|
8900
|
|
« Reply #15 on: 02/13/2009 11:43 AM » |
|
pure guess: Probably Bigelow is now facing funding problem as it relies the Bigelow hotel chain to obtain cash flow, as the economic situation is worsening, the cash avaliable to Bigelow will reduce
|
|
|
|
Ben the Space Brit
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 02/13/2009 11:54 AM » |
|
Agreed. They need a sugar-daddy or at least someone who can let them tap into a more profitable concern's revenue stream.
That aside, Sundancer, if operational, could easily be a godsend for Space-X and whoever ends up operating DreamChaser. After all, having a destination to go to (apart from the ISS) would really open up space tourism as a plaything for the super-rich.
Okay, it is hardly high-concept space travel, but the rubber-necker's dollars will fund more serious pursuits.
|
|
|
|
david1971
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 02/13/2009 04:01 PM » |
|
Granted everyone's wallet is thinner these days, but isn't Bigelow's net worth roughly an order of magnitude greater than Musk's? How many people could Robert Bigelow point to and say "I don't have enough $$$, be my sugar daddy"? Of course there's the Feds, but I don't see them dumping money here.
|
|
|
|
William Barton
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 02/13/2009 04:24 PM » |
|
Granted everyone's wallet is thinner these days, but isn't Bigelow's net worth roughly an order of magnitude greater than Musk's? How many people could Robert Bigelow point to and say "I don't have enough $$$, be my sugar daddy"? Of course there's the Feds, but I don't see them dumping money here.
It might simply be the difference between "net worth" and liquid assets. Bigelow's money could be in the form of hotel buildings, whereas Musk's was in the form of bank accounts. Now, of course, Musk's money may largely be in the form of SpaceX (buildings, machinery, rockets...).
|
|
|
|
ChefPat
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 02/13/2009 05:26 PM » |
|
Granted everyone's wallet is thinner these days, but isn't Bigelow's net worth roughly an order of magnitude greater than Musk's? How many people could Robert Bigelow point to and say "I don't have enough $$$, be my sugar daddy"? Of course there's the Feds, but I don't see them dumping money here.
It might simply be the difference between "net worth" and liquid assets. Bigelow's money could be in the form of hotel buildings, whereas Musk's was in the form of bank accounts. Now, of course, Musk's money may largely be in the form of SpaceX (buildings, machinery, rockets...).
Bigelow also owns a substantial number of apartment buildings around the US as well as a construction company that has offices in several states. IIRC his stated worth is $1.5 billion, but that would be very difficult to turn into cash.
|
|
|
|
david1971
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 02/14/2009 02:06 AM » |
|
About 18 months back Bigelow was putting $760M on the table in rocket contracts, including $100M up front. Sure, everyone is hurting now, but taking that to inform some sort of baseline, I'd think that there would be more than enough cash to keep doing whatever it is they are currently doing.
Is there a solid number on the size of Bigelow? How large are they compared to SpaceX?
|
|
|
|
Paul Adams
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 02/14/2009 02:20 AM » |
|
Living locally to Bigelow, and keeping something of an 'eye' on the company, I have not seen any negative news at all on the company.
Paul
|
|
|
|
js117
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 02/15/2009 02:57 AM » |
|
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia reports
This is old information 2006
Founded 1999
Founder(s) Robert Bigelow (Founder and President)
Headquarters North Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
Industry Aerospace
Products Orbital facilities, commercial space stations
Employees 120 (2006)
Website BigelowAerospace.com
|
|
|
|
mlorrey
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 02/16/2009 09:48 PM » |
|
Granted everyone's wallet is thinner these days, but isn't Bigelow's net worth roughly an order of magnitude greater than Musk's? How many people could Robert Bigelow point to and say "I don't have enough $$$, be my sugar daddy"? Of course there's the Feds, but I don't see them dumping money here.
It might simply be the difference between "net worth" and liquid assets. Bigelow's money could be in the form of hotel buildings, whereas Musk's was in the form of bank accounts. Now, of course, Musk's money may largely be in the form of SpaceX (buildings, machinery, rockets...).
Bigelow also owns a substantial number of apartment buildings around the US as well as a construction company that has offices in several states. IIRC his stated worth is $1.5 billion, but that would be very difficult to turn into cash.
Does he still own Budget Suites? How is that company doing in this economy?
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 02/19/2009 09:36 PM » |
|
Its been just over a year, 2/5/2008 that Bigelow announced they were working with Lockheed. I have not heard anything since that press release. http://bigelowaerospace.com/news/?Terms_For_Launch_Services
I'm betting that NASA wasn't very happy with Lockheed. It would be
embarrassing for Bigelow to have a space station with people in it using American rockets while NASA was buying Russian.
Don't forget this: http://andrewsspace.com/news.php?subsection=MzEy
Andrews Awarded Aerojet Contract to Build Hardware for Sundancer
Seattle, WA, August 19, 2008 - Andrews Space, Inc. (Andrews) announced today that it has signed a contract with Aerojet of Sacramento, CA to develop aft propulsion system controllers for Bigelow's Sundancer spacecraft.
|
|
|
|
khallow
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 02/20/2009 12:41 AM » |
|
Having so much assets in real estate is a problem. How much of one depends on how leveraged the real estate is and what sort of cash flow Bigelow currently has. Almost no debt means a 10% decline (to pull an example out of thin air) in real estate prices would be up to a 10% decline in the value of the company. A problem, but not a serious one. If real estate assets were only 10% greater than debt, then the company would have effectively zero net value for its real estate, which is a much more serious problem. That would greatly reduce their ability to borrow more or modify current debt.
Cash flow is another potential problem. If your cash flow is too low, you can be forced to do unprofitable things (like sell off real estate into a bad market) just to maintain a supply of cash for day to day activities. I imagine that just like almost everyone else, Bigelow is probably experiencing some degree of cash flow reduction.
|
|
|
|
Patchouli
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 02/20/2009 12:55 AM » |
|
I hope they get sundancer launched soon as they are the ones advancing the technology of space stations.
As for income Robert Bigelow should still be getting good income from his hotel chain and his apartments could even be seeing an increase in business since people who lost their home to foreclosure will likely move to an apartment.
|
|
|
|
Ben the Space Brit
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 02/20/2009 11:19 AM » |
|
Maybe someone out there knows: Is the flight by Falcon 9 (manifested for 2011) for Bigelow the Sundancer or the full-scale station?
|
|
|
|
ChefPat
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 02/20/2009 12:49 PM » |
|
Maybe someone out there knows: Is the flight by Falcon 9 (manifested for 2011) for Bigelow the Sundancer or the full-scale station?
IIRC it is for the Sundancer. The Falcon 9 doesn't have the lift capacity to put a Nautilus in orbit anyway. F9H & other lifters in that class will be needed.
|
|
|
|
general
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 02/23/2009 04:25 AM » |
|
This thread is all very amusing, but you're all missing the point. Bigelows problem is transportation. He needs a crew capsule that could actually take people to his destination. Why would he start building his Space Station if he can't get anyone there??? He's a visionary, but he's not stupid!
We should all be writing letters to our elected officials to advocate:
1) NASA should fund a Commercial Crew Initiative. (NOT COTS D with it's "skin in the game" provision.)
2) Get NASA OUT OF THE WAY!! (NO NASA Bureaucrat Engineers levying garbage requirements.)
3) Get a CREDIBLE domestic company to build a commercial capsule.
(I'll bet you a dollar that there's probably a start at an Orion "Lite" design out there in someone's desk drawer.)
4) Put it on an existing, flight demonstrated launch vehicle. (Duh!)
Stand back and watch what happens in 3 years.
|
|
|
|
