What's Happening at Bigelow?

[A_M_Swallow]

Ah, thank you. When I have more time, I'll look for that statement and throw it up on this thread. It'll be useful to keep in mind when evaluating his approach.

Let's assume you never find that statement. Would you believe that Bigelow Aerospace would launch a space station in the absence of a customer?

That depends on what "absence of a customer" means.  Bigelow could launch a Sundancer and some of his people to commission it as a means of closing a deal.

Did CCDev1 man-rate the Atlas V?
Several man-rated spacecraft are being produced under CCDev2.

[ChefPat]

Let's assume you never find that statement. Would you believe that Bigelow Aerospace would launch a space station in the absence of a customer?

Yes.
It's a classic chicken & egg problem. He's got a pocket full of MOU's that won't be executed until there's a destination, but you're saying he won't launch until one of em' signs a lease.
My money's on Bigelow launching a Sundancer, outfitting it with a couple of his own guy's & the spigot opens to a trickle.
That trickle "could" get him to the Lunar surface by 2020, as in one of his plans.

[Diagoras]

Ah, thank you. When I have more time, I'll look for that statement and throw it up on this thread. It'll be useful to keep in mind when evaluating his approach.

Let's assume you never find that statement. Would you believe that Bigelow Aerospace would launch a space station in the absence of a customer?

I believe the below comments indicate my current cautious beliefs on that matter. I believe that, once NASA has finalized commercial crew, he could launch a Sundancer to display to his MOU partners that he can deliver the capability he promises.

But that's about as far as I expect him to go without a contract.

[clongton]

... who is going to pay for all those new workers that Bigelow is saying might be hired? As long as there is no customer for large pressurized volumes in space, its all just hope.

1. Robert Bigelow will pay for them
2. He has customers who have signed MOU's pending development.

Getting back to reality, Bigelow will not borrow the money to pay for construction of space platforms on the basis of MOUs. In the real world, such activity would be conducted on the basis of contracts, with payment tranches. Until such contracts are completed, nothing will happen with Bigelow, except for models, mockups and construction of buildings that may be sold later.

I believe Bigelow's current publicly stated plans involve launching Space Station Alpha and leasing the property on a dedicated timescale, rather than as soon as a lease is confirmed. Have you heard something else from somewhere?

I believe that Bigelow has said repeatedly that his requirements for launching a platform are:

a) having affordable and reliable space transportation, and

b) a customer

Does anyone believe that Bigelow Aerospace is going to launch some space station without either of these in place?

Obviously a MOU by itself is not a contract, although it does constitute a "customer". But you are correct. He will not attempt to convert the MOU into a contract until there is reliable transportation in place for his "customer". But don't forget that Soyuz is still a candidate spacecraft. It is entirely feasible that an international customer could contract with Russia for transportation aboard a Soyuz to a Bigelow station. That would also work.

As to your question wrt launching a station before he has a paying customer, I believe that he will. He has already launched two (2) and I do believe that once he has a transportation mode available he will launch a 3rd to be outfitted and staffed by his own people. Chicken and egg resolved. Station exists. Now the question will become which one of the many MOU's that he has will be the first to convert to a contract?

Remember who he is. He built many a motel and made them available to customers long before he had any customers to use them. It's what he does. "Build it and they will come". At least he does have several MOU's that state a customer's intent to use the station once there is a station to go to.

[hop]

He has already launched two (2)

No, he launched a couple of non-habitable, non-dockable sub-scale mockups. He has neither built nor launched a station that humans could actually dock to and live in. The two pathfinders were within reach for him to launch on his own dime. It's not clear the same holds true of a functional space station.

It's also worth noting the pathfinders were launched before the economy tanked.

Remember who he is. He built many a motel and made them available to customers long before he had any customers to use them. It's what he does. "Build it and they will come".

The market for hotels, and the economics of the hotel business are well understood. Based on the characteristics of the location and past experience you can have a very good idea of whether a hotel will be profitable, and for someone in his position, being wrong once won't wipe out his fortune. None of this is applicable to space stations.

As an aside, I'm not trying to downplay accomplishments... flying two functional spacecraft is a great achievement for sure.

[Cherokee43v6]

There was an interview linked on here earlier where he pretty much said he was using his Budget Hotel model, in that he was creating a space that others would make use of.  His intent being to own all of the modules and lease space on them for discrete blocks of time.  This implies that he would launch when he was satisfied things were ready, meaning access not necessarily customers.  In that same article, I recall, was a mention that he was willing to spend up to another $500million of his own personal fortune to achieve his goals.  That ain't chump-change.

Currently, the long pole in his development plans appears to be the Boeing CST-100.  Since Bigelow has partnered with Boeing on its development (at least some of the Boeing team is apparently working out of the Bigelow factory), it will be when he is satisfied that the transportation infrastructure exists that he begins his construction.

[Danderman]

For those who are not well versed in the business world, if an MOU is non-binding, it is not worth the paper it is written on. If it is binding, its not an MOU.

Please do not try to create the impression that these publicly announced MOUs have any value.

[Eric Hedman]

For those who are not well versed in the business world, if an MOU is non-binding, it is not worth the paper it is written on. If it is binding, its not an MOU.

Please do not try to create the impression that these publicly announced MOUs have any value.

I disagree with you that they don't have value.  They are used in the investment world to confirm to potential investors that potential real customers have an interest in a product offered.  Any investor worth his salt knows that an MOU is not a binding contract.  They do understand what they mean.  If they weren't worth the paper they are written on, a savvy businessman like Robert Bigelow wouldn't waste his time getting them.

[clongton]

For those who are not well versed in the business world, if an MOU is non-binding, it is not worth the paper it is written on. If it is binding, its not an MOU.

Please do not try to create the impression that these publicly announced MOUs have any value.

Commercial MOU's are an investment tool that essentially declares that if a "developer" were to make a certain product or service available, that the person/company signing the MOU would potentially be interested in purchasing that product or service. What it does is confirm to a potential investor that there likely is a market for that product or service and that the product or service may be worth the investor's time to investigate and possibly the investor's money as well. It is a tool, not a contract.

[Danderman]

For those who are not well versed in the business world, if an MOU is non-binding, it is not worth the paper it is written on. If it is binding, its not an MOU.

Please do not try to create the impression that these publicly announced MOUs have any value.

I disagree with you that they don't have value.  They are used in the investment world to confirm to potential investors that potential real customers have an interest in a product offered.  Any investor worth his salt knows that an MOU is not a binding contract.  They do understand what they mean.  If they weren't worth the paper they are written on, a savvy businessman like Robert Bigelow wouldn't waste his time getting them.

Any ideas on what investors Mr. Bigelow would use these MOUs for?

If there are no investors, what is the purpose of the MOUs?

[Danderman]

For those who are not well versed in the business world, if an MOU is non-binding, it is not worth the paper it is written on. If it is binding, its not an MOU.

Please do not try to create the impression that these publicly announced MOUs have any value.

Commercial MOU's are an investment tool that essentially declares that if a "developer" were to make a certain product or service available, that the person/company signing the MOU would potentially be interested in purchasing that product or service. What it does is confirm to a potential investor that there likely is a market for that product or service and that the product or service may be worth the investor's time to investigate and possibly the investor's money as well. It is a tool, not a contract.

In the case of Bigelow Aerospace, there are no investors in the works, so the theory above is not really relevant to this business case.

[baldusi]

In the case of Bigelow Aerospace, there are no investors in the works, so the theory above is not really relevant to this business case.

I would say that Bigelow himself is an investor. But the MOU are also useful for contractors and suppliers. You can show them a bunch of MOU, and that might convince them to invest in some key technology that you need to procure. An MOU can also convince other clients to declare their interest. Be it for competitive purposes (say, Country A doesn't want to feel behind Country B), or for the viability of the business model.
Bigelow was putting a price per month visit on it's orbital stations. If you don't believe he'll at least have a 20% occupancy, you wouldn't take him seriously. If he tells you to just sign the MOU, and then he can show he has enough MOUs to have a 50% occupancy, you might believe him enough to actually sign something binding.

[Eric Hedman]

For those who are not well versed in the business world, if an MOU is non-binding, it is not worth the paper it is written on. If it is binding, its not an MOU.

Please do not try to create the impression that these publicly announced MOUs have any value.

I disagree with you that they don't have value.  They are used in the investment world to confirm to potential investors that potential real customers have an interest in a product offered.  Any investor worth his salt knows that an MOU is not a binding contract.  They do understand what they mean.  If they weren't worth the paper they are written on, a savvy businessman like Robert Bigelow wouldn't waste his time getting them.

Any ideas on what investors Mr. Bigelow would use these MOUs for?

If there are no investors, what is the purpose of the MOUs?

They might be used to build the confidence of partners such as Boeing that he might have a real case to drive business ferrying people on the CST-100 capsule and for ULA that he really could be ordering Atlas V launches.  Boeing and ULA might want to see these MOUs before they invest time and money in seeing how they can work with Bigelow.  Also just because he doesn't have investors now doesn't mean he isn't planning for the possibility in the future.

[Blackjax]

They might be used to build the confidence of partners such as Boeing that he might have a real case to drive business ferrying people on the CST-100 capsule and for ULA that he really could be ordering Atlas V launches.  Boeing and ULA might want to see these MOUs before they invest time and money in seeing how they can work with Bigelow. 

I think this hits the nail on the head because his hands are truly tied until he has multiple redundant transport & resupply options to his station(s).  He can't build a business with the risk of a single point of failure looming over it all the time.  He'd be taking a big risk personally for his own company and he might find it a difficult sell to potential clients who are not going to miss the downsides of having a single transport provider.  That provider might have a launch failure and go offline for a while, they might decide to leave the business for their own reasons, they might be unable to scale properly to meet demand, or they might opt to exercise monopoly power.

He knows that SpaceX is already internally motivated to provide transport so he doesn't spend much time on them.  His energy and effort is spent trying to persuade a second option (Boeing) to enter the market as well.  The MOUs help to tell Boeing that there is more of a market than 'just a few ultra rich tourists' as many are so fond of claiming.

Another angle is that they may also help get him taken seriously by other sovereign clients who might not have even talked to him prior to that.  They may apply the logic "If this guy is taken seriously enough for other countries to work out MOUs with him, perhaps we should discuss possibilities with him too."   Given that this type of service has never been done before by a private entity, overcoming the giggle factor is one of the major challenges for the sales process.  Because the sales cycle and follow on development & launch of the payloads have a pretty long lead time in this industry, he can't wait for the giggle factor to die down when stations go aloft, he needs to do whatever he can now to reduce it and develop the market.  If he fails at this and the clients sign post launch, he may find himself with a station that is empty for a year or three waiting for the clients he signed to get up there.

[A_M_Swallow]

Within the sovereign clients the science ministries can take the MOU to the finance ministries to get the money to lease the spacestation and launch.

[ChefPat]

There's a rather interesting entry on this website.

Date-???     
Sundancer     
Falcon IX         
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, USA
inflatable space station module

[pathfinder_01]

There's a rather interesting entry on this website.

Date-???     
Sundancer     
Falcon IX         
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, USA
inflatable space station module

Not surprising he has admited that he plans to launch in 2014 and that he plans to use Space X for it.

What I would like to see is Space X putting him on the rouster.

[Diagoras]

There's a rather interesting entry on this website.

Date-???     
Sundancer     
Falcon IX         
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, USA
inflatable space station module

Not surprising he has admited that he plans to launch in 2014 and that he plans to use Space X for it.

What I would like to see is Space X putting him on the rouster.

It is on the roster.

[Cherokee43v6]

There's a rather interesting entry on this website.

Date-???     
Sundancer     
Falcon IX         
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, USA
inflatable space station module

Not surprising he has admited that he plans to launch in 2014 and that he plans to use Space X for it.

What I would like to see is Space X putting him on the rouster.

It has been on their list for at least two years...

http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

[Jason1701]

The exterior of the factory looks completed. I doubt if we'll see more interior pictures, as they're probably setting up the production lines now.



They have a new animation on the website's main page. It shows a BA 330 launching on an Atlas V, then docking with a CST-100.