Genesis-1: Reaching Escape Velocity From Red Tape

space.com ^ | 07/26/06 | Leonard David

[KevinDavis]

The orbiting of the privately-bankrolled Genesis-1 expandable spacecraft by Bigelow Aerospace is a step forward in the company’s vision to provide a low-cost, low Earth orbit human-rated space complex that is accessible to the commercial sector.

The general concept for "inflatable" space habitats was initially developed by NASA for use in a proposed mission to Mars, hence the name, "Transit Habitat" or "TransHab" as it was commonly referred to. That work was curtailed in 2000, falling victim to NASA budget cuts.

Since that time, Bigelow Aerospace took the basic concept, redefined it, moved the technology generations ahead and in many different directions, and ultimately brought the idea to fruition in the form of the Genesis-1 Pathfinder vessel.

Launched earlier this month, the Bigelow Aerospace Genesis-1 has taken the deflated NASA idea and puffed new life into the use of what Bigelow Aerospace refers to as ‘expandable’ space-based structures—spending some $75 million in the process, so far.

[KevinDavis]

[saganite]

Bigelow was incredibly lucky. He launched using a converted Soviet SS-18. His launch was flawless but yesterday an SS-18 blew up with 18 sattelites on board. Apparently he got the good one.

[Shuttle Shucker]

Regarding this article's title, it would seem the feds and Congressional pork-barrelers are interested in keeping the [tax-subsidized] red tape intact, at the expense of entrepreneurial space development. Getta load of this:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=21352

Senate Report 109-280 Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill 2007

STATUS REPORT
Date Released: Friday, July 14, 2006
Source: Senate Appropriations Committee

"The Committee does not provide any funding in fiscal year 2007 for the Centennial Challenges program. Funding provided in previous fiscal years for this program is sufficient for NASA to run a prize based competition, as well as to verify that NASA will see tangential benefits from running such a program. Providing additional funds to a program based on prizes only creates a pot of unused funds while other aspects of NASA's mission are being cut or delayed due to a lack of funds."

For more information regarding why this decision seems outrageous:

http://www.spaceprojects.com/prizes

Surely there are easier ways to pressure NASA to create prizes that can actually be won, than to eliminate further funding for NASA prizes, causing existing ones to remain so tiny that nobody can be adequately incentivized to win them?

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Yeah, those Russian rockets seem to blow up more often than American or European ones (and around the same as Japanese).

However, as for sending people to space, isn't the Soyuz capsule supposed to have a perfect track record? The space shuttle obviously doesn't have that.

[Shuttle Shucker]

To answer your question, the Russians haven't lost a life in space in at least 3 decades. In contrast, the NASA monopoly loses lives in their 25-times-more-expensive space vehicles at least every other decade. Your tax dollars at work...