To what level of detail? I'm sure folks (say, at Bigelow) have done some paper studies and produced some powerpoints... but actually testing out things would require at least labs, not just studies.
Quote from: baldusi on 01/16/2014 04:57 pmBut the phase of developing cheaper ways of doing what ISS already does, is now. Is anyone actually working on this?
But the phase of developing cheaper ways of doing what ISS already does, is now.
If NASA isn't operating the station, then they really don't need to be involved at all. Any research being performed by NASA scientists would have it's funding shifted to the NSF, I assume, except that the NSF doesn't really have that much funding on a regular basis, right ? And I certainly don't see any part of the US government committing to a 10 year long contract.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2014 06:33 pmI thought Bigelow does have interested customers, just no way of getting them into orbit (waiting for CST-100 and Dragon).If Bigelow had really motivated customers with billions of dollars in hand who desperately wanted a station, those same customers could easily invest enough to ensure that one (or more) of the commercial crew competitors completed their vehicles in a timely fashion. At this point, finishing crew Dragon, CST-100 or Dreamchaser is probably lower risk than the rest of the Bigelow station project.
I thought Bigelow does have interested customers, just no way of getting them into orbit (waiting for CST-100 and Dragon).
What do you feel is driving the overwhelming urgency that they'd be compelled to fund the vehicles?
Also, I'd note this...http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/01/dream-chasers-european-deal-opens-ambitions/Is it related? I have no idea, but can we be sure it isn't?
Quote from: Lar on 01/16/2014 08:19 pmTo what level of detail? I'm sure folks (say, at Bigelow) have done some paper studies and produced some powerpoints... but actually testing out things would require at least labs, not just studies.From my limited understanding, Bigelow did have two smaller unmanned prototypes in space that validated many of their designs.
If NASA isn't operating the station, then they really don't need to be involved at all. Any research being performed by NASA scientists would have it's funding shifted to the NSF,
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 01/16/2014 08:25 pmQuote from: Lar on 01/16/2014 08:19 pmTo what level of detail? I'm sure folks (say, at Bigelow) have done some paper studies and produced some powerpoints... but actually testing out things would require at least labs, not just studies.From my limited understanding, Bigelow did have two smaller unmanned prototypes in space that validated many of their designs.I was referring to ECLSS, power, and radiators and maintenance of it all telerobotically.. for less than ISS. I didn't think the Bigelow inflatables were more than just inflated structures.
No, NSF doesn't really fund this type of research
Quote from: Jim on 01/18/2014 12:50 pmNo, NSF doesn't really fund this type of researchJim, I'm very interested in you personal opinion on the general approach I proposed.
Quote from: Lar on 01/18/2014 07:12 amQuote from: Elmar Moelzer on 01/16/2014 08:25 pmQuote from: Lar on 01/16/2014 08:19 pmTo what level of detail? I'm sure folks (say, at Bigelow) have done some paper studies and produced some powerpoints... but actually testing out things would require at least labs, not just studies.From my limited understanding, Bigelow did have two smaller unmanned prototypes in space that validated many of their designs.I was referring to ECLSS, power, and radiators and maintenance of it all telerobotically.. for less than ISS. I didn't think the Bigelow inflatables were more than just inflated structures.http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/hea/4260682849.html
Quote from: Blackjax on 01/18/2014 03:49 amWhat do you feel is driving the overwhelming urgency that they'd be compelled to fund the vehicles?The point I was trying to make is that there aren't companies with deep pockets who have an overwhelming urgency to have a space station. If some big company thought a space station would add billions to their bottom line, they could pay Bigelow to finish their station rather than stopping work and laying a bunch of people off. If transport is the roadblock (as Bigelow has suggested), they could invest to make it more of a sure thing. The fact this hasn't happened doesn't mean there is no interest, but it does suggest some upper bounds.
Quote from: hop on 01/18/2014 05:48 amQuote from: Blackjax on 01/18/2014 03:49 amWhat do you feel is driving the overwhelming urgency that they'd be compelled to fund the vehicles?The point I was trying to make is that there aren't companies with deep pockets who have an overwhelming urgency to have a space station. If some big company thought a space station would add billions to their bottom line, they could pay Bigelow to finish their station rather than stopping work and laying a bunch of people off. If transport is the roadblock (as Bigelow has suggested), they could invest to make it more of a sure thing. The fact this hasn't happened doesn't mean there is no interest, but it does suggest some upper bounds.You still seem to be making the assumption that customers would pay to either hurry things along or ensure that the capability is there, and I just don't see why that would be likely.
Companies or sovereign clients are more likely, in my opinion, to wait on the fence until capability exists and has been demonstrated, then initiate their own programs which would make use of what is available. Until the capability is there I doubt they spend much time, attention, or funds on the whole thing.Consequently, I think it is premature to try to draw any conclusions from the apparent lack of customers at this point.
1-2 years after it is in orbit and people can fly things to it, then if there is no groundswell of customers, we'll all have our answers about whether there is a market at the price point Bigelow is selling at.One thing I do want to highlight about the viability of the commercial station business model is the issue of availability of redundant transport to the station if they have people flying to it or time sensitive perishable payloads. If I were a decision maker considering investing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in a project which makes use of a commercial station, I'd spend some time assessing the risks. A big point of concern for me would be if there were only a single *affordable* transportation provider to that station. It'll be great if SpaceX can bring costs way down, but if nobody follows suit, it is going to inhibit market growth among the more conservative side of the potential market if there is no real alternative option if they get grounded for some reason.People can pretend that the Atlas V is an alternative, but it really isn't unless some radical and unlikely things happen with their prices.
Moreover, the commercial entities paid only for the cost of the investigators while NASA covered the cost of payload integration, transportation, and ISS resources. According to NASA, it is unlikely that any of these commercial experiments would have taken place in the absence of the Agency’s in-kind contributions and assistance.
Hey, guess what. The market will never exist if people wait to build (insert item) until the market is demonstrated. Leaders see an opportunity and capitalize on it before it's been demonstrated to everyone.