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.>
Quote from: dkovacic on 03/24/2015 02:40 pmI 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.comhttp://spacenews.com/41009spotlight-thin-red-line-aerospace/
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)
Quote from: Kansan52 on 03/24/2015 03:27 pmAs 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.
Quote from: Comga on 03/24/2015 04:00 pmQuote from: Kansan52 on 03/24/2015 03:27 pmAs 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.
Quote from: clongton on 03/24/2015 04:37 pmQuote from: Comga on 03/24/2015 04:00 pmQuote from: Kansan52 on 03/24/2015 03:27 pmAs 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?
Quote from: cro-magnon gramps on 03/24/2015 08:23 pmYou 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.
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.
Quote from: philw1776 on 03/25/2015 02:46 pmAs 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.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 03/24/2015 06:03 pmQuote from: clongton on 03/24/2015 04:37 pmQuote from: Comga on 03/24/2015 04:00 pmQuote from: Kansan52 on 03/24/2015 03:27 pmAs 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!)
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 03/25/2015 08:15 pmI 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.
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).
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.
In near term I can't see SpaceX or Boeing ignoring an orbital tourism market (a few orbits and return) if one exists.
Quote from: dkovacic on 03/24/2015 02:04 pmAnother 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.
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.
So using 28% of 95,000 x 250,000USD per flight gives 6.6 billion potential market size.
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.
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)
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 sure a path for commercial crew ?
Quote from: QuantumG on 03/28/2015 09:17 pmThey'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 ?
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.
Quote from: AncientU on 03/29/2015 01:01 pmReusable 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.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/29/2015 01:59 pmQuote from: AncientU on 03/29/2015 01:01 pmReusable 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.
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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/29/2015 09:01 pmBigelow 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?
I can't see Bigelow risking his customers and his business to anything but a NASA certified crew vehicle/system.
BA-330 is not for tourists; it is for NGO and International space stations, per Robert Bigelow.
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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/29/2015 09:30 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/29/2015 09:01 pmBigelow 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
Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 03/29/2015 09:53 pmMy 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.
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.
No. According to the FAA:
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?
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."
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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/29/2015 10:49 pmNo. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?").
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 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.
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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/30/2015 11:04 pmNo 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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/31/2015 07:54 pmI 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?
QuoteEssentially 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 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.
Russia is a minority owner of the ISS.
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.
Do you think everything Russia does has to make sense?
Well we'll know by 2025 if that's true.
Which is pretty much what I've been saying regarding "tourism", which is different than adventure travel.
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: QuantumG on 03/31/2015 11:19 pmIf 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.
Quote from: AncientU on 03/29/2015 11:15 pmThe 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.
...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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/06/2015 11:49 pmHowever 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?
Quote from: QuantumG on 04/06/2015 10:10 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....
Think the commercial crew providers will entertain the possibility of more flights to the ISS.
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?
Quote from: QuantumG on 04/07/2015 12:17 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 04/06/2015 11:49 pmHowever 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?
Quote from: Jimmy Murdok on 03/31/2015 07:09 amSure, 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!
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/07/2015 01:39 amQuote from: QuantumG on 04/07/2015 12:17 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 04/06/2015 11:49 pmHowever 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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/07/2015 06:20 amWhile 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?
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?
This seems to be the appropriate thread for this; Dragon 2 and a BA-330 station in LEO.
Quote from: okan170 on 04/25/2015 10:00 pmThis 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?
Quote from: AncientU on 04/25/2015 11:18 pmQuote from: okan170 on 04/25/2015 10:00 pmThis 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.
Where's the Dragon's nose cap?
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?
Quote from: spacenut on 04/29/2015 08:16 pmWhat 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.
Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 04/30/2015 02:17 amQuote from: spacenut on 04/29/2015 08:16 pmWhat 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.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 04/30/2015 06:02 amQuote from: Norm Hartnett on 04/30/2015 02:17 amQuote from: spacenut on 04/29/2015 08:16 pmWhat 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.
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?
SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell visited Bigelow Aerospace today. Probably making a play for those UFO alloys 👽
Posting here rather than starting new thread:QuoteSpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell visited Bigelow Aerospace today. Probably making a play for those UFO alloys 👽https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/943998120970588165
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/22/2017 06:15 amPosting here rather than starting new thread:QuoteSpaceX 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/943998120970588165Any new news on why the visit?
Posting here rather than starting new thread:QuoteSpaceX 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
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>
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...
Bigelow hasn’t put up a habitable module
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 01/15/2018 10:16 pmI 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.
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.
Depending on how good your Mandarin is, you could try China, but good luck with that.
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.
Quote from: StealthGhost on 01/26/2018 06:45 pmA 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.
Quote from: QuantumG on 01/17/2018 12:32 amI 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.
Nope, private launch site still uses gov't resources.
Quote from: Jim on 01/26/2018 08:20 pmQuote from: StealthGhost on 01/26/2018 06:45 pmA 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.