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.”

[Robotbeat]

He does, actually, sort of have unlimited resources, just a small amount at a time . The company gets income from stock market investments, so there's always a trickle of sorts. That means they could theoretically operate in "stealth mode" indefinitely, or until Bigelow gets bored with it (which would probably happen if they don't do anything). It's kind of his hobby.

Hopefully they can make real progress, though.

[krytek]

What about things beside spacehabs.

Do you think LEO constellations will expand in the next 5 years?

I mean Google is currently developing a satellite internet protocol.
Considering the advantages of such a set up (in LEO), satellite internet might actually be a viable alternative in some regions.

[spaceStalker]

How many satellites are launch annually?
Whats price range per kilogram and destination?

[Robotbeat]

What about things beside spacehabs.

Do you think LEO constellations will expand in the next 5 years?

Yes, but we kind of already know exactly which ones and by how much. Mostly launched by SpaceX, I believe (Orbcomm and Iridium).

I mean Google is currently developing a satellite internet protocol.
Considering the advantages of such a set up (in LEO), satellite internet might actually be a viable alternative in some regions.

GSO internet is already used in several places. LEO broadband internet, while theoretically allowing both lower power, smaller antennae, and lower latency, is still kind of a ways off. Iridium's new constellation does have greater capability for handling data throughput, making higher bandwidth internet connections possible if you can afford it. (Iridium NEXT is supposed to launch on Falcon 9s from Vandenberg between 2015 and 2017.)

There are a few other companies like that out there, such as 03b (medium Earth orbit constellation of 8 satellites targeting the third world, or at least southern and low-latitude northern hemisphere) and "COMMstellaion" (LEO constellation of 78 microsats). But once they launch (if they get to the point of having enough money to launch), their launch demand won't be that high (they can last for a decade or two), and such a LEO or MEO constellation may well have a total mass that may actually be lower than a typical GSO constellation. They might cause an extra 10 launches every ten years or so for an average of 1 per year (multiple satellites per launch) for 03b and COMMstellation combined, but that's actually pretty small compared to the global commercial market.

There's continued growth there, but I wouldn't characterize it as explosive. We still have many of the constellations launched initially in the late 1990s, and they're only now starting to be really upgraded rather slowly.

To be honest, the demand isn't anywhere near what the annual upmass requirement of a well-stocked Bigelow-type station with regular visits would be (they've talked about a couple dozen flights per station per year, which may be what's required for it to be profitable).


One thing you have to keep in mind: there were NO commercial payload launches on US launch vehicles in 2011. None. All the commercial launch market is being handled by foreign companies. There are plenty of US commercial satellite manufacturers who would rather launch domestically if there was a competitively priced US launcher available, so if done right, there may well be room for a US-based commercial launch vehicle (ULA is too expensive, now that Delta II is retired). To support much more than one or two, there will have to be a large increase in launch demand somewhere.

(Yes, labor costs are higher in the US, but there are other advantages. The cost difference has been lowered in the last few years, as wages in the rest of the world have increased. Increased automation and different manufacturing techniques can partially make up for the difference in labor costs.)

[krytek]

I just realized space telescopes could also make a contribution
Look at DARPA's membrane telescope in development
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e4e7aaf4b8a7c676d2958cf06356a029&tab=core&_cview=1
if a telescope could be made for less than say $100-200M with the same power as the Hubble, there might be a case for potentially tens of those globally.

[Comga]

I just realized space telescopes could also make a contribution
Look at DARPA's membrane telescope in development
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e4e7aaf4b8a7c676d2958cf06356a029&tab=core&_cview=1
if a telescope could be made for less than say $100-200M with the same power as the Hubble, there might be a case for potentially tens of those globally.

The membrane image technology of MOIRE is in the very early gestation stage, TRL 3 or 4.  (But it is really neat and in very capable hands!) It is at least premature to envision an new class of missions based on it with the volume to support a new burgeoning commercial space launch industry. 

Patience, Grasshopper.

[Orbital Debris]

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

I'd bet against you on that.  Bigelow is simply talk at this point, with no real substance, and not as much capital as you would think.  If there are no other business cases, then the entire premise is flawed.

And as they say in Las Vegas, never take another man's bet.  I've seen all the cards. 

[JohnFornaro]

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.

I agree that the "market" is decidedly imperfect; since subsidy is the name of the game.  It will be interesting to see how that drastic happening comes about.

[savuporo]

Bigelow is simply talk at this point..

I don't think you could call it simply talk at this point.
They certainly have the tech and capability, not sure if they have a business.

[SpacexULA]

I don't think you could call it simply talk at this point.
They certainly have the tech and capability, not sure if they have a business.

Your not dead till your warm and dead.  Bigelow is effectively in coma till CCDEV bares fruit.

Once there is a commerical crew launcher, if Bigelow stays in coma, yea it's dead.

[Orbital Debris]

Bigelow is simply talk at this point..

I don't think you could call it simply talk at this point.
They certainly have the tech and capability, not sure if they have a business.

I'm intimately familiar with Genesis 
I'm also aware that both of them are essentially orbital debris at this point.

I was referencing their ability to produce a module that would be able to support personnel.  Genesis did not not have a propulsion system, life support or docking systems.  So the tech is dubious - assembling and folding the larger softgoods is something they have never done.

As far as the capability, there is no one left there with the skills that produced Genesis. 

[dcporter]

I'd bet against you on that.  Bigelow is simply talk at this point, with no real substance, and not as much capital as you would think.

I will take that bet, out of sheer desperate optimism.

Edit: and for no more than $1.

[gchockry]

Anybody considering going to the 2012 Spacecraft Technology Expo at the LA Convention Center May 8, 9, 10?
http://www.spacetechexpo.com/

Conference program speakers look great
http://www.spacetechexpo.com/conference-program-2012

There's the Human Spaceflight Park area
http://www.spacetechexpo.com/human-spaceflight-park

An email I received has an image which implies that SpaceX's Dragon Capsule will be there (maybe the actual one that orbited?).

The Human Spaceflight Park is a dynamic area within Spacecraft Technology Expo designed to promote companies involved in all areas of manned spaceflight. Geared towards capturing the imaginations of visitors and the general public at large, this highly visible and interactive platform will promote the companies pioneering the field of manned space flight by showcasing models and technologies of the vehicles salient in this sector. By bringing these fundamental players and elements together, the aim is to clearly define the vision, design and reality behind this truly exciting aspect of the industry.

Visitors can expect to see SpaceX's Dragon Capsule, a 1:1 model of The Lynx, XCOR Aerospace's suborbital vehicle, displayed in US soil for the first time, Orbital Outfitters' latest space suit, models and technology demonstrations from Boeing, United Launch Alliance and David Clark Co.

I cannot make it, but anyone in the LA area... They offer free Exhibit Hall passes. Wish I could go to the conference sessions.

[Jason1701]

I'll be going. I expect to see the Dragon, as it lives only 20 minutes away. They will also have the full-scale Lynx mockup.

[Danderman]

The SmallCap and Gown: How Early Stage NewSpace Start-ups Leverage Universities

http://bigthink.com/above-the-clouds/the-smallcap-and-gown-how-early-stage-newspace-start-ups-leverage-universities

NewSpace SmallCaps often face challenges: tight budgets, game-changing competition, lengthy development schedules and cash flow crunches. To reduce some of this pain, NewSpace companies have found significant advantages in tapping universities for talent, but more importantly, they have redefined the relationships with universities as customers rather than merely as partners.

[beancounter]

Bigelow is simply talk at this point..

I don't think you could call it simply talk at this point.
They certainly have the tech and capability, not sure if they have a business.

I'm intimately familiar with Genesis 
I'm also aware that both of them are essentially orbital debris at this point.

I was referencing their ability to produce a module that would be able to support personnel.  Genesis did not not have a propulsion system, life support or docking systems.  So the tech is dubious - assembling and folding the larger softgoods is something they have never done.

As far as the capability, there is no one left there with the skills that produced Genesis. 

Yes but do they still have the knowledge in-house?  I'd bet they do and skill can be brought back into the organisation.

[beancounter]

I'd bet against you on that.  Bigelow is simply talk at this point, with no real substance, and not as much capital as you would think.

I will take that bet, out of sheer desperate optimism.

Edit: and for no more than $1.

I will too, but not out of 'sheer desperate optimism'.

[Danderman]

http://www.spacetechexpo.com/speaker-spotlight-jeffrey-manber#.UXqMz0qTXhe

SPEAKER SPOTLIGHT: INTERVIEW WITH JEFFREY MANBER, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF NANORACKS

This month we chat to Jeffrey Manber, Managing Director of NanoRacks, a specialist provider of space research and discovery mission deployment. Jeffrey has three decades of experience in bringing innovative space projects to the marketplace, in manned and unmanned space exploration and utilization. Discover his thoughts on the differences between government and commercial space launch missions below…

STE – Space Tech Expo

JM - Jeffrey Manber

STE: What would you say were the biggest changes, if any, between a fully government (NASA, ESA) launch and that of SpaceX e.g. costs, timing, communication, requirements?

JM: At long last the US Government has evolved our policy in space to be no different than any other market. The government is now a customer for space goods and services, particularly in low-Earth orbit. So the government, whether NASA or NOAA or agencies within the Department of Defense, can reach more commercial practices. These can include payments only with mission success, and investment made by the private sector. This means no longer does NASA seek to design launch vehicles for low-Earth – it allows the private sector this responsibility. And it’s not just for launch vehicles – we too at NanoRacks fund and design our own research hardware for space, and are funded by NASA chiefly when they come in as a customer. Our hope today is we will all see the merits of moving this normal relationship for industry to beyond low-Earth orbit. That is the future of space exploration.

 

STE: Can you give us any insight into the missions NanoRacks is hosting on the latest launch and the business sectors they fall in?

JM: We are very excited to be conducting right now on space station a start-of-the-art biopharma project which we believe will open the door to a new chapter in utilization of microgravity for biopharma breakthroughs. We are working with Methodist Hospital and a leading biopharma company. The goal is to use the same hardware and methods used in research laboratories on the ground – in other words, no space-unique hardware. The US Lab on ISS is open for business and we are prepared to make full use with our industry customers.