As far as CST-100 destinations are concerned, I wouldn't look to Bigelow. Bigelow Aerospace is a dodgy company run by a UFO nut. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Discovery_ScienceJob sites that do employee submitted reviews trash the company, its micromanaging CEO, the constantly changing directives. https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Reviews/Bigelow-Aerospace-Reviews-E373179.htmI think it's scary that the ISS is about to host a Bigelow module (assuming CRS-8 success). CST-100 shouldn't bank on a Bigelow station to expand its flight rate.
Bigelow may have its problems, but name-calling the owner as a "UFO nut" doesn't afford your comment any brownie points since (1) this was originally NASA technology and (2) no other company has yet to offer any options other for a continuous space presence--not even Boeing, which built several of the ISS modules.
Quote from: MattMason on 03/29/2016 11:57 amBigelow may have its problems, but name-calling the owner as a "UFO nut" doesn't afford your comment any brownie points since (1) this was originally NASA technology and (2) no other company has yet to offer any options other for a continuous space presence--not even Boeing, which built several of the ISS modules. While I mostly agree with you, Bigelow's recent 'expansion-layoff' strategy is not encouraging ...
It would be hard to outdo "falcon full thrust" in the silly name department. And at least Musk got the message that calling your baby the v-2 was not a great idea...Supporting two providers is essential. There is no competition if there is only one provider. That has been the history of spaceflight to date: simple monopoly where "reliable access" was the goal, not cost competitiveness. But that is changing, by necessity. Simply swapping one monopoly (ULA) for another (Space X) makes no sense. The result would be the same. Now, with the this work aimed at creating a private crew flight industry, the next few yeas will be telling as ULA brings new capabilities on line, new providers surface, new partnerships are forged, and the industry develops. Also, We shall eventually get to see the real costs for Space X, instead of the subsidized loss leader launch prices kicked around publicly at this point. Just like in every other business, there is no "permanent" winner to be crowned, and even first-to-market is no guarantee for market winner, the race is never ending and each entity has to prove and reprove itself continually.
We all know that there are applications for he Commercial Crew spacecraft beyond the ISS
Try reading the full thing. The comments were a response to the question of "how does funding two providers result in competition if one is priced higher?" Short answer was (and is): giving it all to a single provider becuase they claim to be cheaper (for now) or will deliver first simply results in just another monopoly. It is factual; the goal is creation of a situation that leads to ongoing competition. Thus, two provders needed. And the point remains valid that SpaceX prices for now are whatever Musk says they are: he answers to no shareholders -- and a lot of doubt exists that those prices will get them to a profitable situation. Undercutting price as a startup strategy is nothing new. Ask Jeff Bezos.
...and a lot of doubt exists that those prices will get them to a profitable situation.
We all know that there are applications for he Commercial Crew spacecraft beyond the ISS, such as Bigelow stations and space tourism. But Dragon 2 is significantly cheaper than Starliner. How can Starliner compete in the industry after ISS is deorbited?
Quote from: Ike17055 on 04/02/2016 08:18 am...and a lot of doubt exists that those prices will get them to a profitable situation. What I find funny about this comment is that on another thread there was a lot of hand wringing about SpaceX buying SolarCity bonds (per a quick Google search they were up to $165MM as of last August). For a unprofitable outfit they sure do have a lot of cash laying around...
Quote from: gregpet on 05/22/2016 05:43 pmQuote from: Ike17055 on 04/02/2016 08:18 am...and a lot of doubt exists that those prices will get them to a profitable situation. What I find funny about this comment is that on another thread there was a lot of hand wringing about SpaceX buying SolarCity bonds (per a quick Google search they were up to $165MM as of last August). For a unprofitable outfit they sure do have a lot of cash laying around...cash on hand and profitability are very different things. This is everyday stuff in venture financing. Look at Amazon.com and how long it had to wait to achieve a record of proven profitable quarters -- yet it had money available for acquisitions and all sorts of development. This is true in many industries, especially emerging ones or those using new business models/
If they were losing millions of dollars per launch, the reasonable thing would be to keep their money in the bank.