Commercial Space: No Bucks, No Buck Rogers!

[Danderman]

An observation:  Kistler Aerospace had more funding than any previous or subsequent "New Space" launch firm.  SpaceX has had more cash flow, but only raised perhaps 1/3 the equity of KAC.

In fact, I think KAC spent more money than Pioneer Rocketplane, Rotary, Kelly, Beal, Amroc, SSI, SpaceX (to first F1 flight), Orbital (for Pegasus) and a few others combined.

This observation is worthy of its own thread.

IIRC, Beal Aerospace spent a boatload of  cash, perhaps a sizeable fraction of what Kistler went through.

[HMXHMX]

An observation:  Kistler Aerospace had more funding than any previous or subsequent "New Space" launch firm.  SpaceX has had more cash flow, but only raised perhaps 1/3 the equity of KAC.

In fact, I think KAC spent more money than Pioneer Rocketplane, Rotary, Kelly, Beal, Amroc, SSI, SpaceX (to first F1 flight), Orbital (for Pegasus) and a few others combined.

This observation is worthy of its own thread.

IIRC, Beal Aerospace spent a boatload of  cash, perhaps a sizeable fraction of what Kistler went through.

$200M is the number I have heard for Beal.  I spent $30M at Rotary.  Bevin and crew spent maybe $40M overall at Starstruck/AMROC.  Pioneer Rocketplane (pre-Kistler) maybe $5M?  Kelly Space & Tech, probably less than $10M.  SSI (up to the NASA contract) was maybe $10-20M.  Orbital is not quite "New Space" since they had the DARPA purchase contract, but I believe they spent about $80M. 

None of these numbers are adjusted for inflation, and I haven't included ventures that spent less than a few million, of which there were several. I also don't include any suborbital projects.

[Danderman]

  Kelly Space & Tech, probably less than $10M. 

Does that include the $8 million they received from NASA?

[HMXHMX]

  Kelly Space & Tech, probably less than $10M. 

Does that include the $8 million they received from NASA?

That is my guess, but it is largely a guess.  I thought it was $7M, myself.

[Prober]

An observation:  Kistler Aerospace had more funding than any previous or subsequent "New Space" launch firm.  SpaceX has had more cash flow, but only raised perhaps 1/3 the equity of KAC.

In fact, I think KAC spent more money than Pioneer Rocketplane, Rotary, Kelly, Beal, Amroc, SSI, SpaceX (to first F1 flight), Orbital (for Pegasus) and a few others combined.

This observation is worthy of its own thread.

IIRC, Beal Aerospace spent a boatload of  cash, perhaps a sizeable fraction of what Kistler went through.

$200M is the number I have heard for Beal.  I spent $30M at Rotary.  Bevin and crew spent maybe $40M overall at Starstruck/AMROC.  Pioneer Rocketplane (pre-Kistler) maybe $5M?  Kelly Space & Tech, probably less than $10M.  SSI (up to the NASA contract) was maybe $10-20M.  Orbital is not quite "New Space" since they had the DARPA purchase contract, but I believe they spent about $80M. 

None of these numbers are adjusted for inflation, and I haven't included ventures that spent less than a few million, of which there were several. I also don't include any suborbital projects.

You worked with Rotary?   That was a decent design.

[Danderman]

The figure I heard for Kistler was $750 million, although I have no idea where the money went.

[jongoff]

An observation:  Kistler Aerospace had more funding than any previous or subsequent "New Space" launch firm.  SpaceX has had more cash flow, but only raised perhaps 1/3 the equity of KAC.

In fact, I think KAC spent more money than Pioneer Rocketplane, Rotary, Kelly, Beal, Amroc, SSI, SpaceX (to first F1 flight), Orbital (for Pegasus) and a few others combined.

This observation is worthy of its own thread.

IIRC, Beal Aerospace spent a boatload of  cash, perhaps a sizeable fraction of what Kistler went through.

$200M is the number I have heard for Beal.  I spent $30M at Rotary.  Bevin and crew spent maybe $40M overall at Starstruck/AMROC.  Pioneer Rocketplane (pre-Kistler) maybe $5M?  Kelly Space & Tech, probably less than $10M.  SSI (up to the NASA contract) was maybe $10-20M.  Orbital is not quite "New Space" since they had the DARPA purchase contract, but I believe they spent about $80M. 

None of these numbers are adjusted for inflation, and I haven't included ventures that spent less than a few million, of which there were several. I also don't include any suborbital projects.

You worked with Rotary?   That was a decent design.

HMXHMX didn't just "work with" Rotary, he ran it.  :-)

~Jon

[jongoff]

The figure I heard for Kistler was $750 million, although I have no idea where the money went.

Yeah, Kistler was the only commercial RLV group that ever raised enough money to have a chance at failing technically. Unfortunately, they had management that made sure they failed at execution before they could run into actual technical problems...

~Jon

[Danderman]

The figure I heard for Kistler was $750 million, although I have no idea where the money went.

Yeah, Kistler was the only commercial RLV group that ever raised enough money to have a chance at failing technically. Unfortunately, they had management that made sure they failed at execution before they could run into actual technical problems...

~Jon

Wow, that was cold!

My understanding is that the funding source for Kistler dried up unexpectedly, so it wasn't really a case of a management failure.

[HMXHMX]

The figure I heard for Kistler was $750 million, although I have no idea where the money went.

Yeah, Kistler was the only commercial RLV group that ever raised enough money to have a chance at failing technically. Unfortunately, they had management that made sure they failed at execution before they could run into actual technical problems...

~Jon

Wow, that was cold!

My understanding is that the funding source for Kistler dried up unexpectedly, so it wasn't really a case of a management failure.

We should take care to separate the KAC of 1994-2004 time frame from the subsequent KAC managed by George French after he took over the firm. The less said about the latter, the better.

KAC's unique problems were the size of payload chosen, the flyback booster approach, and the insistence on using mainstream contractors.

KAC's payload was either too small or too large, depending on your point of view.  Smaller would have likely brought them to market, but with a thin market until payloads caught up with the launch capability.  Larger would have meant a major redesign of the LV, but could have opened the GTO market.  This leads to the flyback booster issue.  If you don't retro lob the booster, your payload is much larger and you can address the same markets SpaceX is currently going after.  Finally, the choice of Northrop Grumman was a mistake in my view.  More than once I suggested using Scaled, who was building structure for me at a few precent of what NGC was charging KAC.  But since NGC was an investor in KAC, it wasn't feasible to go that route.

The generic problem that all of us faced was the loss of the LEO constellation market.  Without that market, we were all participating in a  slow motion train wreck.

[Danderman]

The generic problem that all of us faced was the loss of the LEO constellation market.  Without that market, we were all participating in a  slow motion train wreck.

The LEO constellation collapse was pretty much the biggest private sector wrong guess that ever happened, and I don't blame anyone for betting on its chances in the mid-1990s. However, my understanding is that Kistler's money dried up before the LEO constellation market died.

[simonbp]

I stand by my comment that startups like Kistler, which spend large amount of other people's money (taxdollars in Kistler's case) without actually ever producing a product, are charlatans.

They give a bad name to the companies that actually deliver. The COTS funds to SpaceX and OSC are actually leading to useful rockets. All the public and private money spent on Kistler might as well have have been flushed down the toilet. They promised enormously more than they could deliver, and cheated investors and taxpayers in the process.

[HMXHMX]

I stand by my comment that startups like Kistler, which spend large amount of other people's money (taxdollars in Kistler's case) without actually ever producing a product, are charlatans.

They give a bad name to the companies that actually deliver. The COTS funds to SpaceX and OSC are actually leading to useful rockets. All the public and private money spent on Kistler might as well have have been flushed down the toilet. They promised enormously more than they could deliver, and cheated investors and taxpayers in the process.

Once again, just to clarify, the pre-2005/6 KAC didn't take taxpayer dollars (to any measurable degree, AFAIK).  KAC did win a $225M contract from NASA in an open competition that was later challenged and nullified by a SpaceX protest.  Only the merged KAC run by French took COTS money, and that was <$40M or so.  I'm not defending that incarnation of the enterprise.

And companies fail all the time without having the libelous term charlatan apply.  It's best not to use too much hyperbole in one's choice of words.

[Patchouli]

The generic problem that all of us faced was the loss of the LEO constellation market.  Without that market, we were all participating in a  slow motion train wreck.

The LEO constellation collapse was pretty much the biggest private sector wrong guess that ever happened, and I don't blame anyone for betting on its chances in the mid-1990s. However, my understanding is that Kistler's money dried up before the LEO constellation market died.

One big issue I think was the fact Kistler went to a full sized vehicle vs a smaller technical demonstrator first.

This caused them to stay suck at the analyses stage for a long time.

One thing that Spacex did differently is they built Falcon 1 before Falcon 9 this allowed them to get to building and flight testing.

Falcon 1 allowed Spacex to be able to afford a few failures while they worked out the worst of the engineering issues.

I do wonder if Beal regrets having pulled out of aerospace as he could be in Musk's position today.

[HMXHMX]

The generic problem that all of us faced was the loss of the LEO constellation market.  Without that market, we were all participating in a  slow motion train wreck.

The LEO constellation collapse was pretty much the biggest private sector wrong guess that ever happened, and I don't blame anyone for betting on its chances in the mid-1990s. However, my understanding is that Kistler's money dried up before the LEO constellation market died.

One big issue I think was the fact Kistler went to a full sized vehicle vs a smaller technical demonstrator first.

This caused them to stay suck at the analyses stage for a long time.

One thing that Spacex did differently is they built Falcon 1 before Falcon 9 this allowed them to get to building and flight testing.

Falcon 1 allowed Spacex to be able to afford a few failures while they worked out the worst of the engineering issues.

I do wonder if Beal regrets having pulled out of aerospace as he could be in Musk's position today.

For what it was worth, I tried to make a similar case to Walt Kistler and Bob Citron in 2000, on a visit to Kirkland.  My suggestion was to focus on a partly-reusable single-engine NK33-powered vehicle module.  The tank would be expendable, the engine capsule and engine reusable, and the orbital stage would be used primarily for circularization (and also might be recovered with avionics since it was quite small).  The NK33 t/w and Isp were both good enough to allow once-around near-orbital performance from one large stage, using propellant mass fractions already achieved by Delta II or Titan.

Clustering would increase the payload from Taurus 1 class to F9 class and even larger.  While not a full RLV, it would get them to market quickly, since they already had the engines, avionics and a systems engineering team that could have easily developed the capsule and recovery elements.  But I believe they felt that the confidence of investors would be shaken by a change of corporate direction away from K1.  The "sunk cost fallacy" may also have played a role.  Regrettably, that meant they missed an opportunity that they could have easily afforded and for which they were well-positioned.

[Danderman]

Or, Kistler could have gone to a non-recoverable initial prototype, got that off the ground and maybe flown a few customer payloads, and then moved on to the fully recoverable system.

Hindsight is really great to have.

[HMXHMX]

It's twenty-twenty indeed.

[NotGncDude]

I stand by my comment that startups like Kistler, which spend large amount of other people's money (taxdollars in Kistler's case) without actually ever producing a product, are charlatans.

They give a bad name to the companies that actually deliver. The COTS funds to SpaceX and OSC are actually leading to useful rockets. All the public and private money spent on Kistler might as well have have been flushed down the toilet. They promised enormously more than they could deliver, and cheated investors and taxpayers in the process.

I am sorry but this is simply false. Kistler never delivered the final rocket but there were a lot of finished components and research that went on to other projects. I agree there's a lot that can be criticized about Kistler but it's false that *nothing* came out of it.

[Danderman]

I stand by my comment that startups like Kistler, which spend large amount of other people's money (taxdollars in Kistler's case) without actually ever producing a product, are charlatans.

They give a bad name to the companies that actually deliver. The COTS funds to SpaceX and OSC are actually leading to useful rockets. All the public and private money spent on Kistler might as well have have been flushed down the toilet. They promised enormously more than they could deliver, and cheated investors and taxpayers in the process.

I am sorry but this is simply false. Kistler never delivered the final rocket but there were a lot of finished components and research that went on to other projects. I agree there's a lot that can be criticized about Kistler but it's false that *nothing* came out of it.

Its very likely that Kistler funded the initial acquisition and transport of dozens of NK-33 engines from Samara to Sacramento, which paved the way for Taurus II.

[Nate_Trost]

I wonder when Bezos hits a billion sunk into Blue Origin, 2015? 2018?

[HMXHMX]

I wonder when Bezos hits a billion sunk into Blue Origin, 2015? 2018?

I estimate their current burn rate is between $20-30M/year.  At that rate, counting what has gone before, about 2040 or 2055, assuming constant spending.

Of course, we don't know what they plan to spend in the next few years.

[NotGncDude]

There was a presentation where BO publicly claims $50M/year

[NotGncDude]

I stand by my comment that startups like Kistler, which spend large amount of other people's money (taxdollars in Kistler's case) without actually ever producing a product, are charlatans.

They give a bad name to the companies that actually deliver. The COTS funds to SpaceX and OSC are actually leading to useful rockets. All the public and private money spent on Kistler might as well have have been flushed down the toilet. They promised enormously more than they could deliver, and cheated investors and taxpayers in the process.

I am sorry but this is simply false. Kistler never delivered the final rocket but there were a lot of finished components and research that went on to other projects. I agree there's a lot that can be criticized about Kistler but it's false that *nothing* came out of it.

Its very likely that Kistler funded the initial acquisition and transport of dozens of NK-33 engines from Samara to Sacramento, which paved the way for Taurus II.

The flight software excluding aborts was completely finished by Draper. Beautiful thing.

[HMXHMX]

There was a presentation where BO publicly claims $50M/year

Do you have a copy?  That would be interesting to read.

Of course, they just got half of this year's budget from NASA via CCDEV2, in that case.

[baldusi]

There was a presentation where BO publicly claims $50M/year

Do you have a copy?  That would be interesting to read.

Of course, they just got half of this year's budget from NASA via CCDEV2, in that case.

In the CCDev2 presentation it stated that the owner was willing to put upto 50M per year. Not sure if it's actually put, if said amount didn't went up with Amazon's market cap, or anything else.

[Prober]

I stand by my comment that startups like Kistler, which spend large amount of other people's money (taxdollars in Kistler's case) without actually ever producing a product, are charlatans.

They give a bad name to the companies that actually deliver. The COTS funds to SpaceX and OSC are actually leading to useful rockets. All the public and private money spent on Kistler might as well have have been flushed down the toilet. They promised enormously more than they could deliver, and cheated investors and taxpayers in the process.

I am sorry but this is simply false. Kistler never delivered the final rocket but there were a lot of finished components and research that went on to other projects. I agree there's a lot that can be criticized about Kistler but it's false that *nothing* came out of it.

Its very likely that Kistler funded the initial acquisition and transport of dozens of NK-33 engines from Samara to Sacramento, which paved the way for Taurus II.

I read somewhere on here that Aerojet wanted like 100 million out of Kistler when they first went bankrupt.  Most of their pics show engines out of someone elses warehouse, so don't think Kistler ever owned engines?

[Nate_Trost]

Of course, we don't know what they plan to spend in the next few years.

True, but one can extrapolate somewhat, for example if they go ahead with development of the RBS referenced in their CCDev proposal, what's a credible lower bound on development cost esimates? $500 million?

[HMXHMX]

Of course, we don't know what they plan to spend in the next few years.

True, but one can extrapolate somewhat, for example if they go ahead with development of the RBS referenced in their CCDev proposal, what's a credible lower bound on development cost esimates? $500 million?

No idea, really.  I know what I'd have to pay for similar capability, but I wouldn't be using their approach, so my opinion isn't relevant.

Whatever it may be, if he want to pay the piper, Bezos can afford it.  So to the first order, it doesn't matter.

[Danderman]

My two cents worth:

If I had to predict whether Bigelow or Blue Origin will fly a full scale system in space, I would bet on Blue Origin; Bigelow seems to invest heavily in buildings and mockups and subscale flight models, whereas Blue Origin seems to invest in technology.

[baldusi]

My two cents worth:

If I had to predict whether Bigelow or Blue Origin will fly a full scale system in space, I would bet on Blue Origin; Bigelow seems to invest heavily in buildings and mockups and subscale flight models, whereas Blue Origin seems to invest in technology.

Do you remember that Bigelow already has two demonstration vehicles flying? The biggest technological development was the ECSS, and Paragon is a partner of them.

[Danderman]

Do you remember that Bigelow already has two demonstration vehicles flying? The biggest technological development was the ECSS, and Paragon is a partner of them.

Bigelow has 2 subscale models flying.

The biggest technological development for Bigelow is the development of something called a "paying customer"

[Cherokee43v6]

Do you remember that Bigelow already has two demonstration vehicles flying? The biggest technological development was the ECSS, and Paragon is a partner of them.

Bigelow has 2 subscale models flying.

The biggest technological development for Bigelow is the development of something called a "paying customer"

Kinda hard to get paying customers without an assured means of access.  "Psst... Hey Buddy, I've got a great Island get-a-way to sell you... of course you'll have to swim through 30' breakers over the razor sharp coral of a shark infested reef."

Bigelow is not going to get money down on one of his stations until after CCDev (or independent development) results in a viable, affordable commercial crew capsule.  His use of the MOU's is to prejudge and evaluate the level of interest so he can develop a plan for production and operational development once that goal is accomplished.

Therefore, Bigelow's biggest technical challenge is almost completely out of his hands, namely access to his product for the paying customer.

As a businessman, what I expect to see out of Bigelow is his organization keeping close tabs on the front-runners in the commercial crew field.  He has reasonably close contacts already with SpaceX and is in bed with Boeing on CST-100.  It sounds like he has at least another $100 - 120 million dollars of his own money to sustain his business to that point.  When Commercial Crew success is either assured within a short timeline or actually proven by successful manned flights, he will then go back to his MOU folks for the money to convert the MOU's to contracts.  I strongly suspect that he will already have at least the first module built and ready to launch for his 'Alpha' station when that time comes.

Everything seems to hinge on the next three years progress from the CCDev program.

[Danderman]

Do you remember that Bigelow already has two demonstration vehicles flying? The biggest technological development was the ECSS, and Paragon is a partner of them.

Bigelow has 2 subscale models flying.

The biggest technological development for Bigelow is the development of something called a "paying customer"

Kinda hard to get paying customers without an assured means of access. 

I am not blaming Bigelow, just the opposite. His strategy seems to be: build buildings, fly subscale models and generate mockups until he gets a customer, then he will spend the big bucks to fly his space stations. This is similar to my strategy, which is to do nothing until I win the mega-lottery, then I will fly space stations, too. My chances are somewhat poorer than Bob Bigelow's, but its the same idea.

What bothers me are the people here who assume that Bigelow is going to fly space stations on his own dime.

[docmordrid]

What about one as a proof for the integrated system?

[Danderman]

What about one as a proof for the integrated system?

Who is going to pay for it?

[docmordrid]

If they used the first FH then SpaceX pays for a test they'd do anyhow, perhaps  even with some paying secondary payloads, and ditto for Bigelow and the hab. Shared expenses.

[Danderman]

If they used the first FH then SpaceX pays for a test they'd do anyhow, perhaps  even with some paying secondary payloads, and ditto for Bigelow and the hab. Shared expenses.

If this somehow is intended to imply that Bigelow would pay for a launch of a full sized space platform without a customer, it would be inaccurate.

[baldusi]

If they used the first FH then SpaceX pays for a test they'd do anyhow, perhaps  even with some paying secondary payloads, and ditto for Bigelow and the hab. Shared expenses.

If this somehow is intended to imply that Bigelow would pay for a launch of a full sized space platform without a customer, it would be inaccurate.

I think that he was implying that since the inaugural FH flight doesn't have a client. SpaceX and Bigelow could get into an agreement where SpaceX puts them for free, in exchange of something. Like future revenues, a certain margin for x amount of cargo when bidding, etc. And if SpaceX get's a paying customer, Bigelow doesn't launches and no hard feelings.

[DigitalMan]

All this speculation is unnecessary, Bigelow has already stated he was prepared to invest $500 million and clearly has the resources to build and launch his own station if he wants to.

If they used the first FH then SpaceX pays for a test they'd do anyhow, perhaps  even with some paying secondary payloads, and ditto for Bigelow and the hab. Shared expenses.

If this somehow is intended to imply that Bigelow would pay for a launch of a full sized space platform without a customer, it would be inaccurate.

I think that he was implying that since the inaugural FH flight doesn't have a client. SpaceX and Bigelow could get into an agreement where SpaceX puts them for free, in exchange of something. Like future revenues, a certain margin for x amount of cargo when bidding, etc. And if SpaceX get's a paying customer, Bigelow doesn't launches and no hard feelings.

[Blackjax]

What bothers me are the people here who assume that Bigelow is going to fly space stations on his own dime.

Do you have any hard evidence beyond your personal opinion that he won't?

As others have pointed out, there is at least circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that he might, given the dollar figure he has expressed a willingness to spend from his own pocket to get the business going.  I dunno if he will or won't, and assumptions given the lack of evidence one way or the other are premature, but there does seem to be at least a little stronger argument for the former than the latter.

[Robotbeat]

What bothers me are the people here who assume that Bigelow is going to fly space stations on his own dime.

Do you have any hard evidence beyond your personal opinion that he won't?

As others have pointed out, there is at least circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that he might, give the dollar figure he has expressed a willingness to spend from his own pocket to get the business going.  I dunno if he will or won't, an assumptions given the lack of evidence one way or the other are premature, but there does seem to be at least a little stronger argument for the former than the latter.

Additionally, it should be pointed out that he already has orbited "space stations" on his own dime. They were subscale and unmanned, but they were pressurized.

I'm wouldn't even be confident to say he's got a 50/50 chance of launching an actual manned space station by himself, but it's not impossible.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The Dnepr LV cost about $15-20M each so Bigelow has spent already spent $30-40M on launch services for the two Genesis. To get on the launch manifest for SpaceX takes more than a handshake. The "I am Serrious about a launch" down payment being up to 20% of total price or probably somewhere between $5 and $10M Bigelow had to pay SpaceX. The next payment would be at ~18 months out of 40% or ~$22M. So by beginning of 2013 its pay or slip time. If CCDev is moving too slow and won't be active by mid / late 2014 but a year or more later the Sundancer will slip out to 2015/2016.

[ChefPat]

If CCDev is moving too slow and won't be active by mid / late 2014 but a year or more later the Sundancer will slip out to 2015/2016.

I looks like Sundancer got the Axe.
CCDev is also looking more likely as the months go by. It's becoming a bit of a race, which has it's good & bad aspects.
Bigelow was quite clear at that ISDC Awards Dinner too. He said they'll have 2 BA-330's flight ready by the end of 2014.
If they're ready, as he says they'll be, & there's transport, I see one or more of his MOU's signing on the dotted line.
It's a pretty long shot that a long term market will materialize, but I seriously doubt that this self made Billionaire will have tossed half a billion out the window just to sell a building at a fraction of what he's invested overall.

[HMXHMX]

The Dnepr LV cost about $15-20M each so Bigelow has spent already spent $30-40M on launch services for the two Genesis. To get on the launch manifest for SpaceX takes more than a handshake. The "I am Serrious about a launch" down payment being up to 20% of total price or probably somewhere between $5 and $10M Bigelow had to pay SpaceX. The next payment would be at ~18 months out of 40% or ~$22M. So by beginning of 2013 its pay or slip time. If CCDev is moving too slow and won't be active by mid / late 2014 but a year or more later the Sundancer will slip out to 2015/2016.

At the time Bigelow signed up for that original falcon Five ride, the price was about $12M – about the same as he had paid for Dnepr.  So – speculating wildly –  he might have paid for it in full, in which case SpaceX owes him an equivalent ride (meaning an F9).  He could be using that for CST-100 test, or as a bargaining chip on a much more capable FH ride in the future.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Looking at the Bigelow site, you're correct the Sundancer is no longer featured. Probably meaning that he will need an FH not a F9 for the first module launch. Also by skipping the Sundancer his development costs decrease because he is developing just the BA330 and not a much smaler Sundancer and a BA330.

[Danderman]

The Dnepr LV cost about $15-20M each so Bigelow has spent already spent $30-40M on launch services for the two Genesis.

Its tough to read posts that begin with inaccurate assertions.

[Danderman]

I seriously doubt that this self made Billionaire will have tossed half a billion out the window just to sell a building at a fraction of what he's invested overall.

Bigelow has not come close to investing half a billion dollars so far. And, by far, the greatest expense has been the various buildings that have been constructed.

[ChefPat]

I seriously doubt that this self made Billionaire will have tossed half a billion out the window just to sell a building at a fraction of what he's invested overall.

Bigelow has not come close to investing half a billion dollars so far. And, by far, the greatest expense has been the various buildings that have been constructed.

On the BA site thet say,
 "Mr. Bigelow has spent about $180 million of his own money so far and has said he is willing to spend up to $320 million more. An expansion of the factory will double the amount of floor space as the Bigelow Aerospace company begins the transition from research and development to production."
I can't find it right now, but there was info that said they'd spent around $40 or $45 million more in the time frame where they announced the Fore & Aft Propulsion Systems, the ECLSS trials & the big expansion of the factory.
I'm curious where you got the info to so definitively state "Bigelow has not come close to investing half a billion dollars so far. And, by far, the greatest expense has been the various buildings that have been constructed."?
Please post your source.

[Cherokee43v6]

Do you remember that Bigelow already has two demonstration vehicles flying? The biggest technological development was the ECSS, and Paragon is a partner of them.

Bigelow has 2 subscale models flying.

The biggest technological development for Bigelow is the development of something called a "paying customer"

Kinda hard to get paying customers without an assured means of access. 

I am not blaming Bigelow, just the opposite. His strategy seems to be: build buildings, fly subscale models and generate mockups until he gets a customer, then he will spend the big bucks to fly his space stations. This is similar to my strategy, which is to do nothing until I win the mega-lottery, then I will fly space stations, too. My chances are somewhat poorer than Bob Bigelow's, but its the same idea.

What bothers me are the people here who assume that Bigelow is going to fly space stations on his own dime.

Alternatively you can look at each of your arguments above as follows:

Build buildings:  Develop the infrastructure necessary for producing and operating the product in a timely and efficient manner when the market opens. (First mover advantage.)

Fly subscale models:  Develops internal ground control operations experience for Bigelow's internal flight controllers.  Genesis I and II are fully functioning technology demonstration satellites.  If all he wanted to prove was that they could be deployed in orbit Bigelow wouldn't have had them launched to the orbits they are in.  My understanding based on the published reading material is that both were intended as long term tests of the inflatable concept and structure in a space environment.  As they continue to age their telemetry can only become more valuable as they pass predicted and/or actual failure points.

Generate Mockups: Architects quite often build scale models and even full size elements of their buildings for the purpose of evaluating the 'human factors' elements associated with them.  What looks good in 2 dimensions or in 3 on a computer screen may be bollox when a real live human being has to deal with it.  Mock-ups enable such issues to be solved before someone's life depends upon being able to reach a valve to turn its knob/handle in a freefall environment with no unbreakable leverage in reach.

In short, it can be argued that each of the above can be viewed as a critical path precursor to the development and operation of a commercial space station.

As to launching them on his own dime, he's on record as saying that he will own all his stations and rent space on them.  That may change at some point in the future should Bigelow see a market for commercial station ownership, but at least initially, he's the landlord.  Thus, when the time comes, he will be launching them on his own nickle.  I do agree, though, that he probably won't launch the first one until he has the first rental/utilization contract in place.

[Danderman]

On the BA site thet say,
 "Mr. Bigelow has spent about $180 million of his own money so far

 

I'm curious where you got the info to so definitively state "Bigelow has not come close to investing half a billion dollars so far.
Please post your source.

 

[ChefPat]

I doesn't look like the Taxman thinks it's worth $100 miilion.
Real Property Parcel Record

[Danderman]

In short, it can be argued that each of the above can be viewed as a critical path precursor to the development and operation of a commercial space station.

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with building buildings, flying subscale models, and building mockups. I am simply saying that is Bigelow does.

As to launching them on his own dime, he's on record as saying that he will own all his stations and rent space on them.  That may change at some point in the future should Bigelow see a market for commercial station ownership, but at least initially, he's the landlord.  Thus, when the time comes, he will be launching them on his own nickle.  I do agree, though, that he probably won't launch the first one until he has the first rental/utilization contract in place.

I am not suggesting that Bigelow would not take title if he were to fly a space station for his customers. I am simply saying that Bigelow won't fly a space station until he has paying customers, paying commercial terms.

[Danderman]

I doesn't look like the Taxman thinks it's worth $100 miilion.
Real Property Parcel Record

This is not the only building that Bigelow has developed, and the assessor probably has not yet assessed the new construction, nor would the assessor include the value of the stuff inside the building.

[ChefPat]

This is not the only building that Bigelow has developed, and the assessor probably has not yet assessed the new construction, nor would the assessor include the value of the stuff inside the building.

That tax assessment is for this year & next. An estimated value would have been added on to the bill. If they made it too much they'll give you a rebate next time.
The assessor will never include the furniture in the the value of a house.
 I'd say if he's invested $100 million plus in tools he's pretty serious about using them.

[Cherokee43v6]

In short, it can be argued that each of the above can be viewed as a critical path precursor to the development and operation of a commercial space station.

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with building buildings, flying subscale models, and building mockups. I am simply saying that is Bigelow does.

As to launching them on his own dime, he's on record as saying that he will own all his stations and rent space on them.  That may change at some point in the future should Bigelow see a market for commercial station ownership, but at least initially, he's the landlord.  Thus, when the time comes, he will be launching them on his own nickle.  I do agree, though, that he probably won't launch the first one until he has the first rental/utilization contract in place.

I am not suggesting that Bigelow would not take title if he were to fly a space station for his customers. I am simply saying that Bigelow won't fly a space station until he has paying customers, paying commercial terms.

Bigelow also recognizes this about his operation.  Primarily because, until he has assured access to his stations in orbit he has no means to acquire paying customers.

This is the reason he put up $50 million of his own money for the 'America's Space Prize' (unclaimed, expired in 2010) for the development of a privately funded (no government money), manned capable orbital spacecraft.

Why he pushed hard several years ago for the 'Orion Lite' with LM.

And why he has partnered with Boeing on the CST-100 development.

It is most likely also why he is talking with NASA about an inflatable addition to the ISS.  This would enable him to prove his product in a manned capacity earlier if commercial crew development is unable to meet its current schedules (as many suspect will be the case).

In keeping with the spirit of this thread's title, what is really great about right now is that we have a couple of guys with large fortunes who are very willing to make them into small fortunes in the advancement of private spaceflight!

[Danderman]

It is most likely also why he is talking with NASA about an inflatable addition to the ISS. 

And this may very well be the home run that Bigelow is looking for. Getting a contract to build an ISS module would help recoup much of his investment.

I dimly recall that Bigelow may have been one of the bidders for the canceled Hab module.

[Cherokee43v6]

It is most likely also why he is talking with NASA about an inflatable addition to the ISS. 

And this may very well be the home run that Bigelow is looking for. Getting a contract to build an ISS module would help recoup much of his investment.

I dimly recall that Bigelow may have been one of the bidders for the canceled Hab module.

I doubt that last bit.  Bigelow bought the rights to the 'TransHab' which was developed as an alternative to the 'canhab' that was being developed for the station.  I don't think he was in the space business when those contracts were let. When Congress pulled the plug on that unsafe balloon (as I recall one congress critter referring to it), Bigelow saw an opportunity to acquire a revolutionary technology, cheap.

My concern with the Bigelow/ISS angle is whether the Congressional language banning the use of any inflatable modules on the ISS is still in effect.

[Prober]

I seriously doubt that this self made Billionaire will have tossed half a billion out the window just to sell a building at a fraction of what he's invested overall.

Bigelow has not come close to investing half a billion dollars so far. And, by far, the greatest expense has been the various buildings that have been constructed.

Now, Now be nice to Bigelow.....all he has to do is get some papers with the India gov. and ISS and we could have a new section with thrusters as part of the ISS.   Have any idea what could happen then?

[joek]

My concern with the Bigelow/ISS angle is whether the Congressional language banning the use of any inflatable modules on the ISS is still in effect.

Congress didn't ban the use of trans-hab for the ISS.  They banned trans-hab as a replacement for the agreed-upon modules (with one possible and unlikely exception; see quote below).  That effectively eliminated it from play as NASA would have had to fund it as an addition (vs. replacement) module; the probability of that was nil.

If NASA can find the funds, there is nothing stopping them today from adding an inflatable module to the ISS.

See 106th Congress H.R.1654 SEC 127 TRANS-HAB

SEC. 127. TRANS-HAB.
(a) REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE.—No funds authorized by this Act shall be obligated for the definition, design, procurement, or development of an inflatable space structure to replace any International
Space Station components scheduled for launch in the Assembly Sequence adopted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in June 1999.
(b) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), nothing in this Act shall preclude the National Aeronautics and Space Administration from leasing or otherwise using a commercially provided inflatable habitation module, if such module would—
(1) cost the same or less, including any necessary modifications to other hardware or operating expenses, than the remaining cost of completing and attaching the baseline habitation module;
(2) impose no delays to the Space Station Assembly Sequence; and
(3) result in no increased safety risk.

[Danderman]

I seriously doubt that this self made Billionaire will have tossed half a billion out the window just to sell a building at a fraction of what he's invested overall.

Bigelow has not come close to investing half a billion dollars so far. And, by far, the greatest expense has been the various buildings that have been constructed.

Now, Now be nice to Bigelow.....all he has to do is get some papers with the India gov. and ISS and we could have a new section with thrusters as part of the ISS.   Have any idea what could happen then?

You must either be suggesting that Bob Bigelow would pay for a module at ISS for the use of ISRO, which would be incredible; or that ISRO would pay Bob Bigelow, which is unbelievable.

[Danderman]

It is most likely also why he is talking with NASA about an inflatable addition to the ISS. 

And this may very well be the home run that Bigelow is looking for. Getting a contract to build an ISS module would help recoup much of his investment.

I dimly recall that Bigelow may have been one of the bidders for the canceled Hab module.

I doubt that last bit.  Bigelow bought the rights to the 'TransHab' which was developed as an alternative to the 'canhab' that was being developed for the station.  I don't think he was in the space business when those contracts were let. When Congress pulled the plug on that unsafe balloon (as I recall one congress critter referring to it), Bigelow saw an opportunity to acquire a revolutionary technology, cheap.

My concern with the Bigelow/ISS angle is whether the Congressional language banning the use of any inflatable modules on the ISS is still in effect.

I vaguely recall a period when NASA put out an RFP for an inflatable hab module for ISS, and that several companies responded; I believe that Bigelow Aerospace was one of them. The RFP went nowhere.

[HMXHMX]

I seriously doubt that this self made Billionaire will have tossed half a billion out the window just to sell a building at a fraction of what he's invested overall.

Bigelow has not come close to investing half a billion dollars so far. And, by far, the greatest expense has been the various buildings that have been constructed.

On the BA site thet say,
 "Mr. Bigelow has spent about $180 million of his own money so far and has said he is willing to spend up to $320 million more. An expansion of the factory will double the amount of floor space as the Bigelow Aerospace company begins the transition from research and development to production."
I can't find it right now, but there was info that said they'd spent around $40 or $45 million more in the time frame where they announced the Fore & Aft Propulsion Systems, the ECLSS trials & the big expansion of the factory.
I'm curious where you got the info to so definitively state "Bigelow has not come close to investing half a billion dollars so far. And, by far, the greatest expense has been the various buildings that have been constructed."?
Please post your source.

He was standing not ten feet in front of me last fall at AIAA Space 2010 and he specifically said he had spent $200M.  He was saying his controller gave him the total dollar expenditure to date and Bob's response was a colorful and unprintable single word exclamation.

[someguy]

He was standing not ten feet in front of me last fall at AIAA Space 2010 and he specifically said he had spent $200M.  He was saying his controller gave him the total dollar expenditure to date and Bob's response was a colorful and unprintable single word exclamation.

Meaning more than he expected or less than he expected?

[HMXHMX]

In short, it can be argued that each of the above can be viewed as a critical path precursor to the development and operation of a commercial space station.

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with building buildings, flying subscale models, and building mockups. I am simply saying that is Bigelow does.

As to launching them on his own dime, he's on record as saying that he will own all his stations and rent space on them.  That may change at some point in the future should Bigelow see a market for commercial station ownership, but at least initially, he's the landlord.  Thus, when the time comes, he will be launching them on his own nickle.  I do agree, though, that he probably won't launch the first one until he has the first rental/utilization contract in place.

I am not suggesting that Bigelow would not take title if he were to fly a space station for his customers. I am simply saying that Bigelow won't fly a space station until he has paying customers, paying commercial terms.

Bigelow also recognizes this about his operation.  Primarily because, until he has assured access to his stations in orbit he has no means to acquire paying customers.

This is the reason he put up $50 million of his own money for the 'America's Space Prize' (unclaimed, expired in 2010) for the development of a privately funded (no government money), manned capable orbital spacecraft.

Why he pushed hard several years ago for the 'Orion Lite' with LM.

And why he has partnered with Boeing on the CST-100 development.

It is most likely also why he is talking with NASA about an inflatable addition to the ISS.  This would enable him to prove his product in a manned capacity earlier if commercial crew development is unable to meet its current schedules (as many suspect will be the case).

In keeping with the spirit of this thread's title, what is really great about right now is that we have a couple of guys with large fortunes who are very willing to make them into small fortunes in the advancement of private spaceflight!

An observation on his "partnership" with Boeing.  Boeing seems to characterize it that way, but at Space 2010 last year he was very clear that Bigelow Aerospace was a contractor to Boeing.  While they contribute the perspective of a potential customer, he has said nothing about contributing funding to Boeing, buying vehicles or launches, or any other commitment.  The money, from his own comments, has flowed from Boeing to BA, to date.

(Since I have no insider information, this interpretation is based on what I heard at that informal gathering only and at that point in time.)

[HMXHMX]

He was standing not ten feet in front of me last fall at AIAA Space 2010 and he specifically said he had spent $200M.  He was saying his controller gave him the total dollar expenditure to date and Bob's response was a colorful and unprintable single word exclamation.

Meaning more than he expected or less than he expected?

It was a negative, not positive exclamation.  But he was smiling as he said it, and all of us in the room were laughing pretty hard.

[A_M_Swallow]

Now, Now be nice to Bigelow.....all he has to do is get some papers with the India gov. and ISS and we could have a new section with thrusters as part of the ISS.   Have any idea what could happen then?

You must either be suggesting that Bob Bigelow would pay for a module at ISS for the use of ISRO, which would be incredible; or that ISRO would pay Bob Bigelow, which is unbelievable.

If an ISS astronaut opens the hatch and takes a breath without dying does the Bigelow module count as TRL 9 and manrated?  That rating can effect sales and certification.

[Danderman]

Now, Now be nice to Bigelow.....all he has to do is get some papers with the India gov. and ISS and we could have a new section with thrusters as part of the ISS.   Have any idea what could happen then?

You must either be suggesting that Bob Bigelow would pay for a module at ISS for the use of ISRO, which would be incredible; or that ISRO would pay Bob Bigelow, which is unbelievable.

If an ISS astronaut opens the hatch and takes a breath without dying does the Bigelow module count as TRL 9 and manrated?  That rating can effect sales and certification.

You're slightly off topic there, the question is whether anyone here believes that ISRO would pay Bigelow Aerospace for an ISS module.

[baldusi]

Now, Now be nice to Bigelow.....all he has to do is get some papers with the India gov. and ISS and we could have a new section with thrusters as part of the ISS.   Have any idea what could happen then?

You must either be suggesting that Bob Bigelow would pay for a module at ISS for the use of ISRO, which would be incredible; or that ISRO would pay Bob Bigelow, which is unbelievable.

If an ISS astronaut opens the hatch and takes a breath without dying does the Bigelow module count as TRL 9 and manrated?  That rating can effect sales and certification.

You're slightly off topic there, the question is whether anyone here believes that ISRO would pay Bigelow Aerospace for an ISS module.

Does Bigelow has any hotel business in India? How about a tax break in India in exchange for the ISS module? India wouldn't have to actually put money, might get an investment, so in overall trade balance it would actually get dollars, and Bigelow might find that the hotel chains pays the module.

[hop]

Does Bigelow has any hotel business in India? How about a tax break in India in exchange for the ISS module? India wouldn't have to actually put money, might get an investment, so in overall trade balance it would actually get dollars, and Bigelow might find that the hotel chains pays the module.

This is quite OT here, I've replied in the Bigelow thread. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15581.msg776394#msg776394

[Danderman]

Does Bigelow has any hotel business in India? How about a tax break in India in exchange for the ISS module? India wouldn't have to actually put money, might get an investment, so in overall trade balance it would actually get dollars, and Bigelow might find that the hotel chains pays the module.

Its very unlikely that any hypothetical taxes that Bigelow would be paying in India would suffice to cover the cost of building and launching a space station. More to the point, if Bigelow's taxes were lowered in India, his US taxes would increase.

And, Bigelow Aerospace is not the same company as Budget Suites of America.

[A_M_Swallow]

Now, Now be nice to Bigelow.....all he has to do is get some papers with the India gov. and ISS and we could have a new section with thrusters as part of the ISS.   Have any idea what could happen then?

You must either be suggesting that Bob Bigelow would pay for a module at ISS for the use of ISRO, which would be incredible; or that ISRO would pay Bob Bigelow, which is unbelievable.

If an ISS astronaut opens the hatch and takes a breath without dying does the Bigelow module count as TRL 9 and manrated?  That rating can effect sales and certification.

You're slightly off topic there, the question is whether anyone here believes that ISRO would pay Bigelow Aerospace for an ISS module.

My question goes to cost.  Bigelow may give a low price if NASA officially flight tests one of the modules at the ISS.

[Danderman]

My question goes to cost.  Bigelow may give a low price if NASA officially flight tests one of the modules at the ISS.

The cost of certifying a Bigelow module for ISS would probably far exceed the cost of simply flying that module by itself as a core module for a private space station.

The requirements for an ISS module are so different from what private customers may require that the ISS test would be more for marketing than for anything else, but it would be very expensive marketing.

[Patchouli]

I say fly it as a an independent station but in a slightly lower orbit that could be reached via a vehicle visiting ISS.

[Lars_J]

I say fly it as a an independent station but in a slightly lower orbit that could be reached via a vehicle visiting ISS.

You don't want to be in an orbit lower than ISS - The increased drag will increase the amount of propellant needed for reboost.

[docmordrid]

IIRC Bigelow stations are going into much higher orbits than ISS - 460 km sticks in my head.

[ChefPat]

IIRC Bigelow stations are going into much higher orbits than ISS - 460 km sticks in my head.

He's given several different altitudes. Including, 460 km, 350 miles & at the ISDC dinner in May 235 miles.

[Danderman]

IIRC Bigelow stations are going into much higher orbits than ISS - 460 km sticks in my head.

I wonder if the requirements for visiting vehicles imposed by this higher altitude are being captured and integrated into any of the CC-DEV2 contractor vehicles.  Certainly, Soyuz cannot meet this requirement without modification.

[docmordrid]

Bigelow is partnered with Boeing for the CST-100.

Don't think that GTO capable F9 2nd stage would have a problem putting a Dragon into a Bigelow orbit. What say ye rocketeers?

[baldusi]

IIRC Bigelow stations are going into much higher orbits than ISS - 460 km sticks in my head.

I wonder if the requirements for visiting vehicles imposed by this higher altitude are being captured and integrated into any of the CC-DEV2 contractor vehicles.  Certainly, Soyuz cannot meet this requirement without modification.

How much payload do you lose from going from 380 to 480? The new Soyuz can take 70gm more than the last. And they really pack it. Strip down of extra supplies couldn't it reach it? In any case they will (eventually) be able to move to a Soyuz-2.1a/b, which has a bit more of performance.

[Danderman]

IIRC Bigelow stations are going into much higher orbits than ISS - 460 km sticks in my head.

I wonder if the requirements for visiting vehicles imposed by this higher altitude are being captured and integrated into any of the CC-DEV2 contractor vehicles.  Certainly, Soyuz cannot meet this requirement without modification.

How much payload do you lose from going from 380 to 480? The new Soyuz can take 70gm more than the last. And they really pack it. Strip down of extra supplies couldn't it reach it? In any case they will (eventually) be able to move to a Soyuz-2.1a/b, which has a bit more of performance.

This is a really great example of why Space Is Hard.

The requirements for Soyuz to fly to 480 km altitude are not immediately obvious, but there are many.

First off, the drop zones for the Soyuz launcher must be considered. Its possible that modifications for higher altitude might cause lower stages to miss existing drop zones.

Secondly, the horizon sensor for Soyuz might not function much higher than 425 kilometers.

Thirdly, if the drop zone issue is resolved by putting a heavier Soyuz into the standard 190 km x 240 km orbit, then the prop consumption to reach 480 km altitude would cut into reserves.

Fourth, the Soyuz heat shield is not certified for re-entry from 480 kilometers, which requires either:

a) modifications to the heat shield and related systems; or

b) retrofire from a lower altitude. This is not desirable, since maneuvering far away from the space station and then attempting retrofire means the crew might not be able to make it back to the space station in case of an off-nominal retrofire. Once the Soyuz drops to a lower orbit prior to retrofire, precession separates the orbital planes of Soyuz and the space station, making return to the space station very difficult.   The mission then becomes single fault tolerant on retrofire working.

Not to mention that for Soyuz to dock with a Bigelow station, the Bigelow station would have to be outfitted with Kurs and a passive docking port, which is not going to happen.

Except for the latter issue, its probable that the technical requirements could be met; my point here is that by throwing out comments such as the 480 kilometer altitude for the Bigelow station, its pretty clear to the technical community that Bigelow isn't serious (!), in the sense of being prepared to actually fly a station, unless he is secretly passing along the requirements to the Visiting Vehicle community.

[Danderman]

Why Space Business Is Hard:

In order to attract or justify investment, its necessary to identify a market that is satisfied by the project in question. For Virgin Galactic, the market is fairly obvious, although no one can say definitely that there is a market at a price point above $100K beyond a few hundred individuals. For satellite companies, the market exists today, no problem.

For Bigelow, its questionable if there is a market today for pressurized volume in LEO, even with a hypothetical visiting vehicle.

For Nanoracks and other companies developing capabilities for biological research in LEO, there may be a market:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19519.msg777464#msg777464

[Cherokee43v6]

Why Space Business Is Hard:

In order to attract or justify investment, its necessary to identify a market that is satisfied by the project in question. For Virgin Galactic, the market is fairly obvious, although no one can say definitely that there is a market at a price point above $100K beyond a few hundred individuals. For satellite companies, the market exists today, no problem.

For Bigelow, its questionable if there is a market today for pressurized volume in LEO, even with a hypothetical visiting vehicle.

For Nanoracks and other companies developing capabilities for biological research in LEO, there may be a market:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19519.msg777464#msg777464

Thus one of the reasons for the MOUs.  When no market previously exists, you use these to gauge interest, all the while knowing that your actual MOU to Paid customer conversion is likely to be on the order of 5% - 10%.

Assuming he has 30 MOUs (a number I recall hearing in a different discussion) that would be 2 - 3 actual customers at initiation.  This might be just enough for Bigelow to establish the market and thus be in a position to recruit further customers.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Assuming he has 30 MOUs (a number I recall hearing in a different discussion) that would be 2 - 3 actual customers at initiation.  This might be just enough for Bigelow to establish the market and thus be in a position to recruit further customers.

The conversion rate is dependent on the total cost per person per year. At a minimum this includes the cost of transporting 2 persons per year to the station. Making the transportation cost the largest variable on total cost.

For Example: At $25M per seat to $65M per seat that is a variation per year on cost of $80M. A MPCV seat could be higher than $100M. If Bigelow lease price is $50M to $100M (this includes Bigelow supplying cargo resupply to support 1 person per year continuous occupancy), making the total price $100M to $230M.

The lower the price the more additional customers Bigelow could attract. 3 customers with 2 person occupancy each that is spending a total of $200M each, is very different than if they were spending $500M each. Over 10 years that’s $2B or $5B. A price of $100M would attract many more customers probably as much as 5 to 10 times more than a price of $250M. 5 to 20 more customers would fill out a full 3 BA330 station in which the customers buy short term as well as long term occupancy. Most of these customers would be short term occupancy 1 to 6 months at from $30M to $50M, as dictated by their budgets or project needs. If the price is high (occupancy 1 to 6 months at from $75M to $125M) causing only acquiring 1 or 2 more customers which will not even fill out another module, Bigelow’s corporate growth would essentially be halted once two modules would be orbited. With a low price, increase in customers will decrease transport costs and cargo resupply costs lowering the price which will attract even more short term customers.

Let’s consider a business model for widget X. A $30M cost would allow the widget price to be $100 of which $30 is used to pay off the $30M space element costs. The product sells at high volume ~ 1 million units because it is under the current market price. A $75M cost would make the widget price to be $370 of which $300 is used to pay off the $75M space element costs. The product sells at low volume ¼ that of a product at $100 ~ 250 thousand units because it is higher than current market price so that the cost of the space element is quadrupled for each unit.

Under the second case the customer would not spend on use of space because it does not make business sense since without space he can beat the price.

[Orbital Debris]

Do you remember that Bigelow already has two demonstration vehicles flying? The biggest technological development was the ECSS, and Paragon is a partner of them.

Bigelow has 2 subscale models flying.

The biggest technological development for Bigelow is the development of something called a "paying customer"

You forget about "Fly Your Stuff".  He has had paying customers, myself among them.  My personal mementos currently are in LEO.  Actually, there were a surprising number of responses to this program.

To answer other comments, the original Sundancer concept was to be initially crewed by Bigelow Aerospace crew for shakedown and proof of concept prior to paying customers.  This means that the first launch would be "on his dime".  I believe this was stated in public.