Author Topic: Bigelow Aerospace Update and Discussion Thread (3)  (Read 661098 times)

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #160 on: 02/18/2013 11:52 am »

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.
Rental Real Estate looks for 80 to 90% occupancy. I'll make a WAG that we'll see between 25 & 75% occupancy during the first 5 years on station.
Genesis I & II have been on station for 7 & 6 years respectively. Do we know what their condition is?
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #161 on: 02/18/2013 01:46 pm »
 We have absolutely no idea. BA doesn't even track them at this point.

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2725
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 992
  • Likes Given: 668
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #162 on: 02/18/2013 02:13 pm »
Genesis I & II have been on station for 7 & 6 years respectively. Do we know what their condition is?

http://moonandback.com/2011/12/01/moonandback-interview-with-robert-bigelow-part-4-highlights-and-plans/

At three minute mark Bigelow states that design life for avionics was six months, they decayed and failed after two and a half years.

About oldAtlas_Eguy's analysis; a good start but assumes many costs that may not pan out. $125M for bona fide space station with proper airlock, ECLSS, attitude control and what not sounds very low. FH/Dragon Rider still unproven. What if more customers prefer the $26.25M option with Dragon seat and nonexclusive stay up to two months? And will there be a Bigelow 'janitor' on board doing the maintenance?
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #163 on: 02/18/2013 05:03 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. ;D
While I got no response at the time, maybe it’s time to reapply. ;)
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #164 on: 02/18/2013 05:53 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. ;D
While I got no response at the time, maybe it’s time to reapply. ;)

yes do so, might be good just for the information you obtain.
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Orbital Debris

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Glad to be out of Vegas
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #165 on: 03/02/2013 02:34 am »
For some reason the bigelow aerospace home page redirects to their mail server right now? 

Offline tigerade

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Low Earth Orbit
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #166 on: 03/02/2013 02:41 am »
For some reason the bigelow aerospace home page redirects to their mail server right now? 


Yep.  That's pretty bad.

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #167 on: 03/02/2013 01:23 pm »
For some reason the bigelow aerospace home page redirects to their mail server right now? 


Yep.  That's pretty bad.
They seem to have had a problem all week. My old link to the now defunct message boards still sends me to the Bigelow site.
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline dcporter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #168 on: 03/03/2013 03:52 pm »
The Bigelow Aerospace site is back up and ready to ask if I want to install flash on my iPhone.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #169 on: 03/03/2013 05:31 pm »
^ rant_mode_on:

sites (and not just Bigelow) really need to wean themselves of that plugin (I have other words for it) and make themselves portable-friendly.

rant_mode_off
DM

Offline Occupymars

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 158
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #170 on: 03/03/2013 08:11 pm »
ready to ask if I want to install flash on my iPhone.
  ;D
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Offline Orbital Debris

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Glad to be out of Vegas
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #171 on: 03/23/2013 01:05 am »
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.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #172 on: 03/23/2013 01:13 am »
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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #173 on: 03/23/2013 01:48 am »

Ah!  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.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #174 on: 03/24/2013 02:38 pm »

Ah!  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.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2013 02:47 pm by A_M_Swallow »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #175 on: 03/24/2013 03:16 pm »

Ah!  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.

NASA chauvinism of sorts - basically a technology isn't proven until it is proven on their terms, no matter how many times it has been successfully used before.

Basically, BEAM is a test to see if Bigelow can build to NASA specifications and standards and then if that technology can be interfaced with other NASA technology.  FWIW, given that Bigelow are reported to be having issues with burst pressures, building to NASA human-rating standards is the sort of challenge they need.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #176 on: 03/24/2013 03:59 pm »

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.

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. 


Offline Borklund

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #177 on: 03/24/2013 09:54 pm »

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.

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. 


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. 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.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2013 09:55 pm by Borklund »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #178 on: 03/24/2013 10:51 pm »
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.

1.  That is the point of BEAM.
2.  No, look at the definition of TRL's


Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (3)
« Reply #179 on: 03/25/2013 12:21 am »
At the end of the experiment BEAM only gets to TRL 6 because NASA is unlikely to have a large requirement for modules that are basically cupboards without either windows or internal life support.  Although cheap garbage disposal space may be useful.


Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1