While Bigelow is building Space Stations...

[Boris_Badenov]

While Bigelow is building Space Stations in the 2012 to 2015 time frame, what will SpaceX be doing? How about Blue Origin? Any of the other Alt. Space or mainstream space transportation companies?<br /><br />A Bigelow habitat offers an excellent destination, storeroom, machine shop, dormitory for building a bigger ship with a long distance destination in mind.<br /> I think while making a profit from LEO transport services, Elon will be building a large Mars Expedition Ship.<br /><br /> What's your prediction? <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>

 

[PistolPete]

SpaceX will be knee deep in COTS with their Dragon capsule. Perhaps they will work with re-supplying the Bigelow station as well, but there are lots of other companies vying for that piece of the pie.<br /><br />Who knows what Blue Origin will be doing in 5-10 years because who knows what they are doing now?<br /><br />Virgin Galactic will be offering suborbital space hops at cheaper and cheaper prices one competitors such as Armadillo get on their feet.<br /><br />I doubt that SpaceX will be getting ready for a Mars trip by 2015. It's a long way from a cramped seven person capsule to a manned Mars mission. If all goes well, though, by 2015 we may be hearing rumors of a possible manned lunar mission by SpaceX. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[docm]

I think ~2016-2018 we'll see Bigelow doing just what he said: assembling a land-able moon base at L1. Who he'll be doing it with may be up for grabs, but my candidates are SpaceX with their Falcon 9 Heavy (28,000 kg LEO) or ULA's Atlas V (25,000 kg LEO). Maybe even Arianne 5 ECA (21,000 kg LEO)<br /><br />They'll have the capacity to launch insertion stages, modules, landers etc. for assembly in orbit then transfer to L1 & later the moon. BO etc. won't. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dreada5]

As you say, (if all goes to plan) Virgin Galactic will be busy bringing space to the masses, relatively speaking!<br /><br />But they have also spoken of an orbital vehicle, or at least Rutan has. So I'd think on an orbital VG ship would have materialised on Scaled's CAD machines by then.

 

[docm]

IMO it's already been seen: t/Space's CXV, which was a Scaled design from the get-go and re-enters nose first like the Discoverer/Corona spy satellites. It's already on his computers so why re-invent the wheel? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What's your prediction?</font>/i><br /><br />Putting on my cynic hat: It will be Iridium 2.0.<br /><br />None of this will matter unless paying customers show up, and the energy/cost requirements to reach orbiting space stations are at least 10 times higher than suborbital flights, so human tourists are out (even Bigelow decries the "space hotel" description).<br /><br />So where is the money going to come from? Who will need these 3 launches per month? Will Big Pharma, GE, or other envelop-pushing commercial entities identify commercial-oriented research/products that can be uniquely done in micro-gravity environments?<br /><br />If these organization are willing to show up for Bigelow, how come they aren't lining up to use ISS?<br /><br />If paying customers don't show up, and they cannot find a continuing reason to stay and keep paying, then Bigelow stations will fail and the supporting market (e.g., SpaceX, etc.) will struggle with just the ISS.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What's your prediction?</font>/i><br /><br />To put on my optimist's hat: Bigelow will build the Mars "rocket", and the new space companies will build the Rendezvous spacecraft.<br /><br />One of the interesting approaches to building a permanent Mars settlement is the use of a cycler, which is heavily promoted by Buzz Aldrin (Cycler Bibliography) The cycler is a space vehicle/habitat that stays in a permanent Earth-Mars orbit. To reach Mars, a crew would take a small chemical spacecraft (e.g., a Mars-optimized Orion CEV) and accelerate to rendezvous with the Cycler as it approaches Earth. The crew would enter the cycler for its trip to Mars. When the cycler reaches Mars 6-8 months later, the crew would re-enter the capsule, undock from the cycler, and land on Mars. A similar approach would bring the crew home from Mars using the same or sister cycler.<br /><br />The keys are:<ol><li>The cycler is a relatively large and comfortable space to support the crew on the long voyage to Mars and back.<br /><li>The cycler only has to be accelerated to transit velocities once, and then after that it is largely a continuous free ride between Earth and Mars (with some fuel used for small course corrections).<br /><li>The cycler never has to enter the atmosphere, so it can be optimized for zero-G flight.<br /><li>Only very small crew transfer vehicles need to be accelerated to rendezvous velocities since the crews will only be in them for a very short period of time.<br /><li>Maintaining a number of cyclers (3 is the number mentioned most often), will allow more frequent trips between the planets.</li></li></li></li></li></ol><br />Once Bigelow habitats and associated life support systems have been largely tested for several years on multiple space stations, they would make the perfect technology for the foundation of the cycler. Meanwhile, other firms (e.g., SpaceX, t/Space, etc.) will d</i>

 

[shoogerbrugge]

I haven't seen any company that really can reduce the cost of space access and be safe at the same time. What SpaceX is doing is quite nice, but they won't be flying people for some time, and once they do, they will be just as expencive as Soyuz, leaving Bigelow with such a small possible market that a spacehotel is not profitable.<br /><br />Iridium 2.0 indeed. <br /><br />Getting a rocket flying (sort of) from an atoll somewhere is one thing, but repeating the whole thing, setting up operations and maintaining it is a whole different matter. And don't even get me started on Kistler, thats just throwing more good money after bad.<br /><br />Sir R. Branson might be right, again. That might be a viable plan.

 

[nyarlathotep]

><font color="yellow">If these organization are willing to show up for Bigelow, how come they aren't lining up to use ISS? </font><br /><br />Have you seen NASAs cost schedule lately?

 

[spacester]

I don't like your new cynic hat, RR. :-D I have no doubt that you're just trying it on for size, and I hope you don't like the way it fits or looks. ;-) I'm glad you switched hats and covered the cycler idea. I like the cycler but see a different path.<br /><br />The original question was about what SpaceX will be doing. Small satellites, medium satellites, large satellites; space station launch and support. The first three markets exist and SpaceX plans to be the reliability AND cost leader, so if they hit their target their 'disruptive technology' will always have a launch manifest backlog. What we can discuss here is the new, emerging market: will there be a large demand for launching and supplying Bigelow Stations?<br /><br />Human tourists will be very much 'in' during the 2012-2015 time frame. 2008-2012 will be about making that so.<br /><br />In the 2012-2015 period, the market will be dominated by 'blackstormers' - suborbital jaunts, and lots of them. It will be hitting its stride then, doing lots of volume. That means there will be a large and rapidly growing pool of wealthy people thinking about what's next.<br /><br /><br />(Continued Here) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

What I find interesting is that no one has mentioned point to point suborbital transportation yet. While this may have more technical hurdles than Space Ship 1 or the Falcon 9/Dragon, once they are overcome I think that the revenues from suborbital cargo and passenger transport would outstrip all other forms of alt.space ventures combined. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>None of this will matter unless paying customers show up, and the energy/cost requirements to reach orbiting space stations are at least 10 times higher than suborbital flights, so human tourists are out<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Do you want to be quoted on that, come 2015 ? <br /><br />Theres this "build it, and they will come" approach. Let Bigelow put up the three stations, and he definitely has deep enough pockets to keep them flying for a few years at least, even with no significant customers. <br />We'll see what starts happening

 

[bpfeifer]

I debated whether or not to post this, but here goes...<br /><br />One of the first commercially successful manned missions will be a porn movie shoot. Way back in the early days of the internet, the first big-paying customers of many ISPs were porn sites. Tourism is all well and good, but the market is limited due to the high cost. What other industries can gain something unique in microgravity? The first microgravity porn to market will certainly make a profit.<br /><br />As for this emerging aerospace companies themselves, what they accomplish will depend on the regulatory environment. The FAA now has a licensing system that will allow these companies to perform their first manned launches. They have yet to produce regulations and licenses that will cover paying customers. ITAR also provides challenges for those tring to use launch facilities outside the US. <br /><br />Then there's insurance. Read John Carmack's blog on Armadillo's site. They recently went through the process of acquiring insurance for their upcoming test flights.<br /><br />Either government regulations, or the cost of insurance could become prohibitive factors, especially after the first paying passenger dies. And it will happen. We know that every other transportation industry has experienced fatal accidents. Of course paying customers are willing to take a certain amount of personal risk, and the industry should survive an accident. The problem comes if one of these companies accidently drops a rocket on someone's head. If a non-involved third party is killed, then regulations are likely to make it tough for anyone to fly.<br /><br />On the bright side, by 2015, the private spaceflight industry will be a large enough industry to start pushing the regulation process in their favor. The mainstream aerospace giants will also have a stake in startup operations as suppliers of parts and/or services. Bigelow will provide a stable customer for the launch business. NASA and COTS will provide gov't launch oppo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Do you want to be quoted on that, come 2015 ?</font>/i><br /><br />I would be thrilled if I was wrong! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /></i>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What I find interesting is that no one has mentioned point to point suborbital transportation yet. While this may have more technical hurdles than Space Ship 1 or the Falcon 9/Dragon, once they are overcome I think that the revenues from suborbital cargo and passenger transport would outstrip all other forms of alt.space ventures combined."<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Point to point suborbital flights (I assume you mean transcontinental suborbital flights as anything else would not make much sense) is nearly as hard as an orbital flight from the energy you require to do that. SS2 will have practically no cross-range capability and will land where it started from. It would need about 20 times the energy to do a sustained transcontinental suborbital flight.<br /><br />A serious question from my side on Bigelow's income source to all here. The given facts are:<br /><br />1. The price per seat to Bigelow's stations will not be much less (proabably even higher) than the 20 million charged by Roskosmos for a trip to the ISS on Soyuz today (taking into account Bigelow's costs will comprise of crewed launches, cargo launches, buidling his space stations and maintaining them). Demand for these trips is about 1-4 people a year (if there were hundreds of people lining up at this price, Roskosmos would have gone up with the price it is offering Soyuz rides a long time ago and may even be willing to do dedicated Soyuz space tourism rides...).<br /><br />2. The international ISS partners do not have any contracts with corporations to use ISS's scientific potential commercially. All efforts in this direction (for example by the Russians) have failed. The reasons are simple: (1) The costs for doing research on commercially exploitable programs is in no proportion to the potential commercial benefits and (2) people have a really hard time to come up with interesting experiments on the ISS at all, even leaving aside any commer

 

[themanwithoutapast]

Just read this http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Facts_On_US_Commercial_Human_Space_Flight_999.html article including this passage:<br /><br />"A recent space tourism industry study included a poll of affluent Americans. Results of the survey found that space tourism could generate more than $1 billion per year in revenues by 2021. The study also found that suborbital flights will constitute the biggest share of this emerging market, with the potential for 15,000 passengers and $700 million in revenues per year.<br /><br />Orbital flights were found to possibly include up to 60 passengers and generate $300 million per year."<br /><br />60 passengers generatiig 300 million would mean that the average price per passenger would be 5 million... a price at which you can't possibly break even. Besides that, 300 million a year is not enough for Bigelow in any event - I once more wonder were the market for Bigelow's plans will come from (especially if it is not space tourism as he claims)...

 

[spacy600]

I don't know specific numbers. But let me ask<br /><br />Satellite fleet operators are multi billion dollar corporations.<br />How much do they spend to launch one sat?<br /><br />Would it be cost effective to refuel, upgrade, fix, salvage <br />old sats?<br /><br />If a new sat cost $100M, but they can extend the life for $30M just by adding fuel, and new transponders.<br /><br />I would say that is a business plan.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't know specific numbers. But let me ask<br /><br />Satellite fleet operators are multi billion dollar corporations.<br />How much do they spend to launch one sat?<br /><br />Would it be cost effective to refuel, upgrade, fix, salvage<br />old sats?<br /><br />If a new sat cost $100M, but they can extend the life for $30M just by adding fuel, and new transponders.<br /><br />I would say that is a business plan.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The problems are, the expensive and big comsats are in GEO, not in LEO. Furthermore, even for those few sats that are in LEO, you would need to get them to your spacestation, which very likely requires a plane change - which would take up more fuel than what the sats to be refuelled will carry onboard. So, unfortunately this is not a possible source of revenues.

 

[rocketman5000]

If the purpose of the station is to be refueling and refitting satelittes in GEO it would make the most sense to put the station in equatorial orbit where the GEO satelittes are. A small tug could pull the satelittes to and from the station.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> you would need to get them to your spacestation, which very likely requires a plane change - which would take up more fuel than what the sats to be refuelled will carry onboard<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Two words: Ion propulsion.<br />

 

[themanwithoutapast]

If the purpose of the station is to be refueling and refitting satelittes in GEO it would make the most sense to put the station in equatorial orbit where the GEO satelittes are. A small tug could pull the satelittes to and from the station.<br />-------------<br />Only that this "small tug" will need to use 3,7 km/s delta-v to get to GEO from your LEO space station and 3,7 km/s back to the space station, not to mention any plane changes that are still required. For this strategy to work and to just retrieve a medium sized 3ton comsat (without getting it back to GEO) you would require a tug with a mass of 50 tons (assuming a dry weight of 1.5 tons and an Isp of 320)...

 

[spacy600]

Space Tugs have been arround for a while.<br />http://www.orbitalrecovery.com/cxolev.htm<br />(Orbital Sciences, and Spacedev, among other companies)<br />Plus Orbital Express.<br /><br />Maybe all this tech is starting to converge into something useful?

 

[docm]

But ion drives have ISP's hell and gone higher than 320, gobs higher. Then there's NanoFET (nanoparticle field emission thruster); electronic flat panels with millions of nanoscale "rail guns", ISP's even more variable than ion drives and more efficient.<br /><br />http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19325961.500<br /><br />http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/aero/spacelab/pdf/STAIF_2007.pdf <br /><br />Cross your fingers that his NASA contract bears fruit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Space Tugs have been arround for a while. "<br />The idea has been around for decades. No hardware exists

 

[jimfromnsf]

"If the purpose of the station is to be refueling and refitting satelittes in GEO it would make the most sense to put the station in equatorial orbit where the GEO satelittes are. A small tug could pull the satelittes to and from the station."<br /><br />very few LV can reach an equatorial LEO.<br /><br />It's better to take the fuel to GEO<br /><br /><br />