Jim - 13/2/2007 1:11 PMHe isn't just going after tourists.
Plus the VSE won't have any real flights (ARES I-1 doesn't count) by 2014 either
JIS - 13/2/2007 8:18 AMQuoteJim - 13/2/2007 1:11 PMHe isn't just going after tourists.So you say that non-tourists will pay more? How many non-tourists could be there?
Achilles - 13/2/2007 1:36 PMSo just using your simplified business figures, if a commercially available access to LEO is available for about 25million a seat before 2014, hows a 300million Aries I shot (@50million a seat) going to sit with the US tax-payer ?
JIS - 13/2/2007 8:55 AM1. Bigelow crew vehicle doesn't exist even on the paper (unlike Orion/Ares 1). Atlas V would make the seat price a lot higher than $25m per seat.Orion can stay at ISS for 6 months and can be used for ISS orbit adjustment too. It is very unlikely that any private ship can be more safe/reliable than Orion/Ares 1.2. But I really believe that private industry can eventually take over most of the LEO flights. I wouldn't say it happens before NASA lands on the Moon.
Achilles - 13/2/2007 9:14 AMAtlas V, Falcon 9 crewed capsule , whatever its coming sooner and it will be less that 300million a shot. Sure an Orion could stay at the ISS for six months but it wouldn't take six months of supplies with it -ie with rotation of the supply-capsules who needs 6mths duration in LEO ? ISS Orbit adjustment - ATV (certainly after 2016)NASA landed on the moon nearly 40years ago. My moneys on COTS being in LEO before the sick stick.
JIS - 13/2/2007 9:47 AMYes the CBO estimated the Ares1 cost to about the same as Delta4H ($200mil) plus launch services plus Orion.
Jim - 13/2/2007 3:53 PMQuoteJIS - 13/2/2007 9:47 AMYes the CBO estimated the Ares1 cost to about the same as Delta4H ($200mil) plus launch services plus Orion.Delta4H cost ($200m) is the launch service cost (vehicle, operations and spacecraft integration)Ares I equivilent is much higher ($300-400million)
He needs 6-8 crew ferry plus one cargo for every two crew missions each costs about $70mil.
To assembly a space hotel he needs about three assembly flights with three modules ($1-2B ?).
5 paying costumers needs to pay between (14 mil for the crew flight + 7 mil cargo =) $21mil per flight per person + some fee for the station + training + insurance to make a very optimistic business case.
Are there around 100 tourists per year willing to pay around $25mil?
The first flight of the real hardware could be before 2014 but no real component exists yet. Maybe Atlas 5 but this can hardly achieve $70mil / flight including space ship.
Achilles - 13/2/2007 1:10 AMThe likes of Bigelow and SpaceX are going to make the VSE plans look very silly before 2014.
First off, it's important to remember that Bigelow has never said he's building a space "hotel". My guess is that when the dust clears it will be more of a space research or industrial facility with a subsection being more hotel oriented.
Second off, $1-2B for the two assembly flights he actually needs? Where do you get your numbers from? I'd be amazed if he spent more than $250-500M on two or three construction flights. He isn't flying it on the Shaft of the Shuttle. He's flying it on commercial vehicles, which are a *lot* cheaper.
Quote5 paying costumers needs to pay between (14 mil for the crew flight + 7 mil cargo =) $21mil per flight per person + some fee for the station + training + insurance to make a very optimistic business case.If they can get an 8 person capsule like they think they can, the price per person all things included will actually likely be in the $8-10M range, not in the $20M range.
QuoteAre there around 100 tourists per year willing to pay around $25mil?If space tourism were his primary market, and if it was really going to be as expensive as you claim, then yes there would be a problem. But since you're off on the cost numbers by about a factor of 2x, and since space tourism per se isn't his primary market...
QuoteThe first flight of the real hardware could be before 2014 but no real component exists yet. Maybe Atlas 5 but this can hardly achieve $70mil / flight including space ship.The first flight of test hardware was last year. The first inhabitable module (Sundancer) is scheduled for sometime in 2009-2010. Even assuming they run into some snags (or that the first Sundancer doesn't work), I'd be amazed if they didn't have habitable volume on-orbit before 2012.
As for Atlas pricing, my sources say you're wrong. At low flight rates, yes they have to charge more.
But if they get even moderate demand from Bigelow, it'll double or triple their Atlas V 401/402 flight rate.
But hey, what do they know. They've only been flying rockets for 40+ years now. ;-)
Seriously, your analysis isn't *that* far off ~Jon
Really? He didn’t say he’s building space hotel for tourists? Than I lived in a mistake.
I think he said he already spent several $100m flying one test bed with NASA heritage technology and off shelf technology. I’m just not convinced that he can built several full scale space modules and launch them for another $250-500M.
I think he’ll spend this money only for testing. The real hardware will cost twice more. Therefore $1-2B in next ten years before his habitats will start the real operation. That’s my guess.
5 paying costumers along with 2 pilots and housekeeping persons = 7 person capsule. But why not to build 15 crew space ship?
I wonder what other market is there. Maybe Americans, Europeans and Japanese will buy couple of places a year to get to ISS. Maybe Pakistani or Iran would buy one or two places to send their heroes to the Space.
Or, is there any demand from private corporations to do any manned research in the space? Could you name an example? Why not to cooperate with NASA or partners and do research at ISS instead?
I hope they don’t use the same schedule philosophy as Kistler or SpaceX as it usually takes two or three times longer than planned.
The higher flight rates can materialise when there is somewhere to fly and some reliable space ship. This can take 5 years (according to you schedule) or another 10-15 in more realistic case.
The current flight rate is 1-2 missions. Are you saying that 2-6 flights per year are enough to lower the Atlas V price to $50mil?
I think they said they need something like 16 flights per year. It’s really long way to get there.
Even building extremely simple suborbital SS2 is taking at least 4 years from the first demonstration flight. So Atlas will wait a long time for its cargo.
jongoff - 14/2/2007 9:31 PMQuote5 paying costumers along with 2 pilots and housekeeping persons = 7 person capsule. But why not to build 15 crew space ship?First, remember that "housekeeping person" as you call them probably aren't going to be going up and down on every flight. If you've got 16 flights per year, there's no reason for them not to stick around on-orbit for a few months.
And once again, you can't reason from just one or two data-points. Just because one company takes 4 years to do something doesn't mean another company couldn't do a project of similar performance requirements in 2 years or 6. ~Jon
JIS - 14/2/2007 6:43 PMQuoteFirst off, it's important to remember that Bigelow has never said he's building a space "hotel". My guess is that when the dust clears it will be more of a space research or industrial facility with a subsection being more hotel oriented. Really? He didn’t say he’s building space hotel for tourists? Than I lived in a mistake.
QuoteSecond off, $1-2B for the two assembly flights he actually needs? Where do you get your numbers from? I'd be amazed if he spent more than $250-500M on two or three construction flights. He isn't flying it on the Shaft of the Shuttle. He's flying it on commercial vehicles, which are a *lot* cheaper. I think he said he already spent several $100m flying one test bed with NASA heritage technology and off shelf technology. I’m just not convinced that he can built several full scale space modules and launch them for another $250-500M. I think he’ll spend this money only for testing. The real hardware will cost twice more. Therefore $1-2B in next ten years before his habitats will start the real operation. That’s my guess.
Quote Quote5 paying costumers needs to pay between (14 mil for the crew flight + 7 mil cargo =) $21mil per flight per person + some fee for the station + training + insurance to make a very optimistic business case.If they can get an 8 person capsule like they think they can, the price per person all things included will actually likely be in the $8-10M range, not in the $20M range.5 paying costumers along with 2 pilots and housekeeping persons = 7 person capsule. But why not to build 15 crew space ship?
You need an additional life boat.
So which company could built a true manned space ship before NASA? Is there any company with a potential in California? Has it demonstrated any capability for an orbital flight?
Jim - 16/2/2007 11:14 AMWouldn't include spacehab. they don't build hardware. Alenia would be the builder
Bill White - 16/2/2007 12:40 PMA link to a recent article on name rights: http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/19/commentary/sportsbiz/index.htmCitibank is payiong $20 million per year to "name" a baseball stadium. If a Bigelow hab has a 7 year life expentancy and the name can be sold for $10 million per year, that is $70 million towards launch costs with essentially ZERO additional cost to Bigelow.
This article says that: "Bigelows plan is to establish a habitable commercial space station for research, manufacturing, entertainment and other uses." But i have serious doubts about the financial viability of an industrial facility in earth orbit. So my guess is that Bigelow's modules will be primarily used as a space hotel in earth orbit. Only if we get out of earth orbit do i see a potential for other uses.
Any link to back your claims up? This article says that he had spend $75 million when they launched Genesis 1. Bigelow is rich, but i don't think he has $1-2 billion.
If you can squeeze 15 persons in a ten ton space capsule Bigelow and Lockheed-Martin will be very interested.
I think Bigelow should be able to get sundancer and the BA330 with $500 million. And space tourists will be his main revenue source. I do have serious doubts about other markets and if the space tourist market is big enough at a price level of $10-20 million. If they can get the price down to $1 million or lower then the amount of customers should increase substantially.
marsavian - 16/2/2007 12:45 PMQuoteJim - 16/2/2007 11:14 AMWouldn't include spacehab. they don't build hardware. Alenia would be the builderIt could also be Ball Aerospace via a Spacehab Apex design.
Not a good analogy. Stadiums get 20-40k people visting them 100 times a years and TV coverage for 2-3 hours on those days. The exposure for bigelow is a small fraction of this and like was the money will be proportionally less
Jim - 16/2/2007 11:46 AMQuoteBill White - 16/2/2007 12:40 PMA link to a recent article on name rights: http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/19/commentary/sportsbiz/index.htmCitibank is payiong $20 million per year to "name" a baseball stadium. If a Bigelow hab has a 7 year life expentancy and the name can be sold for $10 million per year, that is $70 million towards launch costs with essentially ZERO additional cost to Bigelow.Not a good analogy. Stadiums get 20-40k people visting them 100 times a years and TV coverage for 2-3 hours on those days. The exposure for bigelow is a small fraction of this and like was the money will be proportionally less
Bill White - 16/2/2007 1:32 PMFoot traffic is far less important than mass media exposure. The rights deal would need to be packaged to get air time on "Good Morning America" and so on and in the marketing world ~$10 million per year is a tiny drop in the ocean.The "first" such deal would make the nightly news on every major network and to maximize revenue Bigelow would need to book interviews on Larry King, etc. . . but if that were done, ~$50 to $100 million merely for name rights would seem easy to justify. Every time a celebrity tourist flies up to the Bigelow hab, they could be required to tout the prime sponsor. Imagine if the first Bigelow tourists did live on-orbit interviews with Letterman, Oprah, Jay Leno etc . . . "Live from the XXX habitat"
Jim - 16/2/2007 12:53 PMQuoteBill White - 16/2/2007 1:32 PMFoot traffic is far less important than mass media exposure. The rights deal would need to be packaged to get air time on "Good Morning America" and so on and in the marketing world ~$10 million per year is a tiny drop in the ocean.The "first" such deal would make the nightly news on every major network and to maximize revenue Bigelow would need to book interviews on Larry King, etc. . . but if that were done, ~$50 to $100 million merely for name rights would seem easy to justify. Every time a celebrity tourist flies up to the Bigelow hab, they could be required to tout the prime sponsor. Imagine if the first Bigelow tourists did live on-orbit interviews with Letterman, Oprah, Jay Leno etc . . . "Live from the XXX habitat" The first mission would get hugh exposure but it would die down quickly. 50-100, no more like 5-10. decals on the sides of rockets didn't amount to much. A stadium gets media coverage every year and for years every time a game is played. After the novelty dies off, the station would get little.PS. your prediction is the $50-100 million. Advertizing revenue was already planned and naming rights is a subset.
Mateschitz, 60, typifies a new class of billionaires who got rich not by inventing a new product but by selling an ordinary one inventively. Donald Trump gets a premium for his Manhattan apartments because he has propagated the notion that a Trump building is superior to comparable property across the street. Sidney Frank made billions by selling Grey Goose vodka, nearly indistinguishable from bottom-shelf brands, at a rich price."When we first started, we said there is no existing market for Red Bull," Mateschitz recalls, in a thick Austrian accent. "But Red Bull will create it. And this is what finally became true."
Tony Rusi - 16/2/2007 10:46 AM.....But they are only pressurizing to 7.5 psi anyway. And just how long of an interval is there between re-inflations? Just because they say it is holding air "better than on the ground" does not really mean anything. When they inflate to 15 psi and never, ever reinflate, then you really have something.
Jim - 16/2/2007 10:52 AMQuotemarsavian - 16/2/2007 12:45 PMIt could also be Ball Aerospace via a Spacehab Apex design. Ball only does the spacecraft bus, (ie. propulsion, attitude control, telemetry, power etc). They have predesigned buses. As for the habitable volumes and TPS, that is not Ball's expertise.
marsavian - 16/2/2007 12:45 PMIt could also be Ball Aerospace via a Spacehab Apex design.
Comga - 17/2/2007 11:50 AMBall does spacecraft buses with their electronics, ADC, etc, and although some of their craft are "predesigned" every one gets extensive modifications for just about each mission. Moreover, they are working with SpaceX, and not likely to compete with them. Their business model is to sell spacecraft, instruments, subsystems, and missions to committed customers, not building ahead of sales as entrepreneurs.
Atlas Boost for Space Tourism, Space ColonizationIf it was good enough for Mercury astronaut John Glenn back in 1962, it must be good to go to hurl tourists into Earth orbit and beyond.That was the one-two punch delivered at the recent Space Technology & Applications International Forum (STAIF) held February 11-15 in Albuquerque, New Mexico.Jeff Patton of the Business Development & Advanced Programs of the newly formed United Launch Alliance (ULA) spotlighted that a “potential new market for construction, crew and cargo delivery to low Earth orbit” can be serviced by the Atlas V 401 booster.ULA’s Patton detailed a capsule-based passenger transfer vehicle that sits nicely atop the Atlas - a craft based on the design work and reentry technology used in the Genesis, Stardust and several Mars missions.NASA has identified a term that is used for human flight called “Black Zones” Patton said, a phrase that defines any period of flight when an abort would be unsafe for the passengers.A great deal of effort was spent during work on the Orbital Space Plane - a precursor design to the current Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle - an exercise that identified potential Black Zones and eliminating them by modifying the Atlas Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV).Patton’s bottom line: Atlas V 401/402 boosters are well suited for low Earth orbit human spaceflight and taking on a roster of commerical human spaceflight needs.Also at STAIF, Michael Holguin of Lockheed Martin Space Systems Corporation pointed to using the Atlas and the Centaur upper stage to propel people, habitats and hardware to the Moon and Mars, calling it a reliable, robust, and safe approach to space colonization.
Bigelow would turn that region of space, called L1, into a construction zone. Inflatable modules would be linked up with propulsion/power systems and support structures, and then the completed base would be lowered down to the moon's surface, all in one piece.Once the moon base has been set down, dirt would be piled on top, using a technique that Bigelow plans to start testing later this year at his Las Vegas headquarters. The moon dirt, more technically known as regolith, would serve to shield the base's occupants from the harsh radiation hitting the lunar surface.>>The last thing you want to do is handcuff yourself to an Earth solution for moving material – a strategy that would be just crazy to apply to a lunar application. We have enough problems as it is keeping the machinery running – Caterpillars, loaders, excavators, all kinds of machinery.So our solution is something entirely different, involving a method where no machinery actually is used. We’re going to be trying the method this year, using one of our steel simulators as a prototype, because it’s the size of vessel that mimics the full-scale module. We’re actually going to try in Las Vegas to apply our solution for covering up a full-scale module, involving only two people, with a depth of soil on the crown of at least 2 or 3 feet. We’ll give you more on this later as we progress with this experiment.
Norm Hartnett - 1/3/2007 9:00 PM....A lot of status in having an orbital get-away...Rippin’ location for a business meeting or party
