Genesis I successfully inflated

From http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/multiverse/news.php:
-----
July 12, 2006

BREAKING NEWS

Genesis I Mission Update

5:20 PST
Bigelow Aerospace has received confirmation from the Genesis I
spacecraft that it has successfully expanded.

We have also confirmed that all of the solar arrays have been deployed.

4:15 PST
Bigelow Aerospace mission control has begun to acquire information from
the Genesis I spacecraft. The ISC Kosmotras Dnepr rocket has flawlessly
delivered the Genesis I into the target orbit of 550km altitude at 64
degrees inclination. The internal battery is reporting a full charge of
26 volts, which leads us to believe that the solar arrays have deployed.

The internal temperature of the spacecraft is reported to be 26 degrees
Celsius and we have acquired the spacecraft's Global Positioning System
(GPS) signal that will enable us to track the ship in flight.

We have initiated communication with the ship's onboard computers and
expect to download more information over the next few hours.
-----

Congratulations to the Bigelow team! ...Now, where are those pictures
and videos?!?

Best,
- Joe

Fantastic!

This should also be in .history no? as this surely is an Historic occasion.
Nothing less than the start of the first space hotel!

FANTASTIC!

congratulations Bigelow - fortune favors the brave.

this is fantastic, i remember discusiing the idea of inflatable space
station in high school, a long time ago, and it is an actual reality.
this is a great occasion.

peace
Zonker

http://2000ah.blogspot.com


Joe Strout wrote:
From http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/multiverse/news.php:
-----
July 12, 2006

BREAKING NEWS

Genesis I Mission Update

5:20 PST
Bigelow Aerospace has received confirmation from the Genesis I
spacecraft that it has successfully expanded.

We have also confirmed that all of the solar arrays have been deployed.

4:15 PST
Bigelow Aerospace mission control has begun to acquire information from
the Genesis I spacecraft. The ISC Kosmotras Dnepr rocket has flawlessly
delivered the Genesis I into the target orbit of 550km altitude at 64
degrees inclination. The internal battery is reporting a full charge of
26 volts, which leads us to believe that the solar arrays have deployed.

The internal temperature of the spacecraft is reported to be 26 degrees
Celsius and we have acquired the spacecraft's Global Positioning System
(GPS) signal that will enable us to track the ship in flight.

We have initiated communication with the ship's onboard computers and
expect to download more information over the next few hours.
-----

Congratulations to the Bigelow team! ...Now, where are those pictures
and videos?!?

Best,
- Joe

The Bigelow effort is part of what the Foundation calls the NewSpace
industry, encompassing a wide range of entrepreneurially driven efforts
built on the legacy of the U.S. space program, creating an economically
profitable human presence in space. It believes the U.S. should do all
it can to encourage this trend by, for example, supporting the growth
of commercial space transportation firms. Unfortunately, the U.S. has
offered little support for them, favoring instead giant government led
projects like the current NASA Crew Exploration Vehicle, which keep
costs high and limit access to space.

This paragraph bear re-reading. In particular, the Foundation:

(a) Is presenting Bigelow as a successful transfer of technology from
NASA to the private sector, and

(b) complaining that NASA should have a more commercial approach to
space transportation.

In particular, when they complain "the U.S. has offered little support
for them", they're talking about transportation, not about Bigelow or
Transhab.

"Jim Kingdon" wrote in message
news
The Bigelow effort is part of what the Foundation calls the NewSpace
industry, encompassing a wide range of entrepreneurially driven efforts
built on the legacy of the U.S. space program, creating an economically
profitable human presence in space. It believes the U.S. should do all
it can to encourage this trend by, for example, supporting the growth
of commercial space transportation firms. Unfortunately, the U.S. has
offered little support for them, favoring instead giant government led
projects like the current NASA Crew Exploration Vehicle, which keep
costs high and limit access to space.

This paragraph bear re-reading. In particular, the Foundation:

(a) Is presenting Bigelow as a successful transfer of technology from
NASA to the private sector, and

(b) complaining that NASA should have a more commercial approach to
space transportation.

In particular, when they complain "the U.S. has offered little support
for them", they're talking about transportation, not about Bigelow or
Transhab.

Exactly.

The point I take away from this is that NASA should stick to what it does
best, research and technology transfer. In the future, NASA should only buy
launches from private industry. This means that after the shuttle program
ends, there should be no NASA developed shuttle derived launch vehicles. If
there truly is merit in developing these vehicles, then let NASA transfer
the technology, and much of the hardware, to private industry and let them
develop the shuttle derived vehicles themselves.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

In article ,
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

The point I take away from this is that NASA should stick to what it does
best, research and technology transfer. In the future, NASA should only buy
launches from private industry. This means that after the shuttle program
ends, there should be no NASA developed shuttle derived launch vehicles. If
there truly is merit in developing these vehicles, then let NASA transfer
the technology, and much of the hardware, to private industry and let them
develop the shuttle derived vehicles themselves.

Sounds good to me.

Best,
- Joe

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

The point I take away from this is that NASA should stick to what it does
best, research and technology transfer.

Can you make that more fine-grained? I'm always curious about how NASA
decides to allocate research effort to "mission-specific" vs.
"space-specific" vs. broader targets, because I start from the general
premise that it usually takes a certain critical mass of talent,
team-building time, and money to get productive R&D.

And there's always a temptation to empire-building... to want to be
able to say "yeah, we have people working on sexy high-profile topic
area X," whether it's productive or not. (I hasten to add that this
applies no more to NASA than to academic and corporate research
organizations. People who think the politics and turf wars of NASA
centers are uniquely awful should study up on IBM Watson vs Almaden vs
Haifa vs Zurich, or the wrangles within the university consortia that
run the DoE labs, or...)

Take robotics, for example; there's a contributor here who often
argues that it's crucial to progress in space. I can see his point --
and in fact I know some very sharp NASA robotics researchers -- but I
can't help wondering what unique needs and aptitudes NASA brings to
the topic. There are plenty of terrestrial applications for smarter,
more autonomous robots -- and plenty of interested corporations and
academic labs with healthy budgets. So... should robotics be
considered a core competence for NASA research? Or would they be
better off letting others push the envelope there, and putting those
resources into space-specific topics that others *aren't* all over?

In article ,
Monte Davis wrote:

Take robotics, for example; there's a contributor here who often
argues that it's crucial to progress in space. I can see his point --
and in fact I know some very sharp NASA robotics researchers -- but I
can't help wondering what unique needs and aptitudes NASA brings to
the topic. There are plenty of terrestrial applications for smarter,
more autonomous robots -- and plenty of interested corporations and
academic labs with healthy budgets.

Indeed, if you look at the modern remotely-operated submersibles used in
deep-sea oil prospecting, I think you'll find them far more capable and
reliable than anything that's come out of NASA.

So... should robotics be
considered a core competence for NASA research? Or would they be
better off letting others push the envelope there, and putting those
resources into space-specific topics that others *aren't* all over?

Yes, I think they would. And if they need a ROV with agile
manipulators, they should ask Chevron where they got theirs, and go talk
to those companies about placing an order.

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Monte Davis wrote:

Take robotics, for example; there's a contributor here who often
argues that it's crucial to progress in space. I can see his point --
and in fact I know some very sharp NASA robotics researchers -- but I
can't help wondering what unique needs and aptitudes NASA brings to
the topic. There are plenty of terrestrial applications for smarter,
more autonomous robots -- and plenty of interested corporations and
academic labs with healthy budgets.

Indeed, if you look at the modern remotely-operated submersibles used in
deep-sea oil prospecting, I think you'll find them far more capable and
reliable than anything that's come out of NASA.

OTOH - I doubt any of them will actually last any length of time on
the Martian surface sans maintenance - even if Mars was an exact
terrestrial analog. To some extent comparing deep-sea ROV's with,
say, Spirit's arm is apples and oranges.

So... should robotics be
considered a core competence for NASA research? Or would they be
better off letting others push the envelope there, and putting those
resources into space-specific topics that others *aren't* all over?

Yes, I think they would. And if they need a ROV with agile
manipulators, they should ask Chevron where they got theirs, and go talk
to those companies about placing an order.

As if the places where Chevron gets their arms builds arms that meet
NASA's various needs - which I doubt seriously.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

In article ,
(Derek Lyons) wrote:

Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Monte Davis wrote:

Take robotics, for example; there's a contributor here who often
argues that it's crucial to progress in space. I can see his point --
and in fact I know some very sharp NASA robotics researchers -- but I
can't help wondering what unique needs and aptitudes NASA brings to
the topic. There are plenty of terrestrial applications for smarter,
more autonomous robots -- and plenty of interested corporations and
academic labs with healthy budgets.

Indeed, if you look at the modern remotely-operated submersibles used in
deep-sea oil prospecting, I think you'll find them far more capable and
reliable than anything that's come out of NASA.

OTOH - I doubt any of them will actually last any length of time on
the Martian surface sans maintenance - even if Mars was an exact
terrestrial analog. To some extent comparing deep-sea ROV's with,
say, Spirit's arm is apples and oranges.

True; I was thinking more of things like Robonaut, designed for much
closer use (i.e. Earth orbit, Moon tops). A Mars rover is indeed a
rather different ball of wax.

As if the places where Chevron gets their arms builds arms that meet
NASA's various needs - which I doubt seriously.

I agree that NASA could define their needs so as to rule out any
commercially available arm -- and that'd be just the sort of thing
they'd do, too.

However, I don't agree that the manipulators on modern submersibles
would be inappropriate for use in space, with perhaps some minor
modifications.

Best,
- Joe