Bigelow and SpaceX

[joek]

No.  According to the FAA:

The FAA does not today; they will tomorrow.  NASA and FAA have been working to harmonize requirements.  It was a point of concern among CCtCap providers that they might have to meet different sets of requirements in the future, or that the agency responsible would be switched in mid-stream.

See here and attached.

[AncientU]

My understanding is that NASA certifies for a particular launcher/vehicle combination doing a particular mission, e.g. to ISS. Dragon would then need additional certification for say a lunar mission. Proximity oops, comms, services needed while docked, emergency egress procedures and a host of other things would be different for Bigelow stations and NASA is not going to certify Dragon for those.

When NASA decides to do a rent-a-workshop mission it will want to certify the manned spacecraft for operations at and near the BA-330 spacestation. IMHO that will be near the time when the ISS is splashed, so 2023-2025.

The Bigelow station(s) are to be orbited in 2018, as I recall.  By 2023, operations to/from/around them should be routine.  NASA will have nothing to certify. 

Since it will cost something less than 10% as much to build on-orbit facilities as it did to build the ISS (STS deliveries of hardware were 2/3rds of that cost -- at $25M per mT vs $2M for FH), travel to LEO private stations will no longer be the exclusive domain of Governments.  Hard to imagine... but do the math.

Note: And trips to space won't be called "missions."

[Kansan52]

A bit of a mea culpa on the hotel, casino; lab. I meant as the business case has become clearer over the years, tourism/adventurism doesn't seem to close the business case (make money). The Dragon Lab, SS2 toting experiments, and all the small sat work have become more important to everyone.

Catching up on the thread made me wonder for a purely 1 week trip to orbit, a BEAM with docking port and a Dragon seems like a good match.

But I still worry, why would they want to work with tourists?

[Jcc]

A bit of a mea culpa on the hotel, casino; lab. I meant as the business case has become clearer over the years, tourism/adventurism doesn't seem to close the business case (make money). The Dragon Lab, SS2 toting experiments, and all the small sat work have become more important to everyone.

Catching up on the thread made me wonder for a purely 1 week trip to orbit, a BEAM with docking port and a Dragon seems like a good match.

But I still worry, why would they want to work with tourists?

If there were a realistic business case to serve tourists, they would do it, but I don't think there are enough rich people willing to pay the prices needed to launch and maintain a station just for them. Who knew Sarah Brightman was that rich? Maybe someone just wanted to hear her sing an aria from space. I know I do.

Any way, if the ISS partners, and China separately think it's worthwhile to spend billions doing experiments on a space station, more will find it worth the money to do the same for a fraction of the cost. For instance, India, Brazil, etc.

[Llian Rhydderch]

The Bigelow station(s) are to be orbited in 2018, as I recall.  By 2023, operations to/from/around them should be routine.  NASA will have nothing to certify. 

...

Note: And trips to space won't be called "missions."

THIS!  I so very much agree with you on that last line. 

Space transport, of cargo or humans, by private launch vehicles and spacecraft, will not persist long-term in using the military terminology that NASA and the Soviets picked up of calling such trips "missions."

I very much look forward to seeing the linguistic change over the next decade or so.

[Coastal Ron]

I meant as the business case has become clearer over the years, tourism/adventurism doesn't seem to close the business case (make money).

From what I've observed tourism follows commerce and industry to developing areas, not the other way around, especially in hazardous areas.

Here on Earth tourism is 10% of the global GDP, but most of that is in highly developed areas, such as the city of Paris (#1 tourist destination) or the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul (#1 tourist attraction).  Tourism needs highly developed support systems to generate enough volume to create significant revenue streams.  And unless you're generating significant revenue streams there won't be enough business interest for the development of tourism destinations in space.

So usually tourism piggybacks on the infrastructure commerce and industry have developed before building out their own dedicated support systems, which means there will need to be a substantial commerce and industry presence in space before tourism can start to become a significant revenue opportunity.

Other than the occasional tourist that is allowed for promotional purposes (or hard cash in the case of Russia), tourism should be not be a consideration at this point.

[luinil]

You have tourism in Antarctica, but I'm not sure there's a lot of commerce and industry there.
Yes the tourism there is marginal, but important enough that it poses problems for the environment.

[Jimmy Murdok]

From what I've observed tourism follows commerce and industry to developing areas, not the other way around, especially in hazardous areas.

Here on Earth tourism is 10% of the global GDP, but most of that is in highly developed areas, such as the city of Paris (#1 tourist destination) or the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul (#1 tourist attraction).  Tourism needs highly developed support systems to generate enough volume to create significant revenue streams.  And unless you're generating significant revenue streams there won't be enough business interest for the development of tourism destinations in space.

So usually tourism piggybacks on the infrastructure commerce and industry have developed before building out their own dedicated support systems, which means there will need to be a substantial commerce and industry presence in space before tourism can start to become a significant revenue opportunity.

Other than the occasional tourist that is allowed for promotional purposes (or hard cash in the case of Russia), tourism should be not be a consideration at this point.

What you say is true, but space is exotic and at this point it looks like the tourist trips of few billionaires will be ahead of an industrial market demand that requires human beeings. So it's not that rare if tourism comes before industry and that creates first space commerce.

In any case when the commercial crewed capacity exist and prices are low enought I think we will see an expansion in both ways, tourism and industry at same time.

[woods170]

No.  According to the FAA:

The FAA does not today; they will tomorrow.  NASA and FAA have been working to harmonize requirements.  It was a point of concern among CCtCap providers that they might have to meet different sets of requirements in the future, or that the agency responsible would be switched in mid-stream.

See here and attached.

There is exactly nothing in the referenced presentation that says that FAA will certify/license crew vehicles for spaceflight. Only launch vehicles and reentry vehicles are specifically mentioned. Crew vehicles, during launch, are considered payloads. FAA does not license payloads.
Crew vehicles will only be certified/licensed by FAA under reentry conditions. The in-space part is not certified by FAA.
So, under the current set of conditions, neither NASA, nor FAA are in any position to certify/license non-NASA crewed spaceflights.

[JamesH]

And presumably, the FAA is only relevant to craft originating and finishing up in the US.

[joek]

There is exactly nothing in the referenced presentation that says that FAA will certify/license crew vehicles for spaceflight. Only launch vehicles and reentry vehicles are specifically mentioned. Crew vehicles, during launch, are considered payloads. FAA does not license payloads.
Crew vehicles will only be certified/licensed by FAA under reentry conditions. The in-space part is not certified by FAA.

The MOU and presentation has everything to do with crew vehicles; if you think otherwise then you have not bothered to read much past the title page.  You are correct in that the vehicles are considered payloads for launch and reentry.

You are incorrect in that the FAA licenses, or more properly incorporates a "payload review", into the determination of a launch license.  The result of a payload review is a "payload determination" (c.f., 14 CFR 415.61-63).  A payload which presents an unacceptable risk to public safety will not receive a "favorable determination" and will be denied a launch license (c.f. 14 CFR 415.51).

You are correct that the FAA does not cover in-space operations; I did not claim they do.  However, as part of the payload review the FAA requires information on the "Intended payload operations during the life of the payload" and "Delivery point in flight at which the payload will no longer be under the licensee's control" (c.f. 14 CFR 415.60).

Those are the rules as they stand today.  The specific concern addressed by the NASA and FAA partnership are--as I clearly stated (and which you clearly ignored)--the rules that will apply tomorrow, and which will be applied to "payloads" carrying people, whether launch or reentry.

[TrevorMonty]

The latest TMRO show discussed ISS conditions. It is no luxury resort more like camping. Noisy, smelly, crap   bathroom facilities and not much privacy, but it does have great views.  Hopefully Bigelow will address some of these issues, toilet being most important.

NASA have discounted Russian statement about building another ISS replacement together. NASA still looking exiting ISS and the financial millstone around it's neck ($3B? a year). IMHO will probably lease space on a Bigelow station.

[TrevorMonty]

Here is some facts on Bigelow station based website. Assume  2x BS330 station.

Lease $900m
Crew flights per year 12 ( 12 customers + 2 crew rotating every 2 months. )
Not sure how cargo is going to work out. With crew flight every month returning experiments shouldn't be a problem. Given cargo requirements for ISS which is 6 crew, there could be a need for a few LM Exoliners per year and maybe a few cargo Dragons.

[guckyfan]

Here is some facts on Bigelow station based website. Assume  2x BS330 station.

Lease $900m
Crew flights per year 12 ( 12 customers + 2 crew rotating every 2 months. )
Not sure how cargo is going to work out. With crew flight every month returning experiments shouldn't be a problem. Given cargo requirements for ISS which is 6 crew, there could be a need for a few LM Exoliners per year and maybe a few cargo Dragons.

I still hope for a separate cargo container in the trunk that would enable at least 2t of cargo with every crew flight, including the cargo inside Dragon. With frequent crew exchange including guest researchers they may not need any dedicated cargo flights.

[Coastal Ron]

You have tourism in Antarctica, but I'm not sure there's a lot of commerce and industry there.
Yes the tourism there is marginal, but important enough that it poses problems for the environment.

I thought Antarctica might come up, and it is a good example.  It's definitely science and government, which I think sort of imperfectly falls under the "industry" segment.

And good point about how it can be disruptive.  Russia ferrying tourists up to the ISS is certainly disruptive, since the ISS was not set up for tourists (i.e. "Hey, was I not supposed to push that button?").

What you say is true, but space is exotic and at this point it looks like the tourist trips of few billionaires will be ahead of an industrial market demand that requires human beeings.

Well first of all I don't see a long list of billionaires that have committed to flying to space.  Secondly the going price for flying to space is pretty low for a billionaire, around $50M today, so you'd have thought the Soyuz would be booked up (only two people in training, neither are billionaires).

And the ISS partners don't see that $50M, only Russia does.  So the only tourism available today does nothing to sustain or expand the tourist destination.  That is not a formula for increasing space tourism.

No doubt there is interest in going to space, but we have yet to see enough demand to sustain a profitable business - or a non-profit for that matter.

[QuantumG]

And good point about how it can be disruptive.  Russia ferrying tourists up to the ISS is certainly disruptive, since the ISS was not set up for tourists (i.e. "Hey, was I not supposed to push that button?").

Nice problem you just invented there.

Well first of all I don't see a long list of billionaires that have committed to flying to space.  Secondly the going price for flying to space is pretty low for a billionaire, around $50M today, so you'd have thought the Soyuz would be booked up (only two people in training, neither are billionaires).

It is booked up. Go contact Space Adventures, they'll tell you how long it takes to get on the waiting list.

And the ISS partners don't see that $50M, only Russia does.  So the only tourism available today does nothing to sustain or expand the tourist destination.  That is not a formula for increasing space tourism.

Huh? They're flying people on their own vehicle to their own half of the station. Why should the US or Canada or, heck, Japan, get a dime of that?

No doubt there is interest in going to space, but we have yet to see enough demand to sustain a profitable business - or a non-profit for that matter.

You mean other than the businesses that are making a profit out of flying people now? Do you think they're doing it for lols or something?

[yg1968]

No.  According to the FAA:

The FAA does not today; they will tomorrow.  NASA and FAA have been working to harmonize requirements.  It was a point of concern among CCtCap providers that they might have to meet different sets of requirements in the future, or that the agency responsible would be switched in mid-stream.

See here and attached.

There is talk of extending the moratorium (which expires this year) until companies are able to reach space. The idea is to avoid killing an industry before it has a chance to even get started. This is a space issue where Republicans are surprisingly consistent as they are generally in favor of the moratorium. Given that Republicans control both chambers, I expect the moratorium to be extended. George Nield is against an extension of the moratorium but this is a political decision that is made by Congress.

For now, the FAA only makes recommendations for in-space transportation.

[Jcc]

To quote myself:

If there were a realistic business case to serve tourists, they would do it, but I don't think there are enough rich people willing to pay the prices needed to launch and maintain a station just for them.

There will be a large enough market for space tourists eventually, but initially it will be the occasional tag-along joining the folks who are there to work. I think what Russia and Space Adventures are doing is fantastic, because it creates the idea of space tourism and encourages people to think and dream about it, but it is not a viable market yet.

I think what will pay for private space stations is getting a government contract to provide "commercial space station services" at a lower cost than a government-built space station to further national space exploration goals. Secondarily, there will be R&D use by private companies, funded university research (funded by government and/or industry), then eventually dedicated space tourism facilities.

[Jimmy Murdok]

Well first of all I don't see a long list of billionaires that have committed to flying to space.  Secondly the going price for flying to space is pretty low for a billionaire, around $50M today, so you'd have thought the Soyuz would be booked up (only two people in training, neither are billionaires).

And the ISS partners don't see that $50M, only Russia does.  So the only tourism available today does nothing to sustain or expand the tourist destination.  That is not a formula for increasing space tourism.

No doubt there is interest in going to space, but we have yet to see enough demand to sustain a profitable business - or a non-profit for that matter.

Sure, but what you have now in the ISS is not "cool". Fly in an old soyuz to stay in the noisy russian segment of ISS surounded by working astronauts is not "holidays", is not Kubric's dream (even in this forum we would kill for it).
Once you are able to work the dream of going to space with your partner, in a regular service Dragon to the new cool Bigelow Space Hotel with private rooms, a welcome with a zero G Moët Chandon... enough space to float around and have sex in space in a kind of luxury envoironment---> then is when you will see a line of rich people ready to pay to go to space. What you have now is like Jacques Piccard or Amundsen: extreme stuff to say yes I was one of the first ones to break the frontier but is not real tourism, is extreme one.

[Jarnis]

I'm sure if they can get a commercial station up, there will be demand for "tourist flights" to it as well. Will they happen or not depends entirely on $$$ - if customers for science use pay more than tourists, tourists get bumped down the list. If there is enough demand, there will be more flights / more modules / more capacity.

The big hump will be to get a station operational and first paying customers on it. I don't think this will happen purely on the business case of tourism, but if other users (science, perhaps NASA itself) pay for the thing to get going, I'm sure tourism will be on the wings ready to jump in.

Also I could totally see a case where a station is leased by some private party (or a consortium of private parties/governments) for scientific use, but to help fund some of the costs, they would sell tourist trips as well.