Select your localized edition:

Close ×

More Ways to Connect

Discover one of our 28 local entrepreneurial communities »

Be the first to know as we launch in new countries and markets around the globe.

Interested in bringing MIT Technology Review to your local market?

MIT Technology ReviewMIT Technology Review - logo


Unsupported browser: Your browser does not meet modern web standards. See how it scores »

{ action.text }

NASA’s interest in inflatable modules, meanwhile, has not escaped the notice of Bigelow Aerospace, a Las Vegas-based company that has successfully built and launched two prototypes and is currently working on larger modules. (In an ironic twist, Bigelow licensed the inflatable technology used in its modules from NASA, which had been developing a concept called TransHab that was canceled a decade ago.)

Mike Gold, director of Washington operations for Bigelow, said at ISDC that the company has been in discussions with NASA on a concept for the Bigelow Aerospace Module, a small inflatable module that could be attached to the ISS. Such a module, he said, would likely be comparable to the closet-sized Genesis prototypes the company previously launched. Gold has reservations, however, about NASA’s apparent desire for a “full-scale” inflatable module. “I’m not sure whether you could safely put a full-scale inflatable on the ISS,” said Gold, noting that adding even a small module to the station requires addressing issues such as structural fatigue and outgassing of module materials.

Bigelow also has an interest in an even bigger NASA initiative that involves some NewSpace companies: plans to spend $6 billion over the next five years to develop commercial systems that can transport astronauts to and from low Earth orbit. One company, SpaceX, is already developing the launch vehicle and spacecraft needed to carry that out; the rocket, the Falcon 9, is slated for its first launch from Cape Canaveral as early as this Friday. Such vehicles, besides meeting NASA’s needs for access to the ISS, could serve other customers such as Bigelow.

Some experts, however, doubt that NewSpace companies have the technical skill to safely carry out commercial crew missions. Skeptics include Scott Pace, a former NASA official who currently directs the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University. “Some think we’re ready to go towards human spaceflight on a commercial vehicle, and I’m not,” he said in a discussion about NASA’s new direction at ISDC.

Gold disagrees, arguing that commercial companies are ready to step up, and dismissing claims that commercial vehicles would be less safe than government-operated ones. “We care more about safety” than a government agency like NASA, said Gold, noting that a major accident could doom a commercial provider, but it wouldn’t necessarily ruin NASA. Safety concerns will undoubtedly be a central focus as NASA’s current plans go forward, and as the fates of NASA and NewSpace become increasingly intertwined.

5 comments. Share your thoughts »

Credit: Mike Massee, XCOR

Tagged: Business, NASA, SpaceX, commercial space, NASA budget, Bigelow Aerospace, Masten Space Systems

Reprints and Permissions | Send feedback to the editor

From the Archives


Introducing MIT Technology Review Insider.

Already a Magazine subscriber?

You're automatically an Insider. It's easy to activate or upgrade your account.

Activate Your Account

Become an Insider

It's the new way to subscribe. Get even more of the tech news, research, and discoveries you crave.

Sign Up

Learn More

Find out why MIT Technology Review Insider is for you and explore your options.

Show Me