Bigelow Aerospace Update Thread (2)

[RocketEconomist327]

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

Governments are not NASA. 

VR
RE327

[yg1968]

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

Governments are not NASA. 

VR
RE327

Bigelow meant mostly foreign governments. But NASA is also a governmental agency. So NASA is also part of his target clients.

[Danderman]

NASA IS the target customer for Bigelow.

The rest is just window dressing.

Why is NASA the desired customer?

First off, NASA is the *only* qualified customer for inflatable space structures. Secondly, there are benefits from having NASA as a customer that transcend money.

[StephenB]

What this illustrates is that BA was not really a commercial venture, but rather a wannabe NASA contractor.

I don't quite see it that way. I see that it underscores the central role NASA has to play for NewSpace. NASA often but not always makes the difference in whether the company in question is viable.

[RocketEconomist327]

NASA IS the target customer for Bigelow.

The rest is just window dressing.

Why is NASA the desired customer?

First off, NASA is the *only* qualified customer for inflatable space structures. Secondly, there are benefits from having NASA as a customer that transcend money.

This post demonstrates you do not know whats going on with Bigelow.

[QuantumG]

NASA IS the target customer for Bigelow.

The rest is just window dressing.

Why is NASA the desired customer?

First off, NASA is the *only* qualified customer for inflatable space structures. Secondly, there are benefits from having NASA as a customer that transcend money.

This post demonstrates you do not know whats going on with Bigelow.

While I agree with you, why don't you tell us?

[Danderman]

NASA IS the target customer for Bigelow.

The rest is just window dressing.

Why is NASA the desired customer?

First off, NASA is the *only* qualified customer for inflatable space structures. Secondly, there are benefits from having NASA as a customer that transcend money.

This post demonstrates you do not know whats going on with Bigelow.

An ad homimen attack with no useful content.

The reality is that BA often presents concepts for a truly commercial system, but their main goal seems to be obtaining NASA contracts. To this end, BA builds full scale mockups, flies subscale models, and builds buildings. I have been saying this for many years, and no one has presented any significant data that contradicts my premise.

[Danderman]

What this illustrates is that BA was not really a commercial venture, but rather a wannabe NASA contractor.

I don't quite see it that way. I see that it underscores the central role NASA has to play for NewSpace. NASA often but not always makes the difference in whether the company in question is viable.

The problem with your premise is that Bigelow was bidding for large NASA contracts back in the day when NASA had no interest in promoting commercial space.

[ChefPat]

An ad homimen attack with no useful content.

Maybe he could call you a newbie that wants a pony.
The simple fact is David, you've been harping the same thing over & over for years here with the apparent intent of killing the discussion. It hasn't worked yet & it never will.
Face it. You've lost credibility in regards to any discussion about Bigelow.

[Danderman]

An ad homimen attack with no useful content.

Maybe he could call you a newbie that wants a pony.
The simple fact is David, you've been harping the same thing over & over for years here with the apparent intent of killing the discussion. It hasn't worked yet & it never will.
Face it. You've lost credibility in regards to any discussion about Bigelow.

I am not trying to kill the discussion.

I have been simply pointing out here for years, as you say, that Bigelow's goal is to secure NASA contracts. For some reason, the reality that Bigelow has secured a NASA contract makes you believe that I am wrong. Go figure.

If you understand Bigelow's goals, then you can understand what he is doing.

[Orbital Debris]

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.

While I agree with some of your earlier statements, I disagree on this point.  This speaks more to the fact that the transports development is stalled, and recent economic downturns have strangled Bigelow's cash flow.  Bigelow does not have the cash to launch prototypes like Galaxy, so this is his only way to stay relevant.
Believe me, the last thing RTB wants is NASA in his sandbox.  This will be a steep learning curve for Bigelow Aerospace.  Government contracts come with accountability and a level of insight that he is not used to.
RTB did not want BEAM when it was first proposed, he had to be persuaded of it value.  BEAM was championed by the NASA engineers who believe in inflatables.

RTB desparately wants a commercial customer, but will settle for NASA work.  18MM (if they deliver anything) will be a good cash infusion.

[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.

While I agree with some of your earlier statements, I disagree on this point.  This speaks more to the fact that the transports development is stalled, and recent economic downturns have strangled Bigelow's cash flow.  Bigelow does not have the cash to launch prototypes like Galaxy, so this is his only way to stay relevant.
Believe me, the last thing RTB wants is NASA in his sandbox.  This will be a steep learning curve for Bigelow Aerospace.  Government contracts come with accountability and a level of insight that he is not used to.
RTB did not want BEAM when it was first proposed, he had to be persuaded of it value.  BEAM was championed by the NASA engineers who believe in inflatables.

RTB desparately wants a commercial customer, but will settle for NASA work.  18MM (if they deliver anything) will be a good cash infusion.

A couple of data points are in order here.

First, the afore-mentioned TransHAB bid of ~1999, before your time. Clearly, Bob Bigelow was interested in a large NASA contract right off the bat.

Secondly, you probably noticed that Bob often invited NASA personnel to his facility to show them his mockups; that is called "marketing". And he hired Mike Gold in DC to help with that effort.

If I had to bet, I would bet that 90% of BA marketing was aimed at NASA, with the remaining 10% being low level efforts to find commercial or other customers.

Last note: there is an implied NASA requirement for pressurized volume for BEO missions that BA could meet. No other qualified customer really has a requirement for large amounts of pressurized volume.

[zaitcev]

What this illustrates is that BA was not really a commercial venture, but rather a wannabe NASA contractor.

But the same is true for SpaceX, too -- for now. They talk big about commercial launches, and all they actually do is launching Dragon to ISS. Meanwhile customer A. comes, pays deposit, never gets to fly, leaves for Arianne, demands deposit back, lawsuit ensues. Enter customer B., pays deposit enough to cover customer A.'s deposit and some extra, never gets to fly, etc. It's a pyramid scheme. Customer C. paid for a deal X, never got to fly that, was offered a "deal that he could not refulse" Y with much worse conditions, accepted deal Y, flew it out to a quick re-entry. Could've done the same as Customer A, but decided to risk it instead. Tell me that above is not true. It's the facts!

All it take to turn everything around is to deliver on the commercial promises, and it may yet happen. And it may yet happen to Bigelow. At that point it could be interpreted that all the NASA contracting was advertisement for their commercial project, instead of vice versa as per your postings.

[beancounter]

What this illustrates is that BA was not really a commercial venture, but rather a wannabe NASA contractor.

But the same is true for SpaceX, too -- for now. They talk big about commercial launches, and all they actually do is launching Dragon to ISS. Meanwhile customer A. comes, pays deposit, never gets to fly, leaves for Arianne, demands deposit back, lawsuit ensues. Enter customer B., pays deposit enough to cover customer A.'s deposit and some extra, never gets to fly, etc. It's a pyramid scheme. Customer C. paid for a deal X, never got to fly that, was offered a "deal that he could not refulse" Y with much worse conditions, accepted deal Y, flew it out to a quick re-entry. Could've done the same as Customer A, but decided to risk it instead. Tell me that above is not true. It's the facts!

All it take to turn everything around is to deliver on the commercial promises, and it may yet happen. And it may yet happen to Bigelow. At that point it could be interpreted that all the NASA contracting was advertisement for their commercial project, instead of vice versa as per your postings.

No I have to disagree with you.
My take is this one.  Bigelow and SpaceX have ultimate goals of delivering certain products to the market.  The market incorporates anyone who wants to use those products, doesn't matter who so can be gov't, corporations, not for profits, individuals, doesn't matter, so long as they're willing to pay.
My take is that both Bigelow and SpaceX are using government contracts, i.e. funding, to achieve their organisational goals along with their own funding. 
So far as SpaceX is concerned, Elon wants to get to Mars.  If govenment funding can assist then why wouldn't he.  In the meantime he's also attracting considerable business from other companies.  His manifest speaks for itself and so there's been some delays as issues have arisen and been resolved.  Not unusual in the space business.  There's every expectation that flight rates will increase in the forthcoming year and continue thereafter.  I'd say customers are happy to wait a bit if it reduces risk for them.  Nothing to indicate anything is going to derail SpaceX. 
Likewise for BA.  Lack of suitable transport to his potential habitats has stalled his efforts.  In the meantime, if there is funding via government available why not take it. 
This doesn't mean that these organisations simply want to be NASA contractors.  I've seen no evidence presented to convince me of that intent.  Use government funding, sure.  Tie yourself permanently to government funding as a contractor, no way.  JM2CW.

[Danderman]

What this illustrates is that BA was not really a commercial venture, but rather a wannabe NASA contractor.

But the same is true for SpaceX, too -- for now. They talk big about commercial launches, and all they actually do is launching Dragon to ISS. Meanwhile customer A. comes, pays deposit, never gets to fly, leaves for Arianne, demands deposit back, lawsuit ensues. Enter customer B., pays deposit enough to cover customer A.'s deposit and some extra, never gets to fly, etc. It's a pyramid scheme. Customer C. paid for a deal X, never got to fly that, was offered a "deal that he could not refulse" Y with much worse conditions, accepted deal Y, flew it out to a quick re-entry. Could've done the same as Customer A, but decided to risk it instead. Tell me that above is not true. It's the facts!

All it take to turn everything around is to deliver on the commercial promises, and it may yet happen. And it may yet happen to Bigelow. At that point it could be interpreted that all the NASA contracting was advertisement for their commercial project, instead of vice versa as per your postings.

The difference, of course, is that SpaceX DOES have a commercial manifest, with the question remaining of whether SpaceX can perform. BA has no commercial manifest, and does not even have a serious business plan, AFAIK, to generate such a manifest.

[Danderman]

Likewise for BA.  Lack of suitable transport to his potential habitats has stalled his efforts.

This begs the question as to WHEN did it ever appear that there would be suitable transport any time soon for BA? What is different now than when BA started?  If the answer is: things are actually looking better now for commercial transport than back in 1998, isn't that an indication that the current "stall" isn't really the problem for commercial operations?

[Robotbeat]

Likewise for BA.  Lack of suitable transport to his potential habitats has stalled his efforts.

This begs the question as to WHEN did it ever appear that there would be suitable transport any time soon for BA? What is different now than when BA started?  If the answer is: things are actually looking better now for commercial transport than back in 1998, isn't that an indication that the current "stall" isn't really the problem for commercial operations?

Still, no commercial crew operator has launched people into orbit (we aren't counting Soyuz, of course). Start counting when they do.

[joek]

Likewise for BA.  Lack of suitable transport to his potential habitats has stalled his efforts.

This begs the question as to WHEN did it ever appear that there would be suitable transport any time soon for BA? What is different now than when BA started?  If the answer is: things are actually looking better now for commercial transport than back in 1998, isn't that an indication that the current "stall" isn't really the problem for commercial operations?

Back when there was the possibility Bigelow could buy Soyuz seats without having to compete with NASA.

[Danderman]

Likewise for BA.  Lack of suitable transport to his potential habitats has stalled his efforts.

This begs the question as to WHEN did it ever appear that there would be suitable transport any time soon for BA? What is different now than when BA started?  If the answer is: things are actually looking better now for commercial transport than back in 1998, isn't that an indication that the current "stall" isn't really the problem for commercial operations?

Back when there was the possibility Bigelow could buy Soyuz seats without having to compete with NASA.

Unfortunately, buying Soyuz seats was and is not practice for a Bigelow platform; the reality is that entire Soyuzes would have to be dedicated for a Bigelow mission, and at no time in the last 15 years have entire Soyuzes been available for Bigelow. Therefore, the premise that Bigelow was closer to commercial passenger access 15 years ago than today is flawed.

I am sure that I will get many responses to my premise, but it would be very interesting to see how many responses do not contain actual information.

[Robotbeat]

Why would someone start a company like BA just to be a contractor for NASA?