its probably the aliens keeping us from really entering space, or maybe its all Bush's fault :)
Actually, that's not an accurate statement. The Bigelow craft is born out of NASA technology. TransHab was a project at NASA/Johnson a few years back. There was a big scuttlebutt with Congress whereby Congress essentially told us not to develop inflatable structures. Full-scale models were already developed and leak tested. It was on the path to success. In an effort to not have inflatables go down the drain, Bigelow picked up the concept. He is licensing the concept from NASA (NASA owns the patents). He even has a few of our engineers working for him (ex-TransHab'ers). It's not free work. He pays NASA the cost of those employees and in return he gets to use them. I'd say we've helped him A LOT. I went out to his place in Vegas a couple of times (with some of my colleagues) and they were really lost. I'm sure the reason for going to Russia for launch services is strictly cost (and probably getting easier launch requirements as well). Sure Bigelow is putting a lot of his money up for this, but why waste it by launching on a more expensive US rocket? Also, by law we are not allowed to make money. Ever notice there's no commercial endorsements on our vehicles? Remember the hand wringing when Russia sent Tito up to ISS? I bet we could make money, but we are forbidden. We are to develop technology, and if there's a commercial viability we are to leave that up to industry.
There are plenty of companies involved in ISS. Boeing is the prime, but don't forget the efforts of Lockheed Martin, Alenia (Italian company responsible for Node 2, Node 3, MPLMs, Columbus, and Cupoloa), the Japanese hardware (Mitsubishi for PM and PS, IHI for ES and EF). See the other post about why this hardware was "shelved." It wasn't us that made that decision. Boeing is expensive, but we do get high quality work out of them. Part of the fault lives with us - we invoke too many requirements, don't define those requirements well enough, engage in too much testing (some obviously is imperative), and cater to astronauts too much. The worst thing that could have happened to us was the successful flight of Rutan's vehicle. People see that and think we overspend. What he did is admirable, but without the re-entry or on-orbit problems (aeroheating, prolonged exposure to vacuum, etc), it's just kid's play. Call me when he has a real space vehicle.
I did say it was an ex NASA project, I imagine Congress canceled this bcus of lobbyists. I did not know NASA was now helping Bigelow, thats good to know
James, what part do you play in all this? Any involvement with Expedition 13 or strictly behind the scenes?
I'm responsible for the structural end of several of the ISS elements. I'm in the engineering world, not project or operations. The extent of my familiarity with any of the goings-on with Expedition 13 or the current Shuttle crew is that I worked with one of the mission specialists a few years back on X-38. Mike Fossum, who did the EVAs on this mission, is a great guy and a real pleasure to work with on those drop and captive carry tests out at Dryden. Looking forward to Mike's safe return.
Yea I know Mike. I believe he's been to our house a few times for dinner. I think my mom is heading out to Ellington tomorrow to see them all come in. Are you the Ferrari in Brook Forest by the way? Sorry to hijack the thread, William.
Yes people are pretty much clueless on most of space exploration. I know Rutan's SS1 is cool but its performance & altitude are far from the shuttle but its amazing how he created it & won the X-Prize for $30M when nobody else was even close. Space Devs Dream Chaser is probably a lot closer to the performance of the shuttle than the SS1http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage2_article.php?pid=542 I'm sure you know that Bigelow is offering a $50M prize for the 1st vehicle design that can take crew & passengers to his "orbiting hotel" Image Unavailable, Please Login