Bigelow patent

US Patent 06962310

Note the stuff about stealth.

"Allen Thomson" wrote in message
oups.com...

US Patent 06962310

Note the stuff about stealth.


Now thats interesting. Bigelow is obviously trying to market the platform as
a servicable military spy center using radar etc that penetrates the hull.
If the surface of the module was sufficiently stealthed then there may be
one of these military survailance satellites up there fairly soon.

Nathan

Allen Thomson wrote:
US Patent 06962310

Note the stuff about stealth.

Well, there is the reference to the infamous '238 Eldridge patent; I
wonder how much of this is typical patent lawyer "claim everything and
see what they give you" behavior.

I also believe, but am not certain, that if you are contracting to the
federal government, they can give you the right to use someone else's
patent if they feel like it. Which would make patents on stealthy
satellites less useful than one might imagine.

-jake

Now thats interesting. Bigelow is obviously trying to market the platform as
a servicable military spy center using radar etc that penetrates the hull.

Interesting in light of the interview at:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/667/2
where Bigelow seems fairly skeptical about orbital tourism.

When he talks about non-US governments buying flights for national
prestige reasons, I don't fully follow him. My intuition would be
that the prestige (or perceived practical) benefits are greater if
they develop something in-house (e.g. India, Brazil). Although I
guess I could also come up with examples on the other side - Europe
flying on shuttle or on Russian craft, Israel flying on shuttle, that
Persian Gulf (I forget what state) guy who flew on shuttle, former
soviet bloc cosmonauts on Soyuz, etc.

His discussion of a CEV-derived vehicle seems a bit odd from a tourism
point of view, but I guess if you think of this as being sort of like
shuttle or Soyuz, with the occasional customer, rather than a much
greater volume, then maybe it makes more sense. Or maybe Bigelow is
figuring he may get lemons, in the sense that there might not be a
highly operable orbital craft in the works, and he has to figure out
what kind of lemonade to make.

Blurrt wrote:
"Allen Thomson" wrote in message
oups.com...

US Patent 06962310

Note the stuff about stealth.


Now thats interesting. Bigelow is obviously trying to market the platform as
a servicable military spy center using radar etc that penetrates the hull.
If the surface of the module was sufficiently stealthed then there may be
one of these military survailance satellites up there fairly soon.

I read the reference. Problem about COTS - COTS is fine if you are in
an area where there is civil interest. A mobile phone manufacturer
could build the Bowman radio in 5 minutes flat.

However the only people with experience of rockets are goverment
agencies (like NASA, ESA etc.) and the military. COTS is therefore out.
In fact COTS would be relevant for a Von Neumann machine.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...281864,00.html

I said preiously that just that was a necessary stage. It may well be
that COTS would be relevant for guidance and instrumentaion systems.
Rockets however have to either be ordered from governments or built
from scratch.

Ian Parker

wrote:

However the only people with experience of rockets are goverment
agencies (like NASA, ESA etc.) and the military.

Which are you considering commercial entities like Boeing to be,
government agencies or military?

COTS is therefore out.

I think SpaceDev would disagree with you. As would their customers --
including, potentially, NASA.

Rockets however have to either be ordered from governments or built
from scratch.

Or they might be obtained from the same place The Spaceship Company is
getting theirs.

Jim Kingdon wrote:
Now thats interesting. Bigelow is obviously trying to market the platform as
a servicable military spy center using radar etc that penetrates the hull.

Interesting in light of the interview at:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/667/2
where Bigelow seems fairly skeptical about orbital tourism.

When he talks about non-US governments buying flights for national
prestige reasons, I don't fully follow him. My intuition would be
that the prestige (or perceived practical) benefits are greater if
they develop something in-house (e.g. India, Brazil). Although I
guess I could also come up with examples on the other side - Europe
flying on shuttle or on Russian craft, Israel flying on shuttle, that
Persian Gulf (I forget what state) guy who flew on shuttle, former
soviet bloc cosmonauts on Soyuz, etc.



When it comes to space development, not too many people are doing
much primary work in terms of development. Realistically, Bigelow
has stepped into a niche where he can provide basic housing (Hull,
power, life support, and basic communication). Any number of
countries can operate a facility after that point and populate
it with indigenously designed experiments and functions. You get
as much prestige from operating and developing useful functions
as for building a hull. If you consider how few research ships are
built in a lot of the countries that use the ships, you can see how
prestige is not necessarily tied to the construction of the ships in
question.

(BTW, it was Saudi Arabia. Sultan bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud
on STS-51-G)

His discussion of a CEV-derived vehicle seems a bit odd from a tourism
point of view, but I guess if you think of this as being sort of like
shuttle or Soyuz, with the occasional customer, rather than a much
greater volume, then maybe it makes more sense. Or maybe Bigelow is
figuring he may get lemons, in the sense that there might not be a
highly operable orbital craft in the works, and he has to figure out
what kind of lemonade to make.

If he can plan with a realistic baseline, he can manage. On the books,
there aren't that many manned vehicles that have a good chance of being
developed. He's ahead of the curve by a fairly large margin. That is
a very dangerous place to be.

Alan Anderson wrote:
wrote:

However the only people with experience of rockets are goverment
agencies (like NASA, ESA etc.) and the military.

Which are you considering commercial entities like Boeing to be,
government agencies or military?

COTS is therefore out.

I think SpaceDev would disagree with you. As would their customers --
including, potentially, NASA.

Rockets however have to either be ordered from governments or built
from scratch.

Or they might be obtained from the same place The Spaceship Company is
getting theirs.

I looked through the various items in the Website. There is one
possibility - Not exactly COTS but defintely cost reducing. That is to
go to Russia. Design a spaceship - lets say for the sake of argument a
completely recoverable 2STO and get in bult in Russia to your design.
Register as a Russian/European company and that will get round any
expoer controls.

An equatorial (rather than a Central Asian) launch would be
advantageous. This could be done from Kourou of somewhere else in South
America viz Brazil.

There is one definite difference between a commercial and a Goverment
enterprise. With a Goverment enterprise orders follow the flag and
there is often secrecy which again reduces efficiency. A commercial
enterprise must go to the lowest price and highest quality, avoiding
setting up in countries (like tghe US) imposing export controls. The
lowest price and highest quality in rockets is to be found in Russia.
The best launch site is Kourou. For a major initiative Brazil. Brazil
at the moment lacks infrastructure.

On 5 Aug 2006 08:57:31 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

However the only people with experience of rockets are goverment
agencies (like NASA, ESA etc.) and the military.

Nonsense. Most people with experience with rockets are in private
industry (government contractors, or startups).

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 5 Aug 2006 08:57:31 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

However the only people with experience of rockets are goverment
agencies (like NASA, ESA etc.) and the military.

Nonsense. Most people with experience with rockets are in private
industry (government contractors, or startups).

Yes but they are producing a product which is bought exclusively by the
Govt and Military. A mobile phone or computer manufacturer seels to
either the end user, or to companies that sell a product to the end
user.

To get a LOX, Kerosine/LH engine cheaply you need to go to Russia.