In his speech at the Spacecom conference last November 17, the founder of commercial space habitat developer Bigelow Aerospace said, "I propose that NASA should have, beginning in fiscal year 2019, an annual budget equal to at least one percent of total yearly federal spending."According to Bigelow, increasing NASA's funding will be beneficial, supporting not only the space agency's space exploration efforts and business plans of commercial ventures, but also addressing the inefficiencies of select NASA programs. "It is no surprise that NASA needs a greater allowance just to offset the politics, much less what's needed to really get going," he said.Bigelow added the new White House should put into priority the nation's space future, putting emphasis on lunar bases and industrial activity. "The reason I'm focusing on the moon is because the business case for the moon is potentially substantial compared to the business case for Mars, and the financial requirements are of no comparison," Space News reports.
Could this lead to a Bigelow moonbase?
Bigelow's an old-economy guy like Trump, but who made his leap of faith to new-economy with Bigelow Aerospace.Since Bigelow made his fortunes in Las Vegas real estate development, I was wondering if he might have crossed business paths with Trump in the past somehow - ie. if they know each other or have met before.Bigelow isn't a real aerospace man, and could probably speak from a perspective that Trump would understand - ie. spaceflight is just the means to get someplace which has something you want. Ironically, Las Vegas itself was built from scratch out of an empty desert.But why is Bigelow specifically making his pitch in connection with NASA? The rumors I've heard is that the new Trump administration is inclined towards Public-Private Partnership, which is now the cheaper/faster/better way to fly. Why wouldn't Bigelow feel that way too? What advantage does mentioning NASA bring? Or is this just the idea that a rising tide will lift all boats?
{snip}But why is Bigelow specifically making his pitch in connection with NASA? The rumors I've heard is that the new Trump administration is inclined towards Public-Private Partnership, which is now the cheaper/faster/better way to fly. Why wouldn't Bigelow feel that way too? What advantage does mentioning NASA bring? Or is this just the idea that a rising tide will lift all boats?
Quote from: sanman on 11/19/2016 07:08 amCould this lead to a Bigelow moonbase?Doubtful, but it would be Bigelow's dream-come-true (and not necessarily a bad idea). It's just premature right now, although trying to get Trump's attention (in a good way) isn't a bad idea. Nobody can guess what Trump will do (which is partially why everyone's hysterical, and we're not even getting into ethics [which I won't touch to keep things on topic]).If, either by Congress' or the President's whim, NASA's budget is significantly increased I'd enjoy seeing a Moonbase, and likewise a Mars expedition and continued expeditions by probes. For the moment I'm assuming things "relatively-stay-the-course," i.e. Orion, E-Clipper eventually happen without wormholes, surprised whales, or petunias appearing spontaneously.
Well I live in Vegas and the tourist balloon project has gone no where for 8 years (just talk). The millionaires and Billionaires are still in town each week so where's the space tourist business ?
Quote from: Prober on 11/20/2016 08:32 pmWell I live in Vegas and the tourist balloon project has gone no where for 8 years (just talk). The millionaires and Billionaires are still in town each week so where's the space tourist business ?Bigelow has never targeted space tourism, his clients are nation-states that want to experience being in space for a far less cost than having to create their own indigenous space industry.And the reason why he hasn't launched this part of the business yet is well known - he has been waiting for two NASA-certifed commercial crew transportation services to be available to support his business. And as you know that hasn't happened yet. So no mystery here.As far as his comments about the new Administration, and what it's goals should be, if there was a return to the Moon, or even some sort of space habitat authorized near the Moon (or anywhere), Bigelow stands a chance of winning some of that government business. So I wouldn't say Robert Bigelow is being non-partial here - he hopes to profit off of potential Trump space goals.And there is nothing wrong with that, but just that we have to remember what everyones motivations are...
interesting, don't know how the nation-states issues and conflicts with ITAR get worked out, or have they?
Back to tourist space: Cirque du Soleil has new cash coming back in, and he's not getting any younger. Don't know if any clean up with Russia will happen but he will want that talked about Lunar fly by. So Boeing, SpaceX, Blue are you listening?
What ITAR issues? The Bigelow stations are big balloons, not rockets. Far less concerns...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/21/2016 03:52 amWhat ITAR issues? The Bigelow stations are big balloons, not rockets. Far less concerns...ITAR applies to more than just rockets.
Bigelow isn't a real aerospace man,