Author Topic: Bigelow Aerospace Sets a Business Trajectory (Read 16629 times)

marsavian · « **on:** 03/26/2007 02:27 pm »

http://www.space.com/spacenews/070326_bigelow_businessmonday.html

Bigelow said the business structure that the company will outline next month will not only support destinations in low Earth orbit, but also operations on the Moon and at Mars.

Bigelow said what he plans to spotlight in April are categories of destinations that transform space from just being a place of curiosity to being a place of absolute global necessity. “I think we’re going to be a very good customer for the spaceport community … a very good customer for the launch folks as well. In detailing our plans, you’ll see a very, very solid terrestrial corollary to the real estate world that is huge. All we’re doing is adapting that entire structure to space.”

DigitalMan · « **Reply #1 on:** 03/27/2007 12:16 am »

I really wish him well with this. Making the business plan work is much more difficult than the rocket science, especially considering the large investments required to support human operations in orbit or on the moon and mars.

If he can make it work it would be a major defining moment in space history.

Delta Manager · « **Reply #2 on:** 03/27/2007 12:44 am »

Very old news.

Danderman · « **Reply #3 on:** 03/27/2007 12:45 am »

Looking at this link:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/inflatable-lunar-hab.html

and the plans by NASA to offer facilities on ISS to commercial users, it would seem that NASA is feeling a little competition from the Bigelow Aerospace inflatable technology and commercial space platform.

PurduesUSAFguy · « **Reply #4 on:** 03/27/2007 02:59 am »

Quote

Danderman - 26/3/2007 7:45 PM

Looking at this link:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/inflatable-lunar-hab.html

and the plans by NASA to offer facilities on ISS to commercial users, it would seem that NASA is feeling a little competition from the Bigelow Aerospace inflatable technology and commercial space platform.

If I were a potential commercial user that had to pick between the ISS or space on an eventual Bigelow station I wouldn't need to look any further then the way NASA killed the ISF in the 80s after initially be supportive to shy away from entering into a bussiness partnership with NASA. (Note I said partnership with NASA, having NASA as a customer is a different story)

Jim · « **Reply #5 on:** 03/27/2007 10:45 am »

Quote

PurduesUSAFguy - 26/3/2007 10:59 PM

Quote
Danderman - 26/3/2007 7:45 PM

Looking at this link:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/inflatable-lunar-hab.html

and the plans by NASA to offer facilities on ISS to commercial users, it would seem that NASA is feeling a little competition from the Bigelow Aerospace inflatable technology and commercial space platform.

If I were a potential commercial user that had to pick between the ISS or space on an eventual Bigelow station I wouldn't need to look any further then the way NASA killed the ISF in the 80s after initially be supportive to shy away from entering into a bussiness partnership with NASA. (Note I said partnership with NASA, having NASA as a customer is a different story)

NASA didn't kill ISF. Partnership or customer, the name didn't matter, they were looking for money. Also, the ISF lost a competition.

bad_astra · « **Reply #6 on:** 03/27/2007 02:09 pm »

ISF would have only been serviced by sts. Bigelow hopefully will have options.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #7 on:** 03/27/2007 07:53 pm »

Quote

DigitalMan - 26/3/2007 5:16 PM

I really wish him well with this. Making the business plan work is much more difficult than the rocket science, especially considering the large investments required to support human operations in orbit or on the moon and mars.

If he can make it work it would be a major defining moment in space history.

Ya gotta remember who this is. Mr. Bigelow has more experience with real estate development, investment banking, and business planning than anyone involved in either gov.space or alt.space efforts. I expect that you may be quite correct, this could well be the defining moment in space history.

Quote

Delta Manager - 26/3/2007 5:44 PM

Very old news.

Would you care to elaborate?

josh_simonson · « **Reply #8 on:** 03/27/2007 10:55 pm »

Bigelow is supposed to release some 'coffee spitting' news soon. My monitor is still clean...

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #9 on:** 04/06/2007 09:56 pm »

Bigelow's business plan release is still scheduled for April 10, unfortunately the same day as the NASA Atlantis briefing.

Genesis II is in Russia and has cleared customs, ITAR and all. http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/dispatches_from_yasny.php

The April 19th launch campaign is underway!

stockman · « **Reply #10 on:** 04/06/2007 10:22 pm »

not sure if this is the news that you are referring to but I just read this off of Nasawatch.com

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1204

It seems to detail a lot of what Bigalow plans.

HIP2BSQRE · « **Reply #11 on:** 04/06/2007 11:27 pm »

i JUST READ THE article as well...3 flights a month by 2016...3 complexes...

DigitalMan · « **Reply #12 on:** 04/07/2007 02:10 am »

This is better than I expected. For instance:

"Up to this point we have spent about $90 million, but the good part is that its all been from cash flow, that's from net Bigelow Aerospace income".

And the plans regarding financing, packaging of launch costs, insurance, training and a profit/overhead fee are excellent. I can't wait to hear the rest of the story.

Danderman · « **Reply #13 on:** 04/07/2007 05:41 am »

Quote

DigitalMan - 6/4/2007 7:10 PM This is better than I expected. For instance: "Up to this point we have spent about $90 million, but the good part is that its all been from cash flow, that's from net Bigelow Aerospace income".

What cash flow? What revenues?

DigitalMan · « **Reply #14 on:** 04/07/2007 06:19 am »

As you can see from the article it didn't mention sources. There was another interesting quote right after that one if you look, and the rest of the details show a good well thought-out business plan may be emerging.

I believe Bigelow Aerospace is private, so there may be difficulty getting financial data, but it is unlikely he would be foolish enough to lie about such a thing. There are probably people here that could tell you what his sources of income are, but I have no such connections and the only thing I recall off the top is the "Fly your stuff" program, which I suspect only generated a small income.

mr.columbus · « **Reply #15 on:** 04/07/2007 08:41 am »

Well, at the end the question of whether his business plan will work is, whether his revenue source (paying passengers - I don't see any other source) will be enough per year to make a profit. The article right at the beginning states " Bigelow says his engineers predict that 800 paying crewmembers could fly to Bigelow outposts over the next 10 years."

Ok, let's calculate the minimum price per passenger and the costs for Bigelow to be profitable:

*He said 800 passengers over ten years. Oddly enough he said "next ten years", but let's suppose for calculation purposes, that there are 100 paying customers for Bigelow's services a year. In order to have 100 customers fly to his spacestation(s) he would need at least 20 SpaceX crewed Falcon 9/Dragon flights (5 passengers, 2 pilots/Bigelow staff) and another unspecified number of supply flights - let's assume his statement of 3 flights a month is correct and suppose one supply flight per month - 12 a year.

*32 Falcon 9/Dragon flights à 40 million USD (27 for falcon and the rest for Dragon) is 1.28 billion.

*If Bigelow would price his services at 20 million per customer, he would need to build, operate (pay employees, spare parts, maintenance, supplies, software support, ground hardware, etc.) for 700 million (inkl. profits). Sounds like rather a low margin business, but could still be profitable.

However where the problem really lies is this: You cannot find 100 people a year paying 20 million for orbital spaceflights, there aren't enough wealthy space tourists, space agencies or corporations investing in research that are willing to pay that amount of money for one person on a LEO research station. We know from the Russians, that you can probably find 2-5 people a year (1-2 from space agencies such as the Brazilian or South Korean agencies that want to fly their first nationals into space and 2-3 people who put down the money out of their own pocket). For 100 people a year to work the price per person needs to go down considerably, I would say to between 1-5 million per seat, which would make Bigelow's business plan unfeasible.

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #16 on:** 04/07/2007 12:53 pm »

Best wishes. Nice to see business with money and experience in the space game, but still a very steep challenge. I love that there are people in America willing to take that challenge.

HIP2BSQRE · « **Reply #17 on:** 04/07/2007 03:51 pm »

I disgree with your business case math....

Now you have 1 customer paying $20 milion for 1 week stay at the station. Remember now, the limit factor at the ISS is the amount of space that they have and the launch vichices to get there.

FUTURE (2016):

3 space complexes+.

1 complex( 2 Bigalow modules) can hold up to 12 people+
Therefore 2 complex can hold up 24+ people/month in space. I am assuming the other one strictly for protein growth with no people.
There are 12 months in a year => leads to appprox 24 x12 space weeks available =288 space week aviable.

If profits can be made at $700 million/yr. Then each has to make $700million\288 space weeks less than 3 million dollars per space\week.
Lets assume total cost are $1.4 billion per year (incleded profit).
1.4 billion \288 space weeks available =
To break-even, I need to make revenue to be $5 million\space week. That is a factor of 4 reduction in revenue price\week from the present $20 million a week people are paying. I think that you will find tons of people\corporations willing to pay this price per month.

Lets go out another 2 years and assuming Bigalow decides to add to 2 new complexs.

Now I have 4 complexs can hold up to 48 people/month in space. There are 12 months in year. Therefore there are approx 550 people weeks availble for occupancy.

Assume revenue of 5 million\space week = $2.75 billion. (Occupancy factor = 100 percent).
Unless your costs are higher than that...I am going to make a ton of money that year... Also with resulable vichicles, total cost per person week will be going down. Additionly with the amount of flights been made by expanables their cost would be going down, since now instead of building 1-2 Delta\Atlas heavy per year, I may now be building 20+ rockets.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #18 on:** 04/07/2007 08:09 pm »

Quote

Danderman - 6/4/2007 10:41 PM

Quote
DigitalMan - 6/4/2007 7:10 PM This is better than I expected. For instance: "Up to this point we have spent about $90 million, but the good part is that its all been from cash flow, that's from net Bigelow Aerospace income".
What cash flow? What revenues?

Some of the obvious ones, small amount of revenue from the adverts in Genesis I, "Fly Your Stuff" on Genesis II, possible income from manufactures of equipment flying on the Genesis modules (cameras, attitude control equipment, power generation & control, etc). What is it worth to have your product space flight tested? I do not think any of the games are making any money but I could be wrong.

If BA was offering coffee cups, mouse pads, t-shirts, etc I'd buy them. An "I believe" coffee cup would look good in Jim's office at KSC

Christine · « **Reply #19 on:** 04/08/2007 01:13 am »

For the last time, BIGELOW IS NOT BUILDING A SPACE HOTEL.