Bigelow and SpaceX

[spacekscblog]

Some miscellaneous thoughts to add to this thread:

* Seven nations have signed MOUs with Bigelow -- Australia, Dubai, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.  What does the MOU cover?  Don't know.  Probably more like a non-disclosure agreement.  But the interest is there.

* At the recent Bigelow/NASA BEAM event in Las Vegas, the Japan Manned Space Systems Corp. had a major presence.  Alan Boyle of NBC News reported:

Hiroshi Kikuchi, senior managing director of Japan Manned Space Systems Corp., told NBC News that a wide variety of clients could use the Bigelow-made stations — including manufacturing companies such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, a major Japanese carmaker that he declined to identify, entertainment ventures and pharmaceutical companies.

“Many companies are waiting for the opportunity to use space station commercialization,” Kikuchi told NBC News. “Bigelow Aerospace could make it happen.”

* This thread is about Bigelow and SpaceX, but let's not overlook that Bigelow had a business relationship with Boeing long before SpaceX.  Boeing sees the Bigelow habitats as a CST-100 destination too -- and I suspect that, in the long run, they foresee Bigelow as CST-100's primary customer.

I've had informal chats with Sierra Nevada people who've assured me they're planning on flying to Bigelow too.

* Recent NASA/Roscosmos "next-generation" station rumors aside, NASA officials for some time now in various forums have informally suggested that when ISS retires any stations in LEO after that will be commercial.  Assuming ISS ends circa 2025, that gives Bigelow roughly 5-8 years to prove the technology.  BEAM is the first step for proving that ... Of course, if BEAM deflates when the first high-speed fleck of paint strikes it on orbit, then all bets are off.

* When I explain the Bigelow concept to the lay person, I compare the habitats to the forts scattered across the U.S. Old West in the 19th Century.  As settlers expanded across the West (wiping out Indian civilization), they had no cities or towns, so where did they go?  To the forts.

Bigelow will be the space forts.

Just as cities and towns grew up around the forts (Ft. Worth, Ft. Wayne, etc.), we may see space cities and towns grow up around the Bigelow habitats at Lagrangian points, in lunar orbit, etc.

My personal opinion is that Bigelow is the key to opening up the solar system.  For asteroid mining, how's about parking a small Bigelow habitat next to the captured asteroid so a miner inside can operate robots harvesting the surface?  The possibilities for this technolgy are endless -- if it works.

[philw1776]

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.

I'm new here.  Is the sex in space included with the launch & stay fee?
What happens in orbit stays in orbit!

[Coastal Ron]

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?

I would imagine Space Adventures is making a profit, but not the destination.  That's not a sustainable business model for the destination.

This gets back to what I've stated before, that space tourism has to leverage non-tourism assets at this point.  Essentially U.S. Taxpayers are subsidizing the Space Adventures business model, since without the ISS as a destination it would be unlikely that anyone would be paying Space Adventures $50M to ride a Soyuz just to take a few laps around the Earth.

Real space tourism won't happen until there are tourism specific destinations in space that have sustainable business models for the whole eco-system.  Until then it's just opportunistic adventure travel.

[QuantumG]

I would imagine Space Adventures is making a profit, but not the destination.  That's not a sustainable business model for the destination.

So, you imagine the Russians are doing it for fun? I really can't parse this phrase of "the destination" making a profit. It's a space station.. it doesn't have a bank balance. If you mean the Russian space agency, again, do you think they're doing it for fun?

This gets back to what I've stated before, that space tourism has to leverage non-tourism assets at this point.

All tourism does. So what? You think the only real tourism is something akin to Disneyland where the only they don't pipe in is the air?

Essentially U.S. Taxpayers are subsidizing the Space Adventures business model, since without the ISS as a destination it would be unlikely that anyone would be paying Space Adventures $50M to ride a Soyuz just to take a few laps around the Earth.

Actually, that's completely wrong. When I spoke with Richard Garriott and others who had been involved with Space Adventures they said most of the applicants were willing to pay that much for a shorter ride. Visiting the ISS is certainly of interest, but staying there for weeks at a time is not something participants would opt for if they had any choice.

The problem with Soyuz rides is that there aren't enough of them. If there were twice as many they'd all be sold. Yes, even if they didn't go to the ISS. If seats were available that didn't require almost a year of training in Russia there would be an order of magnitude more interest too.

Real space tourism won't happen until there are tourism specific destinations in space that have sustainable business models for the whole eco-system.  Until then it's just opportunistic adventure travel.

The destination is space. It's always going to be adventure travel.. at least this side of transports and shuttlecraft. Spaceflight is fundamentally risky.. it is adventure.

[Coastal Ron]

I would imagine Space Adventures is making a profit, but not the destination.  That's not a sustainable business model for the destination.

So, you imagine the Russians are doing it for fun?

Russia is a minority owner of the ISS.

I really can't parse this phrase of "the destination" making a profit. It's a space station.. it doesn't have a bank balance.

U.S. Taxpayers spend $3B/year to maintain the ISS, and to my knowledge no part of the $50M per flight Space Adventures charges is helping with that bill.

If you mean the Russian space agency, again, do you think they're doing it for fun?

Do you think everything Russia does has to make sense?

Essentially U.S. Taxpayers are subsidizing the Space Adventures business model, since without the ISS as a destination it would be unlikely that anyone would be paying Space Adventures $50M to ride a Soyuz just to take a few laps around the Earth.

Actually, that's completely wrong. When I spoke with Richard Garriott and others who had been involved with Space Adventures they said most of the applicants were willing to pay that much for a shorter ride. Visiting the ISS is certainly of interest, but staying there for weeks at a time is not something participants would opt for if they had any choice.

Well we'll know by 2025 if that's true.

The destination is space. It's always going to be adventure travel.. at least this side of transports and shuttlecraft. Spaceflight is fundamentally risky.. it is adventure.

Which is pretty much what I've been saying regarding "tourism", which is different than adventure travel.

[QuantumG]

Russia is a minority owner of the ISS.

Nonsense.

U.S. Taxpayers spend $3B/year to maintain the ISS, and to my knowledge no part of the $50M per flight Space Adventures charges is helping with that bill.

Why should it?

Do you think everything Russia does has to make sense?

Oh, I see. Your argument makes no sense so it's the rest of the world that is wrong.

Well we'll know by 2025 if that's true.

Huh? It's true now. That's really a great way of dealing with information that invalidates your theory.. just claim that somehow the future will vindicate you. How convenient for you that we all have to wait a decade to find out if you're somehow clairvoyant.

Which is pretty much what I've been saying regarding "tourism", which is different than adventure travel.

No it isn't.

[Lar]

Wow, that was an awe inspiring exchange of learned opinions... I was riveted to my seat waiting to see what witty repartee was next. Needs more cowbell, though.

April fools.

Knock it off. Be more excellent-er to each other.

[Blackjax]

If seats were available that didn't require almost a year of training in Russia there would be an order of magnitude more interest too.

I am really curious to see what happens to the 'tourism' side of the market once Bigelow provides an option which does not have this problem.  I have the suspicion that once you solve the "Are there enough seats available?" issue the main limiting factor for the sort of tourists who have tens of millions of dollars to spend on this will be time available to dedicate to doing it.

Until there is an option which does not suffer this problem, nobody is going to be able to say with legitimate confidence how big the tourism market really is, and trying to look at the Russian business to gauge things is potentially misleading.

[Comga]

If seats were available that didn't require almost a year of training in Russia there would be an order of magnitude more interest too.

I am really curious to see what happens to the 'tourism' side of the market once Bigelow provides an option which does not have this problem.  I have the suspicion that once you solve the "Are there enough seats available?" issue the main limiting factor for the sort of tourists who have tens of millions of dollars to spend on this will be time available to dedicate to doing it.

Until there is an option which does not suffer this problem, nobody is going to be able to say with legitimate confidence how big the tourism market really is, and trying to look at the Russian business to gauge things is potentially misleading.

We can't be certain but QuantumG makes a logical point.
What DON'T most really wealthy people have in excess?
Time
A half year of training is probably more of a barrier to the uber-wealthy than the tens of millions of dollars ticket price.
Add in appropriately pleasant training, travel, and destination environments for those used to luxury and the demand is very likely to reach the several dozen needed to justify the infrastructure. Or at least add to the other justifications like research and national pride.
IMHO

[Jim]

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.

Not true.
Flight/mission - same thing.  The military still calls flights performing a task a missions

[Radical_Ignorant]

So it seems that opinion goes like: no, tourism/adventure is not enough to sustain Bigelow station on it's own. Read, it won't affect in meaningfull way SpaceX number of flights.

However from your opinions it seems that it will be infant industry using station which is mainly paid of by commercials. And with MCT/BFR where cost per seat can be reduced a lot due to full reusabilty and scale it can became serious business.

I disagree with anyone saying Bigelow said it's for business not tourists. It will simply be for whoever has the money. The main two issues are:

1 - market is too small because of price. There is not enough rich enough people willing to pay.
2 - market is too small because of complexity. Half year training is too much for most potential customers.

As to 1 - I believe if it can start as additionall thing using station mostly used for commercial, govs, NGOs, then it will scale slowly. (By slowly I hope for something like launch every week of BFR in 20years)

As to 2 - Are there any fundamentals why this training has to be so complicated. NASA doesn't seem to be efficient when it's about burecroacy. They, I may be wrong, seem to be overregulated. So I hope this issue can be solved really soon.

As general topic is about "will Bigelow statition help to scale up market for SpaceX" it would be valuable to hear also more about other customers if there is any data available. It was very encouraging to hear about MOUs between Bigelow and few countries. I had impression the interest is mostly in Bigelows head to be honest - especially in now a days of cutting budgets more and more. And I'm not convinced about commercials - this is new frontier and in general from my observations business is rather conservative in allocating finances. There was also some topic on SpaceX fb forum about program of sharing ISS for commercial experiments. However I didn't get impression that there is interest, from what I get it was rather searching for someone who could be interested even if ISS would be given for free.

Since there is new song from NASA -> commercial station instead of ISS there is third possibility. NASA can have, it's not given, more money after not supporting ISS and part of this can be spend on doing more on cheaper private station. Read: NASA will increase number of activities and flights.

[QuantumG]

Let's say NASA astronauts stop flying on Soyuz sometime this decade¹, Roscosmos has said they will be doing dedicated tourist flights to the ISS when that happens² but I expect there will be a strong demand from US customers for seats on Dragon 2 or CST-100³. At that point we will be in the strange situation of Soyuz having seats they can't sell for any price they want. They'll have to lower their prices to attract interest⁴, especially if they now need to fill two seats per flight.


<sub>1. something I consider pretty unlikely
2. but, ya know, they say a lot of things
3. which NASA continues to oppose
4. not by much, I bet</sub>

[Coastal Ron]

...but I expect there will be a strong demand from US customers for seats on Dragon 2 or CST-100³.

However if NASA uses the "car rental" model for Commercial Crew, they will control who gets access to any excess seats, not SpaceX or Boeing.  And I would think it's unlikely that NASA would sell seats to tourists.

For good or bad, I don't see Roscosmos having any competition for flying tourists to the ISS.

[QuantumG]

However if NASA uses the "car rental" model for Commercial Crew, they will control who gets access to any excess seats, not SpaceX or Boeing.  And I would think it's unlikely that NASA would sell seats to tourists.

For good or bad, I don't see Roscosmos having any competition for flying tourists to the ISS.

That doesn't actually matter. If there is a US vehicle flying then US tourists will want seats on it and they will be less inclined to go through all the years of pain that are involved in flying with the Russians. Commercial Crew actually flying will have multiple reinforcing effects that will drive down the price of Soyuz seats.

[Coastal Ron]

However if NASA uses the "car rental" model for Commercial Crew, they will control who gets access to any excess seats, not SpaceX or Boeing.  And I would think it's unlikely that NASA would sell seats to tourists.

For good or bad, I don't see Roscosmos having any competition for flying tourists to the ISS.

That doesn't actually matter. If there is a US vehicle flying then US tourists will want seats on it and they will be less inclined to go through all the years of pain that are involved in flying with the Russians.

Just to make sure I understand, you're thinking that NASA will eventually be pressured into selling tourist flights?

[QuantumG]

Just to make sure I understand, you're thinking that NASA will eventually be pressured into selling tourist flights?

Hahaha.. I can't imagine how you could have possibly come to that conclusion.

People don't want to go to Russia and do a year of training, during which time they're not allowed to tell anyone what they're doing, and put up with all the other nonsense Roscosmos subjects them to - including outright denying that they're even a customer, as seems to happen every single time the next person to fly to the ISS announces they're going.

If there's an alternative, they'll take it. If there looks like there might be an alternative in a few years, they'll wait a few years. If they feel like they can go harass someone in Washington to get them a seat on a US vehicle, they'll send their time (or more importantly, they'll pay someone else to) doing that instead of going to Russia.

As a result the demand for Soyuz seats will go down, at least in the US. It doesn't matter if they're eventually successful at getting a seat on a Commercial Crew vehicle. That'd have more of an effect, sure, but what's important is the perception of an alternative to Soyuz.

[Zed_Noir]

...but I expect there will be a strong demand from US customers for seats on Dragon 2 or CST-100³.

However if NASA uses the "car rental" model for Commercial Crew, they will control who gets access to any excess seats, not SpaceX or Boeing.  And I would think it's unlikely that NASA would sell seats to tourists.

...

If you use the "rental car" model. Could Roscosmos just buy a Dragon or CST-100 ride up to the ISS from SpaceX or Boeing with a full load of 7 persons including some tourists. Maybe even a reuse Dragon under Russian flight authority. In theory you can send up 7 paying tourists to a Russian side docking port. Think the commercial crew providers will entertain the possibility of more flights to the ISS. 

It is just like Aeroflot buying Boeing jets.

[QuantumG]

Think the commercial crew providers will entertain the possibility of more flights to the ISS. 

They won't do anything they think upsets their relationship with NASA.

Don't rock the gravy boat.

[Coastal Ron]

People don't want to go to Russia and do a year of training, during which time they're not allowed to tell anyone what they're doing, and put up with all the other nonsense Roscosmos subjects them to - including outright denying that they're even a customer, as seems to happen every single time the next person to fly to the ISS announces they're going.

While all of that may be true, and it sounds like it's a real "customer pain" in business terms, how is that NASA's problem to fix?

[QuantumG]

While all of that may be true, and it sounds like it's a real "customer pain" in business terms, how is that NASA's problem to fix?

Who said it was?