Why is/was Bigelow waitng for SpaceX/CST100(?) vs Soyuz years ago?

[SoCalEric]

If Bigalow scaled back operations a couple of years back for lack of a suitable launcher (did anyone else hear/read that?), and if it has had some workable inflatable models for some time, what prevented it from hooking up with Russian capabilities years ago to initiate service to a dedicated space tourist outpost? (Apologies if I missed any answer to this elsewhere).

[SpacexULA]

IIRC, their business case doesn't close at Soyuz seat prices.

Look at ISS.  It's not just the cost of seats, it's the cost of logistics, construction, AND seats.

As i see it Bigelow has "lucked" into a pretty decent situation.

Cygnus Enhanced/Cargo Dragon/Manned Dragon/CST 100/Falcon Heavy/Atlas are the best situation Bigelow could ever hope for as far as a robust no ITAR issues, reasonably priced logistics backbone.

Once NASA is done funding development of the majority of Bigelows logistics needs, they get to purchase services from companies almost desperate to increase the utilization rates of their spacecraft.

[QuantumG]

As I understand it, the Dragon seat prices won't be much cheaper than the Soyuz seat prices... and you have to buy more of them at the same time. Dreamchaser and CST-100 seat prices will be even higher.

So, it can't be price.

[joek]

As I understand it, the Dragon seat prices won't be much cheaper than the Soyuz seat prices... and you have to buy more of them at the same time. Dreamchaser and CST-100 seat prices will be even higher.

So, it can't be price.

Bigelow's stated per-seat prices for Dragon/CST are ~1/3 of current and projected Soyuz per-seat prices to NASA.  Bigelow previously stated some time ago that he can't compete with NASA for Soyuz seats; NASA is essntially taking all available capacity, and is willing to pay prices Bigelow can't.  So yes, ostensibly it is about price.

[SoCalEric]

As I understand it, the Dragon seat prices won't be much cheaper than the Soyuz seat prices... and you have to buy more of them at the same time. Dreamchaser and CST-100 seat prices will be even higher.

So, it can't be price.

I wonder.....Using the COTS SpaceX contract as a reference, if we take $1.6 billion and divide by 12....  $0.13B per launch.   $130,000,000 per launch.  Pro-rated by 6 passengers, Musk's non-manned freight cost per astronaut comes in at $21m, a hair more than the oft-cited $20m per seat on Souyez.
(and, I think the same math for Antares comes out at about $30m ish?). So, NASA was eager, perhaps, to pay for freight above Souyez manned rates.

But Bigalow already appears on the SpaceX manifest. Any way to tell what the cost for that will be? Less than what Souyez would have charged Bigalow  in 2010 once his inflatable was (more or less??) tested and ready? 

I just remembered reading something to the effect that Bigalow was all set to go as of 2010ish but had to slow down to semi-hibernate (and furlow staff) due to the {unexpected?} lack of a suitable launch vehicle. If I misread that at the time (wouldnt be the first time) then that woud explain things.

Otherwise, I was just wondering about the Russian space tourism firm that accepted mega $ from wealthy indivuduals starting several years ago for flights on the nascient ISS for very short durations. Seems like the cost of launching an inflatable habitat or two could have been pro rated in there somehow, where the most high paying first batch of self funded tourists could have had a longer stay at a non-ISS location in space.

Just seems like Souyez + Bigalow + self funded DotCom, etc, billionaire tourists could have gotten something going a decade before reusable launch modules were/are developed.

Moreover, if Virgin Galactic can sign up customers without a rocket launch abort system on Spaceship Two, then could it (or similar) not do the same for a pre-human-rated Dragon?  Not the same risks, I know, and I suppose the simple risk of the bad PR is enough of a reason, but I bet the line of wealthy enthusiasts willing to ride a dragon with no escape system would be long. Why wait for NASA standards?

Sure, excellent stars align for Bigalow, I guess, by 2015/16 in any case. Just seems like the whole non-gov (i.e. ultimately largely tourist) space endeavor  could have been a lot faster out the gates.

Thanks, any/all for your input.

[QuantumG]

Really wish you'd spell Soyuz and Bigelow correctly

Bigelow is only on the manifest because he gave SpaceX half a million back in 2003 and never demanded it back.

http://moonandback.com/2011/11/30/moonandback-interview-with-robert-bigelow-part-3-pluses-and-minuse/

about a minute in.

[hop]

As I understand it, the Dragon seat prices won't be much cheaper than the Soyuz seat prices...

You should be looking price per passenger seat, not price per seat. Soyuz to date only gets one passenger seat per flight. NASA/CSA/ESA/JAXA left seaters spend a lot of time training to actually fly the ship, only the right seat is for tourists. While I suppose Bigelow customers could theoretically train to fly Soyuz too, it would significantly raises the bar for who could qualify.

IIRC there has been some talk TMA-M being manageable with only one professional crew member, but even so it comes out a lot worse than a 7 person vehicle.

[hop]

Pro-rated by 6 passengers, Musk's non-manned freight cost per astronaut comes in at $21m, a hair more than the oft-cited $20m per seat on Souyez.

NASA is paying more like $50 million per seat. The oft-quoted $20 million dates back Tito's flight in 2001...

[QuantumG]

Who cares how much NASA is paying? It's totally irrelevant to a discussion of a commercial space station. If someone was to approach the Russians with a big enough suitcase of cash tomorrow - big enough to actually increase production of Soyuz, we'd find out how much they could really get seats for and it would almost certainly be less than NASA. Especially if they were shopping around for a better price. In any case, the claims of anything like $20M/seat for Dragon/CST-100/Dreamchaser are outdated unsubstantiated wishful thinking. Whatever the price is, the Soyuz will likely be offered for less, even with existing production.

[pathfinder_01]

Who cares how much NASA is paying? It's totally irrelevant to a discussion of a commercial space station. If someone was to approach the Russians with a big enough suitcase of cash tomorrow - big enough to actually increase production of Soyuz, we'd find out how much they could really get seats for and it would almost certainly be less than NASA. Especially if they were shopping around for a better price. In any case, the claims of anything like $20M/seat for Dragon/CST-100/Dreamchaser are outdated unsubstantiated wishful thinking. Whatever the price is, the Soyuz will likely be offered for less, even with existing production.

Not likely. The production line of Soyuz is also used by Progress and this really limits Russia in terms of how many flights they can do. i.e. That line is at max and increasing production will take a lot more money than just buying one more.

The ccrew craft hold 7 and are aiming for reusablity. Thoose two factors(more people to divide cost over) and production not tied with other spacecraft gives them an edge.

[Nathan]

The Advertised flight price is $26.25m from the Bigelow Website.
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/opportunity-pricing.php

Russia was only selling excess seats to "tourists". These seats don't exist when flying to a Bigelow station since Soyuz does not fly to a Bigelow station.
The link below says that NASA paid $55.83m per seat for Soyuz in the 2010 contract so current prices will be higher.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/04/06/nasa-pay-russians-56-million-seat-soyuz-rides/

The market for $26m flights would be greater than $56m flights.

Bigelow's business cases would not close for Soyuz based on availability of flights and cost per seat.

I should also note that Bigelow does not yet have paying customers at the $26m price.

[kkattula]

IIRC, it's more like $65m per Soyuz seat now.

But another important driver is Soyuz passengers have to spend six months training in Russia and learn Russian.

Kind of reduces the appeal to most wealthy, would-be space tourists.

[Orbital Debris]

Bigelow laid off about half of the engineers in September of 2011.  Internally held told them that it was due to poor economic terms, externally, he said that it was because they were so far ahead of the transportation development.

Early on, RTB considered the soyuz as a transport, but the cost per seat was too high.  In addition he has said that he needs 6-7 seats for his business case.  So, if you were to ask him, he would probably say that the price is too high. 

In reality, the BA330 design is no further than paper (and poorly at that),  and he is not ready to purchase any kind of transport. 

[Danderman]

Not likely. The production line of Soyuz is also used by Progress and this really limits Russia in terms of how many flights they can do. i.e. That line is at max and increasing production will take a lot more money than just buying one more.

Really?

What is the basis for that assertion?

[Danderman]

In reality, the BA330 design is no further than paper (and poorly at that),  and he is not ready to purchase any kind of transport. 

Apart from that stark reality, there is also the problem that BA does not have a design based on customer requirements.

[joek]

Who cares how much NASA is paying? It's totally irrelevant to a discussion of a commercial space station. If someone was to approach the Russians with a big enough suitcase of cash tomorrow - big enough to actually increase production of Soyuz, we'd find out how much they could really get seats for and it would almost certainly be less than NASA. Especially if they were shopping around for a better price. In any case, the claims of anything like $20M/seat for Dragon/CST-100/Dreamchaser are outdated unsubstantiated wishful thinking. Whatever the price is, the Soyuz will likely be offered for less, even with existing production.

Question is, what is a "big enough suitcase of cash"?
- NASA: We'll pay ~$60M/seat, with a sovereign guarantee of 6 seats/yr for X years.
- Bigelow: We'll pay ~$25M/seat, with no guarantee (but trust us, there's a great up-side).

Which would you choose?

[QuantumG]

Question is, what is a "big enough suitcase of cash"?
- NASA: We'll pay ~$60M/seat, with a sovereign guarantee of 6 seats/yr for X years.
- Bigelow: We'll pay ~$25M/seat, with no guarantee (but trust us, there's a great up-side).

Which would you choose?

Why do you think they have to choose? And since when is NASA buying six Soyuz seats per year? I really don't know what you're saying here.

[joek]

If Roscosmos has limited resources (which they do) and has to decide to put money on one or the other based on risk, they're most likely to choose NASA.  That means Bigelow loses unless they are able to provide similar guarantees/risks.  All of which is a long way of saying that Bigelow can't compete with NASA for Soyuz seats.

p.s. NASA is buying 6 Souyz seats/yr, at least through 2016.

[spectre9]

I think NASA pays for all non-Russian seats as part of ISS barter.

[QuantumG]

If Roscosmos has limited resources (which they do) and has to decide to put money on one or the other based on risk, they're most likely to choose NASA. 

Sorry, I'm still not getting it. They don't have to choose. If anyone wants to pay RSC Energia for more production the decision whether or not to go forward with it will be made completely independently to who their existing customers for Soyuz are.

p.s. NASA is buying 6 Souyz seats/yr, at least through 2016.

Thanks.

[InfraNut2]

Another reason: Proprietary docking port.

If Bigelow installed probe-and-cone docking ports on their modules, the russians would milk him for money about as badly as ULA milks the DOD, since there is no competition. (The only non-russian vehicle with this docking port is being discontinued after a couple more flights and their docking ports were bought from russia)

To prevent lock-in, the Soyuz would need to be modified with a (future) standard IDS compatible docking port. Who would be paying for that development work? Could Bigelow convince them to fast-track that development, without paying the entire bill?

And that is on top of the other disadvantages of (a) only 2 seats to divide launch costs among, (b) long training times, (c) training in russia, (d) ...

But all is not negative. Soyuz of course have one huge advantage: thoroughly proven safety.

[Danderman]

All of this hypothetical discussion about BA and Soyuzes is moot, since BA decided over 10 years ago not to go with Russian hardware.

You might as well speculate about use of the Chinese Shenzhou capsule.

[Ben the Space Brit]

At a guess, I'd say that Robert Bigelow doesn't want to be at the mercy of the Russian government for his crew transportation.  Perhaps he doesn't regard them as reliable or, possibly, he thinks that a deal with them would come with too many conditions that would ultimately impede his business.

The ambivalent way Roscosmos has been reacting to CRS and commercial crew suggests to me that any deal to use Soyuz would inevitably come with a lot of pressure to rule out using US commercial crew providers for 'safety' reasons as a precondition for any flights to be agreed.  I think that's power over his business that Bigelow is simply not willing to give to anyone, especially the Russians.

[Danderman]

At a guess, I'd say that Robert Bigelow doesn't want to be at the mercy of the Russian government for his crew transportation.  Perhaps he doesn't regard them as reliable or, possibly, he thinks that a deal with them would come with too many conditions that would ultimately impede his business.

The ambivalent way Roscosmos has been reacting to CRS and commercial crew suggests to me that any deal to use Soyuz would inevitably come with a lot of pressure to rule out using US commercial crew providers for 'safety' reasons as a precondition for any flights to be agreed.  I think that's power over his business that Bigelow is simply not willing to give to anyone, especially the Russians.

That may be a factor, but I would suspect that the major issue is that involvement of RSC Energia in the venture would require significant early investment in real work that BA is not capable of doing without major infusion from somewhere.

Let me amplify this a bit.

For Energia to do any analysis of the docking loads, they would have to know the mass properties of the Bigelow station with some degree of precision. Since BA currently probably does not have this information, it would have to be generated, and that would cost significant $$. So, the cost for involving Energia is more than their price, it also would include BA costs that are far higher than anything spent to date.

I am simplifying the issue, and the reality is that there would be significant technical problems that would have to be addressed in any deal with Energia.

[Occupymars]

Who cares how much NASA is paying? It's totally irrelevant to a discussion of a commercial space station. If someone was to approach the Russians with a big enough suitcase of cash tomorrow - big enough to actually increase production of Soyuz, we'd find out how much they could really get seats for and it would almost certainly be less than NASA. Especially if they were shopping around for a better price. In any case, the claims of anything like $20M/seat for Dragon/CST-100/Dreamchaser are outdated unsubstantiated wishful thinking. Whatever the price is, the Soyuz will likely be offered for less, even with existing production.

"Whatever the price is, the Soyuz will likely be offered for less, even with existing production." are you saying Soyuz will probably be cheaper per flight or per seat price? and if your saying per seat price do u mean comparing the Dragon/CST100 if they only fly 3 crew at a time.

[Occupymars]

"NASA has signed a new $335 million contract with Russia to buy six extra seats on Soyuz spacecraft." for 2013-2014
 BA statement "This per seat rate will be either $26.25 or $36.75 million depending on the transportation provider selected by the client." this seat price is based off of every seat being filled.

Based on these statements prices are as follows.

per flight cost> Soyus=167.5 CST100=257.25 Dragon=183.75
per seat cost if full> Soyuz=56.83 CST100=36.75 Dragon=26.25

[joek]

If Roscosmos has limited resources (which they do) and has to decide to put money on one or the other based on risk, they're most likely to choose NASA. 

Sorry, I'm still not getting it. They don't have to choose. If anyone wants to pay RSC Energia for more production the decision whether or not to go forward with it will be made completely independently to who their existing customers for Soyuz are.

You're right, no doubt if someone showed up with sufficient cash and guarantees, RSC Energia would be receptive, and presumably they would make a decision largely independent of existing customers.

I was speaking primarily to what transpired circa 2003.  ["Why is/was Bigalow waitng for SpaceX/CST100(?) vs Soyuz years ago?"]  There appeared to be some spare capacity, or capacity could be increased at nominal cost; NASA bought that capacity and provided guarantees (and other ISS-related incentives?) and there was very little risk to RSC Energia.

Question is then what would it cost to increase and maintain capacity beyond that point?  It's probably a step function, expensive, and would require substantial up-front cash or iron-clad guarantees (hundreds of $M?).  Doubtful Bigelow was or is in a position to provide that.

Granted, commercial passengers might not require the same level of training as NASA, so per-seat costs could be lower.  Then again, Russia would probably require their own pilot (?), which means only two revenue-producing occupants/flight, and might have to pay for the pilot, including room and board on-orbit for the duration.

[Danderman]

If Roscosmos has limited resources (which they do) and has to decide to put money on one or the other based on risk, they're most likely to choose NASA. 

Sorry, I'm still not getting it. They don't have to choose. If anyone wants to pay RSC Energia for more production the decision whether or not to go forward with it will be made completely independently to who their existing customers for Soyuz are.

Question is then what would it cost to increase and maintain capacity beyond that point?  It's probably a step function, expensive, and would require substantial up-front cash or iron-clad guarantees (hundreds of $M?).  Doubtful Bigelow was or is in a position to provide that.

Cost to whom? The cost to Energia would have been small. The price to BA would have been large.

Are you asking a cost question or a price question?

[joek]

Cost to whom? The cost to Energia would have been small. The price to BA would have been large.

The cost to Bigelow.

[SoCalEric]

Bigelow laid off about half of the engineers in September of 2011.... externally, he said that it was because they were so far ahead of the transportation development.

Thannks. Yes, that was my starting point.
I suspected this....

In reality, the BA330 design is no further than paper (and poorly at that),  and he is not ready to purchase any kind of transport. 

... but I'm having trouble relating to how viable any Bigelow business would be _without_ a functional BA330, or at least something larger than their smallest model.

Might be predominantly the model of rational risk management for the tycoon (Bigelow, Bezos) with nothing (much, yet) to lose.