Author Topic: Bigelow Aerospace Sets a Business Trajectory (Read 16628 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.

DigitalMan · « **Reply #20 on:** 04/08/2007 02:06 am »

Its rather obvious from the article at spaceref.com that he not only isn't building a space hotel but he's irritated by the suggestion. Do you have any comments about the preview of his plan so far?

The biggest current mystery I think is his current source(s) of income. As far as attracting paying customers, the indications are the entire reason for launcing three different stations is because potential customers have different needs and want it that way. So, surely he already has the beginnings of a pipeline underway.

DigitalMan · « **Reply #21 on:** 04/08/2007 02:17 am »

You're skipping an important part of the plan: the insurance. It could generate a fair amount of revenue. Additionally, he plans to charge a profit/overhead fee separate from the launch costs.

I don't think it's entirely reasonable to gauge corporate/governmental interest in on-orbit research based on existing experience with NASA opportunities.

Stephan · « **Reply #22 on:** 04/08/2007 08:53 am »

3 outposts in 2015, each about 835 m3 (2 BA-330 and 1 Sundacer), 12 flights a year as soon as 2012, 3 flights a month in 2016, that's quite impressive or completely crazy ...

mr.columbus · « **Reply #23 on:** 04/08/2007 12:36 pm »

Quote

HIP2BSQRE - 7/4/2007 11:51 AM

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.

First, I don't quite follow your math, you have a presumption that any space station can only be manned one week a month as far as your math suggests... But I would rather go into this statement of yours " I think that you will find tons of people\corporations willing to pay this price per month." because the opposite of that was exactly the point I was making:

You cannot find more than a low single digit number of people a year paying 20 million USD for a flight to LEO, regardless if this flight is a week, a month or three months long. The statement in question that needs to be analysed is whether it is possible to find hundreds of people (either sponsored by corporations, governmental agencies or through their own private wealth) who would either pay 20 million USD per flight or as you put it pay 5 million USD per space week to make Bigelow's space station business plan profitable. As I stated above, I do not think this is the case - especially in light of the current situation in space tourism, what space agencies around the world are willing to pay on human spaceflight today and the fact that all commercial endeavours for human spaceflight (other than space tourism and small amounts of money made by advertising) have failed up to this point.

*What we know today is that you cannot find many whealthy space tourists a year for 20 million USD for a trip to the ISS. Even if you prolong the stay in orbit (you suggest 5 millions per week, which would mean to a month for the 20 million trip), shorten the training time, as long as the whole trip costs about 20 million USD (which I outlined is a very low amount to be paid for the trip regardless of its length), you will have a maximum of 2-5 people putting the money down for a trip to LEO. That's what we can see right now from Space Adventures and the amount of people interested in ISS flights with Soyuz.

*Is NASA going to pay hundreds of millions to use Bigelow's space stations? If you say yes, I would like to hear a good reason for that, because right now I don't see why they should. The research done on the ISS is minimal today and the reason for building and keeping the ISS alive is not primarily science done in LEO. Even if they would use the services Bigelow offers, I doubt they would be willing to pay a large part of the amount necessary to have Bigelow operate profiably (over 2 billion USD a year with 30 flights per year as outlined above). How could they justify paying Bigelow, if not by the research done on those stations? - and exactly that is what LEO spaceflights lack to show today, that the research done by humans in LEO is sufficient to pay a lot of money for it each year.

*What other governmental space agency would pay for a trip to a Bigelow space stations, except for national propaganda in flying their first national into space? And if they would pay for it, what other space agencies would be willing to pay a large portion of what Bigelow needs. For instance ESA finds it rather hard to pay cash (out of policitical reasons) to the Russians for Soyuz flights and try to reach other deals with the Russians for seats on Soyuz in order not to pay the 10-20 million per seat. Their flight rate to the ISS on Soyuz is just 1-2 per year and they are the second largest space agency worldwide... so how to find governmental agencies that would put down the money for regular flights to a Bigelow space station?

*What corporations have enough money to spend 5 millions on one person in a LEO space station per week with only a rather limited scientific output? Would, for instance, a pharma-company put that amount of money down? Not very likely, considering the risk that no exploitable result may come out of such a research investment. Just consider that a 3 person research team is staying 3 months on orbit for 3 million per week. That would cost a company 100 million. I don't see a single company willing to spend that amount, unless there is a likely profit to be made from that investment - considering 35 years of research on space stations (salyut, skylab, mir, iss) we know FOR A FACT that you can't make 100 million out of research done on a space station.

To sum up, the current costs per person to LEO or as you put it the costs per week in space are just too high for a business to develop. Lower the costs to 1 million per week in space or 1-5 million per trip to LEO and I think you are in business. Unfortunately that is at least a factor of 5 away from reality.

DigitalMan · « **Reply #24 on:** 04/08/2007 03:20 pm »

Quote

mr.columbus - 8/4/2007 8:36 AM

You cannot find more than a low single digit number of people a year paying 20 million USD for a flight to LEO, regardless if this flight is a week, a month or three months long. The statement in question that needs to be analysed is whether it is possible to find hundreds of people (either sponsored by corporations, governmental agencies or through their own private wealth) who would either pay 20 million USD per flight or as you put it pay 5 million USD per space week to make Bigelow's space station business plan profitable. As I stated above, I do not think this is the case - especially in light of the current situation in space tourism, what space agencies around the world are willing to pay on human spaceflight today and the fact that all commercial endeavours for human spaceflight (other than space tourism and small amounts of money made by advertising) have failed up to this point.

*What we know today is that you cannot find many whealthy space tourists a year for 20 million USD for a trip to the ISS. Even if you prolong the stay in orbit (you suggest 5 millions per week, which would mean to a month for the 20 million trip), shorten the training time, as long as the whole trip costs about 20 million USD (which I outlined is a very low amount to be paid for the trip regardless of its length), you will have a maximum of 2-5 people putting the money down for a trip to LEO. That's what we can see right now from Space Adventures and the amount of people interested in ISS flights with Soyuz.

You haven't indicated how this is relevant to the market Bigelow is targeting. What is the point of even mentioning the tourist market?

Quote

*Is NASA going to pay hundreds of millions to use Bigelow's space stations? If you say yes, I would like to hear a good reason for that, because right now I don't see why they should. The research done on the ISS is minimal today and the reason for building and keeping the ISS alive is not primarily science done in LEO. Even if they would use the services Bigelow offers, I doubt they would be willing to pay a large part of the amount necessary to have Bigelow operate profiably (over 2 billion USD a year with 30 flights per year as outlined above). How could they justify paying Bigelow, if not by the research done on those stations? - and exactly that is what LEO spaceflights lack to show today, that the research done by humans in LEO is sufficient to pay a lot of money for it each year.

*What other governmental space agency would pay for a trip to a Bigelow space stations, except for national propaganda in flying their first national into space? And if they would pay for it, what other space agencies would be willing to pay a large portion of what Bigelow needs. For instance ESA finds it rather hard to pay cash (out of policitical reasons) to the Russians for Soyuz flights and try to reach other deals with the Russians for seats on Soyuz in order not to pay the 10-20 million per seat. Their flight rate to the ISS on Soyuz is just 1-2 per year and they are the second largest space agency worldwide... so how to find governmental agencies that would put down the money for regular flights to a Bigelow space station?

Here's a question perhaps someone with actual knowledge can answer: If ESA had the ability to fly to ISS for FREE every month, exactly how much access and research opportunity would they have on ISS in the form it has been to date?

Question 2: What are the criteria and constraints for research opportunities for ISS?

Question 3: What are the probabilities you would actually be able to see your research through to completion on ISS?

Since "Space Station research is being realigned to directly support the Vision for Space Exploration", according to NASA/OMB, surely this will have a limiting effect on the type of research that is possible on ISS, at least through NASA channels.

Quote

*What corporations have enough money to spend 5 millions on one person in a LEO space station per week with only a rather limited scientific output? Would, for instance, a pharma-company put that amount of money down? Not very likely, considering the risk that no exploitable result may come out of such a research investment. Just consider that a 3 person research team is staying 3 months on orbit for 3 million per week. That would cost a company 100 million. I don't see a single company willing to spend that amount, unless there is a likely profit to be made from that investment - considering 35 years of research on space stations (salyut, skylab, mir, iss) we know FOR A FACT that you can't make 100 million out of research done on a space station.

To sum up, the current costs per person to LEO or as you put it the costs per week in space are just too high for a business to develop. Lower the costs to 1 million per week in space or 1-5 million per trip to LEO and I think you are in business. Unfortunately that is at least a factor of 5 away from reality.

Clearly from the articles to date, Bigelow indicates that access to orbit is his biggest worry. Fortunately it looks like there could be more choices for getting into LEO. But how exactly can you know that research can only have limited scientific output? Why would people necessarily need to stay aboard the station for months? For some types of research yes but not for others.

It seems to me the major constraint limiting space research today is ISS. If ISS had been completed already and capability for 6 crew already existed NASA would likely be supporting research on ISS rather well.

DigitalMan · « **Reply #25 on:** 04/08/2007 03:22 pm »

That kind of available space completely changes your perspective.

I think the 12 ( to 16?) flights a year was the maximum.

mr.columbus · « **Reply #26 on:** 04/08/2007 04:25 pm »

Quote

DigitalMan - 8/4/2007 11:20 AM

You haven't indicated how this is relevant to the market Bigelow is targeting. What is the point of even mentioning the tourist market?

I mentioned it because space tourism is one of the potential revenue sources in the market Bigelow Aerospace wants to work in, that is the "human spaceflight market". In fact it is currently the only significant revenue source, with a market value of approximately 40 million USD (2 flights to ISS a year), related to human spaceflight.

Quote

Here's a question perhaps someone with actual knowledge can answer: If ESA had the ability to fly to ISS for FREE every month, exactly how much access and research opportunity would they have on ISS in the form it has been to date?

ESA's share of the ISS is 51% of Columbus and 8.3% of the rest of the US segment. There are separate agreements for use of the Russian segment. My point mentioning ESA was, that space agencies around the world are reluctant to spend cash for human spaceflight (or anything else relating to spaceflight), if that cash is paid to someone else than their home industry.

Quote

Question 2: What are the criteria and constraints for research opportunities for ISS?

The same constraints Salyut, Mir and Skylab had. Microgravity is a unique environment for research, but it is not a goldmine in itself. Therefore 35 years of research in LEO hasn't provided much commercially exploitable research results (however certainly valuable experience in space medicine and valuable experience in long-term stays in space in general etc.).

Quote

Question 3: What are the probabilities you would actually be able to see your research through to completion on ISS?

Rather high, if your research program is actually something new and interesting. Currently, many ISS experiments are things that merely duplicate experiments already run in the past - due to little research funding and more importantly a lack of things that actually make sense to do in space.

Quote

But how exactly can you know that research can only have limited scientific output?

As mentioned above, 35 years of LEO research in various types of space stations do tell us that there has been limited scientific output that is COMMERCIALLY exploitable. I have not said that there is limited scientific output in general - effects of space to the human body, animals or plants can only be examined in space and are important to study.

Quote

Why would people necessarily need to stay aboard the station for months? For some types of research yes but not for others.

I don't know, I did not say anybody needs to stay on a space station for months to do research. In many instances it is not even necessary to have people staying in LEO for experiments at all... which does not really help Bigelow's business model.

Quote

It seems to me the major constraint limiting space research today is ISS. If ISS had been completed already and capability for 6 crew already existed NASA would likely be supporting research on ISS rather well.

If ISS is completed more research will be done. Still, there is no plan up to commercially use ISS and there aren't really many corporations, who would pay for research on the ISS, which is not due to constraints on it, but rather due to the point I keep mentioning, i.e. while microgravity is an interesting environment to do research in, at current prices, it is just too expensive and what you can do on a space station is just to limited in scope to be of any commercially exploitable nature.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #27 on:** 04/08/2007 07:15 pm »

Quote

mr.columbus - 7/4/2007 9:41 AM

*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 they were all on SpaceX, which they won't. The majority will be on another carrier.

mr.columbus · « **Reply #28 on:** 04/08/2007 07:18 pm »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 8/4/2007 3:15 PM

Quote
mr.columbus - 7/4/2007 9:41 AM

*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 they were all on SpaceX, which they won't. The majority will be on another carrier.

I just mentioned it as the sake of argument. Other transportation solutions (Atlas 5 etc.) would however not be cheaper in terms of costs per person per flight.

Danderman · « **Reply #29 on:** 04/09/2007 02:02 pm »

Quote

DigitalMan - 7/4/2007 7:06 PM The biggest current mystery I think is his current source(s) of income.

Given that Bigelow talks about his $100 million in costs being offset by revenues from the projects, that is indeed a $100 million mystery. There are few space industries outside of comsats which have generated $100 million in revenues to date.

My feeling is that its an accounting trick, that Bigelow Aerospace may have received $$ from another part of the Bigelow financial group, and is calling this transfer "revenue", perhaps Budget Suites put up a placard on Genesis I for $100 million.

josh_simonson · « **Reply #30 on:** 04/09/2007 06:01 pm »

I believe demand for spaceflight could at least double if the requirements for it were lessened. Currently people have to spend months training in Russia, learn a new (and relatively useless) language, then they get to go to a space station where there are complex restrictions on what they can do.

How many multi-millionares have the time and energy to spend doing all that? Cut the training time down to a week, in english and in a country where they won't fear kidnapping and ransom, and the number of folks willing to do it will go up. One pretty much has to be retired to fly right now, and the pool of wealthy CEO types that can't jaunt off for 3 months is large compared to people with nothing but money and time.

Danderman · « **Reply #31 on:** 04/09/2007 06:14 pm »

Just to save a bunch of further posts along this line:

1) If space travel were cheaper/easier/more frequent more people would fly.

2) Research in space would be more efficient if the infrastructure were cheaper/easier/and access more frequent.

3) If NASA were reformed, things would be better.

4) If private companies succeeded in developing their systems, there would be more space travel and research.

Any other platitudes I missed?

hyper_snyper · « **Reply #32 on:** 04/10/2007 09:38 pm »

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/10/213196/bigelow-aerospace-unveils-14.9-million-price-tag-for-four-weeks-at-orbital-complex-from.html

Interesting that the prices include transportation there and back. But said transportation doesn't exist yet. I hope this pans out for them but there are still too many variables up in the air.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #33 on:** 04/11/2007 12:38 am »

The extended stay neatly cuts launch costs, the 6 crew ties into the LM/Dream Chaser, CEV, or 2 Soyuz capacity. Such a deal $18 million for 8 weeks in space plus one and possibly 2 EVAs, if I had it I would be sending them my deposit today.

$88 million to lease a full module for a year, I wonder how that stacks up to the cost of maintaining a cutting edge lab here on earth. Doesn't discuss manning, supplying, recovering data and product though, probably depends on flight rate.

Hopefully there will be more detailed info later.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #34 on:** 04/11/2007 12:56 am »

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/04/space_symposium.html not much more info here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18046025/ some more interesting tidbits here.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #35 on:** 04/11/2007 01:35 am »

"And we'll say, we will set up bases for you. We will lease those bases on the Moon or on Mars, if you can get that far. Let's just say on the Moon. We'll provide the facilities and you won't have to write the check to build them," Bigelow said.

Heh heh, "Houston we have a problem, they want a cash deposit."

MKremer · « **Reply #36 on:** 04/11/2007 07:28 am »

Um, let's not go hog-wild with what might be in the future. Sure, this is a great first step, but everyone needs to remember that from ground to orbit is the most intense/important part - it's hard to maintain positive PR for your product to the general public if you can't even get there to demonstrate it.

IOW, regardless of how their design/implementation works, if they have one or more failures to even get into orbit to demonstrate their capabilities in the next few years, their positive PR and overall investor enthusiasm will take a major hit.

Christine · « **Reply #37 on:** 04/11/2007 07:44 am »

Last time I checked, neither Lockheed Martin nor Starsem seemed to have problems with ground to orbit, and Bigelow was already flying hardware.

JIS · « **Reply #38 on:** 04/11/2007 10:16 am »

Quote

Christine - 11/4/2007 8:44 AM

Last time I checked, neither Lockheed Martin nor Starsem seemed to have problems with ground to orbit, and Bigelow was already flying hardware.

Cubesat technology. I'm really looking forward to see the real stuff up there.
But there is no hurry. Its all about timing. Atlas is here but they have to wait for Dream Chaser and for Bigelow habitat. Add couple of years for testing and we get 2015 timeframe...
Orion shuld begin to fly and Soyuz will be free for flights to other destinations. By that time SpaceX could be ready with its Dragon to fly people too.
However, with current costs it is unlikely that the flight rates will be high.

JIS · « **Reply #39 on:** 04/11/2007 11:00 am »

Quote

hyper_snyper - 10/4/2007 10:38 PM

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/10/213196/bigelow-aerospace-unveils-14.9-million-price-tag-for-four-weeks-at-orbital-complex-from.html

Interesting that the prices include transportation there and back. But said transportation doesn't exist yet. I hope this pans out for them but there are still too many variables up in the air.

$12m per ticket means $72m revenue per month. For this money they have to pay Bigellow module $88m p.a. /12=$7m (including maintenance + ground support + cap expenditure) + one crew flight + one cargo per 3 crewed flights + crew training. This is based on assumption that all crew are paying costumers.
Using Atlas V it looks like the price per launch should be less than $50m including price of the Dream Chaser. 16 launch per year could be reasonable guess for 12 crewed flights and 4 cargos.
The key would be to find 72 costumers willing to pay at least $12m for a trip and to get price for Atlas V / Dream Chaser under $50m.
Bigelow himself said that he invested something like $60m for launching one "cubesat grade" module. It could be expected that his total capital investments through 2012 could be few times higher than this (at least $200-300m but possibly much higher) with expected revenues $88m/year. Is it a good business case?

This for space hotel case only. Research facilities require much more investment to cargo, energy, communication and environment.

jongoff · « **Reply #40 on:** 04/11/2007 01:40 pm »

Quote

MKremer - 11/4/2007 12:28 AM

Um, let's not go hog-wild with what might be in the future. Sure, this is a great first step, but everyone needs to remember that from ground to orbit is the most intense/important part - it's hard to maintain positive PR for your product to the general public if you can't even get there to demonstrate it.

IOW, regardless of how their design/implementation works, if they have one or more failures to even get into orbit to demonstrate their capabilities in the next few years, their positive PR and overall investor enthusiasm will take a major hit.

Well, you do have to remember that Bigelow is an orbital operations company, not a launch company. If Dnepr splashes a module of theirs, it will set them back, but nobody is going to look down on Bigelow for that. There still is opportunity for them to screw up on execution or design of the modules, but the incremental approach they're taking is pretty solid. Barring extremely bad luck with launchers, I expect they'll have a working Sundancer module up and running by the time there is adequate manned commercial launch capabilities to take advantage of it.

Gotta also remember that Bigelow is putting a lot of his own money behind this venture. They can afford some teething pains and extended development.

~Jon

savuporo · « **Reply #41 on:** 04/11/2007 07:34 pm »

i'd be fairly confident that they will not be attempting to be cashflow positive since day one. Im even willing to bet that Bigelow is prepared to take moderate operating losses for a few years or more. at least thats how lots of new eventually successful technology and developing market ventures start out.

so all the calculations ( atlas launch divided by so many customers minus range fees and so on ) demonstrating that they would lose money are pretty much moot. they are not banking on current costs and prices, they are banking on the potential of things to come.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #42 on:** 04/11/2007 08:53 pm »

Lets take a look at this from another perspective. Three stations each with two BA330 and one Sundancer for a total pressurized volume of about 840 cubic meters.

One is going to be strictly micro-gravity laboratories so it might not even be manned except during maintenance visits. Assuming that one BA330 is leased for protein growth and the other BA330 is split leased by another protein growth experimenter and, say, a crystal growth experimenter. Total annual income would be $196m per year possibly as much as $250m if the volume of the Sundancer is leased also. (The actual range is from $176m to $270m depending on lease breakdown per station).

Since several people seem to be under the impression that space tourism is going to play a part in this lets take a look at what might happen. Let’s say Hilton Hotels decides that it wants to lease one BA330 on the “tourist” station and Donald Trump decides to open a casino in the other one. I am not sure how many folks could fit in 330 cubic meters but lets say there are 6 double occupancy suites. Staff would probably stay in the Sundancer where the food prep facilities would be. Lease income for Bigelow about $230m annually.

The third and far more likely possibility is the “government” station. Countries such as the US, Russia, and China could lease space for various experiments and use their existing carriers to bring their own astronauts up. Countries like India could use a leased space as a destination for their own developing manned flight programs. And finally nations that are not developing manned flight capabilities such as England, Italy, Argentina, and etc. could book flights and extended stays through Bigelow Aerospace. Lease income would probably vary annually but lets assume the lowest possible $176m with full occupancy.

Bigelow Aerospace’s annual income from leasing all three stations could range from $528m to $810m. This does not count any transportation income at all but does assume 100% occupancy. A half a billion dollars from leases alone is not bad.

Build it and they will come.
:laugh:

savuporo · « **Reply #43 on:** 04/12/2007 05:08 am »

actually, its pretty amusing to read when engineering types try to dissect a business plan. the numbers in money world dont quite work like they do for deltaV and isp calculations

marsavian · « **Reply #44 on:** 04/12/2007 05:59 pm »

more info

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102168_pf.html

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #45 on:** 04/12/2007 06:19 pm »

oops, minor error, that should be cubic feet not cubic meters in my post above.

(just as well I am not doing orbital mechanics for a Mars mission).

« **Reply #46 on:** 04/12/2007 10:39 pm »

The best way to view this is as a market expansion of the high-end real estate market, i.e. like partnership investments to build massive downtown buildings, in which the market value isn't set by costs, but by location, granduer, and exclusivity. Governments often are critical elements of such partnerships, and often invest without the need to have a valid ROI, because the local GDP increase is what they are after.

Right now, many in this sector have exhausted the profitability of small to medium ventures, and have a tendency towards becoming parts of deal syndicates (a cyclical trend, because a big deal eventually sours, and then everyone risk shares over a bunch of smaller deals, and the cyclic starts over again).

Another consideration is that with globalization, there is a "me too" effect, where countries try to "keep up with the Joneses", so each want to show they're big, by having a modern city with skyscrapers and so on. So, if one or two have thier own space station, the others follow suit.

Rather than diverting economic development into own space program, use the resources of another to own a "beachhead" in space to plant the flag, and then if more is warranted, acquire more of what you need from parts on the global market, then do a little of it yourself and call the whole thing yours.
Look at what South Korea is suggesting by getting Angora boosters from Russia - along the same line.

If you can get ten to twenty of these, you could have a 4x-5x global increase in launch rates, which would feed into a significant boom in space. However, if you don't have any economic return out of this expansion, i.e. if the net effect isn't more than any kind of tourism businesses, then eventually there will be a decline in the larger government's longer term space exploration push, and both will spiral downwards just in the same way they might spiral upwards now.

As to looking at this from a profit/loss perspective, that's a hopeless undertaking for a financial model, because you've not enough longitudinal cross section in the industry to steady out costs. In commercial real estate, you can at least look at similar financials for other buildings/cities/projects, but even then you can still lose your shirt.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #47 on:** 04/17/2007 02:19 am »

More on Bigelow Aerospace Business Plan:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/17/213313/space-station-developer-to-offer-custom-modules.html

And a nice summary of the issue:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/852/1

zinfab · « **Reply #48 on:** 04/17/2007 03:29 pm »

Quote

As well as private individuals or groups Bigelow expects to have what he calls Sovereign Clients. They are governments and he wants to offer his space complex to the countries that have already visited the International Space Station. As well as governments Bigelow is aiming for a range of industries to use his space station. Those industries range from biotechnology to automotive.

Does this mean that he is indirectly supporting the ISS to force countries to "visit the ISS" before they are permitted to visit Bigelow?

« **Reply #49 on:** 04/18/2007 01:34 am »

Quote

zinfab - 17/4/2007 10:29 AM Does this mean that he is indirectly supporting the ISS to force countries to "visit the ISS" before they are permitted to visit Bigelow?

I read it as meaning a way to qualifying which countries Bigelow is selling to, e.g. as a way to get around saying that there are some countries they obviously won't sell to - not that they force a mandatory visit to ISS.

jabe · « **Reply #50 on:** 04/20/2007 03:40 pm »

Not sure if anyone else posted this..
updates on the latest Bigelow hab designs at http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/complex_modules_size_up.php
as well as Galaxy update..
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/developing_a_galaxy.php