Author Topic: Bigelow and SpaceX  (Read 70596 times)

Offline Radical_Ignorant

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 349
Bigelow and SpaceX
« on: 03/20/2015 10:27 pm »
(Edited to make it more clear)

Will and if how much Bigelow business will affect SpaceX business. How much demand for launches it will generate? (0 or few dozens additionall flights per year as anything in between seems to have no sense)

Basic assumptions:
- 5 years from now
- Falcon Heavy is ready
- Falcon 9 first stage is fully and rapidly reusable
- Bigelow inflatable habitat technology is tested and there is no problem with deploying it for commercial use
- SpaceX have no problem with meeting demand for their launches.

Unknows (this is what I'm curious about, numbers below are often pulled out of thin air and I'd be more than happy to learn more accurate predictions)
- Basic market size?
- Basic costs (excluding transport issues)? Again pulled out of thin air 200mln/year/base (including base cost and it's amortization)
- Required launches? 1 additionall cargo flight for every single human flight.
- Bigelow profits? I'd assume close to zero as he is as big fan as Musk of space so I'd belive he is ready to do it without any profit (other than fame and getting footholder for future).
- Max base capacity? (excluding crew) - 10


Assuming one week stay and two 330 modules (2x6 people = 10 tourist + 2 crew members) x 50 weeks means: 500 customers per year which will need to create revenue of 200mln gives 400k per ticket excluding excluding travel cost.

SpaceX costs assumptions:
Assuming using fully reusable Falcon9 first stage and reusable Dragon2 (excluding costs of those two) we get to price tag of about 18mln per flight which gives at least over 5mln additionall cost for ticket.
Is it possible to find hundreds of customers every year willing to pay over 10mln$ to fly for week to space? If not it seems Bigelow is a dream which won't come true for very long time and there is no opportunity here to rise market size for SpaceX. Or is there maybe some research about market of corporate/state customers which is something more than pure speculation?

So it seems that the most importand factor for scaling up market is price of ticket.

« Last Edit: 03/21/2015 01:59 pm by Radical_Ignorant »

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #1 on: 03/20/2015 10:36 pm »
The full BA-330 module would need a Falcon Heavy,  and SpaceX/Bigelow   posted this press release in 2012

Link....
« Last Edit: 03/20/2015 10:38 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Radical_Ignorant

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #2 on: 03/20/2015 10:47 pm »
Thanks for link but it's not on topic. It's quite obvious SpaceX will provide launches to almost anyone :)
My question is: will it fly. How many customers are required per year to keep it viable. And what is required price to make it significant business - to provide additional 50 or more launches for SpaceX.
In quite the similar time frame there will be: Falcon Heavy. Biggelow module tested at ISS and reusable Falcon9R.

Offline Radical_Ignorant

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #3 on: 03/20/2015 10:52 pm »
We know there are few people ready to pay many milions. We know there are hundreds and very possibly thousands of people ready to pay quarter milion. (Virgin Galactic customers). So I'd like to ask you: how much can this cost and how big influence can this have on launch rate. Assuming use of reusable Falcon9R.

Offline dkovacic

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #4 on: 03/24/2015 01:44 pm »
Well, for space tourism there we have three data points that I know of:

1. 1 person for 150,000,000 USD (circumlunar mission)
2. 8 people at 50,000,000 USD pricepoint (ISS visits)
3. 700 people at 250,000 USD pricepoint (suborbital VG customers)

I assume elastic demand (linear on log-log graph).

So F9 launch with reused 1st stage (40 million) + reused Dragon (35 million) + 2 week space station utilization (25 million) divided by 6 tourists = 16.6 million per tourist. That gives 20 tourists for private space station.

But with more aggressive pricing, (30 million for LV + 15 million for reused Dragon + 15 million for 2 week station utilization) I got 31 tourist.

Bigelow announced a price of 25 million per seat (for 2 month stay), but that was calculated before reusability was taken into account.

What we don't know if the market is elastic (I suppose it is). Also, the above estimates are significantly skewed to lower bound because other factors (such as low availability of ISS seats, very long training time, political issues with ISS use, waiting time for available seat, waiting time for VG to become operational etc) significantly reduce number of space tourists in given data points.

Note that this analysis addresses only market for private citizens as space tourists. It does not include government sponsored missions (not just US).

Also, look it from the other perspective: there were 1.645 billionaires in 2014 in the whole world. In the recent poll, 28% of the Americans were willing to travel to space if offered a free ride. Now combine these two numbers (assuming that 1% or less of total wealth is equivalent to "free ride"), we get 460 customers among billionaires alone.

So there is a market potential, and reusable F9 and Dragon might be the tipping point that could justify fixed costs (privately built station).

Offline dkovacic

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #5 on: 03/24/2015 02:04 pm »
Another point not mentioned: why should SpaceX wait for Bigelow space station at all? For their stated goal (Mars colonization), the 1st step is to reduce cost of space launch. F9R targets that aspect.

The second aspect is reusable space hardware (reusable Dragon) for cargo and HSF. That is under contract.

There is a large volume (and interest) in speculation about MCT. It is not clear that MCT will land on Mars. But we know for sure that it should spend months in space with people on board. So, it will need in-space propulsion, attitude control, solar arrays, batteries, and closed loop ECLSS. And one or more docking port(s). And capability of in-space fuel transfer. So to me, MCT will be very similar to a space station. So, in order to fund this development, why not launch MCT into LEO and use it as a tourist destination?

So I think SpaceX is not just a long term supplier of Bigelow. It just might become a long term competitor.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #6 on: 03/24/2015 02:13 pm »
Bigelow inflatables might serve as the basis for an Earth-Mars cycler. Or the core modules of a Martian colony - Bigelow has taken several patents and improved upon NASA's design and I can't see SpaceX bothering to develop and out-compete them unless Bigelow "pulls a Russian" and tries to rip Musk off. Also, if NASA hauls a rock or two into Lunar orbit, you have a BEO tourist destination with a great view, complete with something to spacewalk around.

Offline dkovacic

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #7 on: 03/24/2015 02:40 pm »
I wanted to emphasize that Bigelow Aerospace has been projected as the only option for private space flight. There is no other publicly stated effort (in USA/EU) to bring new capability online.

So in essence, currently we have two companies stating that want to built spacecrafts suitable for long term human presence. The first calls it a space station. The second calls it MCT. What I want to emphasize that MCT is a space station. Which can bring revenue to its owner in LEO before it is completed or heads to Mars.

Besides, I think most customers will rather choose to visit a Mars spaceship than a inflated module (assuming that all other capabilities and features being equal). Elon Musk generates much stronger reality distortion field than anyone else in space industry.


Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #8 on: 03/24/2015 03:20 pm »
I wanted to emphasize that Bigelow Aerospace has been projected as the only option for private space flight. There is no other publicly stated effort (in USA/EU) to bring new capability online.
>

Canada. Thin Red Line has built at least 20 of Bigelow's module restraint layers, up to 320 m3,  and they've worked with NASA. Check under Projects.

http://www.thin-red-line.com

http://spacenews.com/41009spotlight-thin-red-line-aerospace/
« Last Edit: 03/24/2015 03:29 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #9 on: 03/24/2015 03:27 pm »
As the years have gone on, Bigelow went from being the first space hotel to the first space casino to the first (private) space laboratory.

Between companies, universities, and governments, there is demand. And you don't have to deal with 'customers'. Renting space for months at a time rather than days or weeks at a time is easier. My expectation is that Bigelow has a list of representatives that can put pay deposits when transport becomes available.

For Space X and MCT, running a tourist trap is much more work. And it takes resources away from the goal of colonization.

Commercial operations will take all of Bigelow's resources and Space X simply has enough to do and tourism would be a distraction.

My guess is that it will be ten years from now before there is serious plans for a space destination. Plus, it will be Space Adventures or some other company contracting the trips probably using Bigelow and Space X because they will have run the numbers and can profit from tourism/adventurism.

Then Bigelow and Space X can avoid the tourists!

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #10 on: 03/24/2015 03:29 pm »
I wanted to emphasize that Bigelow Aerospace has been projected as the only option for private space flight. There is no other publicly stated effort (in USA/EU) to bring new capability online.
>

Canada. Thin Red Line has built many of Bigelow's module restraint layers and they've worked with NASA. Check under Projects.

http://www.thin-red-line.com

http://spacenews.com/41009spotlight-thin-red-line-aerospace/

I have been under the impression that Bigelow bought the rights to Transhab from NASA, developed and improved on that, and that is where Genesis 1 & 2 came from, and now the BA-330.

So what exactly does Bigelow do? Does Thin Red Line build the inflatables for him as a subcontractor?
« Last Edit: 03/24/2015 03:36 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #11 on: 03/24/2015 03:31 pm »
AFAICT the core, systems and all the other layers, unless they've brought the  restraints in-house. RCS was contracted. Maybe Orbital Debris clarify..
« Last Edit: 03/24/2015 03:33 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #12 on: 03/24/2015 04:00 pm »
As the years have gone on, Bigelow went from being the first space hotel to the first space casino to the first (private) space laboratory.
(snip)
That's not true.  Bigelow never proposed a space hotel or space casino.  It has never been about space tourism.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #13 on: 03/24/2015 04:37 pm »
As the years have gone on, Bigelow went from being the first space hotel to the first space casino to the first (private) space laboratory.
(snip)
That's not true.  Bigelow never proposed a space hotel or space casino.  It has never been about space tourism.

I think that's right. It was always assumed by "the crowd" that because he made his money in hotels, that his space infrastructure would be hotels. But Mr. Bigelow himself never advocated that. He has always spoken about space stations; commercial, academic and international. That's the market he is aiming at. And there's money in them all. A lot more money than in tourism and hotels.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2015 04:38 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #14 on: 03/24/2015 06:03 pm »
As the years have gone on, Bigelow went from being the first space hotel to the first space casino to the first (private) space laboratory.
(snip)
That's not true.  Bigelow never proposed a space hotel or space casino.  It has never been about space tourism.

I think that's right. It was always assumed by "the crowd" that because he made his money in hotels, that his space infrastructure would be hotels. But Mr. Bigelow himself never advocated that. He has always spoken about space stations; commercial, academic and international. That's the market he is aiming at. And there's money in them all. A lot more money than in tourism and hotels.

Bigelow, space architect!

Personally, before SpaceX starts sending people to Mars, I'm expecting them to send people to the Moon, and likely for $250,000 round trip and $100,000 one way.  Mind you, I expect thios will be after Mr. Bigelow finishes building the core of the first Lunar Town.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #15 on: 03/24/2015 06:49 pm »
As the years have gone on, Bigelow went from being the first space hotel to the first space casino to the first (private) space laboratory.
(snip)
That's not true.  Bigelow never proposed a space hotel or space casino.  It has never been about space tourism.
IMHO his first customers will be commercial companies and nations, leasing sections of a station. I also expect him to cater to space tourism after a few years, once his space station is running smoothly.

In near term I can't see SpaceX or Boeing ignoring an orbital tourism market (a few orbits and return) if one exists.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #16 on: 03/24/2015 07:11 pm »
I see it as a win-win for both companies.  SpaceX makes a little money to help fund their Mars program, while Bigelow makes money for tenants/visitors to his space hotel/research facility.  Boeing with their capsule, and maybe Dreamchaser could visit the hotel also.  Boeing and Dreamchaser might have to share the new ULA launch vehicle or SpaceX could pick one up for the money.  I think a facility in moon orbit, or on the moon would have a good draw from Billionaires. 

Maybe SpaceX is interested in Mars habitats using Bigelow inflatables to begin with.   

Offline cro-magnon gramps

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1548
  • Very Ancient Martian National
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 843
  • Likes Given: 10995
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #17 on: 03/24/2015 08:23 pm »
As the years have gone on, Bigelow went from being the first space hotel to the first space casino to the first (private) space laboratory.
(snip)
That's not true.  Bigelow never proposed a space hotel or space casino.  It has never been about space tourism.

I think that's right. It was always assumed by "the crowd" that because he made his money in hotels, that his space infrastructure would be hotels. But Mr. Bigelow himself never advocated that. He has always spoken about space stations; commercial, academic and international. That's the market he is aiming at. And there's money in them all. A lot more money than in tourism and hotels.

Bigelow, space architect!

Personally, before SpaceX starts sending people to Mars, I'm expecting them to send people to the Moon, and likely for $250,000 round trip and $100,000 one way.  Mind you, I expect thios will be after Mr. Bigelow finishes building the core of the first Lunar Town.

You left out one crucial item: How Will Mr B. Get His Infrastructure And Workers To The Moon?
Gramps "Earthling by Birth, Martian by the grace of The Elon." ~ "Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but it has not solved one yet." Maya Angelou ~ Tony Benn: "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself."

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #18 on: 03/25/2015 06:29 am »
You left out one crucial item: How Will Mr B. Get His Infrastructure And Workers To The Moon?

Admittedly speculation, but perhaps via MCT? It's supposed to actually land on Mars then return and Elon has speculated about possibly doing the moon as proving ground missions.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline cro-magnon gramps

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1548
  • Very Ancient Martian National
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 843
  • Likes Given: 10995
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #19 on: 03/25/2015 06:54 am »
You left out one crucial item: How Will Mr B. Get His Infrastructure And Workers To The Moon?

Admittedly speculation, but perhaps via MCT? It's supposed to actually land on Mars then return and Elon has speculated about possibly doing the moon as proving ground missions.

I've wondered about whether a 1.5 architecture might work with the F9 and a FH; but it would mean some serious upgrades to the SpaceX LV/SC and some learning curve with docking with a BA-330, and perhaps prop. transfer in LEO/Lunar Orbit... It would make for some very interesting video footage on the first attempt at a Lunar Outpost... Suppose too, it depends on how advanced Bigelow is in the design of that tug and other hardware they showed us last year.

I do like the idea of a partnership between Bigelow and SpaceX; RB said last year he was looking at being a lynch-pin for Commercial Space/Gov't Agency working group. Wonder how that is going, and how it would affect something like this.. Admittedly this is getting OT, so if there is a Thread for this, perhaps we should take it there if it is going to hijack this one...
Gramps "Earthling by Birth, Martian by the grace of The Elon." ~ "Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but it has not solved one yet." Maya Angelou ~ Tony Benn: "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself."

Offline jak Kennedy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 743
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #20 on: 03/25/2015 08:13 am »
Possibly someone like Virgin would use a Bigalow station for tourists. It has to be a smaller investment than SS2? As in leasing BA330 service and paying SpaceX for flights the costs are less of an unknown.
... the way that we will ratchet up our species, is to take the best and to spread it around everybody, so that everybody grows up with better things. - Steve Jobs

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #21 on: 03/25/2015 02:46 pm »
As to Virgin, I doubt Branson's ego could handle going to SpaceX especially while the SS2 debacle moves into its second decade of non-flight.
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 772
  • Likes Given: 2016
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #22 on: 03/25/2015 03:55 pm »
As to Virgin, I doubt Branson's ego could handle going to SpaceX especially while the SS2 debacle moves into its second decade of non-flight.

I wouldn't put it past Branson. He's aware that SS2 is more of a ride than a trip. And there's a whole town named after him that's packed with people with a desire to do things. While Virgin itself may not be involved in a ride, they may be the conduit needed for Branson City, Clavius Crater.

I'm only speculating, of course, but the combined power of several commercial billionaires are needed for anyone to have a reason to go, and stay there, and provide routines, infrastructures and services. I'm pretty assured that if they build it, we will go.
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline nadreck

Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #23 on: 03/25/2015 05:10 pm »
As to Virgin, I doubt Branson's ego could handle going to SpaceX especially while the SS2 debacle moves into its second decade of non-flight.

I wouldn't put it past Branson. He's aware that SS2 is more of a ride than a trip. And there's a whole town named after him that's packed with people with a desire to do things. While Virgin itself may not be involved in a ride, they may be the conduit needed for Branson City, Clavius Crater.

I'm only speculating, of course, but the combined power of several commercial billionaires are needed for anyone to have a reason to go, and stay there, and provide routines, infrastructures and services. I'm pretty assured that if they build it, we will go.
Virgin Airlines never built an airplane, Virgin Mobile didn't build cell phones, I think at some point Branson, if he really wants to sell space travel, should go back to what his businesses have been successful at: operating other peoples hardware.

It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #24 on: 03/25/2015 07:52 pm »

Virgin Airlines never built an airplane, Virgin Mobile didn't build cell phones, I think at some point Branson, if he really wants to sell space travel, should go back to what his businesses have been successful at: operating other peoples hardware.

True, but Elon didn't build anything significant pre Space Launches. Quantum leaps happen.

Unfortunately, Branson isn't so much building but adapting. VG is desperately trying to tailor the best possible outcome of a design that simply wasn't sophisticated/large/powerful enough to do the job required.

I believe he'll manage it eventually though. It's a plane with an over-glorified SRB strapped in the back - eventually they will figure out how to make it get above the Karman line (and back again) repetitively.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #25 on: 03/25/2015 08:15 pm »
As the years have gone on, Bigelow went from being the first space hotel to the first space casino to the first (private) space laboratory.
(snip)
That's not true.  Bigelow never proposed a space hotel or space casino.  It has never been about space tourism.

I think that's right. It was always assumed by "the crowd" that because he made his money in hotels, that his space infrastructure would be hotels. But Mr. Bigelow himself never advocated that. He has always spoken about space stations; commercial, academic and international. That's the market he is aiming at. And there's money in them all. A lot more money than in tourism and hotels.

Bigelow, space architect!

Personally, before SpaceX starts sending people to Mars, I'm expecting them to send people to the Moon, and likely for $250,000 round trip and $100,000 one way.  Mind you, I expect thios will be after Mr. Bigelow finishes building the core of the first Lunar Town.

You left out one crucial item: How Will Mr B. Get His Infrastructure And Workers To The Moon?

I can't be certian yet, but I' suspect that SpaceX, although primariliy interesyed in Mars, may use the Moon as a proving ground for the MCT as well as use of the Man rated capsules for lunar exploration.  (If it'll have enough thrust to land on Earth, it'll have MORE thanenough to land on the moon!)
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #26 on: 03/25/2015 08:51 pm »

I can't be certian yet, but I' suspect that SpaceX, although primariliy interesyed in Mars, may use the Moon as a proving ground for the MCT as well as use of the Man rated capsules for lunar exploration.  (If it'll have enough thrust to land on Earth, it'll have MORE thanenough to land on the moon!)

How is the MCT going to deepthrottle enough to touch down gently on the moon without having to pull the most hair-raisingly well-timed retropropulsive burn in history? Remember, it's powered by raptors.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #27 on: 03/25/2015 09:06 pm »

I can't be certian yet, but I' suspect that SpaceX, although primariliy interesyed in Mars, may use the Moon as a proving ground for the MCT as well as use of the Man rated capsules for lunar exploration.  (If it'll have enough thrust to land on Earth, it'll have MORE thanenough to land on the moon!)

How is the MCT going to deepthrottle enough to touch down gently on the moon without having to pull the most hair-raisingly well-timed retropropulsive burn in history? Remember, it's powered by raptors.

By ballasting it more with cargo and/or propellant? There are lots of ways to do this, as Grasshopper tests have shown. We still don't know what will power the MCT exactly either.

Offline Radical_Ignorant

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #28 on: 03/26/2015 11:26 pm »
Well, for space tourism there we have three data points that I know of:

1. 1 person for 150,000,000 USD (circumlunar mission)
2. 8 people at 50,000,000 USD pricepoint (ISS visits)
3. 700 people at 250,000 USD pricepoint (suborbital VG customers)

I assume elastic demand (linear on log-log graph).

So F9 launch with reused 1st stage (40 million) + reused Dragon (35 million) + 2 week space station utilization (25 million) divided by 6 tourists = 16.6 million per tourist. That gives 20 tourists for private space station.

But with more aggressive pricing, (30 million for LV + 15 million for reused Dragon + 15 million for 2 week station utilization) I got 31 tourist.

Bigelow announced a price of 25 million per seat (for 2 month stay), but that was calculated before reusability was taken into account.

...cut...

So there is a market potential, and reusable F9 and Dragon might be the tipping point that could justify fixed costs (privately built station).
460 total is still small to make the difference, but it could be enough to take off and with SpaceX pursuit for price reductions.... I don't remember pricing of Bigelow. And I was more curious: can it provide significant stream of revenue and experience (launches) for SpaceX to make the difference.
I'm not sure how you calculate the graph. But what if:
A) Bigelow price was cut and time was reduced to single week.
B) SpaceX was charging 25M for launch. That's still way above targets presentet by Shotwell. IMO when Musk said 70% of launch cost is 1st stage, then price could be cut more than 50%. Assuming greater flight rate and improvments in around launch costs. I.e. fixed cost spread over much greater nr of launches.

I'm very curious about 2 things:
- what's Virgin estimate for annual nr of passangers for non flying SS2. I believe this 700 number is very unfair as: it's not flying. It's suborbital. It's just few minutes. Sure it'd be about 40 times more, but duration of adventure would be about 350 times longer and much more intimate. So value per money is incomparably greater. Number will be smaller but not lineary to wealth spread.
- On what data hava have you estimatet 15M for Dragon2? I don't know any numbers, but seems it could be even lower assuming full reusability of vehicle - especialy if those could be "free" "leftovers" from NASA trips to ISS.

Thanks a lot for those 3 numbers. Couldn't find them except last one.
« Last Edit: 03/26/2015 11:38 pm by Radical_Ignorant »

Offline Radical_Ignorant

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #29 on: 03/26/2015 11:33 pm »
Another point not mentioned: why should SpaceX wait for Bigelow space station at all? For their stated goal (Mars colonization), the 1st step is to reduce cost of space launch. F9R targets that aspect.

...cut...

So I think SpaceX is not just a long term supplier of Bigelow. It just might become a long term competitor.

Not sure. I agree that MCT could be used as space station. But I believe it would be much less cost competitive as it'll be build for totally different purpose.
Additionally Bigelow's module is going to be tested this year, while MCT is still only a concept.
Finally SpaceX needs as much launches as possible to reduce costs. So they will help every possible competition which will use (andpay for) their rockets.

Offline Radical_Ignorant

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #30 on: 03/26/2015 11:46 pm »


In near term I can't see SpaceX or Boeing ignoring an orbital tourism market (a few orbits and return) if one exists.

It's easy. If there is market both will provide service. Musk said it multiple times that he will sell launches to virtually anyone. And desire driven Biggelow will do the same.
Of course he can count more on private companies, national organizations, universities... but IMO this will take decades with their bureaucracy to start.

Offline dkovacic

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #31 on: 03/27/2015 07:10 am »
Another point not mentioned: why should SpaceX wait for Bigelow space station at all? For their stated goal (Mars colonization), the 1st step is to reduce cost of space launch. F9R targets that aspect.

...cut...

So I think SpaceX is not just a long term supplier of Bigelow. It just might become a long term competitor.

Not sure. I agree that MCT could be used as space station. But I believe it would be much less cost competitive as it'll be build for totally different purpose.
Additionally Bigelow's module is going to be tested this year, while MCT is still only a concept.
Finally SpaceX needs as much launches as possible to reduce costs. So they will help every possible competition which will use (andpay for) their rockets.
Well, SpaceX does seem to move faster than other aerospace companies. And they are perfectly capable of changing direction very fast. How they changed from Falcon 5 to Falcon 9 concept. And dropped Falcon 1. And then move from F9 1.0 to F9 1.1 after just five flights. And then add 1st reusability. When was ASDS announced until 1st landing try? Was it three months? The only exception to this rule seems to be Falcon Heavy, which might indicate that it is not as important to SpaceX as it seems (but that is a topic for another thread).
For MCT, it seems that most people envision it as a single piece of hardware - a monolithic spaceship. That concept prevails in our naval and airline industries primarily because they are subject to the rocket equation.
So I am not suggesting that SpaceX will not support launches for Bigelow space station. I am saying that they might just as well assemble their space station in orbit. This will be their "test base" for iterative development style. Such a station would not be so suitable for scientific research (essentially cutting off university, commercial and international markets). So what is left to pay for it? Tourism! And after they are done with it, they need to add in-space propulsion modules, one or more landing modules (derivatives of Dragon) and rebrand it as MCT.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #32 on: 03/27/2015 08:34 am »
 $10m a seat for orbital flight using a F9R would allow a healthy profit margin. At $60m (6pax + 1 crew) a flight they should still be making $30-40m profit assume $10m depreciation on dragon and 1st stage plus $10m for new 2nd stage.
I don't think filling seats at this price would be a problem.

Offline Radical_Ignorant

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #33 on: 03/27/2015 12:08 pm »

The cost of Dragon is estimated to 70 million USD (for NASA). If reused 10 times, that gives 7 million per mission. Refurnishing, launch and landing price I estimated at 7 million.
That could be cut by half i f we consider possibility of using Dragons paid by NASA.

So using 28% of 95,000 x 250,000USD per flight gives 6.6 billion potential market size.
That's addressable market for VG not for discussed scenario where value of flight is much greater but also base nr of available customers is much lower I believe.

Your argument about VG not being "The Right Stuff" really depends on personal attitude for all of us. For many potential space tourists, the problem is not the price, but the time and training requirements. So VG/SS2, requiring just a few days of total engagement, could be more attractive for wide range of people that real space station visit.
I wasn't clear enough. It's not that I'm saying VG is wrong stuff. Rather that discussed scenario is way different. I personally dislike VG because of VMedia problems I have with, but that's not an argument.
But I believe that if someone's going to pay x% of his net worth to see space and feel lack of gravity for 15minutes, he will probable be able to pay x*y of his net worth for 7 days between the stars.
I don't have idea about y and I don't have idea how goes the curve of nrOfHNWI(netWorth).

Offline GORDAP

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • St. Petersburg, FL
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #34 on: 03/28/2015 01:57 pm »

That could be cut by half i f we consider possibility of using Dragons paid by NASA.

If NASA chooses to not reuse Dragon 2 (even though SpaceX makes it completely reusable), this would be a great use for them.  Were I SpaceX, I'd market this to space tourists as 'Travel in a Dragon 2 capsule, pretested by NASA!'   ;)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #35 on: 03/28/2015 09:17 pm »
If NASA chooses to not reuse Dragon 2

They've already made that choice. Technically, SpaceX made the choice, but NASA made reusability so much more difficult to bid that it's obviously the choice they wanted SpaceX to make.

Quote from: GORDAP
(even though SpaceX makes it completely reusable)

NASA demands insight into everything SpaceX is doing on the Dragon 2. How can they possibly justify the long list of things they need to do to make the vehicle reusable? If SpaceX bidding a non-reusable vehicle is just a farce, don't ya think NASA will see that?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline macpacheco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Vitoria-ES-Brazil
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 3041
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #36 on: 03/28/2015 10:51 pm »
They've already made that choice. Technically, SpaceX made the choice, but NASA made reusability so much more difficult to bid that it's obviously the choice they wanted SpaceX to make.
Where do you get that from ?
It has been explained that for CRS, SpaceX chose to fly brand new Dragons cause their overhead to re-certify flown Dragons wasn't worth, but that path existed. Are you sure there isn't such a path for commercial crew ?
« Last Edit: 03/29/2015 03:40 am by macpacheco »
Looking for companies doing great things for much more than money

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #37 on: 03/28/2015 10:55 pm »
Where do you get that from ?

It was announced in January (but we'd all heard it prior to that), along with the shocker that they're going to be landing astronauts in the ocean.

Quote from: macpacheco
It has been explained that for CRS, SpaceX chose to fly brand new Dragons cause their overhead to re-certify flown Dragons wasn't worth, but that path existed. Are you sure there isn't sure a path for commercial crew ?

COTS/CRS was a lot more hands off. The alphabet soup of commercial crew is all about the NASA insight.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #38 on: 03/29/2015 04:52 am »
They've already made that choice. Technically, SpaceX made the choice, but NASA made reusability so much more difficult to bid that it's obviously the choice they wanted SpaceX to make.
Where do you get that from ?
It has been explained that for CRS, SpaceX chose to fly brand new Dragons cause their overhead to re-certify flown Dragons wasn't worth, but that path existed. Are you sure there isn't such a path for commercial crew ?

I always thought the issue was that they couldn't really bid reuse on CRS because they didn't know exactly what the refurb, testing, and validation costs would be to certify a used Dragon v1 for NASA reflight.  Because the contracts weren't cost-plus they couldn't afford to bid with a significant unknown cost element.  i.e. not that it wasn't worth it economically but that they couldn't demonstrate if it was or not. 

Same problem for Dragon 2 except this time it's driven more by the fact that NASA really, really did not want land-based landings in CCtCap.  SpaceX has essentially said they're going to try to do it on the side.  So, with salt water-based landings they have the same "undetermined costs" issue.  If they can get land-based propulsive-assist or full propulsive landings approved by NASA then they'll be much closer to being able to talk reuse.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #39 on: 03/29/2015 12:37 pm »
Boeing has land landings and partial reuse from day 1, but they were smart about it, they discard the service module and the TPS, so they don't have to recertify those, and air bags are more of a proven technology than fully propulsive landing, so NASA accepted that as the primary means to land, allowing reuse of the rest of the capsule. Still, a "reused" CST-100 is apparently more expensive than a single use Dragon 2. SpaceX could bid that and avoid pricing the unknowns of refurbishment from a water landing or unproven propulsive landing. NASA may feel more comfortable with one of the capsules planning on a "safe, proven water landing" to mitigate the risk that land landing doesn't work out as expected for CST-100. Of course they recognize the benefits of fully propulsive landing if that were proven safe and reliable, but did not want to take on the schedule risk of relying on it. Speaking of schedule risk, the pad abort is still pending...

What's this got to do with Bigalow, you ask? Bigalow has to time their plans to the availability of crew transport and of course they need it cheap. So, they will be expecting reused capsules at a much lower price than NASA is paying, with reused Dragon 2 flying on a reused F9 likely the cheapest, but boeing may be willing to provide a discount on a used CST-100 as well.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2015 12:47 pm by Jcc »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #40 on: 03/29/2015 01:01 pm »
Reusable technology, especially for crew/tourist transport, is essential to private use of Bigelow stations.
Fully propulsive landings of Dragon 2 will either be demo'd as part of CRS-2 or on SpaceX's own dime -- but it will be required for BA-330 or whatever to be viable.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #41 on: 03/29/2015 01:59 pm »
Reusable technology, especially for crew/tourist transport, is essential to private use of Bigelow stations.
Fully propulsive landings of Dragon 2 will either be demo'd as part of CRS-2 or on SpaceX's own dime -- but it will be required for BA-330 or whatever to be viable.

Just to put the reused F9 and Dragon possible price reduction on the right scale, Bigelow is using $20M per seat in the visit pricing currently, a F9R and reused dragon (F9R-~$33M and Dragon V2R-~18M) ~$8M per seat. This also contrasts with today's ISS visit price for tourists of $50M+ to make the tourist visit price to a BA330 of ~$15M. This also would make an impact to other than tourist space usage such as for crew tended experiments. A $10-12M reduction in transit price, although less of the whole for the crew tended experiment, it does still make a significant impact when a business case is dependent on the total cost of such experiments.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #42 on: 03/29/2015 02:21 pm »
BA-330 is not for tourists; it is for NGO and International space stations, per Robert Bigelow.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #43 on: 03/29/2015 05:48 pm »
If they were doing tourists then something larger than Dragon would be better. A scaled up one would be better for logistics and give a better price. It looks like one with about 3x the current volume would match F9 v1·2 well.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #44 on: 03/29/2015 07:21 pm »
Reusable technology, especially for crew/tourist transport, is essential to private use of Bigelow stations.
Fully propulsive landings of Dragon 2 will either be demo'd as part of CRS-2 or on SpaceX's own dime -- but it will be required for BA-330 or whatever to be viable.

Just to put the reused F9 and Dragon possible price reduction on the right scale, Bigelow is using $20M per seat in the visit pricing currently, a F9R and reused dragon (F9R-~$33M and Dragon V2R-~18M) ~$8M per seat. This also contrasts with today's ISS visit price for tourists of $50M+ to make the tourist visit price to a BA330 of ~$15M. This also would make an impact to other than tourist space usage such as for crew tended experiments. A $10-12M reduction in transit price, although less of the whole for the crew tended experiment, it does still make a significant impact when a business case is dependent on the total cost of such experiments.
The Bigelow website is still showing $26m a seat for Dragon.
Until NASA approves reuse of dragon and F9 for crew flights I can't these prices changing.
When it comes to cargo, Bigelow may allow SpaceX to reuse both, especially if shipping charges a reduced.

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #45 on: 03/29/2015 08:44 pm »
Reusable technology, especially for crew/tourist transport, is essential to private use of Bigelow stations.
Fully propulsive landings of Dragon 2 will either be demo'd as part of CRS-2 or on SpaceX's own dime -- but it will be required for BA-330 or whatever to be viable.

Just to put the reused F9 and Dragon possible price reduction on the right scale, Bigelow is using $20M per seat in the visit pricing currently, a F9R and reused dragon (F9R-~$33M and Dragon V2R-~18M) ~$8M per seat. This also contrasts with today's ISS visit price for tourists of $50M+ to make the tourist visit price to a BA330 of ~$15M. This also would make an impact to other than tourist space usage such as for crew tended experiments. A $10-12M reduction in transit price, although less of the whole for the crew tended experiment, it does still make a significant impact when a business case is dependent on the total cost of such experiments.
The Bigelow website is still showing $26m a seat for Dragon.
Until NASA approves reuse of dragon and F9 for crew flights I can't these prices changing.
When it comes to cargo, Bigelow may allow SpaceX to reuse both, especially if shipping charges a reduced.

Considering that there will be no commercial crew flights for a couple of years yet, $26M is a reasonable placeholder, but only that.

Bigalow has the potential to open new possibilities for space research for less well-off countries, corporations and very likely ESA and NASA (after ISS is decommissioned). As long as safety and reliability are at least as high as the ISS, it seems like a no-brainier that NASA would want to either fund specific research projects to be carried out on a Bigalow station, or send Astronauts to do them. Russia is reportedly designing their own inflatables.

Besides the learning process of how to build a space station and live in space, there are specific research objectives that are meant to test technologies and biological science needed for long duration space flight to Mars, etc. I am pretty sure they will not run out of research questions before the ISS is EOL, and if they can do that on a Bigalow station for a fraction of the cost, that's more money that can go towards building deep space habitats and Mars surface habitats and technologies.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #46 on: 03/29/2015 08:47 pm »
Unless they are NASA astronauts then NASA has no say in the matter.

Realistically even with reuse it is going to be difficult to get the price down to less than $10m per person with Dragon. A larger capsule or upper stage reuse are needed to get the price below $5m. Add in frequent flights and the price might come down to about $2m. There are probably not enough people able and willing to spend that amount to allow weekly flights of 20 people so pure tourism does not seem viable.

However, anything less than $10m should be enough to get corporate, NGO and government interest.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #47 on: 03/29/2015 09:01 pm »


Unless they are NASA astronauts then NASA has no say in the matter.


Bigelow doesn't have to follow NASA, but Bigelow is not in a position to do their own verification of crew vehicles.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #48 on: 03/29/2015 09:30 pm »
Bigelow doesn't have to follow NASA, but Bigelow is not in a position to do their own verification of crew vehicles.

Why not?  If they are verifying it for their own needs, who else would do it?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #49 on: 03/29/2015 09:31 pm »
Bigelow doesn't have to follow NASA, but Bigelow is not in a position to do their own verification of crew vehicles.
Why not?  If they are verifying it for their own needs, who else would do it?

FAA

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #50 on: 03/29/2015 09:35 pm »
I can't see Bigelow risking his customers and his business to anything but a NASA certified crew vehicle/system.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #51 on: 03/29/2015 09:47 pm »
I can't see Bigelow risking his customers and his business to anything but a NASA certified crew vehicle/system.

During some of the recent PR for BEAM, Bigelow gave a few interviews on the news, but one thing that came up a few times was the desire to be officially "NASA-certified" as it would bring a lot of credibility for customers.  I can see that being a real draw for the station transportation part as well.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #52 on: 03/29/2015 09:53 pm »
My understanding is that NASA certifies for a particular launcher/vehicle combination doing a particular mission, e.g. to ISS. Dragon would then need additional certification for say a lunar mission. Proximity oops, comms, services needed while docked, emergency egress procedures and a host of other things would be different for Bigelow stations and NASA is not going to certify Dragon for those.

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #53 on: 03/29/2015 10:07 pm »
BA-330 is not for tourists; it is for NGO and International space stations, per Robert Bigelow.

To elaborate a little on that (pardon if somebody has already done so in this thread); the "space hotel" idea seems to be something that came partly out of the fanbase, and  partly off the back of VG's (along with XCOR's, but much less visible) suborbital space tourism endeavours. Remember, when Bigelow sent up Genesis 1 in 2006, the Ansari X Prize win in 2004 was still extremely prominent in people's minds. Back in the mid-naughties, the general public was fairly convinced that mankind's next foray into space would be off the backs of tourism. Since Bigelow happened to make his money through hotels, it wasn't that difficult for people to mislead themselves. 
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #54 on: 03/29/2015 10:27 pm »
My understanding is that NASA certifies for a particular launcher/vehicle combination doing a particular mission, e.g. to ISS. Dragon would then need additional certification for say a lunar mission. Proximity oops, comms, services needed while docked, emergency egress procedures and a host of other things would be different for Bigelow stations and NASA is not going to certify Dragon for those.

Someday, hopefully within this decade, travel to space will not be solely under NASA control.  Certainly commercial space is now completely independent of NASA or any Government technical control.  Having a Dragon 2 that is certified by NASA might be easier to sell for first commercial passengers, but it won't last long as a pseudo-requirement.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #55 on: 03/29/2015 10:49 pm »
My understanding is that NASA certifies for a particular launcher/vehicle combination doing a particular mission, e.g. to ISS. Dragon would then need additional certification for say a lunar mission. Proximity oops, comms, services needed while docked, emergency egress procedures and a host of other things would be different for Bigelow stations and NASA is not going to certify Dragon for those.

When NASA decides to do a rent-a-workshop mission it will want to certify the manned spacecraft for operations at and near the BA-330 spacestation. IMHO that will be near the time when the ISS is splashed, so 2023-2025.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #56 on: 03/29/2015 10:49 pm »
Bigelow doesn't have to follow NASA, but Bigelow is not in a position to do their own verification of crew vehicles.
Why not?  If they are verifying it for their own needs, who else would do it?

FAA

No.  According to the FAA:

"The FAA licenses the launch of a launch vehicle, reentry of a reentry vehicle, and the operation of a launch or reentry site under authority granted to the Secretary of Transportation in the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended, codified in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, chapter 701 (Chapter 701), and delegated to the FAA Administrator. The Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation exercises licensing authority under Chapter 701."

The FAA does not certify spacecraft.

Now I know why Bigelow would want to rely on NASA certification for the spacecraft they want to use to support their private space station, all I'm pointing out is that they could do their own certification - which could be as simple as having someone demonstrate that a flight doesn't kill someone.  So for their needs they could certify a crew vehicle.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #57 on: 03/29/2015 10:54 pm »
If the FAA is granted authorisation to license mineral rights on asteroids then it can be granted the power to certify both aircraft and spacecraft. Plenty can change in the next few decades.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #58 on: 03/29/2015 10:58 pm »
My understanding is that NASA certifies for a particular launcher/vehicle combination doing a particular mission, e.g. to ISS. Dragon would then need additional certification for say a lunar mission. Proximity oops, comms, services needed while docked, emergency egress procedures and a host of other things would be different for Bigelow stations and NASA is not going to certify Dragon for those.

When NASA decides to do a rent-a-workshop mission it will want to certify the manned spacecraft for operations at and near the BA-330 spacestation. IMHO that will be near the time when the ISS is splashed, so 2023-2025.

What NASA has been alluding to is that they will not own another space station, and will use private stations if they have a need after the ISS.  And no doubt they would have minimum standards that they would have, but I think they will be more flexible at that point since they will only be just another customer.  Maybe a big important customer, but it won't be like it is today where NASA owns the destination and is contracting for transportation services - there may only be one private destination in space to do what it is they want to do.

This is not unlike what the government already does when they contract for work to be done in hazardous environments.  Sometimes they just have to go with whatever the industry standards are at that time.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #59 on: 03/29/2015 11:11 pm »
If the FAA is granted authorisation to license mineral rights on asteroids then it can be granted the power to certify both aircraft and spacecraft. Plenty can change in the next few decades.

Why would Congress assign the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) the responsibility to license mineral rights?  The FAA's mission, per their website, is:

"Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world."

The FAA don't know squat about mineral rights.

Besides NASA, which is not a regulatory agency but studies the composition of things in space, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is probably the closest agency to be given that responsibility, if Congress is thinking straight, since they already assess and monitor the mineral and material industries both in the U.S. and around the world.  Extending their responsibility off-Earth would be easy, would fold into their current charter, and would utilize existing expertise.

Making the FAA responsible for spacecraft the same way they are aircraft here on Earth is not a stretch, but so far hasn't happened.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #60 on: 03/29/2015 11:14 pm »
No.  According to the FAA:

The FAA does not today; they will tomorrow.  NASA and FAA have been working to harmonize requirements.  It was a point of concern among CCtCap providers that they might have to meet different sets of requirements in the future, or that the agency responsible would be switched in mid-stream.

See here and attached.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2015 11:32 pm by joek »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #61 on: 03/29/2015 11:15 pm »
My understanding is that NASA certifies for a particular launcher/vehicle combination doing a particular mission, e.g. to ISS. Dragon would then need additional certification for say a lunar mission. Proximity oops, comms, services needed while docked, emergency egress procedures and a host of other things would be different for Bigelow stations and NASA is not going to certify Dragon for those.

When NASA decides to do a rent-a-workshop mission it will want to certify the manned spacecraft for operations at and near the BA-330 spacestation. IMHO that will be near the time when the ISS is splashed, so 2023-2025.

The Bigelow station(s) are to be orbited in 2018, as I recall.  By 2023, operations to/from/around them should be routine.  NASA will have nothing to certify. 

Since it will cost something less than 10% as much to build on-orbit facilities as it did to build the ISS (STS deliveries of hardware were 2/3rds of that cost -- at $25M per mT vs $2M for FH), travel to LEO private stations will no longer be the exclusive domain of Governments.  Hard to imagine... but do the math.

Note: And trips to space won't be called "missions."
« Last Edit: 03/29/2015 11:27 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #62 on: 03/29/2015 11:55 pm »
A bit of a mea culpa on the hotel, casino; lab. I meant as the business case has become clearer over the years, tourism/adventurism doesn't seem to close the business case (make money). The Dragon Lab, SS2 toting experiments, and all the small sat work have become more important to everyone.

Catching up on the thread made me wonder for a purely 1 week trip to orbit, a BEAM with docking port and a Dragon seems like a good match.

But I still worry, why would they want to work with tourists?

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #63 on: 03/30/2015 12:46 am »
A bit of a mea culpa on the hotel, casino; lab. I meant as the business case has become clearer over the years, tourism/adventurism doesn't seem to close the business case (make money). The Dragon Lab, SS2 toting experiments, and all the small sat work have become more important to everyone.

Catching up on the thread made me wonder for a purely 1 week trip to orbit, a BEAM with docking port and a Dragon seems like a good match.

But I still worry, why would they want to work with tourists?

If there were a realistic business case to serve tourists, they would do it, but I don't think there are enough rich people willing to pay the prices needed to launch and maintain a station just for them. Who knew Sarah Brightman was that rich? Maybe someone just wanted to hear her sing an aria from space. I know I do.

Any way, if the ISS partners, and China separately think it's worthwhile to spend billions doing experiments on a space station, more will find it worth the money to do the same for a fraction of the cost. For instance, India, Brazil, etc.


Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9683
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #64 on: 03/30/2015 03:24 am »

The Bigelow station(s) are to be orbited in 2018, as I recall.  By 2023, operations to/from/around them should be routine.  NASA will have nothing to certify. 

...

Note: And trips to space won't be called "missions."

THIS!  I so very much agree with you on that last line. 

Space transport, of cargo or humans, by private launch vehicles and spacecraft, will not persist long-term in using the military terminology that NASA and the Soviets picked up of calling such trips "missions."

I very much look forward to seeing the linguistic change over the next decade or so.

Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #65 on: 03/30/2015 04:36 am »
I meant as the business case has become clearer over the years, tourism/adventurism doesn't seem to close the business case (make money).

From what I've observed tourism follows commerce and industry to developing areas, not the other way around, especially in hazardous areas.

Here on Earth tourism is 10% of the global GDP, but most of that is in highly developed areas, such as the city of Paris (#1 tourist destination) or the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul (#1 tourist attraction).  Tourism needs highly developed support systems to generate enough volume to create significant revenue streams.  And unless you're generating significant revenue streams there won't be enough business interest for the development of tourism destinations in space.

So usually tourism piggybacks on the infrastructure commerce and industry have developed before building out their own dedicated support systems, which means there will need to be a substantial commerce and industry presence in space before tourism can start to become a significant revenue opportunity.

Other than the occasional tourist that is allowed for promotional purposes (or hard cash in the case of Russia), tourism should be not be a consideration at this point.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline luinil

Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #66 on: 03/30/2015 09:53 am »
You have tourism in Antarctica, but I'm not sure there's a lot of commerce and industry there.
Yes the tourism there is marginal, but important enough that it poses problems for the environment.

Online Jimmy Murdok

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Lausanne - Barcelona
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 202
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #67 on: 03/30/2015 11:28 am »
From what I've observed tourism follows commerce and industry to developing areas, not the other way around, especially in hazardous areas.

Here on Earth tourism is 10% of the global GDP, but most of that is in highly developed areas, such as the city of Paris (#1 tourist destination) or the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul (#1 tourist attraction).  Tourism needs highly developed support systems to generate enough volume to create significant revenue streams.  And unless you're generating significant revenue streams there won't be enough business interest for the development of tourism destinations in space.

So usually tourism piggybacks on the infrastructure commerce and industry have developed before building out their own dedicated support systems, which means there will need to be a substantial commerce and industry presence in space before tourism can start to become a significant revenue opportunity.

Other than the occasional tourist that is allowed for promotional purposes (or hard cash in the case of Russia), tourism should be not be a consideration at this point.

What you say is true, but space is exotic and at this point it looks like the tourist trips of few billionaires will be ahead of an industrial market demand that requires human beeings. So it's not that rare if tourism comes before industry and that creates first space commerce.

In any case when the commercial crewed capacity exist and prices are low enought I think we will see an expansion in both ways, tourism and industry at same time.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18201
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #68 on: 03/30/2015 01:15 pm »
No.  According to the FAA:

The FAA does not today; they will tomorrow.  NASA and FAA have been working to harmonize requirements.  It was a point of concern among CCtCap providers that they might have to meet different sets of requirements in the future, or that the agency responsible would be switched in mid-stream.

See here and attached.
There is exactly nothing in the referenced presentation that says that FAA will certify/license crew vehicles for spaceflight. Only launch vehicles and reentry vehicles are specifically mentioned. Crew vehicles, during launch, are considered payloads. FAA does not license payloads.
Crew vehicles will only be certified/licensed by FAA under reentry conditions. The in-space part is not certified by FAA.
So, under the current set of conditions, neither NASA, nor FAA are in any position to certify/license non-NASA crewed spaceflights.

Offline JamesH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #69 on: 03/30/2015 01:31 pm »
And presumably, the FAA is only relevant to craft originating and finishing up in the US.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #70 on: 03/30/2015 04:18 pm »
There is exactly nothing in the referenced presentation that says that FAA will certify/license crew vehicles for spaceflight. Only launch vehicles and reentry vehicles are specifically mentioned. Crew vehicles, during launch, are considered payloads. FAA does not license payloads.
Crew vehicles will only be certified/licensed by FAA under reentry conditions. The in-space part is not certified by FAA.

The MOU and presentation has everything to do with crew vehicles; if you think otherwise then you have not bothered to read much past the title page.  You are correct in that the vehicles are considered payloads for launch and reentry.

You are incorrect in that the FAA licenses, or more properly incorporates a "payload review", into the determination of a launch license.  The result of a payload review is a "payload determination" (c.f., 14 CFR 415.61-63).  A payload which presents an unacceptable risk to public safety will not receive a "favorable determination" and will be denied a launch license (c.f. 14 CFR 415.51).

You are correct that the FAA does not cover in-space operations; I did not claim they do.  However, as part of the payload review the FAA requires information on the "Intended payload operations during the life of the payload" and "Delivery point in flight at which the payload will no longer be under the licensee's control" (c.f. 14 CFR 415.60).

Those are the rules as they stand today.  The specific concern addressed by the NASA and FAA partnership are--as I clearly stated (and which you clearly ignored)--the rules that will apply tomorrow, and which will be applied to "payloads" carrying people, whether launch or reentry.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2015 09:10 pm by joek »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #71 on: 03/30/2015 06:43 pm »
The latest TMRO show discussed ISS conditions. It is no luxury resort more like camping. Noisy, smelly, crap   bathroom facilities and not much privacy, but it does have great views.  Hopefully Bigelow will address some of these issues, toilet being most important.

NASA have discounted Russian statement about building another ISS replacement together. NASA still looking exiting ISS and the financial millstone around it's neck ($3B? a year). IMHO will probably lease space on a Bigelow station.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #72 on: 03/30/2015 09:04 pm »
Here is some facts on Bigelow station based website. Assume  2x BS330 station.

Lease $900m
Crew flights per year 12 ( 12 customers + 2 crew rotating every 2 months. )
Not sure how cargo is going to work out. With crew flight every month returning experiments shouldn't be a problem. Given cargo requirements for ISS which is 6 crew, there could be a need for a few LM Exoliners per year and maybe a few cargo Dragons.


Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #73 on: 03/30/2015 09:37 pm »
Here is some facts on Bigelow station based website. Assume  2x BS330 station.

Lease $900m
Crew flights per year 12 ( 12 customers + 2 crew rotating every 2 months. )
Not sure how cargo is going to work out. With crew flight every month returning experiments shouldn't be a problem. Given cargo requirements for ISS which is 6 crew, there could be a need for a few LM Exoliners per year and maybe a few cargo Dragons.

I still hope for a separate cargo container in the trunk that would enable at least 2t of cargo with every crew flight, including the cargo inside Dragon. With frequent crew exchange including guest researchers they may not need any dedicated cargo flights.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #74 on: 03/30/2015 11:04 pm »
You have tourism in Antarctica, but I'm not sure there's a lot of commerce and industry there.
Yes the tourism there is marginal, but important enough that it poses problems for the environment.

I thought Antarctica might come up, and it is a good example.  It's definitely science and government, which I think sort of imperfectly falls under the "industry" segment.

And good point about how it can be disruptive.  Russia ferrying tourists up to the ISS is certainly disruptive, since the ISS was not set up for tourists (i.e. "Hey, was I not supposed to push that button?").

What you say is true, but space is exotic and at this point it looks like the tourist trips of few billionaires will be ahead of an industrial market demand that requires human beeings.

Well first of all I don't see a long list of billionaires that have committed to flying to space.  Secondly the going price for flying to space is pretty low for a billionaire, around $50M today, so you'd have thought the Soyuz would be booked up (only two people in training, neither are billionaires).

And the ISS partners don't see that $50M, only Russia does.  So the only tourism available today does nothing to sustain or expand the tourist destination.  That is not a formula for increasing space tourism.

No doubt there is interest in going to space, but we have yet to see enough demand to sustain a profitable business - or a non-profit for that matter.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #75 on: 03/30/2015 11:21 pm »
And good point about how it can be disruptive.  Russia ferrying tourists up to the ISS is certainly disruptive, since the ISS was not set up for tourists (i.e. "Hey, was I not supposed to push that button?").

Nice problem you just invented there.

Quote from: Coastal Ron
Well first of all I don't see a long list of billionaires that have committed to flying to space.  Secondly the going price for flying to space is pretty low for a billionaire, around $50M today, so you'd have thought the Soyuz would be booked up (only two people in training, neither are billionaires).

It is booked up. Go contact Space Adventures, they'll tell you how long it takes to get on the waiting list.

Quote from: Coastal Ron
And the ISS partners don't see that $50M, only Russia does.  So the only tourism available today does nothing to sustain or expand the tourist destination.  That is not a formula for increasing space tourism.

Huh? They're flying people on their own vehicle to their own half of the station. Why should the US or Canada or, heck, Japan, get a dime of that?

Quote from: Coastal Ron
No doubt there is interest in going to space, but we have yet to see enough demand to sustain a profitable business - or a non-profit for that matter.

You mean other than the businesses that are making a profit out of flying people now? Do you think they're doing it for lols or something?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #76 on: 03/31/2015 12:27 am »
No.  According to the FAA:

The FAA does not today; they will tomorrow.  NASA and FAA have been working to harmonize requirements.  It was a point of concern among CCtCap providers that they might have to meet different sets of requirements in the future, or that the agency responsible would be switched in mid-stream.

See here and attached.

There is talk of extending the moratorium (which expires this year) until companies are able to reach space. The idea is to avoid killing an industry before it has a chance to even get started. This is a space issue where Republicans are surprisingly consistent as they are generally in favor of the moratorium. Given that Republicans control both chambers, I expect the moratorium to be extended. George Nield is against an extension of the moratorium but this is a political decision that is made by Congress.

For now, the FAA only makes recommendations for in-space transportation.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2015 12:37 am by yg1968 »

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #77 on: 03/31/2015 02:12 am »
To quote myself:


If there were a realistic business case to serve tourists, they would do it, but I don't think there are enough rich people willing to pay the prices needed to launch and maintain a station just for them.

There will be a large enough market for space tourists eventually, but initially it will be the occasional tag-along joining the folks who are there to work. I think what Russia and Space Adventures are doing is fantastic, because it creates the idea of space tourism and encourages people to think and dream about it, but it is not a viable market yet.

I think what will pay for private space stations is getting a government contract to provide "commercial space station services" at a lower cost than a government-built space station to further national space exploration goals. Secondarily, there will be R&D use by private companies, funded university research (funded by government and/or industry), then eventually dedicated space tourism facilities.

Online Jimmy Murdok

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Lausanne - Barcelona
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 202
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #78 on: 03/31/2015 07:09 am »
Well first of all I don't see a long list of billionaires that have committed to flying to space.  Secondly the going price for flying to space is pretty low for a billionaire, around $50M today, so you'd have thought the Soyuz would be booked up (only two people in training, neither are billionaires).

And the ISS partners don't see that $50M, only Russia does.  So the only tourism available today does nothing to sustain or expand the tourist destination.  That is not a formula for increasing space tourism.

No doubt there is interest in going to space, but we have yet to see enough demand to sustain a profitable business - or a non-profit for that matter.

Sure, but what you have now in the ISS is not "cool". Fly in an old soyuz to stay in the noisy russian segment of ISS surounded by working astronauts is not "holidays", is not Kubric's dream (even in this forum we would kill for it).
Once you are able to work the dream of going to space with your partner, in a regular service Dragon to the new cool Bigelow Space Hotel with private rooms, a welcome with a zero G Moët Chandon... enough space to float around and have sex in space in a kind of luxury envoironment---> then is when you will see a line of rich people ready to pay to go to space. What you have now is like Jacques Piccard or Amundsen: extreme stuff to say yes I was one of the first ones to break the frontier but is not real tourism, is extreme one.

Offline Jarnis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1313
  • Liked: 830
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #79 on: 03/31/2015 07:34 am »
I'm sure if they can get a commercial station up, there will be demand for "tourist flights" to it as well. Will they happen or not depends entirely on $$$ - if customers for science use pay more than tourists, tourists get bumped down the list. If there is enough demand, there will be more flights / more modules / more capacity.

The big hump will be to get a station operational and first paying customers on it. I don't think this will happen purely on the business case of tourism, but if other users (science, perhaps NASA itself) pay for the thing to get going, I'm sure tourism will be on the wings ready to jump in.

Also I could totally see a case where a station is leased by some private party (or a consortium of private parties/governments) for scientific use, but to help fund some of the costs, they would sell tourist trips as well.

Offline spacekscblog

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #80 on: 03/31/2015 12:19 pm »
Some miscellaneous thoughts to add to this thread:

* Seven nations have signed MOUs with Bigelow -- Australia, Dubai, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.  What does the MOU cover?  Don't know.  Probably more like a non-disclosure agreement.  But the interest is there.

* At the recent Bigelow/NASA BEAM event in Las Vegas, the Japan Manned Space Systems Corp. had a major presence.  Alan Boyle of NBC News reported:

Hiroshi Kikuchi, senior managing director of Japan Manned Space Systems Corp., told NBC News that a wide variety of clients could use the Bigelow-made stations — including manufacturing companies such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, a major Japanese carmaker that he declined to identify, entertainment ventures and pharmaceutical companies.

“Many companies are waiting for the opportunity to use space station commercialization,” Kikuchi told NBC News. “Bigelow Aerospace could make it happen.”


* This thread is about Bigelow and SpaceX, but let's not overlook that Bigelow had a business relationship with Boeing long before SpaceX.  Boeing sees the Bigelow habitats as a CST-100 destination too -- and I suspect that, in the long run, they foresee Bigelow as CST-100's primary customer.

I've had informal chats with Sierra Nevada people who've assured me they're planning on flying to Bigelow too.

* Recent NASA/Roscosmos "next-generation" station rumors aside, NASA officials for some time now in various forums have informally suggested that when ISS retires any stations in LEO after that will be commercial.  Assuming ISS ends circa 2025, that gives Bigelow roughly 5-8 years to prove the technology.  BEAM is the first step for proving that ... Of course, if BEAM deflates when the first high-speed fleck of paint strikes it on orbit, then all bets are off.

* When I explain the Bigelow concept to the lay person, I compare the habitats to the forts scattered across the U.S. Old West in the 19th Century.  As settlers expanded across the West (wiping out Indian civilization), they had no cities or towns, so where did they go?  To the forts.

Bigelow will be the space forts.

Just as cities and towns grew up around the forts (Ft. Worth, Ft. Wayne, etc.), we may see space cities and towns grow up around the Bigelow habitats at Lagrangian points, in lunar orbit, etc.

My personal opinion is that Bigelow is the key to opening up the solar system.  For asteroid mining, how's about parking a small Bigelow habitat next to the captured asteroid so a miner inside can operate robots harvesting the surface?  The possibilities for this technolgy are endless -- if it works.

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #81 on: 03/31/2015 06:50 pm »

Sure, but what you have now in the ISS is not "cool". Fly in an old soyuz to stay in the noisy russian segment of ISS surounded by working astronauts is not "holidays", is not Kubric's dream (even in this forum we would kill for it).
Once you are able to work the dream of going to space with your partner, in a regular service Dragon to the new cool Bigelow Space Hotel with private rooms, a welcome with a zero G Moët Chandon... enough space to float around and have sex in space in a kind of luxury envoironment---> then is when you will see a line of rich people ready to pay to go to space. What you have now is like Jacques Piccard or Amundsen: extreme stuff to say yes I was one of the first ones to break the frontier but is not real tourism, is extreme one.

I'm new here.  Is the sex in space included with the launch & stay fee?
What happens in orbit stays in orbit!
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #82 on: 03/31/2015 07:54 pm »
No doubt there is interest in going to space, but we have yet to see enough demand to sustain a profitable business - or a non-profit for that matter.

You mean other than the businesses that are making a profit out of flying people now? Do you think they're doing it for lols or something?

I would imagine Space Adventures is making a profit, but not the destination.  That's not a sustainable business model for the destination.

This gets back to what I've stated before, that space tourism has to leverage non-tourism assets at this point.  Essentially U.S. Taxpayers are subsidizing the Space Adventures business model, since without the ISS as a destination it would be unlikely that anyone would be paying Space Adventures $50M to ride a Soyuz just to take a few laps around the Earth.

Real space tourism won't happen until there are tourism specific destinations in space that have sustainable business models for the whole eco-system.  Until then it's just opportunistic adventure travel.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #83 on: 03/31/2015 11:19 pm »
I would imagine Space Adventures is making a profit, but not the destination.  That's not a sustainable business model for the destination.

So, you imagine the Russians are doing it for fun? I really can't parse this phrase of "the destination" making a profit. It's a space station.. it doesn't have a bank balance. If you mean the Russian space agency, again, do you think they're doing it for fun?

Quote from: Coastal Ron
This gets back to what I've stated before, that space tourism has to leverage non-tourism assets at this point.

All tourism does. So what? You think the only real tourism is something akin to Disneyland where the only they don't pipe in is the air?

Quote from: Coastal Ron
Essentially U.S. Taxpayers are subsidizing the Space Adventures business model, since without the ISS as a destination it would be unlikely that anyone would be paying Space Adventures $50M to ride a Soyuz just to take a few laps around the Earth.

Actually, that's completely wrong. When I spoke with Richard Garriott and others who had been involved with Space Adventures they said most of the applicants were willing to pay that much for a shorter ride. Visiting the ISS is certainly of interest, but staying there for weeks at a time is not something participants would opt for if they had any choice.

The problem with Soyuz rides is that there aren't enough of them. If there were twice as many they'd all be sold. Yes, even if they didn't go to the ISS. If seats were available that didn't require almost a year of training in Russia there would be an order of magnitude more interest too.

Quote from: Coastal Ron
Real space tourism won't happen until there are tourism specific destinations in space that have sustainable business models for the whole eco-system.  Until then it's just opportunistic adventure travel.

The destination is space. It's always going to be adventure travel.. at least this side of transports and shuttlecraft. Spaceflight is fundamentally risky.. it is adventure.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #84 on: 04/01/2015 03:52 am »
I would imagine Space Adventures is making a profit, but not the destination.  That's not a sustainable business model for the destination.

So, you imagine the Russians are doing it for fun?

Russia is a minority owner of the ISS.

Quote
I really can't parse this phrase of "the destination" making a profit. It's a space station.. it doesn't have a bank balance.

U.S. Taxpayers spend $3B/year to maintain the ISS, and to my knowledge no part of the $50M per flight Space Adventures charges is helping with that bill.

Quote
If you mean the Russian space agency, again, do you think they're doing it for fun?

Do you think everything Russia does has to make sense?

Quote from: Coastal Ron
Quote
Essentially U.S. Taxpayers are subsidizing the Space Adventures business model, since without the ISS as a destination it would be unlikely that anyone would be paying Space Adventures $50M to ride a Soyuz just to take a few laps around the Earth.

Actually, that's completely wrong. When I spoke with Richard Garriott and others who had been involved with Space Adventures they said most of the applicants were willing to pay that much for a shorter ride. Visiting the ISS is certainly of interest, but staying there for weeks at a time is not something participants would opt for if they had any choice.

Well we'll know by 2025 if that's true.

Quote
The destination is space. It's always going to be adventure travel.. at least this side of transports and shuttlecraft. Spaceflight is fundamentally risky.. it is adventure.

Which is pretty much what I've been saying regarding "tourism", which is different than adventure travel.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #85 on: 04/01/2015 04:03 am »
Russia is a minority owner of the ISS.

Nonsense.

Quote from: Coastal Ron
U.S. Taxpayers spend $3B/year to maintain the ISS, and to my knowledge no part of the $50M per flight Space Adventures charges is helping with that bill.

Why should it?

Quote from: Coastal Ron
Do you think everything Russia does has to make sense?

Oh, I see. Your argument makes no sense so it's the rest of the world that is wrong.

Quote from: Coastal Ron
Well we'll know by 2025 if that's true.

Huh? It's true now. That's really a great way of dealing with information that invalidates your theory.. just claim that somehow the future will vindicate you. How convenient for you that we all have to wait a decade to find out if you're somehow clairvoyant.

Quote from: Coastal Ron
Which is pretty much what I've been saying regarding "tourism", which is different than adventure travel.

No it isn't.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #86 on: 04/01/2015 11:58 am »
Wow, that was an awe inspiring exchange of learned opinions... I was riveted to my seat waiting to see what witty repartee was next. Needs more cowbell, though.

April fools.

Knock it off. Be more excellent-er to each other.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #87 on: 04/05/2015 06:08 pm »
If seats were available that didn't require almost a year of training in Russia there would be an order of magnitude more interest too.

I am really curious to see what happens to the 'tourism' side of the market once Bigelow provides an option which does not have this problem.  I have the suspicion that once you solve the "Are there enough seats available?" issue the main limiting factor for the sort of tourists who have tens of millions of dollars to spend on this will be time available to dedicate to doing it.

Until there is an option which does not suffer this problem, nobody is going to be able to say with legitimate confidence how big the tourism market really is, and trying to look at the Russian business to gauge things is potentially misleading.


Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #88 on: 04/05/2015 06:22 pm »
If seats were available that didn't require almost a year of training in Russia there would be an order of magnitude more interest too.

I am really curious to see what happens to the 'tourism' side of the market once Bigelow provides an option which does not have this problem.  I have the suspicion that once you solve the "Are there enough seats available?" issue the main limiting factor for the sort of tourists who have tens of millions of dollars to spend on this will be time available to dedicate to doing it.

Until there is an option which does not suffer this problem, nobody is going to be able to say with legitimate confidence how big the tourism market really is, and trying to look at the Russian business to gauge things is potentially misleading.
We can't be certain but QuantumG makes a logical point.
What DON'T most really wealthy people have in excess?
Time
A half year of training is probably more of a barrier to the uber-wealthy than the tens of millions of dollars ticket price.
Add in appropriately pleasant training, travel, and destination environments for those used to luxury and the demand is very likely to reach the several dozen needed to justify the infrastructure. Or at least add to the other justifications like research and national pride.
IMHO
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #89 on: 04/05/2015 07:49 pm »

The Bigelow station(s) are to be orbited in 2018, as I recall.  By 2023, operations to/from/around them should be routine.  NASA will have nothing to certify. 

...

Note: And trips to space won't be called "missions."

THIS!  I so very much agree with you on that last line. 

Space transport, of cargo or humans, by private launch vehicles and spacecraft, will not persist long-term in using the military terminology that NASA and the Soviets picked up of calling such trips "missions."

I very much look forward to seeing the linguistic change over the next decade or so.

Not true.
Flight/mission - same thing.  The military still calls flights performing a task a missions

Offline Radical_Ignorant

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #90 on: 04/06/2015 09:47 pm »
So it seems that opinion goes like: no, tourism/adventure is not enough to sustain Bigelow station on it's own. Read, it won't affect in meaningfull way SpaceX number of flights.

However from your opinions it seems that it will be infant industry using station which is mainly paid of by commercials. And with MCT/BFR where cost per seat can be reduced a lot due to full reusabilty and scale it can became serious business.

I disagree with anyone saying Bigelow said it's for business not tourists. It will simply be for whoever has the money. The main two issues are:

1 - market is too small because of price. There is not enough rich enough people willing to pay.
2 - market is too small because of complexity. Half year training is too much for most potential customers.

As to 1 - I believe if it can start as additionall thing using station mostly used for commercial, govs, NGOs, then it will scale slowly. (By slowly I hope for something like launch every week of BFR in 20years)

As to 2 - Are there any fundamentals why this training has to be so complicated. NASA doesn't seem to be efficient when it's about burecroacy. They, I may be wrong, seem to be overregulated. So I hope this issue can be solved really soon.

As general topic is about "will Bigelow statition help to scale up market for SpaceX" it would be valuable to hear also more about other customers if there is any data available. It was very encouraging to hear about MOUs between Bigelow and few countries. I had impression the interest is mostly in Bigelows head to be honest - especially in now a days of cutting budgets more and more. And I'm not convinced about commercials - this is new frontier and in general from my observations business is rather conservative in allocating finances. There was also some topic on SpaceX fb forum about program of sharing ISS for commercial experiments. However I didn't get impression that there is interest, from what I get it was rather searching for someone who could be interested even if ISS would be given for free.

Since there is new song from NASA -> commercial station instead of ISS there is third possibility. NASA can have, it's not given, more money after not supporting ISS and part of this can be spend on doing more on cheaper private station. Read: NASA will increase number of activities and flights.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #91 on: 04/06/2015 10:10 pm »
Let's say NASA astronauts stop flying on Soyuz sometime this decade1, Roscosmos has said they will be doing dedicated tourist flights to the ISS when that happens2 but I expect there will be a strong demand from US customers for seats on Dragon 2 or CST-1003. At that point we will be in the strange situation of Soyuz having seats they can't sell for any price they want. They'll have to lower their prices to attract interest4, especially if they now need to fill two seats per flight.


1. something I consider pretty unlikely
2. but, ya know, they say a lot of things
3. which NASA continues to oppose
4. not by much, I bet
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #92 on: 04/06/2015 11:49 pm »
...but I expect there will be a strong demand from US customers for seats on Dragon 2 or CST-1003.

However if NASA uses the "car rental" model for Commercial Crew, they will control who gets access to any excess seats, not SpaceX or Boeing.  And I would think it's unlikely that NASA would sell seats to tourists.

For good or bad, I don't see Roscosmos having any competition for flying tourists to the ISS.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #93 on: 04/07/2015 12:17 am »
However if NASA uses the "car rental" model for Commercial Crew, they will control who gets access to any excess seats, not SpaceX or Boeing.  And I would think it's unlikely that NASA would sell seats to tourists.

For good or bad, I don't see Roscosmos having any competition for flying tourists to the ISS.

That doesn't actually matter. If there is a US vehicle flying then US tourists will want seats on it and they will be less inclined to go through all the years of pain that are involved in flying with the Russians. Commercial Crew actually flying will have multiple reinforcing effects that will drive down the price of Soyuz seats.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #94 on: 04/07/2015 01:39 am »
However if NASA uses the "car rental" model for Commercial Crew, they will control who gets access to any excess seats, not SpaceX or Boeing.  And I would think it's unlikely that NASA would sell seats to tourists.

For good or bad, I don't see Roscosmos having any competition for flying tourists to the ISS.

That doesn't actually matter. If there is a US vehicle flying then US tourists will want seats on it and they will be less inclined to go through all the years of pain that are involved in flying with the Russians.

Just to make sure I understand, you're thinking that NASA will eventually be pressured into selling tourist flights?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #95 on: 04/07/2015 01:46 am »
Just to make sure I understand, you're thinking that NASA will eventually be pressured into selling tourist flights?

Hahaha.. I can't imagine how you could have possibly come to that conclusion.

People don't want to go to Russia and do a year of training, during which time they're not allowed to tell anyone what they're doing, and put up with all the other nonsense Roscosmos subjects them to - including outright denying that they're even a customer, as seems to happen every single time the next person to fly to the ISS announces they're going.

If there's an alternative, they'll take it. If there looks like there might be an alternative in a few years, they'll wait a few years. If they feel like they can go harass someone in Washington to get them a seat on a US vehicle, they'll send their time (or more importantly, they'll pay someone else to) doing that instead of going to Russia.

As a result the demand for Soyuz seats will go down, at least in the US. It doesn't matter if they're eventually successful at getting a seat on a Commercial Crew vehicle. That'd have more of an effect, sure, but what's important is the perception of an alternative to Soyuz.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #96 on: 04/07/2015 02:13 am »
...but I expect there will be a strong demand from US customers for seats on Dragon 2 or CST-1003.

However if NASA uses the "car rental" model for Commercial Crew, they will control who gets access to any excess seats, not SpaceX or Boeing.  And I would think it's unlikely that NASA would sell seats to tourists.

...

If you use the "rental car" model. Could Roscosmos just buy a Dragon or CST-100 ride up to the ISS from SpaceX or Boeing with a full load of 7 persons including some tourists. Maybe even a reuse Dragon under Russian flight authority. In theory you can send up 7 paying tourists to a Russian side docking port. Think the commercial crew providers will entertain the possibility of more flights to the ISS.  :)

It is just like Aeroflot buying Boeing jets.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #97 on: 04/07/2015 03:38 am »
Think the commercial crew providers will entertain the possibility of more flights to the ISS.  :)

They won't do anything they think upsets their relationship with NASA.

Don't rock the gravy boat.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #98 on: 04/07/2015 06:20 am »
People don't want to go to Russia and do a year of training, during which time they're not allowed to tell anyone what they're doing, and put up with all the other nonsense Roscosmos subjects them to - including outright denying that they're even a customer, as seems to happen every single time the next person to fly to the ISS announces they're going.

While all of that may be true, and it sounds like it's a real "customer pain" in business terms, how is that NASA's problem to fix?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #99 on: 04/07/2015 06:22 am »
While all of that may be true, and it sounds like it's a real "customer pain" in business terms, how is that NASA's problem to fix?

Who said it was?

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #100 on: 04/07/2015 01:29 pm »
However if NASA uses the "car rental" model for Commercial Crew, they will control who gets access to any excess seats, not SpaceX or Boeing.  And I would think it's unlikely that NASA would sell seats to tourists.

For good or bad, I don't see Roscosmos having any competition for flying tourists to the ISS.

That doesn't actually matter. If there is a US vehicle flying then US tourists will want seats on it and they will be less inclined to go through all the years of pain that are involved in flying with the Russians.

Just to make sure I understand, you're thinking that NASA will eventually be pressured into selling tourist flights?

NASA/USG already 'sold' a seat to a tourist... just happened to be an x-astro and senator who 'helped' the administration a bit.  Just a matter of price... and everyone has his/her price.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #101 on: 04/07/2015 02:32 pm »

Sure, but what you have now in the ISS is not "cool". Fly in an old soyuz to stay in the noisy russian segment of ISS surounded by working astronauts is not "holidays", is not Kubric's dream (even in this forum we would kill for it).
Once you are able to work the dream of going to space with your partner, in a regular service Dragon to the new cool Bigelow Space Hotel with private rooms, a welcome with a zero G Moët Chandon... enough space to float around and have sex in space in a kind of luxury envoironment---> then is when you will see a line of rich people ready to pay to go to space. What you have now is like Jacques Piccard or Amundsen: extreme stuff to say yes I was one of the first ones to break the frontier but is not real tourism, is extreme one.

I'm new here.  Is the sex in space included with the launch & stay fee?
What happens in orbit stays in orbit!

That may not be so true nine months later...
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #102 on: 04/07/2015 03:13 pm »
However if NASA uses the "car rental" model for Commercial Crew, they will control who gets access to any excess seats, not SpaceX or Boeing.  And I would think it's unlikely that NASA would sell seats to tourists.

For good or bad, I don't see Roscosmos having any competition for flying tourists to the ISS.

That doesn't actually matter. If there is a US vehicle flying then US tourists will want seats on it and they will be less inclined to go through all the years of pain that are involved in flying with the Russians.

Just to make sure I understand, you're thinking that NASA will eventually be pressured into selling tourist flights?

NASA/USG already 'sold' a seat to a tourist... just happened to be an x-astro and senator who 'helped' the administration a bit.  Just a matter of price... and everyone has his/her price.

I think it's likely that NASA will send up someone on a Commercial Crew flight to the ISS that is not part of a expedition crew, and they will be someone that NASA sees as helping them out for some reason or another.  Plenty of people have gone to space in that way.

But some random tourist won't be able to wave money in front of a NASA employee to buy a seat on a NASA flight.  Unless you think Senator Cruz is looking for some creative way to finance his Presidential campaign...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #103 on: 04/07/2015 10:33 pm »
While all of that may be true, and it sounds like it's a real "customer pain" in business terms, how is that NASA's problem to fix?

Who said it was?

It looked like you who was saying it when you stated upthread:

Quote
If there is a US vehicle flying then US tourists will want seats on it and they will be less inclined to go through all the years of pain that are involved in flying with the Russians. Commercial Crew actually flying will have multiple reinforcing effects that will drive down the price of Soyuz seats.

As of now Commercial Crew is only a reality for NASA, hence my assumption that you meant NASA.

Unless you're assuming that tourists will be buying rides to Bigelow stations?  Of course that would depend on the customer using the Bigelow station at the time, as not every customer may want to bother with tourists.

Or are you thinking that Space Adventures will book their own Commercial Crew flight to a Bigelow station?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #104 on: 04/07/2015 10:35 pm »
As of now Commercial Crew is only a reality for NASA, hence my assumption that you meant NASA.

Unless you're assuming that tourists will be buying rides to Bigelow stations?  Of course that would depend on the customer using the Bigelow station at the time, as not every customer may want to bother with tourists.

Or are you thinking that Space Adventures will book their own Commercial Crew flight to a Bigelow station?

I'm thinking what I've already explained to you three times now on this thread. Please read what I wrote.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #105 on: 04/25/2015 10:00 pm »
This seems to be the appropriate thread for this; Dragon 2 and a BA-330 station in LEO.

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #106 on: 04/25/2015 11:01 pm »
Where's the Dragon's nose cap?  :)
Douglas Clark

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #107 on: 04/25/2015 11:18 pm »
This seems to be the appropriate thread for this; Dragon 2 and a BA-330 station in LEO.

Great as always.  Thanks Nathan!!!

Haven't seen that black and white pattern before... Artistic license or is this the plan?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #108 on: 04/25/2015 11:36 pm »
This seems to be the appropriate thread for this; Dragon 2 and a BA-330 station in LEO.

Great as always.  Thanks Nathan!!!

Haven't seen that black and white pattern before... Artistic license or is this the plan?

In this case, I put on the surfacing that was shown on the one of the more recent BEAM-event models; it looks like some sort of reflective material and we're catching it reflecting a lot of space.  I have no idea if that is the current favored design or if its smaller strips like in some other imagery.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2015 12:37 am by okan170 »

Offline hrissan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Novosibirsk, Russia
  • Liked: 325
  • Likes Given: 2432
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #109 on: 04/26/2015 05:10 pm »
This seems to be the appropriate thread for this; Dragon 2 and a BA-330 station in LEO.

Great as always.  Thanks Nathan!!!

Haven't seen that black and white pattern before... Artistic license or is this the plan?

In this case, I put on the surfacing that was shown on the one of the more recent BEAM-event models; it looks like some sort of reflective material and we're catching it reflecting a lot of space.  I have no idea if that is the current favored design or if its smaller strips like in some other imagery.
Probably half-black half-white allows thermal control by orienting towards the sun? Selecting any ratio from 100% black to 100% white...

Offline BobHk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
  • Texas
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #110 on: 04/26/2015 07:06 pm »
Where's the Dragon's nose cap?  :)

Its hinged, so probably out of frame.  Some animations show it flipping back to the side without portholes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-space-taxi-dragon-v2-pictures-2014-9
« Last Edit: 04/26/2015 07:07 pm by BobHk »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #111 on: 04/26/2015 08:40 pm »
Trips to Bigelow spacestations are expensive so for a ~2018 launch the money should be appearing in 5 and 10 year plans.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #112 on: 04/29/2015 08:16 pm »
What are the dimensions of an un-inflated 330 module?  Since they weigh 20 tons, could two of these be launched from a Falcon heavy?  Or would one and some type of multiple docking module/extra solar panels be added?  Could a 330 and some type of docking module be loaded on one launch? 

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #113 on: 04/29/2015 09:10 pm »
What are the dimensions of an un-inflated 330 module?  Since they weigh 20 tons, could two of these be launched from a Falcon heavy?  Or would one and some type of multiple docking module/extra solar panels be added?  Could a 330 and some type of docking module be loaded on one launch? 
IIRC, a BA330 is 16.5 feet or so uninflated & 22 feet expanded.
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #114 on: 04/29/2015 09:36 pm »
So would it fit their existing fairing or would they have to make a longer one?  Width is ok, but length? 

Would not a 330 module station get customers if and when the ISS is decommissioned?  That would be the time to build a station.  Three modules and it is as big or bigger than ISS on three Falcon heavy launches with Falcon 9 bringing paying customers.  SpaceX might want to use some of these modules at L1 or on the moon as prep testing Mars equipment like someone said.  As a side they could carry paying customers to a moon base.   

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #115 on: 04/30/2015 02:17 am »
What are the dimensions of an un-inflated 330 module?  Since they weigh 20 tons, could two of these be launched from a Falcon heavy?  Or would one and some type of multiple docking module/extra solar panels be added?  Could a 330 and some type of docking module be loaded on one launch? 

The current Falcon 9 fairing is 13.1m (43 ft) height, 5.2m (17.1 ft) diameter.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #116 on: 04/30/2015 06:02 am »
What are the dimensions of an un-inflated 330 module?  Since they weigh 20 tons, could two of these be launched from a Falcon heavy?  Or would one and some type of multiple docking module/extra solar panels be added?  Could a 330 and some type of docking module be loaded on one launch? 

The current Falcon 9 fairing is 13.1m (43 ft) height, 5.2m (17.1 ft) diameter.

The standard SpaceX PLF got an internal geometry of 4.6m (181 inches) in diameter with a height of 6.6m (261 inches) plus a conical space of 4.8m (199 inches) high on top.

So if the BA-330 got an un-inflated external diameter of 5.02m (16.5ft) than you need a bigger PLF.

Offline Burninate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Liked: 360
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #117 on: 04/30/2015 12:05 pm »
What are the dimensions of an un-inflated 330 module?  Since they weigh 20 tons, could two of these be launched from a Falcon heavy?  Or would one and some type of multiple docking module/extra solar panels be added?  Could a 330 and some type of docking module be loaded on one launch? 

The current Falcon 9 fairing is 13.1m (43 ft) height, 5.2m (17.1 ft) diameter.

The standard SpaceX PLF got an internal geometry of 4.6m (181 inches) in diameter with a height of 6.6m (261 inches) plus a conical space of 4.8m (199 inches) high on top.

So if the BA-330 got an un-inflated external diameter of 5.02m (16.5ft) than you need a bigger PLF.
Yes, and this has been planned for a while now, for debut in 2016 or 2017 IIRC.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #118 on: 04/30/2015 12:54 pm »
What are the dimensions of an un-inflated 330 module?  Since they weigh 20 tons, could two of these be launched from a Falcon heavy?  Or would one and some type of multiple docking module/extra solar panels be added?  Could a 330 and some type of docking module be loaded on one launch? 

The current Falcon 9 fairing is 13.1m (43 ft) height, 5.2m (17.1 ft) diameter.

The standard SpaceX PLF got an internal geometry of 4.6m (181 inches) in diameter with a height of 6.6m (261 inches) plus a conical space of 4.8m (199 inches) high on top.

So if the BA-330 got an un-inflated external diameter of 5.02m (16.5ft) than you need a bigger PLF.
Yes, and this has been planned for a while now, for debut in 2016 or 2017 IIRC.
AIUI, they are planning a 25m long 5.2m wide fairing, to match the Delta Heavy and Altas V 5m Long fairings. In other words, to comply with the EELV requirements. But nothing wider than their current 5.2m. The internal 4.65m is the industry standard and there's no testing, ground processing nor transport infrastructure for anything bigger. They'll pack it in 4.65m.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2015 12:57 pm by baldusi »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #119 on: 04/30/2015 02:09 pm »
What about the length of a 330 module?  Their website says it will fit in an Atlas V fairing.  Atlas is longer I believe.  So SpaceX is going to  build a longer fairing, and maybe a tad wider?  If so would this decrease the lift capacity sine the bigger fairing would weigh more?

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #120 on: 04/30/2015 05:54 pm »
What about the length of a 330 module?  Their website says it will fit in an Atlas V fairing.  Atlas is longer I believe.  So SpaceX is going to  build a longer fairing, and maybe a tad wider?  If so would this decrease the lift capacity sine the bigger fairing would weigh more?

There are different Atlas V fairing lengths, but the Atlas V 5m fairing also looks deceptively longer than it is, since it also encapsulates the 2nd stage.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48176
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81676
  • Likes Given: 36941
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #121 on: 12/22/2017 06:15 am »
Posting here rather than starting new thread:

Quote
SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell visited Bigelow Aerospace today. Probably making a play for those UFO alloys 👽

https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/943998120970588165

Offline Raj2014

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #122 on: 01/14/2018 06:29 pm »
Posting here rather than starting new thread:

Quote
SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell visited Bigelow Aerospace today. Probably making a play for those UFO alloys 👽

https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/943998120970588165

Any new news on why the visit? 

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #123 on: 01/15/2018 08:02 pm »
Posting here rather than starting new thread:

Quote
SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell visited Bigelow Aerospace today. Probably making a play for those UFO alloys <span class="emoji-outer emoji-sizer"><span class="emoji-inner" style="background: url(chrome-extension://immhpnclomdloikkpcefncmfgjbkojmh/emoji-data/sheet_apple_32.png);background-position:46.00470035252644% 20.035252643948294%;background-size:5418.75% 5418.75%" data-codepoints="1f47d"></span></span>

https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/943998120970588165

Any new news on why the visit?

Why? I'm sure SpaceX and Gwynne Shotwell routinely meets with and visits potential customers.

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #124 on: 01/15/2018 10:16 pm »
I too am interested in what went on in this meeting. Bigelow and ULA are in some form of agreement, and it was my understanding that Elon has no interest in Bigelow (but I don’t have a source to back that up). Plus, can a BA330 even fit in a Falcon fairing?

Zuma, Bigelow, aliens - it’s all coming together...
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #125 on: 01/16/2018 02:28 am »
I too am interested in what went on in this meeting. Bigelow and ULA are in some form of agreement, and it was my understanding that Elon has no interest in Bigelow (but I don’t have a source to back that up). Plus, can a BA330 even fit in a Falcon fairing?

Zuma, Bigelow, aliens - it’s all coming together...

Not true. SpaceX has had a place holder for Bigelow on its manifest from the earliest days. Originally to launch BA330 on FH, but as FH got delayed finally Bigelow gave up on SpaceX and made arrangements with ULA, so Bigelow still listed but no payload assigned. If you go to Bigelow's website you will see animation of their habitats launched on Atlas V but the visiting capsule is Dragon, even though they have agreements in place for Starliner.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #126 on: 01/16/2018 05:05 am »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/spacex-announces-deal-to-shuttle-tourists-to-private-space-stations/

6 years later Bigelow hasn’t put up a habitable module and SpaceX hasn’t launched any people but both are closer.

No reason they wouldn’t be discussing things again.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #127 on: 01/16/2018 05:08 am »
Bigelow hasn’t put up a habitable module

Sure they have. It's on the ISS right now.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Owlon

  • Math/Science Teacher
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Vermont, USA
  • Liked: 167
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #128 on: 01/17/2018 12:25 am »
I too am interested in what went on in this meeting. Bigelow and ULA are in some form of agreement, and it was my understanding that Elon has no interest in Bigelow (but I don’t have a source to back that up). Plus, can a BA330 even fit in a Falcon fairing?

Zuma, Bigelow, aliens - it’s all coming together...

Not true. SpaceX has had a place holder for Bigelow on its manifest from the earliest days. Originally to launch BA330 on FH, but as FH got delayed finally Bigelow gave up on SpaceX and made arrangements with ULA, so Bigelow still listed but no payload assigned. If you go to Bigelow's website you will see animation of their habitats launched on Atlas V but the visiting capsule is Dragon, even though they have agreements in place for Starliner.

If I recall correctly, it was originally a deposit for a Falcon 1. It was then transferred to Falcon 9 when Falcon 1 was no longer available, but was never for a BA330 specifically. I think it was originally for a small test module like Genesis I and II, then perhaps intended for a Sundancer when transferred to Falcon 9. Regardless, it does seem like Bigelow is now planning on launching modules with ULA and only relying on SpaceX for logistics and crew rotation. If the deposit still stands, I would assume it is currently for a Dragon/F9 launch.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #129 on: 01/17/2018 12:32 am »
I expect the next thing to come out of Bigelow will be another ISS module launched in the trunk of Dragon. Probably a prototype of their BEAM airlock. Getting NASA funding is like eating a can of Pringles, once you pop you can't stop.



Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline RDoc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #130 on: 01/17/2018 03:45 am »
I expect the next thing to come out of Bigelow will be another ISS module launched in the trunk of Dragon. Probably a prototype of their BEAM airlock. Getting NASA funding is like eating a can of Pringles, once you pop you can't stop.
Well, since there is literally no other show in town, if you want to be in the commercial manned space flight arena, you'd better get very friendly with NASA.

Depending on how good your Mandarin is, you could try China, but good luck with that.

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2280
  • Likes Given: 2184
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #131 on: 01/17/2018 09:44 am »
Depending on how good your Mandarin is, you could try China, but good luck with that.

US spaceflight and China is governed by all kinds of export restrictions.
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline StealthGhost

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #132 on: 01/26/2018 06:45 pm »
A Bigelow/SpaceX team up would be great & could pave the way for the possibility of space hotels & possibly even lunar surface habitats without much need for government support. Especially when the SpaceX private launch site in Texas gets completed.
« Last Edit: 01/26/2018 06:51 pm by StealthGhost »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #133 on: 01/26/2018 08:20 pm »
A Bigelow/SpaceX team up would be great & could pave the way for the possibility of space hotels & possibly even lunar surface habitats without much need for government support. Especially when the SpaceX private launch site in Texas gets completed.

Nope, private launch site still uses gov't resources.

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #134 on: 01/26/2018 08:30 pm »
A Bigelow/SpaceX team up would be great & could pave the way for the possibility of space hotels & possibly even lunar surface habitats without much need for government support. Especially when the SpaceX private launch site in Texas gets completed.

Nope, private launch site still uses gov't resources.

Jim, he did say "much", I am sure you will agree that launches from BC will have a huge portion of the work done by non-government employees.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline jabe

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #135 on: 01/26/2018 08:41 pm »
I expect the next thing to come out of Bigelow will be another ISS module launched in the trunk of Dragon. Probably a prototype of their BEAM airlock. Getting NASA funding is like eating a can of Pringles, once you pop you can't stop.
I hope Bigelow bites the bullet and launches one on their own dime.  A big enabler showing off their wares.  Need to put more money were their mouth is.
jb

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #136 on: 01/26/2018 10:06 pm »
I expect the next thing to come out of Bigelow will be another ISS module launched in the trunk of Dragon. Probably a prototype of their BEAM airlock. Getting NASA funding is like eating a can of Pringles, once you pop you can't stop.
I hope Bigelow bites the bullet and launches one on their own dime.  A big enabler showing off their wares.  Need to put more money were their mouth is.
jb
Bigelow has been waiting about 10 years to do just that. Problem has been no US craft to support it. We are now just one year away from having Starliner or Dragon 2 flying so I expect to see a BA330 launched next year.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #137 on: 01/26/2018 10:17 pm »
Bigelow has been waiting about 10 years to do just that. Problem has been no US craft to support it. We are now just one year away from having Starliner or Dragon 2 flying so I expect to see a BA330 launched next year.

Might have to lower those expectations a tad. They have outright stated they won't have B330's ready to launch until after 2020...
http://www.ulalaunch.com/bigelow-aerospace-and-ula-lunar-depot.aspx


Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #138 on: 01/26/2018 10:42 pm »
The  Bigelow craft, for all their conceptual simplicity, are quite complex to assemble.  Plus Bigelow Aerospace has very high employee turnover rates.

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2075
  • Liked: 2506
  • Likes Given: 2211
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #139 on: 01/27/2018 05:36 pm »
Nope, private launch site still uses gov't resources.

Everyday commercial airplane flights use gov't resources.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Bigelow and SpaceX
« Reply #140 on: 01/27/2018 08:15 pm »
A Bigelow/SpaceX team up would be great & could pave the way for the possibility of space hotels & possibly even lunar surface habitats without much need for government support. Especially when the SpaceX private launch site in Texas gets completed.

Nope, private launch site still uses gov't resources.

Jim, he did say "much", I am sure you will agree that launches from BC will have a huge portion of the work done by non-government employees.


most launches already have have a huge portion of the work done by non-government employees.   It is not going be a big difference
« Last Edit: 01/27/2018 08:16 pm by Jim »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0