NASA Awards Contract To Bigelow Aerospace For Inflatable ISS Module 132
cylonlover writes "NASA has announced that it has awarded a $17.8 million contract to Bigelow Aerospace to provide the International Space Station with an inflatable module. Details of the award will be discussed by NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver and Bigelow Aerospace President Robert Bigelow at a press conference on January 16 at the Bigelow Aerospace facilities in North Las Vegas. However, based on previous talks, it's likely that the module in question could be the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM)."
Begelow? (Score:1)
Manwhore Enterprises?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Aw Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
And the best thing. You are inside the castle and not on top of it.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not always "the best thing".
http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20130109/NEWS02/130109026/Russia-zorb-accident-Giant-inflatable-ball-veers-off-cliff-2-inside-Video- [clarionledger.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not that different from a kind of stupidity that's currently going rampant in the corporate sector.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing costs isn't stupidity - it's good business. NASA gets the technology for $17.8 million, per the contract. If the technology costs more than expected to develop, the extra cost probably falls on Bigelow rather than taxpayers. Meanwhile, NASA's management and researchers can focus on other things that may have less commercial application, so they won't be developed without government support.
One of NASA's goals is to ensure that space technology continues to advance. It's not required to do all the wor
Re: (Score:2)
Is this really a fixed cost contract?
It seems everyday you hear about government spending more and more for over runs and other bullshit some company is ripping them off for.
Re: (Score:2)
I lack the ambition to actually verify this one, but my experience with government contracts is that the vast majority are fixed-cost, same as any normal business transaction. Those that aren't usually have some percentage of additional cost applied, so the company will be absorbing most of the cost of overruns. I've yet to personally see a contract that says the government pays 100% for all cost overruns, but I do assume they exist.
Keep in mind that for every event that makes it to the news as a scandal, t
Re: (Score:2)
In this case with Bigelow, yes it is a fixed price contract. Indeed I am wondering a bit about the contract authority because the amount NASA is paying for this module is so miniscule that I'm not even sure it is from appropriations funding. Hell, this amount of $17 million is usually enough to fund just the RFP (request for proposals) for a "paper study" for some future high end project of this scale.
If you want to see some projects to make you turn white, just look at the James Webb Telescope or the SLS
Re: (Score:2)
TransHab (Score:3)
The way I heard it, the TransHab (inflatable module) had some really serious enemies in Congress. That is, enemies to the tune that the NASA budget was written to explicitly forbid any money for TransHab development. So NASA sold what they had to Bigelow, since they were legally forbidden to do anything else with it. (Just checked Wikipedia, and there is at least some level of confirmation for this.)
Bigelow has 2 TransHab-based test articles in orbit. Last I heard, they were planning their own "Space Ho
So where do they (Score:1, Interesting)
So where do they get the air to inflate it?
they'd better have a puncture repair kit too
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So where do they get the air to inflate it?
If the answers to this question is not patently obvious to you, turn in your geek card and hang your head in shame.
Re: (Score:2)
So where do they get the air to inflate it?
Duh. An astronaut blows it up. Those guys all have good lungs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From a tank of compressed air. (Seriously, how is this even a question?)
Presumably they will, but the walls of a module of this type are pretty thick (think car tire, not party balloon), there's multiples layers, and additional micrometeorite and debris shielding on top of that.
Re: (Score:3)
Think six inches, not car tire.
And material stronger than kevlar, not vulcanized rubber.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. Anyone who's done a CESA [wikipedia.org] while learning to dive, knows you can basically exhale forever as you go from low to high pressure.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, high to low pressure.
WRONG (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Source for that?
Not that I doubt you, but I'd like to read more...
Re: (Score:2)
I will say that 17M would be below the cost of this module. However, it would also let bigelow get his lines going so that in 2015, he could start putting up a space station.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This announcement [nasa.gov] seems to be pretty clear that the $18 million (give or take with some change) is for the module and not merely a study. Yeah, this is causing my head to scratch too. I would think this amount is just throat clearing for a typical NASA project that would provide a stack of power point presentations suggesting a module in the future, but I don't see anywhere in the announcement that this is for a study but rather for actual flying hardware.
Owing to the fact that I don't know of any launche
Re: (Score:2)
NASA will likely select a launch vehicle down the road and fund it separately. Being the ISS, it's possible that they will split the module cost with international partners, and then fund the rocket from their budget. Or one of many other options. Bigelow doesn't have their own rocket program so it wouldn't make sense to roll the launch vehicle into the same invoice.
Re: (Score:2)
You have got to admit though that if this $18 million is for production space hardware, that is pretty damn cheap. You would be hard pressed to get an individual NASA spacesuit for that price. I would dare say that the cost of preparing meals for the astronauts is pretty close to that figure on an annual basis. Considering that the ISS cost well more than $100 billion to be put into the sky in the first place, this amount of money is merely a rounding error for most NASA projects. It would even be a rea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Source? The article is leaning towards some absurdly huge prototype thing.
Re: (Score:2)
But think about it. There are no launchers today that can launch more than 21 tonnes. Delta IV heavy is the largest going today.
And yet, they are claiming that it would be 65 tonnes within 2 years? The author in this article is messing up all sorts of facts.
What is really missing is, that this can NOT be assembled in space. These are single units, i.e. it must be launched as one unit. here you go. [nasaspaceflight.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect its $18M for a *flyable* module delivered to the launch pad, not for actually getting it to the ISS. Which isn't too shabby for what's basically a big balloon and maybe some life support systems in the central column.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this does turn out to be the "list price" for a module like this, it will literally blow away the traditional aerospace companies like Boeing and Northrop-Grumman. I really don't know for certain, and as you have said... we will find out on Wednesday. I'm sure that some reporter will ask this very question.
If this turns into the price for a study, the amount seems to be much more typical. The thing is that Bigelow knows how to make this stuff so I fail to see what a study might actually accomplish....
I could not agree more (Score:2)
OTOH, if is 17 million for this small unit, it will be a major paradigm shift. The reason is that BEAM was SUPPOSED to include CBM or LIDS on each side. If they can do all of this for 17 million and all that is needed is to extend the metal core, and increase the size of the outer fabric, well, that means
Re: (Score:2)
I just saw a brief comment on another site (pure speculation on this point though) that suggested this Bigelow module might be able to fly as a secondary payload on one of the SpaceX CRS flights and to put this into the "trunk" of the Dragon. If Bigelow could pull *that* off, it would be even more remarkable. A two for one special is the kind of thing that would prove commercial spaceflight really means to save costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. Schlock, they have your location... (Score:1)
...Torg's team will be arriving shortly. Suggest you evacuate using the DFA.
Balloon in space? (Score:1)
Use your heads NASA (Score:2, Funny)
There is no inflatable product on the market today that does not eventually develop a leak or burst. Air mattresses, tires, dolls...
Re:Use your heads NASA (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there is. And you can in fact buy durable versions of most products if you're willing to pay 5-10x as much, because building something durable is a lot more expensive than building it cheap, especially since they don't benefit much from economies of scale because most people would rather buy a new $10 widget every year than a $50 widget that will last 10 years.
Balloon vulnerability is fixable (Score:3)
Make the balloon a 2-layered affair with a few feet of air space. Then you fill that space with thousands of small floating balloons whose interiors are slightly sticky. Meteorite hits. Small balloons immediately travel to where the air is leaking out, burst, and plug the hole with a bunch of goopy rubber until someone (or some robot) can go outside once a month or so and put on maintenance patches.
Re:Balloon vulnerability is fixable (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone has been reading his Heinlein. Gentlemen, Be Seated [heinleinsociety.org].
Re:uuh (Score:5, Insightful)
they've had an inflatable module on orbit for something like 4 years - it's pretty well proven, and much cheaper to put into orbit than fixed-side vehicles. (And as for the idea that something might pop it, if debris is going to poke a hole in a vehicle at *orbital speeds*, it's going to go through kevlar just as easy as it's going to go through the metal the existing space station components are made of.)
Re:uuh (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't doubt the science behind the concept, and your point about debris being able to puncture the exterior no matter what is a good one. I'm curious about the potential psychological impact of the module. Even if it's completely irrational (and the FA says non-rigid exteriors are better able to withstand a micrometeor), I can't help but feel that if I was up in the ISS, I'd want a solid metal wall, rather than an inflatable fabric one.
Having said that, being able to more than double the size, and presumably living space, of the ISS would probably do a great deal of good psychologically. Not to mention the fact that people who choose to go on missions to the ISS must have a certain amount of crazy to begin with, so probably wont care in the same way an ordinary mortal such as myself would.
The next question of course is how to get it up there? It's about 10x more than the maximum payload of either the Dragon or Soyuz rockets...
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious about the potential psychological impact of the module
You went off on a materials science tangent, I'm gonna go on the impact of "lets put him in the rubber room" jokes. "I heard the next supply ship has straitjackets". I suppose latex pr0n jokes too.
Re: (Score:3)
psychology....
Have you seen any of the videos sent back from the ISS? From what the videos show, that thing is basically a maze of tunnels. There are a few (tiny) "rooms" off to the side, the cupola being the most notable and most different. (and biggest?) What's the long-term psychological impact of living in a "warren", and how great would the benefit be of having some real rooms?
you get to use 100% of volume in micro-gravity (Score:2)
Re:you get to use 100% of volume in micro-gravity (Score:4, Insightful)
As one who happens to be 6'4", I'll say that on Earth a 6 foot ceiling is very different from a 20 foot ceiling. I'm not normally claustrophobic, but every now and then I just like to have some space around me. Skylab was interesting, in that respect, including the open framework floors.
Never having been in microgravity I can't tell how I'd respond, if being in a space 6'x6'x tens of feet would be sufficient for me, when I'm capable of moving in any of those dimensions.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help but feel that if I was up in the ISS, I'd want a solid metal wall, rather than an inflatable fabric one.
Agreed, though my (irrational) reasoning regards putting a sealed, pressurized object into a vacuum. Can it be done? Of course! Would I feel just as nervous about being in a space suit? While I cannot say for certain, I do not think so. But for some reason, thinking about being inside a balloon that isn't human-shaped leaves me feeling a little uneasy.
Re: (Score:3)
People live in tents with little problem, and the walls of these modules are rather high tech no matter what. Plus, when you fill it up to something resembling sea level(14.7 psi), you're going to have a structure that's about as stiff as the thin aluminum walls of a solid structure. They're almost certainly stronger - we have much better tensile strength materials than flexural strength. A big tube of aluminum will end up flexing on it's own, probably more than the inflated module.
For a real world examp
How to get it up (Score:1)
Good grief (Score:2)
These people ride rockets tinto orbit at 17,000 mph and come back in something which burns itself up to save their skins, all dependent on incredibly precise control, and you think they would waste any brain power to worry about the module popping from decompression?
Astronauts are probably the most anal-lytic of all adventurers, calculating everything to a fare-thee-well, practicing their missions for years in swim tanks to get every last detail down pat. The last thing they are going to do is become emoti
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it's completely irrational (and the FA says non-rigid exteriors are better able to withstand a micrometeor), I can't help but feel that if I was up in the ISS, I'd want a solid metal wall, rather than an inflatable fabric one.
And? Sounds like the appropriate choice would be to get over your belief than to compromise your safety.
The next question of course is how to get it up there? It's about 10x more than the maximum payload of either the Dragon or Soyuz rockets...
It's inflatable. It's not "10x" more when it's being launched.
Re: (Score:2)
Psychology revolves around what you see and feel. In this case, an astronaut floating into a Bigelow module attached to the ISS will be feeling an outer skin that feels exactly as rigid as the walls of the rest of the station. The material the module is made of is so strong and so thick and held in place so rigidly by air pressure that it feels as strong as steel to the touch. We know this because of inflated test modules on Earth. Inflate it to an equivalent pressure to what it will be on orbit, and th
Re: (Score:2)
ISS modules are protected by aluminium shields. The meteorite will hit this shield, punch through it but disintegrate in the process so it won't penetrate the module wall. They could flat-pack a set of shields alongside the inflatable module for launch.
Re: (Score:3)
The analogy to flat-pack furniture is spot on with what is happening here. This isn't just something that you "add water and watch it grow", it will be taking some assembly once the whole things is put up into orbit and in fact a sort of "flat-pack" system simply to squeeze everything into the payload faring. The main advantage of this style of module is that it ultimately has a whole bunch more volume, so station design can be more compact rather than having everything much more spread out.... as is the
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of layers to avoid that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:uuh (Score:5, Informative)
Who said these famous last words?
This structure is more resistant to micrometeorite impacts than the other ISS modules. The penetrate less and are made of well known materials. These are fabrics designed for their rip resistance, because of that they are used in ropes, rigging for ships and gunshot/stab resistant vests.
One of these units has already been in space for years for testing purposes.
Who? White Star Line? (Score:1)
I believe it was the White Star Line.
Re: (Score:2)
They did not have lots of layers.
They had many compartments, which do not address a large continuous tear.
Good effort though.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's what she said!
(and now I have twins... Awe, who am I kidding, I'm reading and posting on slashdot)
Re:uuh (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're thinking about the fragility of flexible walls, Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org]:
Bigelow Aerospace anticipates that its inflatable modules will be more durable than rigid modules.[13] This is partially due to the company's use of several layers of vectran, a material twice as strong as kevlar, and also because, in theory, flexible walls should be able to sustain micrometeoroid impacts better than rigid walls. In ground-based testing, micrometeoroids capable of puncturing standard ISS module materials penetrated only about half-way through the Bigelow skin. Operations director Mike Gold commented that Bigelow modules also wouldn't suffer from the same local shattering problems likely with metallic modules. This could provide as much as 24 hours to remedy punctures in comparison to the more serious results of standard ISS skin micrometeoroid damage.
I'm curious about pressure though. In the vacuum of space, if it's inflated to human-habitable pressures, won't the pressure difference between inside and outside put an enormous strain on the fabric?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Won't be more than 15 PSI.
Which isn't that high - not even as high as a tire (35-40 PSI)
Re: (Score:2)
Mm, but a tyre has 15 PSI (1 standard atmosphere) on the outside to counteract the 35 PSI on the inside.
This'll have 15 PSI on the inside, close to zero on the outside.
But I guess (can anyone confirm) that the strain on the skin is proportional to internal pressure minus external pressure, so I take your point that we're not talking massive numbers here.
PSI Re:uuh (Score:5, Informative)
Won't be more than 15 PSI. Which isn't that high - not even as high as a tire (35-40 PSI)
Mm, but a tyre has 15 PSI (1 standard atmosphere) on the outside to counteract the 35 PSI on the inside.
Tire pressure measurements are relative, not absolute. So "35-40" PSI tire pressure means 35-40 PSI higher than atmospheric pressure
Re: (Score:2)
Did not know that, but it makes sense now that you point it out - how would a tyre pressure gauge measure absolute pressure?
Thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Simple..... put the pressure gauge in a vacuum or use a pretty hard vacuum for comparison.
That is pretty much what would need to be done in a laboratory setting anyway.
For spacecraft, it really isn't that big of a deal compared to submarines, that need to be dealing with substantially larger pressure differences even if they go down just a couple hundred feet. Also, in a submarine they are worried about being crushed and need all sorts of structural support to keep that crushing from happening as opposed t
Even simpler PSI gauge (Score:2)
Given how cheaply most gauges are built, I'd simply say 'put the gauge markings assuming that the outside is at 14.7 PSI, sea level'.
But them being relative makes sense. You'd fill your vehicle up in Denver(mile high city) with a little less absolute pressure than in Florida, but that wouldn't matter much as there would be less air pressure trying to collapse them.
Also, if a rubber tire can withstand 90+ PSI*, I have no problems believing that an advanced hybrid using fibers tougher than kevlar can hold 14
Re: (Score:3)
I've seen bicycle tires that have 90+ PSI with no problem and I have some automobile on my car (admittedly non-standard) that have a normal pressure rating of 70 PSI that were even able to maintain that pressure with "foreign objects" inside of the tire for a prolonged period of time (long enough to get it repaired without even changing the tire and just "filling up" the tire with air before driving a dozen miles to the tire store).
Re: (Score:2)
Accepting your numbers as valid (they aren't - the 35 psi in your tires is relative to atmospheric pressure, not absolute), that means a pressure differential on this module of 15 psi, as opposed to the 20 psi pressure differential on the tire.
Do you see a lot of tires exploding due to the pressure differential where you live?
Pressure and explosion (Score:2)
I was looking around, it turns out that the inflatables produced by Bigelow have a 15 cm thick skin, and while I'm not finding any source, I seem to remember them inflating one up to 50+ PSI on the ground as part of some test and not having a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
But I guess (can anyone confirm) that the strain on the skin is proportional to internal pressure minus external pressure
Yes, strain and load are proportional to the pressure (force = pressure * area). The difficulty comes in due to the area being proportional to the square of the radius. This is why tires can handle 35-65 psi and scuba tanks are able to hold 3000 psi while commercial aircraft can be damaged by the relatively small (~8-9psi) cabin pressures. Aloha Airlines Flight 243 is one example and there are several more [wikipedia.org] here. [wikipedia.org]
The loads the skin of these Bigelow Aerospace modules must carry are very large and it isn't a
Pressure works different than that (Score:2)
You're right, total pressure depends on the surface area, but when it comes to containing gas pressure, size matters less than you think.
You could make an aircraft that could hold the pressure of a scuba tank; but it'd be too heavy. A scuba tank is a LOT heavier for the surface area than a plane, and a plane needs to withstand many different stresses than the tank.
If you're making a tank, small or large the gauge of steel needed for the pressure remains about the same for the given pressure. Larger tanks
Not nearly that bad (Score:2)
The situation is not quite as bad as you present, because we don't actualy care about the axial loads, we care about the skin stresses. Yes, pressure increases linearly with the amount of surface area (i.e. with the square of linear dimension), but the stress we care about is distributed along the skin cross section, which is directly proportional to the linear dimension.
For example lets think of "ring" of wall that makes up the middle of a cylindrical chamber. Air pressure is exerting a radial force outw
Re: (Score:2)
That's all true and makes for a good explanation of basic pressure vessel sizing. I was just trying to point out how much energy is being contained by structures like this. Most of the other posts seemed to dismiss the issue simply because the pressure isn't high.
At least I didn't go the inflammatory science "journalism" route and state that a fully inflated BA2100 is the equivalent of ~50kg of TNT!!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh crap, you're right! And just think of the explosive potential of an entire *planet* worth of an atmosphere at those sorts of pressures, we're all so screwed if gravity suddenly fails.
Re: (Score:2)
Should be fine. Not too sure if would be ok 5-10m below sea; but it would really have gone wrong before that. So they may not build in any crushing force resistance at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Note that the Genesis testbeds have been in orbit for years with no problems.
Admittedly, Genesis was only inflated to 10 psi or so, and the ISS is pressurized to 14.7psi. But 14.7 psi is, presumably, well within the design specs of the module, since it was originally designed to handle a standard atmosphere
Re: (Score:3)
As others said, the difference between earth pressure and space pressure really isn't that great. 15 PSI differential is about the same as your car tires, and there are inflatable boats in current use that sustain even more. Pressurized diving suits regularly sustain pressure many dozens of times greater than this.
To (likely mis)quote Futurama:
"We're going deep under the ocean, being subjected to thousands of atmospheres of pressure!"
"How much can the ship handle?"
"Well given that it's a spaceship, anywhere
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Think of it like forces on a wagon - if you have two people pulling the same amount in in opposite directions the net force is zero and nothing happens. If one of them pulls with 1lb more force the net force is now 1lb, and the wagon will move as though there were only a single 1lb force acting on it, the rest of the force cancels out whether its 2lb or 2000.
Pressure is almost exactly the same thing, except you're talking about force-per-area - matching pressure cancels out, leaving the difference
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah that would be 28 psi absolute, or 14 psi gauge. Unless you were testing it about 30 ft under water, which would probably be a great idea for leak detection.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah that would be 28 psi absolute, or 14 psi gauge. Unless you were testing it about 30 ft under water, which would probably be a great idea for leak detection.
Which is one of the reasons why Bigelow Aerospace has one of the largest swimming pools in Las Vegas (and that is saying a whole lot by itself). They intend to do not only underwater testing of these modules (or at least the design) before it goes up, but even provide an opportunity for astronauts to get up close and used to servicing the vehicle here on the Earth in a "neutral buoyancy simulator" (using scuba tanks to simulate EVAs).
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Pressure itself is not relative, there's a very definite zero-point in hard vacuum. Most pressure gauges are relative, because most of the reasons we care about pressure likewise depend on pressure differentials. You can however purchase pressure gauges that measure absolute pressure, though they tend to be much more expensive and the applications are limited. One that springs to mind is maintaining breathing gas - humans need a certain partial pressure range of oxygen to survive. Too l
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It could be a lot less though, decrease the oxygen ppm by half and it can be 7 PSI, the pressure is not so important as maintaining the oxygen PPM as far as humans are concerned.
See apollo 1 fire. In orbit a 4 psi ppO2 fire is just a 4 psi ppO2 fire, doesn't matter much. But on the ground they like to pump that dude up to 4 psi over ambient to test for leaks before launch, especially hatch leaks. So you traditionally end up in 20 psi ppO2 and the slightest spark and "woosh" which is pretty much a summary of how everyone got killed in Apollo 1. Now sea level air means you have a ppO2 regulator so you leak test by pumping up to 20 psi absolute, of which most of the extra pressure
Re: (Score:2)
Other way around, *double* the O2 ppm and you can lower the pressure by half, since the partial pressure of O2 will then remain the same. In fact with a pure O2 environment you could cut the pressure to 1/5 atm (3psi) while still maintaining sea-level O2 pressure. You could possibly drop it even lower, most people can readily adapt to a 1.5psi partial pressure (~ 6000m), and at least some can adapt to 1psi (~9000m ~= peak of Mount Everest, which has been climbed without extra O2). I don't know how well w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody else mentioned vibration and oscillation? Not a huge problem if you're using as a passive warehouse but giant fans blowing life support air are going to make the thing kinda floppy all the time.
I think this would be an interesting science experiment, both the biology of "is a space sickness adjusted human vulnerable to wobbly walls" and the science experiment of repetitive strain failure modes of flex materials (the skin doesn't bend twice, once when made and once when inflated in space, it bends at
Re:uuh (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as the repetitive strain failure goes, there have been two testbeds of the inflatable module in space for five or so years each, neither of which failed that way.
And given the pressure differential involved, I suspect that the walls would seem as rigid as steel - 15cm thick, supported by 14.7psi (yes, I'm mixing measurement systems shamelessly) internal pressure isn't going to allow much room for "wobbly walls"....
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the same way your car tires are all wobbly? Or a firmly inflated balloon? Bouncy castles and such are wobbly because they're inflated to low pressures - inflate them to two atmospheres and they'd be practically rigid. Add in the fact that the module material likely has *very* little stretch and you'll get minimal flex.
Say your module has a 20ft diameter ~= 600 square feet cross section. Multiply that by 15psi and you get 1.3 million pounds of force keeping the opposite ends apart. There's no w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't even recycling the TransHab concept. Simply put, it **IS** the TransHab concept, just rebranded. Robert Bigelow saw the TransHab technology languishing and being neglected with no chance to actually fly into space in spite of a module actually built and crated up ready to fly on the Space Shuttle. After talking to a bunch of folks at NASA, hiring his own engineers to take a look at the technology and be able to understand the engineering drawings for a few minor tweaks and improvements, he spend
Re: (Score:2)
You are getting far too conspiratorial here. No, it wasn't Robert Bigelow who "engineered" the defeat of TransHab from NASA appropriation bills. It was mainly a bunch of members of congress that wanted to simply kill the International Space Station altogether and were trying one little piece at a time, where the TransHab was seen as a ripe target because it was so different from the other modules.
Yes, your speculation is completely misplaced. As you've pointed out, this is something that happened over a