Bigelow and SpaceX

[jak Kennedy]

Possibly someone like Virgin would use a Bigalow station for tourists. It has to be a smaller investment than SS2? As in leasing BA330 service and paying SpaceX for flights the costs are less of an unknown.

[philw1776]

As to Virgin, I doubt Branson's ego could handle going to SpaceX especially while the SS2 debacle moves into its second decade of non-flight.

[MattMason]

As to Virgin, I doubt Branson's ego could handle going to SpaceX especially while the SS2 debacle moves into its second decade of non-flight.

I wouldn't put it past Branson. He's aware that SS2 is more of a ride than a trip. And there's a whole town named after him that's packed with people with a desire to do things. While Virgin itself may not be involved in a ride, they may be the conduit needed for Branson City, Clavius Crater.

I'm only speculating, of course, but the combined power of several commercial billionaires are needed for anyone to have a reason to go, and stay there, and provide routines, infrastructures and services. I'm pretty assured that if they build it, we will go.

[nadreck]

As to Virgin, I doubt Branson's ego could handle going to SpaceX especially while the SS2 debacle moves into its second decade of non-flight.

I wouldn't put it past Branson. He's aware that SS2 is more of a ride than a trip. And there's a whole town named after him that's packed with people with a desire to do things. While Virgin itself may not be involved in a ride, they may be the conduit needed for Branson City, Clavius Crater.

I'm only speculating, of course, but the combined power of several commercial billionaires are needed for anyone to have a reason to go, and stay there, and provide routines, infrastructures and services. I'm pretty assured that if they build it, we will go.

Virgin Airlines never built an airplane, Virgin Mobile didn't build cell phones, I think at some point Branson, if he really wants to sell space travel, should go back to what his businesses have been successful at: operating other peoples hardware.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Virgin Airlines never built an airplane, Virgin Mobile didn't build cell phones, I think at some point Branson, if he really wants to sell space travel, should go back to what his businesses have been successful at: operating other peoples hardware.

True, but Elon didn't build anything significant pre Space Launches. Quantum leaps happen.

Unfortunately, Branson isn't so much building but adapting. VG is desperately trying to tailor the best possible outcome of a design that simply wasn't sophisticated/large/powerful enough to do the job required.

I believe he'll manage it eventually though. It's a plane with an over-glorified SRB strapped in the back - eventually they will figure out how to make it get above the Karman line (and back again) repetitively.

[JasonAW3]

As the years have gone on, Bigelow went from being the first space hotel to the first space casino to the first (private) space laboratory.
(snip)

That's not true.  Bigelow never proposed a space hotel or space casino.  It has never been about space tourism.

I think that's right. It was always assumed by "the crowd" that because he made his money in hotels, that his space infrastructure would be hotels. But Mr. Bigelow himself never advocated that. He has always spoken about space stations; commercial, academic and international. That's the market he is aiming at. And there's money in them all. A lot more money than in tourism and hotels.

Bigelow, space architect!

Personally, before SpaceX starts sending people to Mars, I'm expecting them to send people to the Moon, and likely for $250,000 round trip and $100,000 one way.  Mind you, I expect thios will be after Mr. Bigelow finishes building the core of the first Lunar Town.

You left out one crucial item: How Will Mr B. Get His Infrastructure And Workers To The Moon?

I can't be certian yet, but I' suspect that SpaceX, although primariliy interesyed in Mars, may use the Moon as a proving ground for the MCT as well as use of the Man rated capsules for lunar exploration.  (If it'll have enough thrust to land on Earth, it'll have MORE thanenough to land on the moon!)

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

I can't be certian yet, but I' suspect that SpaceX, although primariliy interesyed in Mars, may use the Moon as a proving ground for the MCT as well as use of the Man rated capsules for lunar exploration.  (If it'll have enough thrust to land on Earth, it'll have MORE thanenough to land on the moon!)

How is the MCT going to deepthrottle enough to touch down gently on the moon without having to pull the most hair-raisingly well-timed retropropulsive burn in history? Remember, it's powered by raptors.

[Lars-J]

I can't be certian yet, but I' suspect that SpaceX, although primariliy interesyed in Mars, may use the Moon as a proving ground for the MCT as well as use of the Man rated capsules for lunar exploration.  (If it'll have enough thrust to land on Earth, it'll have MORE thanenough to land on the moon!)

How is the MCT going to deepthrottle enough to touch down gently on the moon without having to pull the most hair-raisingly well-timed retropropulsive burn in history? Remember, it's powered by raptors.

By ballasting it more with cargo and/or propellant? There are lots of ways to do this, as Grasshopper tests have shown. We still don't know what will power the MCT exactly either.

[Radical_Ignorant]

Well, for space tourism there we have three data points that I know of:

1. 1 person for 150,000,000 USD (circumlunar mission)
2. 8 people at 50,000,000 USD pricepoint (ISS visits)
3. 700 people at 250,000 USD pricepoint (suborbital VG customers)

I assume elastic demand (linear on log-log graph).

So F9 launch with reused 1st stage (40 million) + reused Dragon (35 million) + 2 week space station utilization (25 million) divided by 6 tourists = 16.6 million per tourist. That gives 20 tourists for private space station.

But with more aggressive pricing, (30 million for LV + 15 million for reused Dragon + 15 million for 2 week station utilization) I got 31 tourist.

Bigelow announced a price of 25 million per seat (for 2 month stay), but that was calculated before reusability was taken into account.

...cut...

So there is a market potential, and reusable F9 and Dragon might be the tipping point that could justify fixed costs (privately built station).

460 total is still small to make the difference, but it could be enough to take off and with SpaceX pursuit for price reductions.... I don't remember pricing of Bigelow. And I was more curious: can it provide significant stream of revenue and experience (launches) for SpaceX to make the difference.
I'm not sure how you calculate the graph. But what if:
A) Bigelow price was cut and time was reduced to single week.
B) SpaceX was charging 25M for launch. That's still way above targets presentet by Shotwell. IMO when Musk said 70% of launch cost is 1st stage, then price could be cut more than 50%. Assuming greater flight rate and improvments in around launch costs. I.e. fixed cost spread over much greater nr of launches.

I'm very curious about 2 things:
- what's Virgin estimate for annual nr of passangers for non flying SS2. I believe this 700 number is very unfair as: it's not flying. It's suborbital. It's just few minutes. Sure it'd be about 40 times more, but duration of adventure would be about 350 times longer and much more intimate. So value per money is incomparably greater. Number will be smaller but not lineary to wealth spread.
- On what data hava have you estimatet 15M for Dragon2? I don't know any numbers, but seems it could be even lower assuming full reusability of vehicle - especialy if those could be "free" "leftovers" from NASA trips to ISS.

Thanks a lot for those 3 numbers. Couldn't find them except last one.

[Radical_Ignorant]

Another point not mentioned: why should SpaceX wait for Bigelow space station at all? For their stated goal (Mars colonization), the 1st step is to reduce cost of space launch. F9R targets that aspect.

...cut...

So I think SpaceX is not just a long term supplier of Bigelow. It just might become a long term competitor.

Not sure. I agree that MCT could be used as space station. But I believe it would be much less cost competitive as it'll be build for totally different purpose.
Additionally Bigelow's module is going to be tested this year, while MCT is still only a concept.
Finally SpaceX needs as much launches as possible to reduce costs. So they will help every possible competition which will use (andpay for) their rockets.

[Radical_Ignorant]

In near term I can't see SpaceX or Boeing ignoring an orbital tourism market (a few orbits and return) if one exists.

It's easy. If there is market both will provide service. Musk said it multiple times that he will sell launches to virtually anyone. And desire driven Biggelow will do the same.
Of course he can count more on private companies, national organizations, universities... but IMO this will take decades with their bureaucracy to start.

[dkovacic]

Another point not mentioned: why should SpaceX wait for Bigelow space station at all? For their stated goal (Mars colonization), the 1st step is to reduce cost of space launch. F9R targets that aspect.

...cut...

So I think SpaceX is not just a long term supplier of Bigelow. It just might become a long term competitor.

Not sure. I agree that MCT could be used as space station. But I believe it would be much less cost competitive as it'll be build for totally different purpose.
Additionally Bigelow's module is going to be tested this year, while MCT is still only a concept.
Finally SpaceX needs as much launches as possible to reduce costs. So they will help every possible competition which will use (andpay for) their rockets.

Well, SpaceX does seem to move faster than other aerospace companies. And they are perfectly capable of changing direction very fast. How they changed from Falcon 5 to Falcon 9 concept. And dropped Falcon 1. And then move from F9 1.0 to F9 1.1 after just five flights. And then add 1st reusability. When was ASDS announced until 1st landing try? Was it three months? The only exception to this rule seems to be Falcon Heavy, which might indicate that it is not as important to SpaceX as it seems (but that is a topic for another thread).
For MCT, it seems that most people envision it as a single piece of hardware - a monolithic spaceship. That concept prevails in our naval and airline industries primarily because they are subject to the rocket equation.
So I am not suggesting that SpaceX will not support launches for Bigelow space station. I am saying that they might just as well assemble their space station in orbit. This will be their "test base" for iterative development style. Such a station would not be so suitable for scientific research (essentially cutting off university, commercial and international markets). So what is left to pay for it? Tourism! And after they are done with it, they need to add in-space propulsion modules, one or more landing modules (derivatives of Dragon) and rebrand it as MCT.

[TrevorMonty]

 $10m a seat for orbital flight using a F9R would allow a healthy profit margin. At $60m (6pax + 1 crew) a flight they should still be making $30-40m profit assume $10m depreciation on dragon and 1st stage plus $10m for new 2nd stage.
I don't think filling seats at this price would be a problem.

[Radical_Ignorant]

The cost of Dragon is estimated to 70 million USD (for NASA). If reused 10 times, that gives 7 million per mission. Refurnishing, launch and landing price I estimated at 7 million.

That could be cut by half i f we consider possibility of using Dragons paid by NASA.

So using 28% of 95,000 x 250,000USD per flight gives 6.6 billion potential market size.

That's addressable market for VG not for discussed scenario where value of flight is much greater but also base nr of available customers is much lower I believe.

Your argument about VG not being "The Right Stuff" really depends on personal attitude for all of us. For many potential space tourists, the problem is not the price, but the time and training requirements. So VG/SS2, requiring just a few days of total engagement, could be more attractive for wide range of people that real space station visit.

I wasn't clear enough. It's not that I'm saying VG is wrong stuff. Rather that discussed scenario is way different. I personally dislike VG because of VMedia problems I have with, but that's not an argument.
But I believe that if someone's going to pay x% of his net worth to see space and feel lack of gravity for 15minutes, he will probable be able to pay x*y of his net worth for 7 days between the stars.
I don't have idea about y and I don't have idea how goes the curve of nrOfHNWI(netWorth).

[GORDAP]

That could be cut by half i f we consider possibility of using Dragons paid by NASA.

If NASA chooses to not reuse Dragon 2 (even though SpaceX makes it completely reusable), this would be a great use for them.  Were I SpaceX, I'd market this to space tourists as 'Travel in a Dragon 2 capsule, pretested by NASA!'   

[QuantumG]

If NASA chooses to not reuse Dragon 2

They've already made that choice. Technically, SpaceX made the choice, but NASA made reusability so much more difficult to bid that it's obviously the choice they wanted SpaceX to make.

(even though SpaceX makes it completely reusable)

NASA demands insight into everything SpaceX is doing on the Dragon 2. How can they possibly justify the long list of things they need to do to make the vehicle reusable? If SpaceX bidding a non-reusable vehicle is just a farce, don't ya think NASA will see that?

[macpacheco]

They've already made that choice. Technically, SpaceX made the choice, but NASA made reusability so much more difficult to bid that it's obviously the choice they wanted SpaceX to make.

Where do you get that from ?
It has been explained that for CRS, SpaceX chose to fly brand new Dragons cause their overhead to re-certify flown Dragons wasn't worth, but that path existed. Are you sure there isn't such a path for commercial crew ?

[QuantumG]

Where do you get that from ?

It was announced in January (but we'd all heard it prior to that), along with the shocker that they're going to be landing astronauts in the ocean.

It has been explained that for CRS, SpaceX chose to fly brand new Dragons cause their overhead to re-certify flown Dragons wasn't worth, but that path existed. Are you sure there isn't sure a path for commercial crew ?

COTS/CRS was a lot more hands off. The alphabet soup of commercial crew is all about the NASA insight.

[deruch]

They've already made that choice. Technically, SpaceX made the choice, but NASA made reusability so much more difficult to bid that it's obviously the choice they wanted SpaceX to make.

Where do you get that from ?
It has been explained that for CRS, SpaceX chose to fly brand new Dragons cause their overhead to re-certify flown Dragons wasn't worth, but that path existed. Are you sure there isn't such a path for commercial crew ?

I always thought the issue was that they couldn't really bid reuse on CRS because they didn't know exactly what the refurb, testing, and validation costs would be to certify a used Dragon v1 for NASA reflight.  Because the contracts weren't cost-plus they couldn't afford to bid with a significant unknown cost element.  i.e. not that it wasn't worth it economically but that they couldn't demonstrate if it was or not. 

Same problem for Dragon 2 except this time it's driven more by the fact that NASA really, really did not want land-based landings in CCtCap.  SpaceX has essentially said they're going to try to do it on the side.  So, with salt water-based landings they have the same "undetermined costs" issue.  If they can get land-based propulsive-assist or full propulsive landings approved by NASA then they'll be much closer to being able to talk reuse.

[Jcc]

Boeing has land landings and partial reuse from day 1, but they were smart about it, they discard the service module and the TPS, so they don't have to recertify those, and air bags are more of a proven technology than fully propulsive landing, so NASA accepted that as the primary means to land, allowing reuse of the rest of the capsule. Still, a "reused" CST-100 is apparently more expensive than a single use Dragon 2. SpaceX could bid that and avoid pricing the unknowns of refurbishment from a water landing or unproven propulsive landing. NASA may feel more comfortable with one of the capsules planning on a "safe, proven water landing" to mitigate the risk that land landing doesn't work out as expected for CST-100. Of course they recognize the benefits of fully propulsive landing if that were proven safe and reliable, but did not want to take on the schedule risk of relying on it. Speaking of schedule risk, the pad abort is still pending...

What's this got to do with Bigalow, you ask? Bigalow has to time their plans to the availability of crew transport and of course they need it cheap. So, they will be expecting reused capsules at a much lower price than NASA is paying, with reused Dragon 2 flying on a reused F9 likely the cheapest, but boeing may be willing to provide a discount on a used CST-100 as well.