What's Happening at Bigelow?

[mmeijeri]

Heh, that's my line! But seriously, I thought the plan for the forward propulsion system was to use GOX/GH2 and electrolysis already.

[mmeijeri]

I doubt the CSA or the ESA is interested in renting the Sundancer.

Back when they were worried the ISS might be scuttled in 2015 they were totally open to cooperation with Bigelow. It is mentioned in the exploration architecture documents on the ESA website.

[mmeijeri]

Here's an interesting job opportunity:

Bigelow Aerospace is looking for a well disciplined leader to be Chief of our Security Force. Duties entail organizing all aspects of physical security for our 50 acre facility in North Las Vegas including planning, scheduling, hiring, training the rest of the Security Staff, investigation and reporting of incidents whether internal or external, as well as administrative functions.

Successful candidates will have at least 10 years of recent management experience in the military preferably dealing directly with physical security. Management experience in civilian police departments will also be considered. Must be trained in the accurate and safe handling of firearms and have the ability to lawfully possess handguns. Applicant must have sufficient health to pass a physical and an agility test. Also must be able to pass a thorough background check and drug screen.

[simonth]

I doubt the CSA or the ESA is interested in renting the Sundancer.

Back when they were worried the ISS might be scuttled in 2015 they were totally open to cooperation with Bigelow. It is mentioned in the exploration architecture documents on the ESA website.

Do you have the direct source for that (can't find it on the ESA website)? I am hard pressed to believe that ESA managers took a deeper look at what Bigelow thinks he will be able to offer. Buying a Bigelow habitat is politically completely impossible for ESA due to politics (European politicians will never ever fund a private American company with money that should go to their own space industry).

We should also consider that ESA did not get into the critical phase of the potential 2015 deadline. It was clear from 2009 onwards that this was an arbitrary deadline set by the US and that it would not materialize.

[mmeijeri]

Do you have the direct source for that (can't find it on the ESA website)?

It's mentioned here:
Architecture Trade Report

For related documents see:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Space_Exploration_Strategy/

I am hard pressed to believe that ESA managers took a deeper look at what Bigelow thinks he will be able to offer. Buying a Bigelow habitat is politically completely impossible for ESA due to politics (European politicians will never ever fund a private American company with money that should go to their own space industry).

Absolutely, this could only work within some kind of barter agreement, either with NASA or directly with Bigelow. ESA could provide resupplies while Bigelow took care of crew transport and provided the hab. This would probably only work after the ISS and even then ATV might be too inefficient for resupply. Ariane launches would be fine of course.

[simonth]

It's mentioned here:
Architecture Trade Report

Thank you, interesting document that I haven't come across before. Bigelow is however only mentioned in the table on p. 13 with regard to potential international cooperation and commercial engagement in a future LEO baseline plan.

A barter agreement with Bigelow would not work, by the way. It still means European taxpayer money that European politicians want to be spent in Europe would be used to supply services to a US commercial entity. That just won't work politically. It would be similar to the Boeing vs. Airbus controversy for the tanker deal in the US. Airbus was partnering with a US company and would have built every single plane in the US and still it was politically impossible to give them the contract (the current contract terms are written so that Airbus is shut out of the competition). Bigelow would have to find a European partner, manufacture the module for ESA in Europe and then European politicians would still be skeptical about using a US company for a major contract (not to mention there would have to be a decision on funding a new LEO space station program before then).

[mmeijeri]

A barter agreement with Bigelow would not work, by the way. It still means European taxpayer money that European politicians want to be spent in Europe would be used to supply services to a US commercial entity.

I don't understand. Why would paying Bigelow in Ariane 5 launches instead of in dollars lead to money being spent outside Europe?

[simonth]

A barter agreement with Bigelow would not work, by the way. It still means European taxpayer money that European politicians want to be spent in Europe would be used to supply services to a US commercial entity.

I don't understand. Why would paying Bigelow in Ariane 5 launches instead of in dollars lead to money being spent outside Europe?

Indirectly. European taxpayer money would be spent to render services to US private entity that do not benefit Europeans. Politically infeasible. Contrast that with providing Ariane 5 launch services for a European built and developed space station. ESA's policy on return of contracts for money is complicated enough, politicians don't even want to go into complications such as involving a US corporation into a major program that is not required by the scientific community.

[A_M_Swallow]

A barter agreement with Bigelow would not work, by the way. It still means European taxpayer money that European politicians want to be spent in Europe would be used to supply services to a US commercial entity. That just won't work politically. It would be similar to the Boeing vs. Airbus controversy for the tanker deal in the US. Airbus was partnering with a US company and would have built every single plane in the US and still it was politically impossible to give them the contract (the current contract terms are written so that Airbus is shut out of the competition). Bigelow would have to find a European partner, manufacture the module for ESA in Europe and then European politicians would still be skeptical about using a US company for a major contract (not to mention there would have to be a decision on funding a new LEO space station program before then).

The French are more pragmatic than that.  They buy French, if they cannot then from an EU country.  Only if there is nor European source do they buy from the hated Americans.

If Bigelow wants to sell a second one to the EU he will have to find a way of getting a French flag and an EU flag on the spacecraft.  Possibly making say the docking module in France.  An European control room may be needed.

[Danderman]

The SpaceX Manifest has a Bigelow F-9 launch listed for 2014.

This launch  has slipped by a year of schedule for every year of actual time that passes.

[kkattula]

The SpaceX Manifest has a Bigelow F-9 launch listed for 2014.

This launch  has slipped by a year of schedule for every year of actual time that passes.

Possibly because without a cost effective way to launch people, they're always 4 years from being able to schedule it?

[simonth]

A barter agreement with Bigelow would not work, by the way. It still means European taxpayer money that European politicians want to be spent in Europe would be used to supply services to a US commercial entity. That just won't work politically. It would be similar to the Boeing vs. Airbus controversy for the tanker deal in the US. Airbus was partnering with a US company and would have built every single plane in the US and still it was politically impossible to give them the contract (the current contract terms are written so that Airbus is shut out of the competition). Bigelow would have to find a European partner, manufacture the module for ESA in Europe and then European politicians would still be skeptical about using a US company for a major contract (not to mention there would have to be a decision on funding a new LEO space station program before then).

The French are more pragmatic than that.  They buy French, if they cannot then from an EU country.  Only if there is nor European source do they buy from the hated Americans.

If Bigelow wants to sell a second one to the EU he will have to find a way of getting a French flag and an EU flag on the spacecraft.  Possibly making say the docking module in France.  An European control room may be needed.

Incorrect. The French government doesn't care about the flag on the spacecraft, it cares whether it is (all of it) manufactured in France or at least the money provided to ESA for it is put to use in France. Same for the German, Italian, Spanish etc. government.

Bigelow could only "sell" a Bigelow habitat to ESA, if the company were to open a factory in Europe, employ Europeans there and use European parts suppliers. Not to mention that ESA doesn't want another space space station anyway and hopes to operate the ISS way beyond 2020.

[yg1968]

You are probably right. But if Bigelow's station is cheap enough, ESA could spend most of its money on other stuff. If NASA doesn't extend the ISS past 2020, ESA will not fund the ISS on its own. 

[Ben the Space Brit]

You are probably right. But if the Bigelow's station is cheap enough, ESA could spend most of its money on other stuff. If NASA doesn't extend the ISS past 2020, ESA will not fund the ISS on its own. 

Your problem is that you are thinking as a scientist or an engineer, not a politician.  To a politician, the question is not "Is it value for money?" The question is "Does it divert public funds to my constituents and corporate (and also union) donors?" This is, regrettably, a universal feature of the political mind.

[simonth]

You are probably right. But if the Bigelow's station is cheap enough, ESA could spend most of its money on other stuff. If NASA doesn't extend the ISS past 2020, ESA will not fund the ISS on its own. 

Your problem is that you are thinking as a scientist or an engineer, not a politician.  To a politician, the question is not "Is it value for money?" The question is "Does it divert public funds to my constituents and corporate (and also union) donors?" This is, regrettably, a universal feature of the political mind.

In addition, even at a price of 500m only a BA330 would consume the total HSF budget of ESA for a complete year. That's just too much for ESA's HSF program.

[A_M_Swallow]

A barter agreement with Bigelow would not work, by the way. It still means European taxpayer money that European politicians want to be spent in Europe would be used to supply services to a US commercial entity. That just won't work politically. It would be similar to the Boeing vs. Airbus controversy for the tanker deal in the US. Airbus was partnering with a US company and would have built every single plane in the US and still it was politically impossible to give them the contract (the current contract terms are written so that Airbus is shut out of the competition). Bigelow would have to find a European partner, manufacture the module for ESA in Europe and then European politicians would still be skeptical about using a US company for a major contract (not to mention there would have to be a decision on funding a new LEO space station program before then).

The French are more pragmatic than that.  They buy French, if they cannot then from an EU country.  Only if there is nor European source do they buy from the hated Americans.

If Bigelow wants to sell a second one to the EU he will have to find a way of getting a French flag and an EU flag on the spacecraft.  Possibly making say the docking module in France.  An European control room may be needed.

Incorrect. The French government doesn't care about the flag on the spacecraft, it cares whether it is (all of it) manufactured in France or at least the money provided to ESA for it is put to use in France. Same for the German, Italian, Spanish etc. government.

Bigelow could only "sell" a Bigelow habitat to ESA, if the company were to open a factory in Europe, employ Europeans there and use European parts suppliers. Not to mention that ESA doesn't want another space space station anyway and hopes to operate the ISS way beyond 2020.

French governments have traditionally been very heavily into glory.  They would see a French space station as glory.  The French Government may buy one from the US, the second they will order a French company to make.

Think back to where Japanese companies used to purchase one item of a product with a copy of the plans.  A few years later 'Made in Japan' versions of the product go on sale.

[ChefPat]

European Governments/ESA almost certainly will not spend any money outside of their own turf, but European Corporations are under no such limitations.

[yg1968]

You are probably right. But if the Bigelow's station is cheap enough, ESA could spend most of its money on other stuff. If NASA doesn't extend the ISS past 2020, ESA will not fund the ISS on its own. 

Your problem is that you are thinking as a scientist or an engineer, not a politician.  To a politician, the question is not "Is it value for money?" The question is "Does it divert public funds to my constituents and corporate (and also union) donors?" This is, regrettably, a universal feature of the political mind.

In addition, even at a price of 500m only a BA330 would consume the total HSF budget of ESA for a complete year. That's just too much for ESA's HSF program.

500M?

I thought that the Bigelow station would only be rented by customers and not purchased.

[Danderman]

Reality check: there are currently companies like BioServe and Nanoracks that sell space in facilities aboard ISS. Why would anyone pay hundreds of millions of dollars many years from now for services on a Bigelow station when they can pay a fraction of that for services in orbit now?

It all sounds like the plan is to wait a few years, and then a miracle happens.

[simonth]

European Governments/ESA almost certainly will not spend any money outside of their own turf, but European Corporations are under no such limitations.

No they aren't, except if they are under contract with European governments or governmental organizations and are doing space related work with taxpayer money. That's why practically every single component of Ariane 5 or the ATV is European-made.

If you are talking about private companies, as said above, they aren't that interested even flying experiments for free on the ISS.