Talk:B330

Spaceflight: Space stations Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the space stations working group.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Terminal ballistics#Hypervelocity|ballistic protection]] The anchor (#Hypervelocity) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Radiation Shielding

"It is unknown, however, what means the BA 330 will offer to provide protection from radiation^{[dubious – discuss]}."

What? Why is this "dubious"? Someone might dispute that it's unknown? If you happen to know what type of shielding is provided please add it to the article. --70.143.56.3 (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BA330 Layout

According to discussion in this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15581.150 the layout of the BA-330 will be very different from that of the original Transhab. The description of the Transhab should be moved to the Transhab page and the information in the link above should eb added to the BA-330 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.177.81 (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the conclusion (above), and the recent edit actions, of 82.92.1777.81. However, my rationale does not require dependence on the NASA forum, which some editors might not consider a reliable source. My rationale would simply be that a source (ref name=HSF in the article as of 2010-02-09) from a NASA website, speaking of an older NASA technology (TransHab), and last updated in 2003, cannot and should not be considered a reliable source for assertions about the BA330, being built by Bigelow Aerospace, in 2010. N2e (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. What would be a good way to incorporate the information from the NSF thread? The pictures are informative, but non-free and they are also no longer on the Bigelow website. A link to the Orbitec site would probably be a good idea. Jon Goff is a reputable source (works on the small Masten team that recently won the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander X PRIZE). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.177.81 (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real need to add the Orbitec site to the external links section, if that's what you mean. The press release on their site would be okay as a technology component citation, though. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of three images in the article

On 2010-01-22T11:47:59, User:Angusmclellan asked in an edit summary: "Are all of these non-free images really necessary?" Fair question. I don't know the answer but will offer a couple of thoughts.

It seems that there are precisely three images currently in the BA330 article, as 2010-01-22 and still today. I looked at the image files and metadata on wikimedia, and each image has a "Licensing" statement that indicates the images are okay for use in Wiki-projects. I'm not an image expert but I do know that the Wiki-editors who are heavily involved in the Wiki image game are serious about deleting images that are not justified appropriately. Given that these images are still there, my first take would be, then, that it is okay to use them in a relevant Wikipedia article, which the BA330 appears to be.

Seems if any wiki editor wants to debate the appropriateness of a particular image, the image File page would be the place to do that.

As to the use of three images in this article, I'll leave it to any concerned editor, including Angusmclellan, to make the case here on the Talk page for why any particular image should not be used here in BA330. If no case is forthcoming, and no consensus achieved, I would recommend we remove the {{non-free}} tag after a few weeks.

They aren't really necessary. One image shows a ground test unit, which may have some limited value, though it only roughly represents the final orbital version. The next shows a moon cruiser, of which there are no current plans to develop. The third shows an extremely fanciful orbital industrial complex. I'm going to attempt to find a high quality image of the intended BA 330 configuration and replace the three current images with a single one that has total relevance and that satisfies fair-use. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a comment from the previous section, by anon editor 82.92.177.81, that relates to article images. I'm duplicating it down here so that others thinking about images can see the question. N2e (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What would be a good way to incorporate the information from the NSF thread? The pictures are informative, but non-free and they are also no longer on the Bigelow website. A link to the Orbitec site would probably be a good idea. Jon Goff is a reputable source (works on the small Masten team that recently won the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander X PRIZE). 82.92.177.81"

Well, I thought it would be easy to find a decent picture, but I was wrong. There are simply no pictures of BA330 by itself floating on the webs. So, three options: the current ground-based photograph already in the article, this showcasing the intended station configuration, or this (downsized, maybe even cropped) showing just the BA330s. Honestly, I would suggest sticking with the existing photograph. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the research to look for better images. My view is that the in-the-hangar view photo is defitely a keeper. As for the two conceptual views of assembled station components in space, I could go either way: leave both of those images as is, or reduce the two to one. If you "suggest sticking with the existing photographs,", I'm good with that. If some editor feels a particular photograph is not corrected licensed for use on Wikipedia, they should take that up on the File page for each photograph in question. Based on this discussion, I would support removal of the article {{non-free}} tag now. N2e (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry N2e, I think you misunderstand. I only support keeping the in-hangar photo, and removing the others as having little relevance to the article and being multiple non-free images, thus failing fair-use restrictions. Once there is a single representative image left, complying with fair-use, then the non-free tag can be removed. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In comparison with Kibo it's not that light

Kibo

Length: 11.19 m

Diameter: 4.39 m

Mass: 14,800 kg

BA 330

Length: 14.00 m

Diameter: 6.70 m

Mass: 23,000 kg

--Craigboy (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much of that would be on board equipment? The equipment wouldn't be any lighter in an inflatable. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the numbers alone don't say much. Do they both represent the modules as fully loaded, dry, bare-bones, or what? BA 330 will also likely include life support equipment and other support equipment that Kibo doesn't need, since it is a science module. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New name B330

[1] and [2] seem to be using B330 as the module name. May have to move page? Perhaps too soon yet? crandles (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They look like review articles. Unless the Bigelow homepage indicates that the name has been changed, I would not do it in Wikipedia yet. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I just reviewed their web site and voila, Bigelow now calls it B330 [3], so yes, we should move the page. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2022 target date - does not look feasible

[4] suggest it could be in low lunar orbit by the end of 2022. However, the plan seems to require Vulcan (rocket) and Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage(ACES). Vulcan plans to fly by 2019 so launch to Earth orbit seems possible. However ACES article indicates it may be used with Vulcan "after approximately 2024" or maybe "no earlier than 2023". Should this be pointed out and how or is there a plan to make ACES fly earlier than the ACES article suggests? crandles (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial space station article

There is a Bigelow Commercial Space Station article. As it seems first B330 will be complete space station, we seem to be heading for lots of duplication. Do we want to keep both articles saying the same things, reduce to one article, or make the BCSS article a historic one on when the commercial space station was supposed to be made of different modules, or some other plan? crandles (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's much value in the BCSS article. It's a ton of purely speculative material (much of which is probably badly outdated) that could be very heavily pared down and merged into the B330 article. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Module Length

Module length is 16.88 meters according to the more recent image here: http://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/b330/ Possibly some other design updates shown in that image as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.169.89 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What fairing size does it need to launch

Article gives inflated dimensions but not the uninflated dimensions to see what launcher fairings can accommodate it. - Rod57 (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it could launch in a Vulcan fairing but not in the standard Falcon 9 fairing - due to it being too long. Can anyone confirm that inflation only increases the diameter and not the length ? - Rod57 (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]