Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (2)

[yg1968]

The crewed Dragon would have a docking system. They were discussing the cargo Dragon.

[A_M_Swallow]

The crewed Dragon would have a docking system. They were discussing the cargo Dragon.

As well as the crewed Dragon Bigelow may need a cargo Dragon with a docking system.  Since the alternative is to fit the spacestation with two different methods of docking.

[Orbital Debris]

I think bigelow needs to launch a ba330 test module in to orbit as a full sized demonstrator like they did with genesis. A full up test would be worth it. Perhaps have a dragon berth to it to test that out until the other capsule is ready  ( modification required to dragon?). Then theyll be ready to sell a production version.

This was the original concept for the Sundancer.  Initial outfitting with a three person Bigelow crew, with commercial utilization to follow.

[Orbital Debris]

.. and crew transport is taking longer?

All four leading contenders for commercial crew are building, testing, one is even flying. Bigelow is now falling behind. 

Private Space Station Builder Downsizes Dramatically
http://news.yahoo.com/private-space-station-builder-downsizes-dramatically-134802538.html

That article says that Bigelow is ahead, waiting for transport.  Which is it?

The article quotes Bigelow Aerospace's lawyer.  This is simply corporate spin.  IMO, (I've seen the design review information) the BA330 will not be at a System requirements review level for 2 years (assuming that work continues progress).
Believe the 'anonymous' web poster, or believe a privately held company's reluctant information release. 

[manboy]

.. and crew transport is taking longer?

All four leading contenders for commercial crew are building, testing, one is even flying. Bigelow is now falling behind. 

But when will they carry crew?

.. and crew transport is taking longer?

All four leading contenders for commercial crew are building, testing, one is even flying. Bigelow is now falling behind. 

The pace of commercial crew is irrelevant to Bigelow's current situation, where he has no viable business case. Even if Dragon were flying, which it is in its cargo variant, Bigelow cannot demonstrate profitability even at Elon's quoted numbers. To get a Dragon into space is so expensive relative to any potential Bigelow customer revenues that to add the cost of a space platform blows any business case out of the water.

Do you have any numbers to support these allegations?

I think bigelow needs to launch a ba330 test module in to orbit as a full sized demonstrator like they did with genesis. A full up test would be worth it. Perhaps have a dragon berth to it to test that out until the other capsule is ready  ( modification required to dragon?). Then theyll be ready to sell a production version.

Probably wouldn't be too expensive to do, launch costs alone would be over $100 million.

[RocketEconomist327]

All four leading contenders for commercial crew are building, testing, one is even flying. Bigelow is now falling behind. 

Did you, or anyone posting on this thread care to read what Mike Gold of Bigelow stated on the layoffs?

“We had hoped that by 2014 or 2015 that America would again be able to fly its own astronauts. Unfortunately, the prospect of domestic crew transportation of any kind is apparently going to occur years after the first BA 330 could be ready,” Gold wrote. “For both business and technical reasons, we cannot deploy a BA 330 without a means of transporting crew to and from our station, and the adjustment to our employment levels was necessary to reflect this reality.

“If anything, Bigelow Aerospace has been suffering from its own early success, and we’re years ahead of where the rest of the industry is.”

They need a way to have people access their inflatables.  Without it, they are just burning through money keeping people employed.  That is the brutal reality of the free market.

All of this speculation on Bigelow having problems is nonsense.  Maybe if NASA got off their <censored> and allowed an inflatable on the ISS, this could have been avoided.

Honestly, all this does in the private sector is drive us harder.  There will come a day where we are thankful for NASA, but we fly right by them.  The red tape is delaying progress.

VR
RE327

[spectre9]

Sounds a bit sad.

Could build a big space hotel but no way to get there.

Human launch is in a sad state right now but I think technology is really coming along and things will turn around soon enough.

[Ronsmytheiii]

All of this speculation on Bigelow having problems is nonsense.  Maybe if NASA got off their <censored> and allowed an inflatable on the ISS, this could have been avoided.

Exactly like I said before, another "blame NASA" post.  ISS is complete, and there are several empty rack locations in the existing USOS.  The only reasons for Bigelow involvement were satisfied in BEAM, that being inflatable testing as OD stated before.  NASA should not have to fork over for a full module when most of it is not needed.  Bigelow was responsible for the business outcome, dont blame NASA for not bailing them out with an unneeded purchase.

[yg1968]

The ISS inflatable module was supposed to test the technology. It was not unecessary and it has nothing to do with bailing out Bigelow. Not surprisingly Bigelow is concentrating on the activities that will generate revenues in the short term: the CST-100.

[mmeijeri]

A deal with Bigelow instead of ESA would have been more useful and a deal with both Bigelow and SpaceX would have been more useful still. NASA does deserve blame for that.

[Ronsmytheiii]

A deal with Bigelow instead of ESA would have been more useful and a deal with both Bigelow and SpaceX would have been more useful still. NASA does deserve blame for that.

deal for what?  If you are referring to the Orion service module, that is far from finalized, the ATV service module exists now, and Bigelow has not even offered such a deal.  AS for station modules, the nodes and MPLM derived structures had years of design, and Bigelow only offered the module later on in life.

Again, just blaming NASA.

[mmeijeri]

I wasn't complaining about the station modules.

[grr]

A deal with Bigelow instead of ESA would have been more useful and a deal with both Bigelow and SpaceX would have been more useful still. NASA does deserve blame for that.

NASA does NOT deserve the blame here.
The issue is congress. They gutted various parts of NASA's budget.

Look, lets assume that NASA buys a unit today. Lets assume that they get the unit to the ISS around 2013/2014. Now what? BA can not put up a station UNTIL they have a way to put man on it. That means that they are delayed for another 3 years. Worse,  the house is trying to gut private space so that at BEST it is one private space (and they will push for CST-100/atlas) and the SLS.

NASA gets so much blame, and yet, they are rarely the issue. It is congress that should be blamed. We need to get CCDev bumped back up, along with buying a BA unit.

What is really sad is that private space has the ability to be the next internet economy, and jump to the moon. However, congress, mostly the house, wants to kill that.

[Moe Grills]

NASA does NOT deserve the blame here.
The issue is congress. They gutted various parts of NASA's budget.

Bigelow funds his projects out of his own pocket; neither NASA nor Congress have any say in how he spends his money.

Look, lets assume that NASA buys a unit today.

Bigelow doesn't need NASA; NASA doesn't need Bigelow.

Worse,  the house is trying to gut private space so that at BEST it is one private space (and they will push for CST-100/atlas) and the SLS.

The Congress cannot halt Bigelow's efforts, because his business is not operating illegally, nor is it a monopoly.

What is really sad is that private space has the ability to be the next internet economy, and jump to the moon. However, congress, mostly the house, wants to kill that.

Nonsense. Let congress do its own thing; let Bigelow and Musk do theirs.
Musk and Bigelow do not command congress to do their bidding; neither
does the congress have the right to command Bigelow and Musk to do their bidding unless both men ask for tax money from the government.

[Orbital Debris]

All of this speculation on Bigelow having problems is nonsense.  Maybe if NASA got off their <censored> and allowed an inflatable on the ISS, this could have been avoided.

No speculation, RTB stated internally that the layoffs were precipitated by a downturn in the economy. 

NASA's choice in this case is immaterial.  The potential revenue from the BEAM project is a couple of million dollars at best.  As a couple people have estimated here, that is not enough to cover the cash flow for 55 salaries. (and 55 was the final number of this round)

[Jason1701]

All of this speculation on Bigelow having problems is nonsense.  Maybe if NASA got off their <censored> and allowed an inflatable on the ISS, this could have been avoided.

No speculation, RTB stated internally that the layoffs were precipitated by a downturn in the economy. 

NASA's choice in this case is immaterial.  The potential revenue from the BEAM project is a couple of million dollars at best.  As a couple people have estimated here, that is not enough to cover the cash flow for 55 salaries. (and 55 was the final number of this round)

A whole inflatable module costs only a couple of million dollars?

[RocketEconomist327]

All of this speculation on Bigelow having problems is nonsense.  Maybe if NASA got off their <censored> and allowed an inflatable on the ISS, this could have been avoided.

Exactly like I said before, another "blame NASA" post.  ISS is complete, and there are several empty rack locations in the existing USOS.  The only reasons for Bigelow involvement were satisfied in BEAM, that being inflatable testing as OD stated before.  NASA should not have to fork over for a full module when most of it is not needed.  Bigelow was responsible for the business outcome, dont blame NASA for not bailing them out with an unneeded purchase.

No, the criticism is fair.  NASA screwed up.

NASA said Bigelow could send a module to ISS.
Bigelow spent MILLIONS preparing
NASA never sent "requirements"
Bigelow had to lay off workers who would be building that module

NASA is not as pure as the wind driven snow.  NASA dropped the ball and everyone who is involved knows just how bad NASA screwed up.

So yes, blame NASA.  The bureaucracy of the old "only NASA" types cannot keep up with the free market.

Get used to it.

VR
RE327

[mmeijeri]

I'm not sure I buy that scenario.

[woods170]

No, the criticism is fair.  NASA screwed up.

NASA said Bigelow could send a module to ISS.
Bigelow spent MILLIONS preparing
NASA never sent "requirements"
Bigelow had to lay off workers who would be building that module

NASA is not as pure as the wind driven snow.  NASA dropped the ball and everyone who is involved knows just how bad NASA screwed up.

So yes, blame NASA.  The bureaucracy of the old "only NASA" types cannot keep up with the free market.

Get used to it.

VR
RE327

I don't buy that scenario. NASA never said to Bigelow: You can send up a module to the ISS. NASA said: we might be interested to see one of your modules on the ISS.

NASA showed interest. But they never made a solid commitment. And you can't blame NASA for that.

[as58]

Sure NASA can, and often will, be blamed for anything. Blaming NASA can be a very useful cathartic release.

I know absolutely no details about Bigelow's situation. But in general, statements from company officials are not always the most impartial reflections of the reality. At least according to a poster in this thread who (claims he) is a former employee at Bigelow, things may not have been as ready as Mike Gold makes them sound.