Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (2)

[Robert Thompson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_II

mentions 2 interactive capabilities, billboards and space bingo. Were those physically validated / checked out after launch?

The experience of betting on a hypothetical Bigelow keno operating against a backdrop of earth would fit somewhere between experiences available at casinos and online. Casino, being that you physically interact and must trust your eyes - the probabilities derive from that sub-Planckian suite of processors we call a Universe. Online, being that you surrender immediate physical experience and must trust a remote random number generator. I imagined it somewhat plausible to see a Bigelow keno, put up on a large screen projector in a casino / bar, bringing a sight of Earth in its changing lights to a niche market, perhaps 30 years out.

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/entertainment-media/publications/global-gaming-outlook.jhtml
Casino revenue, 2010: $117.6b global, $57.5b U.S.

http://www.americangaming.org/government-affairs/key-issues/online-gambling
Online gambling revenue, 2012, $4b U.S.

[Prober]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_II

mentions 2 interactive capabilities, billboards and space bingo. Were those physically validated / checked out after launch?

The experience of betting on a hypothetical Bigelow keno operating against a backdrop of earth would fit somewhere between experiences available at casinos and online. Casino, being that you physically interact and must trust your eyes - the probabilities derive from that sub-Planckian suite of processors we call a Universe. Online, being that you surrender immediate physical experience and must trust a remote random number generator. I imagined it somewhat plausible to see a Bigelow keno, put up on a large screen projector in a casino / bar, bringing a sight of Earth in its changing lights to a niche market, perhaps 30 years out.

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/entertainment-media/publications/global-gaming-outlook.jhtml
Casino revenue, 2010: $117.6b global, $57.5b U.S.

http://www.americangaming.org/government-affairs/key-issues/online-gambling
Online gambling revenue, 2012, $4b U.S.

Keep in mind the gaming revenue doesn't = profit.

[mr. mark]

Not sure if there is even a go forward plan for Bigelow. Seems they came out of the shoot about 10 years too soon. Their ISS proposal did not go through and even though they have teamed with Boeing and SpaceX, the latter which seems to be on a roll, they can't seem to get things going.

[ChefPat]

Not sure if there is even a go forward plan for Bigelow. Seems they came out of the shoot about 10 years too soon. Their ISS proposal did not go through and even though they have teamed with Boeing and SpaceX, the latter which seems to be on a roll, they can't seem to get things going.

Don't count BEAM out just yet.

[Moe Grills]

I'm curious!
Is any one here game to actually contact (email-fax-telephone) Bigelow Aerospace and offer suggestions to his team of engineers or his Board of Directors, even at the risk of getting egg on one's face?

I mean there's a lot of useless verbage on this thread, which outside of wasting time, will probably never be read by anyone working for Bigelow
Aerospace, unless you contact them directly with some suggestions.

And BTW, he's laid off 70 plus employees, because there is no point
in him launching  the BA 330 inflatable orbiting hab in the next two-three years if there are no manned orbital spacecraft to send anybody to occupy it by the end of 2015.

But! There is a manned orbital craft that can theoretically dock with the BA 330 before then!
If Mr. Bigelow were to be persuaded, perhaps by one of you, to cough up
60-100 million dollars to buy a Soyuz spacecraft, booster and its crew,
he can modify/change the docking port on a BA 330 to accomodate a visiting Soyuz.

Hey! Don't laugh!
Was it the year 1999 when the now defunct company MIRCORP actually funded a "commercial" Soyuz crew to visit the nearly-abandoned Mir spacestation?
It is history's only "commercially funded" manned orbital mission carried out so far. The Russians badly needed the money back then, I recall.

OK! So who is brave enough among you to email this suggestion to Bigelow Aerospace?

Sorry! Not me!

[Robotbeat]

Orbital debris used to work for Bigelow and often writes on this thread, and presumably others who work there get bored every once in a while a peruse this thread.

Most of the ideas here aren't even worth reading, though.

[RocketmanUS]

I'm curious!
Is any one here game to actually contact (email-fax-telephone) Bigelow Aerospace and offer suggestions to his team of engineers or his Board of Directors, even at the risk of getting egg on one's face?

I mean there's a lot of useless verbage on this thread, which outside of wasting time, will probably never be read by anyone working for Bigelow
Aerospace, unless you contact them directly with some suggestions.

And BTW, he's laid off 70 plus employees, because there is no point
in him launching  the BA 330 inflatable orbiting hab in the next two-three years if there are no manned orbital spacecraft to send anybody to occupy it by the end of 2015.

But! There is a manned orbital craft that can theoretically dock with the BA 330 before then!
If Mr. Bigelow were to be persuaded, perhaps by one of you, to cough up
60-100 million dollars to buy a Soyuz spacecraft, booster and its crew,
he can modify/change the docking port on a BA 330 to accomodate a visiting Soyuz.

Hey! Don't laugh!
Was it the year 1999 when the now defunct company MIRCORP actually funded a "commercial" Soyuz crew to visit the nearly-abandoned Mir spacestation?
It is history's only "commercially funded" manned orbital mission carried out so far. The Russians badly needed the money back then, I recall.

OK! So who is brave enough among you to email this suggestion to Bigelow Aerospace?

Sorry! Not me!

They had a forum up, that would be the place to post the idea. So if it does get put back then you could post the idea there.

If we get FH then BA330 with a docking node could be launched to LEO.
Docking node, to ports for BA330's , two for American commercial cargo/crew taxi's, and two for Soyuz/Progress.

So they would need funding plus contracts for Soyuz/Progress flights to the BA330 station. So who would fund such a concept? Who would it benefit?

So for this thread.
Are they working on the BA330?
Are they working on a docking node?
If so, were are they in the development of the two?

[Danderman]

Not sure if there is even a go forward plan for Bigelow. Seems they came out of the shoot about 10 years too soon. Their ISS proposal did not go through and even though they have teamed with Boeing and SpaceX, the latter which seems to be on a roll, they can't seem to get things going.

My personal opinion about this company is that the Plan has been to appear sufficiently serious that NASA would provide a SpaceX-class contract for the company to build modules. To that extent, the company would build mockups, launch subscale prototypes, and build buildings, all within a fixed annual spending cap.

I see no evidence that the company plans to exceed that spending cap without having the NASA contract in hand.

Despite this, there remain people here convinced that the company is about to launch a truly commercial space platform Real Soon Now, and some even debate the color of the paint job.

[Danderman]

If we get FH then BA330 with a docking node could be launched to LEO.
Docking node, to ports for BA330's , two for American commercial cargo/crew taxi's, and two for Soyuz/Progress.

So they would need funding plus contracts for Soyuz/Progress flights to the BA330 station. So who would fund such a concept? Who would it benefit?

So for this thread.
Are they working on the BA330?
Are they working on a docking node?
If so, were are they in the development of the two?

This may be heartbreaking, but you are focused on a small technical detail, whereas the real problem is: who is the customer for all this?

[Prober]

Not sure if there is even a go forward plan for Bigelow. Seems they came out of the shoot about 10 years too soon. Their ISS proposal did not go through and even though they have teamed with Boeing and SpaceX, the latter which seems to be on a roll, they can't seem to get things going.

My personal opinion about this company is that the Plan has been to appear sufficiently serious that NASA would provide a SpaceX-class contract for the company to build modules. To that extent, the company would build mockups, launch subscale prototypes, and build buildings, all within a fixed annual spending cap.

I see no evidence that the company plans to exceed that spending cap without having the NASA contract in hand.

Despite this, there remain people here convinced that the company is about to launch a truly commercial space platform Real Soon Now, and some even debate the color of the paint job.

They seem to be in plan B for now;  i.e. NASA, and governmental work for now.

[RocketEconomist327]

They seem to be in plan B for now;  i.e. NASA governmental work for now.

Still Plan A.

1)  BEAM was always part of the plan... for a very long time.

2)  Bigelow feels they have a design ready to go (BA-330)

3)  No rides to BA-330 means Mr. Bigelow MUST slow production or stop it until the company feels they have rides to their technology research stations.

VR
RE327

[spectre9]

Space funded by real billionaires can be secretive as it wants to be seems to be the official status of everybody not getting NASA money.

I think that's a fair deal.

You want public outreach, give some public money.

We saw all the stuff they did with CST-100 because they got money from Boeing and they were being paid by NASA for CCDev. I believe they kicked in some of their own funds at some point just not sure when.

It's my personal opinion Bigelow would launch if he had seats to LEO.

Bob has already admitted he can't fund his own LEO taxi.

NASA isn't interested in funding companies that don't employ people directly to NASA centers but this is the one exception. They want to FULLY FUND commercial crew so guys like Bob can get around to building their business.

In this case it's those higher up the chain that have decided that more funding outside NASA centers isn't going to happen even if NASA wants it.

This is the problem Mr B is facing. NASA doesn't have the control over it's own funding to be able to get the taxis up and running so guys like Bob aren't being held back from any potential profits and the US aerospace market isn't being stifled needlessly.

Soyuz simply isn't an option at over $60 million a seat. The price is only because it's exclusive, it shouldn't cost that much to go to orbit.

I'm guessing that CST-100 will be the first spacecraft to dock with BA-330. SpaceX might not have enough spare rockets to launch for NASA and others.

It would be cool if they could do this on a manned test flight for CST-100. Possibly 2014-2015 time frame? 

NASA would need to approve such a thing if it's part of iCap I guess.

[Robert Thompson]

gaming revenue doesn't = profit.

lol. Yes, less overhead and expenses. I just had a laugh imagining the poor sop who must repair an on orbit keno (30+ years), Madagaskar sweeping below, swearing to himself they weren't paying him enough.   

[manboy]

Bigelow Recieves $17.8 million NASA contract for preliminary work on the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM)

(pictures are most likely outdated since they're from 2010)

[yg1968]

See also this thread on the BEAM contract:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30797.0

[Danderman]

What this illustrates is that BA was not really a commercial venture, but rather a wannabe NASA contractor. All that talk of commercial space platforms was just marketing, to create an image of a commercial venture to make it easier for that NASA contract to appear commercial.

All this is IMHO, of course.

[Robotbeat]

We still don't have commercial orbital craft cheap enough to make Bigelow worthwhile on a commercial-only basis.

Danderman: do you really, honestly think that BA is just a ruse so Bigelow can develop another NASA contractor? That's one of the most ridiculous ideas, ever. Bigelow has sunk a ton of money into BA as a pseudo-philanthropic effort to commercialize space travel. Maybe they suck at the goal and it has no real chance, but BA is a really crappy way to make money. And being a NASA contractor isn't that profitable. Seriously, examine your idea and tell me how it makes ANY sense!

"don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence"

BA aspires to transform space into a commercial venture. Now, they aren't doing too well at that goal, but it hardly makes sense to question that that is their intention.

[manboy]

What this illustrates is that BA was not really a commercial venture, but rather a wannabe NASA contractor. All that talk of commercial space platforms was just marketing, to create an image of a commercial venture to make it easier for that NASA contract to appear commercial.

All this is IMHO, of course.

[RocketEconomist327]

What this illustrates is that BA was not really a commercial venture, but rather a wannabe NASA contractor. All that talk of commercial space platforms was just marketing, to create an image of a commercial venture to make it easier for that NASA contract to appear commercial.

All this is IMHO, of course.

Then you have no idea of what is going on at or with Bigelow.

[yg1968]

Bigelow has already stated that his primary customers are governments (not space tourists).