Why would re-usability only apply to Commercial Crew? Why are you limiting it to this, when you should know that crew launches will be a small minority of launches? Crew launches for SpaceX would be at best 2-3 per year (at first), whereas they plan on launching F9s more than monthly by 2017.
I keep seeing this argument for reusable vehicles: "you'll save money by not throwing the vehicle away and having to make a new one"But I also keep seeing this argument against them: "flight rates aren't high enough to justify the development and maintenance costs of reusable spacecraft"
So my questions are:- How frequently are these commercial vehicles (e.g. Dream Chaser, reusable Dragon/DragonRider) going to fly?- What would they do to justify that frequency?Because right now, Soyuz is flying about four times per year to the ISS, carrying 3 astronauts per flight (a total of 12/year). Is that enough? Space tourism (to a Bigelow hotel) might be an idea, but is there a sufficient market of millionaires/billionaires for orbital space tourism? (the number of space tourists/private space travelers that have gone into orbit is a single digit)
Both Boeing and SpaceX have said they plan to reuse their vehicles up to 10 times, so for now we'll have to take them at their word that they understand the issues involved.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/15/2014 02:13 amBoth Boeing and SpaceX have said they plan to reuse their vehicles up to 10 times, so for now we'll have to take them at their word that they understand the issues involved.Boeing said something like that. But I don't remember SpaceX saying how many flights Dragon could be reused.
The latest number given for Falcon 9R was 40 reuses for the engines. No number was given for the airframe (I use airframe like with planes for everything not engines). They need to evaluate the structure after flights before they can give a number.My guess is that like with airplanes the number of uses will be different for the airframe and engines. Number of airframe reuses will be crucial for total cost saving. It costs more than the engines.Edit: My guess is that there will be a number of payloads requiring expendable mode that will consume both airframe and engines well before they reach their maximum life cycles.BFR will probably change that.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/16/2014 03:02 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 05/15/2014 02:13 amBoth Boeing and SpaceX have said they plan to reuse their vehicles up to 10 times, so for now we'll have to take them at their word that they understand the issues involved.Boeing said something like that. But I don't remember SpaceX saying how many flights Dragon could be reused.I thought the same thing. I think that someone mentioned 10 reuses for the Falcon9, but I also heard 20 from SpaceX. So that is all not completely clear. I think that right now, they don't know how often the F9 can be effectively reused without a major rebuild like overhaul. The Dragon's heatshield can potentially be reused "dozens of times". Maybe he was referring to that.
Nobody knows what flight rate will be for these vehicles as tourist/ commercial market has never really been tested. Soyuz doesn't really count as it is expendable 3 seater.
Is this topic just to put SpaceX goals into question or is the Dreamchaser included in this topic.Also, is the target in question the payload capsule and or the launcher too?I'm just trying to gauge the level of conceptual inertia in old space.
What can be wrong with reusability if the developing cost is low and the cost increase for the vehicle is almost non existent except for increased cost per unit because of lower production rate?
Halving flight costs may not dramatically increase satellite launch market but it will dramatically increase demand for tourist flights.
As to the launcher (SpaceX or otherwise) one would think if you want a new one for each manned mission, after using them, they are just fine for freight and sat missions. So reusable would still pay if your are in both businesses.
The above assumption is not necessarily true. A used vehicle can be more reliable than a new one. Infant life failure, Bathtub curve.
This is the "Commercial Crew Vehicles" section, and I'm asking about whether making Dream Chaser, Dragon/DragonRider, etc. reusable is worth it.
Quote from: Pipcard on 05/15/2014 01:16 amThis is the "Commercial Crew Vehicles" section, and I'm asking about whether making Dream Chaser, Dragon/DragonRider, etc. reusable is worth it.Arn't crew vehicles usually reused just because you already invested the effort of returning them safely to earth? I would guess it is generally a question of how much refurbishment is required. (not an expert opinion, I might be misunderstanding the question)
Quote from: KelvinZero on 06/21/2014 12:08 pmQuote from: Pipcard on 05/15/2014 01:16 amThis is the "Commercial Crew Vehicles" section, and I'm asking about whether making Dream Chaser, Dragon/DragonRider, etc. reusable is worth it.Arn't crew vehicles usually reused just because you already invested the effort of returning them safely to earth? I would guess it is generally a question of how much refurbishment is required. (not an expert opinion, I might be misunderstanding the question)The Apollo program, from Mercury through Apollo spacecraft, never reused a capsule, refurb costs not withstanding, so on principle, No!
Quote from: Darren_Hensley on 06/22/2014 02:38 amQuote from: KelvinZero on 06/21/2014 12:08 pmQuote from: Pipcard on 05/15/2014 01:16 amThis is the "Commercial Crew Vehicles" section, and I'm asking about whether making Dream Chaser, Dragon/DragonRider, etc. reusable is worth it.Arn't crew vehicles usually reused just because you already invested the effort of returning them safely to earth? I would guess it is generally a question of how much refurbishment is required. (not an expert opinion, I might be misunderstanding the question)The Apollo program, from Mercury through Apollo spacecraft, never reused a capsule, refurb costs not withstanding, so on principle, No! Hmm.. I thought the Soyuz capsule was reused but it turns out it isn't. Still, the fact you have to bring it home will make the trade very different for crewed vehicles compared to say satellite launches.Im surprised the Soyuz isnt reused. This does make what the commercial contenders are doing a new step.Do they recover/reuse components from the Soyuz? The fluffy dice and beaded seat covers at least.
Hmm.. I thought the Soyuz capsule was reused but it turns out it isn't.
QuoteHmm.. I thought the Soyuz capsule was reused but it turns out it isn't.The Soyuz looks like it barely survives reentry, let alone surviving well enough for reuse.
If NASA wants to pay for a new crew vehicle each time, they will be funding the creation of a fleet that can be flown cheaply for commercial applications. Commercial applications need to be cheap above all, so that fits quite well.
Quote from: Jcc on 09/02/2014 12:23 amIf NASA wants to pay for a new crew vehicle each time, they will be funding the creation of a fleet that can be flown cheaply for commercial applications. Commercial applications need to be cheap above all, so that fits quite well.That's the same story that was sold for Dragon v1 and now they're all sitting in a warehouse somewhere.
In 4 years time Bigelow may have a spacestation in space. If he makes one of the connectors a CBM then there is work for one of the Dragon V1. NASA may even try sending one to the ISS for a third time.
Very valid point. But for crew, there's already a demonstrated market for tourism, so at very least a few seats could be sold.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/02/2014 02:25 amVery valid point. But for crew, there's already a demonstrated market for tourism, so at very least a few seats could be sold.Do you really ever see SpaceX flying tourists?I think they turn their nose up at it.Foreign astronauts, sure, but Bigelow has to give 'em a destination first.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/02/2014 02:25 amVery valid point. But for crew, there's already a demonstrated market for tourism, so at very least a few seats could be sold.Do you really ever see SpaceX flying tourists?...
If their ultimate goal is to bring colonists to Mars, they have to start to start somewhere. But I agree that SpaceX prefers to be the transportation company but they have shown no intention of directly competing with Space Adventures.
We do wanna turn the Dragon capsule into a crew rated capsule. Right now only two countries can take astronauts into space - and I think that's a shame, I think we need to see more - Russia and China. The US lost that ability when we retired the Shuttle in 2011. So hopefully we will see more organizations coming forward and taking astronauts to space - I think its a critically important function for us as humans actually.So we've got an ascent test and abort test in early 14 and hopefully we will be flying demonstration flights in early 15 with crew. That'll be an exciting time, then everybody that wants to go to space, that can afford to go to space, should be able to go to space. - source
The closest I've heard to the company talking about space tourism was:
Which is curious since orbital tourism is basically the only business I see that could lead to high flight rates (50+) for commercial launch service providers in the next decade.
I'm sceptical though. Soyuz is cheap, so Space Adventures could have built a small station for tourists a long time ago if it were profitable to do so.
Bigelow isn't expecting tourists either.
Even suborbital tourism hasn't happened yet.
The principle of re-usability being worth it is axiomatically true.As a few people have pointed out above, the necessary hardware and market instantiations have yet to be realized.If it should come to pass that crew vehicles were to be as cheap as paper cups, then re-usability would no longer hold true.I did not know that these things were equipped with "fuzzy dice and beaded upholstery".
"Space Tourism" makes for a great image and the studies tend to paint a rather nice picture but the reality? Nobody's doing it much at the currrent price and it has to get REALLY cheap before it would be a major player. Worse I suppose is not many people have actually paid attention to what the people surveyed WANT from "Space Tourism" and it isn't cheap! They mostly wanted a cheap orbital "destination" (hotel) where they could be pampered and treated like an Earth hotel which entails a HUGE supply and infrastructure layout prior to coming into being. Very few would have been willing to pay large sums to "just" go up and orbit the Earth a few times, there had to be an "experiance" attached and sadly that won't happen without a lot of prior work being done on putting up the needed infrastructure.
It seems to me that space tourism just isn't a viable commercial venture....snip...I think the only way that commercial human spaceflight will ever be viable is through resource collection and manufacturing.
The cost is so high that your customer base is tiny, and repeat customers will be rare. With present or shortly-available technology, it just isn't a sustainable business model.
At present, there is no money to be made in going to space for the sake of going to space. We need an orbital gold rush to spur the infrastructure development that would make it a viable option.
It is my belief that tourism is usually an outgrowth of commerce, and not the other way around. Commerce creates the need for infrastructure, and tourism relies on that infrastructure. Tourism may eventually provide a significant amount of revenue for a location (think Hawaii and Orlando), but it doesn't start out that way.
Quote from: RanulfC on 09/04/2014 09:24 pm"Space Tourism" makes for a great image and the studies tend to paint a rather nice picture but the reality? Nobody's doing it much at the currrent price and it has to get REALLY cheap before it would be a major player. Worse I suppose is not many people have actually paid attention to what the people surveyed WANT from "Space Tourism" and it isn't cheap! They mostly wanted a cheap orbital "destination" (hotel) where they could be pampered and treated like an Earth hotel which entails a HUGE supply and infrastructure layout prior to coming into being. Very few would have been willing to pay large sums to "just" go up and orbit the Earth a few times, there had to be an "experiance" attached and sadly that won't happen without a lot of prior work being done on putting up the needed infrastructure.It seems to me that space tourism just isn't a viable commercial venture. The cost is so high that your customer base is tiny, and repeat customers will be rare. With present or shortly-available technology, it just isn't a sustainable business model. I think the only way that commercial human spaceflight will ever be viable is through resource collection and manufacturing. In the forseeable future, I only see two scenarios that could create a commercial space economy: 1) if there is an asteroid that could be mined for materials that are badly needed and rare enough on earth that asteroid mining is the cheapest way to get them, and 2) if a microgravity manufacturing or materials process is discovered for a product needed on earth that is so vastly superior to any earthbound equivalent that it justifies the expense.At present, there is no money to be made in going to space for the sake of going to space. We need an orbital gold rush to spur the infrastructure development that would make it a viable option....back to the original topic...
Quote from: SWGlassPit on 09/05/2014 02:56 pmQuote from: RanulfC on 09/04/2014 09:24 pm"Space Tourism" makes for a great image and the studies tend to paint a rather nice picture but the reality? Nobody's doing it much at the currrent price and it has to get REALLY cheap before it would be a major player. Worse I suppose is not many people have actually paid attention to what the people surveyed WANT from "Space Tourism" and it isn't cheap! They mostly wanted a cheap orbital "destination" (hotel) where they could be pampered and treated like an Earth hotel which entails a HUGE supply and infrastructure layout prior to coming into being. Very few would have been willing to pay large sums to "just" go up and orbit the Earth a few times, there had to be an "experiance" attached and sadly that won't happen without a lot of prior work being done on putting up the needed infrastructure.It seems to me that space tourism just isn't a viable commercial venture. The cost is so high that your customer base is tiny, and repeat customers will be rare. With present or shortly-available technology, it just isn't a sustainable business model. I think the only way that commercial human spaceflight will ever be viable is through resource collection and manufacturing. In the forseeable future, I only see two scenarios that could create a commercial space economy: 1) if there is an asteroid that could be mined for materials that are badly needed and rare enough on earth that asteroid mining is the cheapest way to get them, and 2) if a microgravity manufacturing or materials process is discovered for a product needed on earth that is so vastly superior to any earthbound equivalent that it justifies the expense.At present, there is no money to be made in going to space for the sake of going to space. We need an orbital gold rush to spur the infrastructure development that would make it a viable option....back to the original topic......unless you lift quite a bunch of people at a time, like 100 or more...
Quote from: OliI'm sceptical though. Soyuz is cheap, so Space Adventures could have built a small station for tourists a long time ago if it were profitable to do so.Remember MIR?Quote from: OliBigelow isn't expecting tourists either.http://spaceadventures.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.viewnews&newsid=809
The defense industrial players weren't interested because that wasn't their business.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/05/2014 03:18 pmIt is my belief that tourism is usually an outgrowth of commerce, and not the other way around. Commerce creates the need for infrastructure, and tourism relies on that infrastructure. Tourism may eventually provide a significant amount of revenue for a location (think Hawaii and Orlando), but it doesn't start out that way.Tourism is commerce, and it's just like any other business.
One does a market survey.
If enough customers are present to make a product viable, a business can be formed.
If the customers are there before any other kind of business takes place, then tourism drives infrastructure development and any other viable businesses follow.
JAXA paid for a number of market surveys back in the early 90's for orbital and suborbital space tourism. Even back then, they found a sufficient customer base to support a space tourism business.
It's taken a while for non-defense players to develop who are willing to address the market, but my point is that the market surveys have said that the market was there for a while now.
Reusability reduces capital equipment expenditures, but it also has the potential to increase costs by destroying mass production.
I've wondered how SpaceX will deal with that fact; they stumbled into a low-cost means of rocket manufacture by building lots of smallish engines, but if they build reusable rockets their mass production will go away. Obviously they've calculated that the tradeoff favors reuse.
Aircraft are mass-produced in the hundreds.Spacecraft such as DreamChaser or Dragon will be in the single digits. The demand is simply not there to sustain a single fleet. With such low numbers, you don't get economies of scale. All your fixed production, tooling, process, logistics costs are spread over a small number of units making them more expensive than a mass produced product.It is cheaper to produce 1000 paper cups than to make a single glass cup. If you're typically going to use your cup less than a 1000 times, it makes sense to go with disposable.
JAXA paid for a number of market surveys back in the early 90's for orbital and suborbital space tourism. Even back then, they found a sufficient customer base to support a space tourism business. The defense industrial players weren't interested because that wasn't their business. It's taken a while for non-defense players to develop who are willing to address the market, but my point is that the market surveys have said that the market was there for a while now.
a global market of as many as 1 million passengers a year seems feasible if the price of a flight can be brought down to about $20,000
Their conclusions were that this would involve tens of flights per day. That is less than 0.1% of commercial aviation, now at around 3 million passengers per day, but space travel will nevertheless become a relatively large-scale activity, and an "ordinary" means of travel for members of the public.
Quote from: daveklingler on 09/05/2014 04:14 pmJAXA paid for a number of market surveys back in the early 90's for orbital and suborbital space tourism. Even back then, they found a sufficient customer base to support a space tourism business. The defense industrial players weren't interested because that wasn't their business. It's taken a while for non-defense players to develop who are willing to address the market, but my point is that the market surveys have said that the market was there for a while now.I was very fascinated by this topic a few months ago, with the Kankoh-maru and Shimizu space hotel. I even recreated the latter as an Orbiter add-on.Quotea global market of as many as 1 million passengers a year seems feasible if the price of a flight can be brought down to about $20,000QuoteTheir conclusions were that this would involve tens of flights per day. That is less than 0.1% of commercial aviation, now at around 3 million passengers per day, but space travel will nevertheless become a relatively large-scale activity, and an "ordinary" means of travel for members of the public.
Ten years ago you couldn't get an iPad for $500,000. We live in exciting times.
Quote from: QuantumG on 09/02/2014 12:27 amQuote from: Jcc on 09/02/2014 12:23 amIf NASA wants to pay for a new crew vehicle each time, they will be funding the creation of a fleet that can be flown cheaply for commercial applications. Commercial applications need to be cheap above all, so that fits quite well.That's the same story that was sold for Dragon v1 and now they're all sitting in a warehouse somewhere.Very valid point. But for crew, there's already a demonstrated market for tourism, so at very least a few seats could be sold.
Please remember with soyez that you have to do training in Russia for 6 months.
Please remember every spare seat that Space Adventure has gotten there hands on has been sold.
Quote from: Nibb31 on 09/06/2014 09:34 amAircraft are mass-produced in the hundreds.Spacecraft such as DreamChaser or Dragon will be in the single digits. The demand is simply not there to sustain a single fleet. With such low numbers, you don't get economies of scale. All your fixed production, tooling, process, logistics costs are spread over a small number of units making them more expensive than a mass produced product.It is cheaper to produce 1000 paper cups than to make a single glass cup. If you're typically going to use your cup less than a 1000 times, it makes sense to go with disposable.Bad analogy. The real story is that both the reusable and disposable cups are made of glass.Also, rockets have a cost per kg of dry mass the same as an airliner. Look it up, a 737 costs, pound for dry pound, about the same as a Delta IV. That points to me that there's not as much to be gained from mass production as you might think, though it wouldn't hurt. Reusability will make a FAR greater difference.
Space Adventures has tried to buy their own Soyuz launches. NASA intervenes each time.
Quote from: QuantumG on 09/08/2014 07:32 amSpace Adventures has tried to buy their own Soyuz launches. NASA intervenes each time.Again, I don't mean to the ISS, but to their own station/module.
Space Adventures has tried to buy their own Soyuz launches. NASA intervenes each time. It's an ongoing battle and one of the reasons why it's very unlikely we'll see spare seats on commercial crew vehicles going to "tourists".
Quote from: Oli on 09/08/2014 03:19 pmQuote from: QuantumG on 09/08/2014 07:32 amSpace Adventures has tried to buy their own Soyuz launches. NASA intervenes each time.Again, I don't mean to the ISS, but to their own station/module.They did that too.. it was called Mir. The Russians learnt their lesson.
Oh dear, another conspiracy theory . MirCorp ran out of money, simple as that.
They "can", yes. I'm saying they won't, because SpaceX doesn't care for space tourism.
Quote from: QuantumG on 09/10/2014 12:42 amThey "can", yes. I'm saying they won't, because SpaceX doesn't care for space tourism.SpaceX doesn't care. But SpaceX will take the money. I'm sure Space Adventures has talked to SpaceX.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/10/2014 01:38 amQuote from: QuantumG on 09/10/2014 12:42 amThey "can", yes. I'm saying they won't, because SpaceX doesn't care for space tourism.SpaceX doesn't care. But SpaceX will take the money. I'm sure Space Adventures has talked to SpaceX.I know they have..
Quote from: Oli on 09/09/2014 02:14 pmOh dear, another conspiracy theory . MirCorp ran out of money, simple as that.It's a fact that NASA intervened in the MirCorp deal with Russia and said Mir had to go before they would talk on ISS.
Quote from: QuantumG on 09/10/2014 02:34 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/10/2014 01:38 amQuote from: QuantumG on 09/10/2014 12:42 amThey "can", yes. I'm saying they won't, because SpaceX doesn't care for space tourism.SpaceX doesn't care. But SpaceX will take the money. I'm sure Space Adventures has talked to SpaceX.I know they have..Yes, and (as expected) they got stone-walled.
Quote from: QuantumG on 09/09/2014 09:23 pmQuote from: Oli on 09/09/2014 02:14 pmOh dear, another conspiracy theory . MirCorp ran out of money, simple as that.It's a fact that NASA intervened in the MirCorp deal with Russia and said Mir had to go before they would talk on ISS. Source please.
Quote from: Oli on 09/10/2014 01:26 pmQuote from: QuantumG on 09/09/2014 09:23 pmQuote from: Oli on 09/09/2014 02:14 pmOh dear, another conspiracy theory . MirCorp ran out of money, simple as that.It's a fact that NASA intervened in the MirCorp deal with Russia and said Mir had to go before they would talk on ISS. Source please.Ed Hudgins wrote about it 2001. I'm sure you can find the reference. If not, there's dozens of others, numerous in print. Here's Seth Borenstein writing about it in 1998! Any other historic facts you'd like to argue over? Perhaps you'd like to dispute that Nixon proposed cancelling Apollos 16 and 17?
As I expected. NASA wanted Russia to fulfill its obligations with regard to the ISS. Russia could not afford to operate MIR and ISS and MirCorp ultimately could not afford to take over operation from Russia. There's no need to spin that into a NASA-hating conspiracy theory.
Quote from: Oli on 09/11/2014 02:55 amAs I expected. NASA wanted Russia to fulfill its obligations with regard to the ISS. Russia could not afford to operate MIR and ISS and MirCorp ultimately could not afford to take over operation from Russia. There's no need to spin that into a NASA-hating conspiracy theory.No-one did, except you.
Quote from: Pipcard on 05/13/2014 07:05 pmI keep seeing this argument for reusable vehicles: "you'll save money by not throwing the vehicle away and having to make a new one"But I also keep seeing this argument against them: "flight rates aren't high enough to justify the development and maintenance costs of reusable spacecraft"Depends on the cost to build a new vehicle, and the cost to refurbish a vehicle that has just returned from a flight.For Dream Chaser it's pretty straightforward, since they said they have built it for reusability with regard to consumables. And if the heat shield works as planned and they don't have to do any maintenance between flights, then reusability makes sense.For the two capsules, if they land in water it's a tougher calculation, but both Dragon and CST-100 are supposed to be able to land on terra firma. Both Boeing and SpaceX have said they plan to reuse their vehicles up to 10 times, so for now we'll have to take them at their word that they understand the issues involved.QuoteSo my questions are:- How frequently are these commercial vehicles (e.g. Dream Chaser, reusable Dragon/DragonRider) going to fly?- What would they do to justify that frequency?Because right now, Soyuz is flying about four times per year to the ISS, carrying 3 astronauts per flight (a total of 12/year). Is that enough? Space tourism (to a Bigelow hotel) might be an idea, but is there a sufficient market of millionaires/billionaires for orbital space tourism? (the number of space tourists/private space travelers that have gone into orbit is a single digit)Depending on the launch vehicle situation for both CST-100 and Dream Chaser (i.e. Atlas V availability), it may be that demand initially will be low. But considering that they use an existing launch vehicle, their overhead to maintain the services won't be extremely high depending on how they staff.For SpaceX, being the low cost leader has advantages, and I think they will see demand beyond just the normal ISS support. But they too can likely weather low demand at first, especially since they can spread their labor base over both the Dragon Crew and the Dragon Cargo versions.
If you want to dream about space tourism its better to avoid the wild far future stuff (full re-usability, etc) and stick with more near term dreaming.
People would need training and logistics along with profit for the broker (SpaceX wont be organized this stuff). Say $500k per person for training.
Quote from: Mariusuiram on 03/10/2015 05:56 amPeople would need training and logistics along with profit for the broker (SpaceX wont be organized this stuff). Say $500k per person for training.Why would training cost this much? How much training is really needed? You're not talking about people going to the ISS, and it's not like they're going to need to go to Russia to to study with cosmonauts for it. For a tourist going to a Bigelow module for a week, or just spending a couple days in orbit, shouldn't need more than a couple of week, if that - emergency procedures, what to expect, how to use the facilities.I think the perception of the amount of "training" needed, and what screening should be done, will change drastically as the number of people spending time in space and the frequency of their trips increases. Recall that the first astronauts and cosmonauts were subject to what are now considered extreme and unnecessary requirements and levels/types of training, because it was a completely unknown field.
If you want to dream about space tourism its better to avoid the wild far future stuff (full re-usability, etc) and stick with more near term dreaming.If F9 + Dragon 2 costs about US$150 million. Say 6 people + "Crew" so US$25 million per person. People would need training and logistics along with profit for the broker (SpaceX wont be organized this stuff). Say $500k per person for training. Say another $1.5 million for profit / operations for Space Adventures or whoever.Now in this price range people would probably want to do more than go up in a cramped Dragon and orbit a few times. They need a station (and the ISS isnt offering), so probably need to assume a Bigelow module.Whats that cost to put up? And what would be the charge for say a 2 week stay? Its more like an operating asset, so hopefully cheaper than the launch costs, but still maybe around US$10-12 million per person.So for 35-40 million you could spend 2 weeks in space. The market size is probably still in the 1,000s, but I bet there would be a business there.
It will be two or three years before Boeing or SpaceX launches NASA astronauts from Florida to the International Space Station, but they’re already looking to what comes after the station.(...)“Post-space station, we do need additional destinations to go to,” added Barry Matsumori, SpaceX’s senior vice president for sales and business development. “There’s a lot of development work to do, but it’s certainly a demand that exists.”(...)NASA hopes to begin flights to the ISS by late 2017. SpaceX has targeted a test flight with a crew early in 2017, and Boeing by middle of that year.(...)Bigelow Aerospace figures to play a major role in both companies’ opportunities for commercial crew flights to destinations other than the ISS, and for customers other than NASA.
Bigelow is flying the BEAM habitat this year. > Hopefully.SpaceX will human-rate the Dragon this year, too.> Doubtful.