The break even point looks to be at ~33% occupancy rate between operational costs and revenue. But this rate will not pay off the capital investment so actually it is not a good occupancy rate to run at. An occupancy rate of 66% will make an ROI after 5 years of just ~25%. $250M(clearing $50M per year above operational costs) - $200M capital costs = $50M ROI.PS. Remember that these are estimates "WAGs" based on other estimates. Do not construe them as gospel. It is a model of what to expect and to determine if Bigelow can possibly actually make money at operating these modules.
Genesis I & II have been on station for 7 & 6 years respectively. Do we know what their condition is?
will there be a Bigelow 'janitor' on board doing the maintenance?
Quote from: R7 on 02/18/2013 02:13 pm will there be a Bigelow 'janitor' on board doing the maintenance?I once applied for the Chef's position on any future station or BA-330 based ship. While I got no response at the time, maybe it’s time to reapply.
For some reason the bigelow aerospace home page redirects to their mail server right now?
Quote from: Orbital Debris on 03/02/2013 02:34 amFor some reason the bigelow aerospace home page redirects to their mail server right now? Yep. That's pretty bad.
ready to ask if I want to install flash on my iPhone.
The latest word is that Bigelow has hired a chemist and fluid analyst, ostensibly to work on ECLSS. They put them on redesigning the toilet for the umpteenth time. On other projects, they are doing burst test on the restraint layers for BEAM. However, they are having difficulty achieving their goals for burst pressure.
Ah! That is why NASA went for BEAM instead of Sundancer.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 03/23/2013 01:13 amAh! That is why NASA went for BEAM instead of Sundancer.No, it was for upmass and launch volume. It is a technology demo and NASA has no use for a larger module.
Quote from: Jim on 03/23/2013 01:48 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 03/23/2013 01:13 amAh! That is why NASA went for BEAM instead of Sundancer.No, it was for upmass and launch volume. It is a technology demo and NASA has no use for a larger module.A technological demonstration of what?Genesis I and II took expandable spacecraft to TRL 9. CBM are not exactly a new invention.The Bigelow technology that needs flight testing are things like the ECLSS but BEAM does not contain them.
A technological demonstration of what?Genesis I and II took expandable spacecraft to TRL 9. CBM are not exactly a new invention.The Bigelow technology that needs flight testing are things like the ECLSS but BEAM does not contain them.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 03/24/2013 02:38 pmA technological demonstration of what?Genesis I and II took expandable spacecraft to TRL 9. CBM are not exactly a new invention.The Bigelow technology that needs flight testing are things like the ECLSS but BEAM does not contain them.I guess it needs to slowly spelled out for some people. BEAM is for NASA to test inflatable technology because, Genesis I and II did NOT take expandable spacecraft to TRL 9, it was 6/7. BEAM is not a Bigelow testbed nor is NASA testing Bigelow outfitting hardware. NASA has no need for Bigelow ECLSS.
1. I think he meant that Bigelow would want to flight test ECLSS for their own benefit, not for NASA's. NASA obviously already has experience with ECLSS in space, Bigelow doesn't. Genesis I and II were designed to last for 6 months and they functioned flawlessly for 2,5 years. 2. Is the only reason they're at TRL 6/7 with expendable spacecraft because Genesis I and II weren't NASA missions? It sounds awfully illogical to suggest that the tech isn't quite ready yet when it proved itself, and then some, twice, just because some guy at NASA wasn't involved.