Commercial space prospects

[krytek]

Recently we are seeing a huge increase in commercial launch services investments and startups. Personally (and this was said by others also) I can't
see a case for so many launchers, there are so many now it starts to really look like there is unquestionably too much for the current or any near future market.
Obviously those big investors and entrepreneurs didn't became so by throwing their money away, or betting on dead horses.

What are we missing?
What could be start to get big enough near term that would provide the boost needed to keep all those guys floating?

[Atlan]

Bigelow Aerospace

[Robotbeat]

Bigelow Aerospace

That's one customer for 5 or so commercial spacecraft.

We need more Bigelows.

[Atlan]

But Bigelow wants to build more then 1 Station and it seems that there are enough potential customers to support that....so my bet is on Bigelow

[krytek]

Yes that probably will be so. But what I meant was, what will the Bigelows do there? And I'm talking relatively near term.

Obviously tourists is one market.
Space research is a big one also, a lot of universities, medical companies etc would be customers.
Maybe in space manufacturing of some sort, drug synthesis or some sort of crystals which can't be grown on earth?

I'm just throwing ideas out there.


*edit* Do we know who are some of the potential customers for Bigelow ?

[Atlan]

Yep. The first customers will not be tourists or companies, but countries without a space program or (sufficient)access to the ISS.

http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/101022-bigelow-modules-interest-six-governments.html

http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/article.php?section=technology&article=uae-signs-with-bigelow-aerospace-to-work-on-human-spaceflight-programme&utm_source=googleNews&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=news_feed

[Danderman]

Bigelow Aerospace

Its dead, Jim. Or maybe just resting.

[Danderman]

Anyone who throws out "space research" as a rationale for big investors in space transportation has to ask the question:

what research cannot be done affordably now via Nanoracks or Astrogenetix or BioServe and thus requires a huge investment in space transportation to lower costs? Specifics would be nice.

[Robotbeat]

Yes that probably will be so. But what I meant was, what will the Bigelows do there? And I'm talking relatively near term.

Obviously tourists is one market.
Space research is a big one also, a lot of universities, medical companies etc would be customers.
Maybe in space manufacturing of some sort, drug synthesis or some sort of crystals which can't be grown on earth?

I'm just throwing ideas out there.


*edit* Do we know who are some of the potential customers for Bigelow ?

I'm having a hard time seeing how high flight rates (manned or otherwise) can be sustained WITHOUT significant space manufacturing or something like that. There's also the very, very high vacuum available in space which can be used to make sensitive electronics. I do wonder what sort of demand there would be for a Wake Shield Facility follow-on.

[Jim]

Yep. The first customers will not be tourists or companies, but countries without a space program or (sufficient)access to the ISS.

http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/101022-bigelow-modules-interest-six-governments.html

http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/article.php?section=technology&article=uae-signs-with-bigelow-aerospace-to-work-on-human-spaceflight-programme&utm_source=googleNews&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=news_feed

false, no one has stepped up

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Everyone is missing the point of why cheaper boosters will get the payloads and the expensive ones will be gone in less than 10 years. If your booster provides the same reliable access to space as the more expensive ones then customers will book you and not the expensive ones. The overabundance of boosters will shrink because the expensive ones will no longer be built.

This phenomenon has already occurred when the Russian boosters went on the global commercial market displacing the US boosters as the primary economical commercial boosters. With the advent of US commercial boosters that compete with the Russian ones and also give the US government cheaper options, the more expensive US boosters will start to receive less and less government payloads until they get so few that the companies will stop production.

[A_M_Swallow]

Bigelow Aerospace

Its dead, Jim. Or maybe just resting.

You can buy solar panels, ECLSS life support systems and station keeping thrusters off the shelf.  Possibly even docking ports.  Nanoracks mean that there are lots of people with experience building electronics for space.  We are approaching the point at which small aircraft manufacturers can make 'tin can' spacestations.

[Danderman]

Everyone is missing the point of why cheaper boosters will get the payloads and the expensive ones will be gone in less than 10 years. If your booster provides the same reliable access to space as the more expensive ones then customers will book you and not the expensive ones. The overabundance of boosters will shrink because the expensive ones will no longer be built.

This phenomenon has already occurred when the Russian boosters went on the global commercial market displacing the US boosters as the primary economical commercial boosters. With the advent of US commercial boosters that compete with the Russian ones and also give the US government cheaper options, the more expensive US boosters will start to receive less and less government payloads until they get so few that the companies will stop production.

If there were a perfect market for launch vehicles, the above would certainly be true. But, we live in a world with an imperfect launch vehicle market, so the above is certainly not going to be true, unless something drastic happens.

[Geron]

I am in healthcare and the market for medical devices is the same way. Physicians are wined and dined and make decisions based on personal relationships more than on what is the least expensive. The problem is that if you are not the one paying for it then you are detached from the situation.

Same problem applies in the rocket business only it is much worse becuase the group is smaller and the relationships are stronger.

[Wyvern]

Could Bigelow even be capable of recreating their BA 330's now that they have fired large numbers of their staff and have put back when they're to launch to around 2016/2017?

I mean it would be awesome if Bigelow could actually get their space stations up but at the moment I feel really worried about their business model not working out.

[krytek]

Yep. The first customers will not be tourists or companies, but countries without a space program or (sufficient)access to the ISS.

http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/101022-bigelow-modules-interest-six-governments.html

http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/article.php?section=technology&article=uae-signs-with-bigelow-aerospace-to-work-on-human-spaceflight-programme&utm_source=googleNews&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=news_feed

false, no one has stepped up

Doesn't mean it's false. First, too much stuff goes on behind the scene, no one stepping up publicly doesn't mean there's no discussions or interested parties. Secondly, no one stepping up NOW doesn't mean no one will bite
when the capability is ready.

[ChefPat]

Whether there is a business case or not, Bigelow has committed to putting up 2 BA-330's when crew transport becomes available.
If somebody can use them to turn a profit & succesfully repeat that profitable activity, then more are sure to go up.

[hop]

Whether there is a business case or not, Bigelow has committed to putting up 2 BA-330's when crew transport becomes available.

I don't see a commitment. He isn't going to fly it unless someone is buying.

My take is that Bigelow tried very hard to pitch to everyone who might be listening (NASA, companies, sovereign foreign clients) with various configurations (Sundancer, BA-330, ISS module, lunar modules etc...) They obviously couldn't get any commitments of serious money without the transport problem being solved. If they had, they would be finishing their vehicle, not laying off their engineering staff.

So now Bigelow is going into hibernation until there is some more solid transport options. That puts them in a position to pitch it again, but the outcome of that is highly uncertain. All this is a sensible business decision, but it should be clear that Bigelow are trying to spin it in the most positive light possible. When someone tells you they laid off half their employees because they were too successful, it's a fair bet they aren't being totally objective

If the "potential customers" who are supposedly unwilling to commit without transport *really* wanted a space station, they'd invest in the solving the transport problem. There's little reason to doubt that CST-100 or crew Dragon or Dream Chaser can be completed and flown, given someone willing to commit the necessary funding. The obvious conclusion is that none of the "potential customers" want a space station that badly.

[ChefPat]

I don't see a commitment. He isn't going to fly it unless someone is buying.

He's said it in presentations that were also recorded on video. The Bigelow Updates 1 Thread will have them. He stated quite clearly the business case didn't matter.

[hop]

He's said it in presentations that were also recorded on video. The Bigelow Updates 1 Thread will have them.

That thread pre-dates the decision to lay off a large portion of his engineering staff. Judging by actions, BA aren't even going to finish development unless they get some some serious interest.

He stated quite clearly the business case didn't matter.

In reality, he doesn't have unlimited resources.

In this article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/science/space/08space.html?pagewanted=all he said

“You have to trust a little bit that we’re making these investments because we think it’s going to make sense economically at the end of the day,” Mr. Bigelow said. “We won’t execute our business plan if those numbers aren’t there.”