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

[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.