Lampyridae - 4/2/2008 8:02 PMQuoteantonioe - 5/2/2008 7:59 AMAssuming launch costs are one-half to one-third of his human transportation costs (typical of commercial GeoCom missions - government missions usually average one-fourth to one-fifth) that means that Bigelow must somehow get between $1.6B to $2.8B a year in revenue, plus whatever it takes to maintain his orbital hotel, to break even. Say, 80 to 140 Dennis Titos a year.For comparison, Virgin Galactic is expected to pull in $0.3B annually. I expect one or two other competitors may break into the market (Blue Origin, Arianespace) so the annual business would cap at maybe $0.9B. Maybe. So the maximum market size is around $1B a year, which jibes with other figures I've heard (up to $1.5B). Note that there is a conspicuous absence of regular tourist Soyuzes (ISS traffic notwithstanding). There is also a conspicuous absence of 2 people willing to fork out $0.1B each for a lunar flyby. Space nuts with money are more willing to spend it developing hardware, not buying tickets. If I had a $1B or two I'd invest it in Orbital or SpaceX. Or try and create another orbital market.I can see Bigelow going the "Mir hotel" route and having maybe 12 astronauts a year staying 6 months each... tickets on the Soyuz at $40M each and 6 months' hotel time of maybe $100M each. Although I don't think that this is a sound business case... it will be interesting to see what COTS II produces. Or the Indian manned program, for that matter.
antonioe - 5/2/2008 7:59 AMAssuming launch costs are one-half to one-third of his human transportation costs (typical of commercial GeoCom missions - government missions usually average one-fourth to one-fifth) that means that Bigelow must somehow get between $1.6B to $2.8B a year in revenue, plus whatever it takes to maintain his orbital hotel, to break even. Say, 80 to 140 Dennis Titos a year.
Assuming launch costs are one-half to one-third of his human transportation costs (typical of commercial GeoCom missions - government missions usually average one-fourth to one-fifth) that means that Bigelow must somehow get between $1.6B to $2.8B a year in revenue, plus whatever it takes to maintain his orbital hotel, to break even. Say, 80 to 140 Dennis Titos a year.
Jim - 4/2/2008 11:23 AMQuoteSecond Stage - 4/2/2008 12:16 PM1. But I didn't think the ATV or HTV were viable COTS participants as it would be perceived by the politicians to just be shifting the national dependency from Russia to the Europeans or Japanese. 1. There is nothing preventing them from being used. It is only Russian hardware that is the concern. They just didn't fit the COTS I criteria. ULA has already done some studies
Second Stage - 4/2/2008 12:16 PM1. But I didn't think the ATV or HTV were viable COTS participants as it would be perceived by the politicians to just be shifting the national dependency from Russia to the Europeans or Japanese.
Zap83 - 4/2/2008 4:52 PM...but if Atlas 5 begins to be used at that rate, the costs for each launch would be driven down. Anyone have any reasonable estimate as to how significant a price drop that would be? ......but it seems somewhat relevant due to the fact that one of the cons of ARCTUS is that EELV's are expensive (although when looking at the per ton costs it is certainly not terrible).A higher rate wouldn't drive the price down. Instead, it would give ULA the option to lower the price should they so choose. There would have to be external pressure for the price to be "driven down"...in other words a cheaper alternative for Bigelow would have to be out there and that means Falcon-9 would have to succeed. With Falcon-1, Dragon, and Falcon-9, they've got a lot on their plate. I'm having a hard time believing they can pull it all off given the schedule they're shooting for.The real con for ARCTUS, just as it was/is for t/space, SpaceDev, Andrews, and (probably) Planet Space is their need to raise money...just like RpK had to do. NASA's seen that movie before and it ended badly. Having taken over the helm, SPACEHAB's CEO has yet to demonstrate that he can raise money any better than RpK.
jongoff - 4/2/2008 10:24 PMQuoteLampyridae - 4/2/2008 8:02 PMQuoteantonioe - 5/2/2008 7:59 AMAssuming launch costs are one-half to one-third of his human transportation costs (typical of commercial GeoCom missions - government missions usually average one-fourth to one-fifth) that means that Bigelow must somehow get between $1.6B to $2.8B a year in revenue, plus whatever it takes to maintain his orbital hotel, to break even. Say, 80 to 140 Dennis Titos a year.All that said, I think Atlas V barely works for getting Bigelow started. He really needs to push the ticket price down into the sub $5M per person range before things start really taking off. ....Also, a lot does depend on how much of a market Bigelow can really create at the $8-12M range. ....I'm guardedly optimistic, but only time will tell.~JonAlthough I am a commercial space advocates, I am in the same boat as Antonio. The Bigelow business case does NOT close using Atlas Vs. Bigelow is a good businessman -- and he is not stupid. He will not even attempt a business model that requires him to generate $2 Billion in revenue a year just to break even. Even starting out with 6 ULA flights a year is way too risky from a business perspective. Bigelow is in the same boat as MirCorp. He needs cheap access to space to close his business case.I am not sure what Bigelow's purpose is in talking about the Atlas V, but he will not be providing funding to ULA for a large number of Atlas Vs any time soon. The business risk is way too high.In the meantime, it costs Bigelow essentially nothing to do a study with Lockheed and ULA, and he will learn something in the process.- CSA1
Lampyridae - 4/2/2008 8:02 PMQuoteantonioe - 5/2/2008 7:59 AMAssuming launch costs are one-half to one-third of his human transportation costs (typical of commercial GeoCom missions - government missions usually average one-fourth to one-fifth) that means that Bigelow must somehow get between $1.6B to $2.8B a year in revenue, plus whatever it takes to maintain his orbital hotel, to break even. Say, 80 to 140 Dennis Titos a year.All that said, I think Atlas V barely works for getting Bigelow started. He really needs to push the ticket price down into the sub $5M per person range before things start really taking off. ....Also, a lot does depend on how much of a market Bigelow can really create at the $8-12M range. ....I'm guardedly optimistic, but only time will tell.~Jon
CommSpaceAdvocate1 - 5/2/2008 7:05 AMQuotejongoff - 4/2/2008 10:24 PMQuoteLampyridae - 4/2/2008 8:02 PMQuoteantonioe - 5/2/2008 7:59 AMAssuming launch costs are one-half to one-third of his human transportation costs (typical of commercial GeoCom missions - government missions usually average one-fourth to one-fifth) that means that Bigelow must somehow get between $1.6B to $2.8B a year in revenue, plus whatever it takes to maintain his orbital hotel, to break even. Say, 80 to 140 Dennis Titos a year.All that said, I think Atlas V barely works for getting Bigelow started. He really needs to push the ticket price down into the sub $5M per person range before things start really taking off. ....Also, a lot does depend on how much of a market Bigelow can really create at the $8-12M range. ....I'm guardedly optimistic, but only time will tell.~JonAlthough I am a commercial space advocates, I am in the same boat as Antonio. The Bigelow business case does NOT close using Atlas Vs. Bigelow is a good businessman -- and he is not stupid. He will not even attempt a business model that requires him to generate $2 Billion in revenue a year just to break even. Even starting out with 6 ULA flights a year is way too risky from a business perspective. Bigelow is in the same boat as MirCorp. He needs cheap access to space to close his business case.I am not sure what Bigelow's purpose is in talking about the Atlas V, but he will not be providing funding to ULA for a large number of Atlas Vs any time soon. The business risk is way too high.In the meantime, it costs Bigelow essentially nothing to do a study with Lockheed and ULA, and he will learn something in the process.- CSA1The Atlas V discussion does give potential competitors a target date to meet and a calculable price to beat, if they can manage either. And emerging competition, if any, would give ULA a motivation to lower prices, if possible. That'd be purpose enough.
Second Stage - 5/2/2008 7:39 AMLAS VEGAS, Nev., February 1, 2008 –Bigelow Aerospace and Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services are engaged in discussions and converging on terms to supply Atlas V launch vehicles to provide crew and cargo transportation services to a Bigelow-built space complex.
William Barton - 4/2/2008 5:35 PMThose flight rates sound dandy, but though the LV exists, there's still no crew vehicle to fly on it.
Second Stage - 5/2/2008 7:39 AMThis pretty much says it all... With Bigalow flying the Atlas, NASA can now forget about having to risk everything on a new rocket. And, with a flight rate that they are talking about in this press release, the more the merrier as all will benefit from the lower costs. COTS money will go with whoever is flying the Atlas.
CommSpaceAdvocate1 - 5/2/2008 2:37 PMRocket Man (who appears to be a NASA insider) claims that Boeing is a COTS semi-finalist, and Andrews is not. See:http://rocketsandsuch.blogspot.com/2008/02/handicapping-cots.htmlHas anybody else independently heard anything like this?Can anybody confirm/refute this claim?- CSA1PS -- Anybody want to vote for Boeing? :laugh:
Sid454 - 5/2/2008 8:36 PM1. Boeing could be a contender they have a launch vehicle and good one though a little expensive but they don't have an orbital vehicle.2. A proper shuttle derived vehicle would have enough commonality with the shuttle the new vehicle could be slowly phased in vs a disruptive switch over which creates a gap.
Zap83 - 4/2/2008 4:52 PM...but if Atlas 5 begins to be used at that rate, the costs for each launch would be driven down. Anyone have any reasonable estimate as to how significant a price drop that would be? ......but it seems somewhat relevant due to the fact that one of the cons of ARCTUS is that EELV's are expensive (although when looking at the per ton costs it is certainly not terrible).Per ton cost really is the only cost that truly with matters COTS as it is for cargo transport so for anything to be viable it must have a low cost per ton or it is not a viable option.This might be partly why spacex went from the falcon 5 to falcon 9 as the larger vehicle offers a lower cost per ton.As for the cost of an EELV yes they will drop in price with higher flight rates heck even the shuttle could have been very cheap if it had a high flight rate.It's simple economics if you produce something in large numbers the cost for each example becomes lower due to the economics of mass production.The cost of R&D , tooling up and having facilities lay idle becomes a smaller portion of the total cost.Over all their cost could drop by 30 to over 40% then once the flight rate is that high they could investigate other means of cutting costs such as a reusable first stage or upper stage vehicle.In the case of spacedev they might slowly switch over to their hybrid booster system which in theory should be very cheap to produce.
Sid454 - 5/2/2008 8:57 PM1. Per ton cost really is the only cost that truly with matters COTS as it is for cargo transport so for anything to be viable it must have a low cost per ton or it is not a viable option.2. This might be partly why spacex went from the falcon 5 to falcon 9 as the larger vehicle offers a lower cost per ton.
Sid454 - 5/2/2008 9:14 PM1. The delta IV is usable and is 100% America also kinda funny ATK's launch vehicle does use part of a shuttle SRB which makes it as shuttle derived as Ares is.2..ATK's launch vehicle does use part of a shuttle SRB which makes it as shuttle derived as Ares is.
Sid454 - 5/2/2008 9:14 PMIt is the most powerful launch vehicle in service and will remain so until the falcon 9-H flies though with regen RS68s it'll reclaim the top position which it'll hold until ares V or Direct flies or spacex builds the BFR.
CommSpaceAdvocate1 - 5/2/2008 3:37 AMRocket Man (who appears to be a NASA insider) claims that Boeing is a COTS semi-finalist, and Andrews is not. See:http://rocketsandsuch.blogspot.com/2008/02/handicapping-cots.htmlHas anybody else independently heard anything like this?Can anybody confirm/refute this claim?- CSA1PS -- Anybody want to vote for Boeing? :laugh: