Commercial Space: No Bucks, No Buck Rogers!

[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.