How big will Bigelow's "Inflatable Module" business get?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

j05h

Guest
And workers in space is why I champion water mining as the Next Big Thing. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
N

nyarlathotep

Guest
>>"Even if you could go to space for $200000 space travel will become sreamingly common place. Supposedly for years, Russian launch costs have been at 1000 dollars a pound. That is only $200000 dollars."<br /><br />Some like to have such luxuries as air, water, and a heat shield.
 
T

themanwithoutapast

Guest
>>"Even if you could go to space for $200000 space travel will become sreamingly common place. Supposedly for years, Russian launch costs have been at 1000 dollars a pound. That is only $200000 dollars." <br /><br />Some like to have such luxuries as air, water, and a heat shield. <br />------------------<br /><br />Correct. Let's plug in real numbers: a commercial Soyuz launch unmanned without payload costs $35-40 million. With a Soyuz TMA ontop costs are about 60 million (not-commercially but that's the price for Roskosmos). That makes 20 million per seat - the reason why they charged 20 million to a tourist to the ISS until now (they just replaced a Russian cosmonaut who does not pay anything but rather gets paid with a paying customer).<br /><br />However would you want to do a totally commercial Soyuz-flight, you need at least one pilot - thus you have 2 seats to sell. That makes a minimum of 30 million to charge per seat only if you want to be able to barely break even.<br /><br />Ok and therefore somebody please explain to me why anybody will need a Bigelow module again with the current prices of orbital flights? <br /><br />
 
D

dreada5

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The ISS is certainly a major achievement which has shown the world we can live and work in space. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Agreed. People forever go on about how rubbish they think ISS but I think that’s nonsense, for a variety of reasons including the lack of resulting science. But I think ISS has achieved much in terms helping the world achieve something that would be very difficult for one country alone.<br /><br />If the US and NASA want to fire a one-shot, minimalist mission back to the moon by themselves to show off, fine. But its simple logic that if the US wants to see a build an effective moonbase with the capability to fast track lunar science, astronomy and ISRU then an INTERNATIONAL MOONBASE is the way to go! Pooling all of our resources, experiences will speed things up, especially because we are not starting from scratch ie. US, RSA, ESA etc are now experienced space construction workers!<br />Things may actually work best as is, in other words a country should do what it can by itself what it can and when it can’t (eg ISS) they go international. So the US going back to the Moon to re-straighten the flags in 2015-2020 maybe a necessity (with Russian/ESA doing the same)…once we’ve restored the capability to return, perhaps the international collaboration will be an attractive option for fast-tracking lunar base construction.<br />
 
T

themanwithoutapast

Guest
$60 million for a Soyuz flight is "the actual cost" for a manned Soyuz launch. If you want to make a profit, it will have to cost more.<br /><br />Launch costs of $1000 a pound might be possible under some launch contracts with small Russian ICBM-converted vehicles under certain circumstances. <br /><br />That however does not change that a tourist needs a man-rated, reliable vehicle (as the Soyuz) and a spacecraft (Soyuz weighs 7.2tons) to get to orbit. $20 million per seat it is and this price will stay there for quite some time.
 
D

dreada5

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That however does not change that a tourist needs a man-rated, reliable vehicle (as the Soyuz) and a spacecraft (Soyuz weighs 7.2tons) to get to orbit. $20 million per seat it is and this price will stay there for quite some time. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />t/space and other realistic COTS candidates look like cheaper options
 
T

themanwithoutapast

Guest
COTS is for cargo only. Manned Soyuz crews are flying for 40 years now and Soyuz is one of the lowest cost (cost per kg to LEO) launch vehicles in the world. Roskosmos has acted like a private corporation since the early 1990s to keep its space program running. Besides the $1 billion a launch STS system, no other manned launch system has existed for 30 years. -> those are the facts.<br /><br />And until now I have yet to hear a reasonable argument why private corporations located in the US (that means high labour costs) without any experience in manned flight nor experience in unmanned flights nor successful orbital vehicles should provide cheaper manned LEO capacities than what Roskosmos offers for a steep discount with Soyuz flights to the ISS.<br /><br />And please don't think I oppose the COTS idea. For what it is, it might work: getting cargo to ISS, not building manned spacecrafts or new rockets, just cargo delivery. That is also the reason why I think the only realistical proposal comes from Spacehab (the only COTS finalist with actual extensive space related experience): a cargo transporter to be launched on existing launchers such as Atlas V 401. Such a system could work, however would still be much more expensive per kilo cargo to ISS than Progress launched on Soyuz.
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
Water mining in space will be the second resource we go for. The first one will be whatever can bring the biggest profit on Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
There are other uses for inflatable technology other than just habitation modules. <br /> <br />Bigelow module shells are flexible, so the same concept could be used to make an extendible dexterous docking adapter that would be able to reach out and dock with a spacecraft that is holding position nearby in much the same way as a jetway works at an airport. Once docked, it would inflate and become rigid. That would greatly simplify the requirements placed on spacecraft for docking.<br /><br />Also, a module could be built that opens and closes along an entire edge like a folding paper lantern. This would allow it to open a huge port for use as a drydock, without requiring a solid hatch of that diameter be launched.<br /> <br />There are many potential uses for flexible and inflatable structures in space, Bigelow is just starting with the most straightforward one. In developing the BA-330 he will develop the technology and patents such that he can build more diverse components or liscence other companies to use his materials and techniques for other applications.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts