Author Topic: Bigelow Aerospace Sets a Business Trajectory (Read 16627 times)

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.