,is leading the commercial space race,but he will not acheive his goalbecause he has failed to plan for the growth of food crops that will also scrub the air.He is still depending on NASA and they are locked into the use of hydroponics, which for a tax funded government agency is OK because they can afford to spend millions of tax payer dollars since they are not operating for profit.

Hydroponic solutions weigh about 15# per US gallon and payload cost aboard the space schuttle exceed $15,000.00 per pound which equals $225,000.00 US dollars per gallon, The cost alone renders the use of hydroponics by for profit companies null and void.

My company, Dragon Rose has pioneered a less costly way to grow food crops that will also aid in air regeneration without using soil,or root soaking hydroponic solutions and very small amounts of water.

What good is a space hotel that doesn't serve food to its patrons.

derrick@dragonroseinc.com

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Jamie Shearer, PhD. The Moon. — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:27:35 GMT

I have finally made it, this is a great step for mankind. oh and moon cheese doesn't taste like cheddar, it tastes more like parmesan.

anyways good luck to other explorers and

THANK GOD FOR THE VISIONARIES

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Sauliooz, Lithuania — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:00:28 GMT

Some people say that we should fix our problems here on Earth first, but we can do that only when we have technology and knowledge, and space is a good place to gain all that. If someone thinks that we have pollution/poverty/global deforestation/wars/global warming/etc. becouse of technology, then we were mistaken when we took that stone XXXXX years ago.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Ali, Albuquerque, NM — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:53:11 GMT

People like Bigelow and Musk give the CEOs of Boeing and Lockheed sleepless nights. Sure they will have some problems, but I wish them luck.

As for spending the money down here on Earth... sure let's do it, but pull the money from corporate welfare and bloated military budgets (of which I derive my paycheck) the world around.

The sooner we get all of our eggs out of one basket, the better.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Fred Stokes, San Jose CA — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 23:28:11 GMT

There were starving people in Spain in 1492 when Columbus set sail. Sure, Isabella and Ferdinand COULD have used the money it cost for Columbus' voyages to feed the poor. But where would the human race be without new discoveries and exploration?

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Richard, Florida — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:57:27 GMT

To use an analogy for all the "earth first" people. It's easier to repair a car if you're not in it.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Guy S. Newell, Niles, MI. — Fri, 04 May 2007 20:15:14 GMT

Remember that NASA is a Goverment agency now. Not to be confused with the organization that put a man on the moon almost 40 years ago. The space shuttle and the ISS are under acheivements typical for any government agency. Way too expensive, not terribly useful and dangerous. What's amazing here is that NASA is cooperating with someone who is planning on walking in their cabbage patch! The idea that a private company with a real leader in charge can do what the government can't do is not surprizing or new. Where would we be if the government had granted a monopoly to a government created company for the purpose of writing and publishing a standard operating system? What you'd get is UNIX.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Donald F, Fargo, ND — Sat, 12 May 2007 19:58:56 GMT

To the person that said Bigelow's idea was flawed because he got tax payer funded technology from NASA is wrong. I suggest you read the founding document for the for the formation of NASA. It expressly states that NASA is to perform the VERY expensive PRELIMINARY studies to see if they are viable and THEN they are charged with pushing that technology INTO the private sector so that private, MORE EFFECIENT, sector would then take over and SUPPLY NASA with CHEAPER goods and services so NASA could then buy the stuff OFF THE SHELF, rather then having to create government organizations to build and provide them.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Kurt T. Francis, Bangkok, Thailand — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:44:39 GMT

I've been following this story with keen interest, as I've been a solid fan of space exploration and its eventual commercialization since I was a child and learned about Sputnik. (I was born in 1951). Of course, costs will leave such trips out of reach for most of us in the near- to mid-term, but it's exciting -- and a bit unexpected -- that it's taking the private space industry to rekindle enthusiasm amongst the general public that the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo programs did during their missions.

Good for Mr. Bigelow (and others) for making a significant contribution to expanding the frontiers of space.

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Joe, Pittsburg, KS — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:30:17 GMT

Comment for Fuzzy...If mankind is to survive, if mankind survives long enough. We will need to do these kind of things in order to survive. One day our Sun will engulf the Earth and mankind will go extinct if we do not reach out to the stars. We have to start somewhere!!!

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Simply Thom Rom OfferNot Inter Galactica — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:54:29 GMT

Yes, What are the stock options for the first real Rommmulin Bar tender in your ops. That can make pizza as well as serve tea, ale, and wine among other things that a a must need to be done things???!!!

Bigelow shoots for the moon

Dalton Reep, Smithfield North Carolina — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:46:16 GMT

I may be only 14 but i already know what i want to be - i want to be a Aerospace Engineer and this is the kind of stuff i want to be designing and building. Thanks, Bigelow, Virgin Galactic, Armadillo, Rocketplane, and Blue Origin for giving me inspiration.