“No company on the face of the planet knows more about these expandable habitats than we do.” 185,000 square foot expansion of facilities in North Vegas for production, not R&D. Clients are corporate and “sovereign client.” Up to fifty countries interested in this. Talked about meeting with the Chilean astronaut corps, who sat in one chair in his office. A lot of pent-up demand for smaller countries to get into space in some way other than NASA and Russia. Coming out with client leasing guide in middle of November. Have been cautious about shallow pocket books in the recession, so have expanded menu items from seven to eighteen, for more flexibility in amount of time and volume clients can lease. Using a real-estate model. Are offering financing. View themselves as wholesaler, so have no problems with reselling or subletting, as long as users meet minimum requirements. Thinking farther out, look to moon as stepping stone to Mars. Would like to see Delta IV upgraded to seventy-eighty ton vehicle.
27 thoughts on “Bigelow”
Comments are closed.
That’s really exciting news.
Bigelow must be the one “new space” company I am most anxious to see succeed, precisely because they’re doing something that no one else is even thinking of doing. If Armadillo or Blue Origin folded tomorrow it wouldn’t concern me too greatly, since so many people are doing what they’re doing. But habitats? Only Bigelow.
It makes sense though that this would be very popular with countries looking for more control over their space program than the USA is willing to give them. And quite possibly greater ability too.
Absolutely right Brock. Although I hope in the next decade there’s enough market for others to want to compete. They may want to paint the interior as a green screen so the next space flick doesn’t have to simulate zero g.
Stargate Universe without magic deck plating.
Allowing every country to have a space program is a market I hadn’t considered. Nice idea, if the export paperwork doesn’t stop it.
We definitely want to be export-focused as the dollar depreciates.
Delta VI upgraded to 70-80 ton? From an engineering perspective does that tell us anything about their plans?
The UK, Singapore, and Chile were listed as clients signing memorandums of understanding clients. If the UK wanted to duplicate Bigelow’s effort, it could easily afford to do so. If little Singapore wanted to duplicate Bigelow’s, it also could also afford to do so. Are they really interested enough to sign with Bigelow but not interested enough to do it themselves? Well, maybe. From a strictly dollars and cents point of view, it makes sense. But what about patriotism? Not enough in the UK and Singapore? Really? Ok, but as we saw with the mining incident, Chile has oodles of patriotism. What am I missing?
It’s called commerce Bob. When somebody offers you a lease it drastically reduces your risk. It’s the astronaut themselves that allows for patriotic pride. Look at those places that claim Arnold and Barack as their guy.
Let me ask another way: Chile doesn’t make its own X (where x equals cars, sports equipment, or whatnot) but it doesn’t hang its patriotism on those items either. If Chile, Singapore, and even the UK are not getting involved for patriotic reasons, then why get involved as sovereign countries? Why isn’t Bigelow signing with private corporations across the world, instead of with countries across the world?
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to see a Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, or Roche research station in operation by 2020. Those potential Bigelow deals are probably subject to a few confidentiality clauses.
Why get involved as sovereign countries?
Direct experience leads to better understanding. Governments have a responsibility to their citizens to know the implications of things. Later, they may decide it’s not worth the investment, which makes a low cost option of learning that very appealing.
Bob: What exactly do you think they should be doing themselves, aside from providing mission specialists and research gear, as they already plan to do?
Should they be designing and manufacturing hab modules that are then launched on commercial rockets? Should they be building their own rockets from scratch? Where exactly do you think they should be drawing the line?
Presumably, there are questions that these governments would like answered and are willing to pay for, as well as spaceflight experience that they would like to build up. If they can do so for a few million a year rather than a few billion (remember, Bigelow is shouldering most of the business risks and leveraging the fixed overhead across multiple nations/customers), that might make an unacceptable budget proposition into something more palatable. And if Britain is at least willing to broach subjects like sharing carriers or even SSBNs with France, I fail to see where they would insist on going it along from scratch in space research solely out of patriotism.
I should add, that there’s also the little matter of the patent and experience curve advantages that Bigelow maintains over any would-be entrants into the field. Until the market becomes large enough for somebody else to shoulder in, there are going to be fairly significant barriers to entry in the market.
Regarding patents: how much have they patented beyond the public Transhab designs? (Type Bigelow into a patent search engine?)
I seem to remember an interview in which Bigelow stated they had designs on the board for when bigger rockets become available and that they would help create economies of scale.
Governments make sense, just about any government could afford the $30 million price tag to put someone in space for a couple months.
The UK involvement is interesting.
The UK has a long standing policy of not putting money into HSF. Government involvement has been very small.
The upside of this policy is that there is a thriving, rather low key space industry. Lots of money being made building sats and other stuff. The down side is no Buck Rogers.
One reason that has always been given in the risk vs reward thing. HOTOL was turned down for that reason.
I could see the UK science budget funding a trip which cost £50 million – the recent budget cuts have left the science budget alone. There would have to be a good return in science terms. But this would be doable in political terms.
The sell would be “We are buying off the shelf. British companies will provide x, y and z as part of the mission.”
Wodun, I was interested to here that Bigelow is claiming Australia is one of those sovereign customers. That $30M price tag you mentioned.. I imagine howling protests if it turns out to be accurate.
hear*
sigh…….
ILC Dover has extensive experience with inflatable structures. From what I’ve heard, they could easily compete with Bigelow if they really wanted to.
Justin, thank you for the tip. These pages are intersting.
http://www.ilcdover.com/products_ad_space_inflatables.cfm
http://www.ilcdover.com/products_ad_se_habitats.cfm <- each habitat project is clickable.
I would imagine Big D is correct that Bigelow is gaining unique experience.
Bigelow didn’t say they knew more about inflatable structures than anyone else, Justin. He said what he said.
I was simply responding to the comment that suggested only Bigelow was working on habitats, Rand. I didn’t say or imply anything about Bigelow’s remarks.
Justin, do you know if ILC could work on commercial space stations? I thought Bigelow had acquired exclusive IP rights from NASA for commercial purposes, with NASA retaining the right to use them for its own purposes, possibly through a NASA contractor. If so, ILC could build habs for NASA, requiring only NASA’s permission, but not for anyone else, unless by permission from Bigelow, which seems unlikely.
If I remember correctly, Bigelow only holds the patent on one particular configuration and a good portion of its effective duration has already run out.
To my knowledge, there is nothing to prevent ILC from working on their own commercial designs so long as they do not infringe on that patent while it is in effect.
Ah, that’s a very good point, thanks.
Thinking commercially is a big paradigm shift for Old Aerospace. Not that Boeing, for instance, doesn’t know how to think commercially; but I’m sure the “space” chunks of the company are having a hard go of it. Their procurement personnel, contract personnel, etc. are versed in a set way of seeing things, reinforced by decades of rules and procedures focused on selling exclusively to a government customer. Will probably require not just changes in the way of doing things, but actual changes in personnel, to adapt. ILC may be in the same boat.
Patriotism does not prevent countries like Chile from buying warships for their navy from France or the U.S., why should it require them to build their own space industries from scratch? As to what they will do with the leased space, I would expect local universities or corporations would like the opportunity to perform experiments in orbit.
An independent country buying space for public universities makes a lot of sense to me. A country buying space for its private corporations makes less sense to me, but then again, I’m a US Democratic Party member, so I don’t really understand actual socialism. 😉
Don’t worry Bob, not understanding doesn’t mean your not ‘useful.’
ILC Dover looks like they know how to adapt. If Bigelow demonstrates it’s viable, ILC Dover could be beneficial competition. Hopefully it without a lot of court battles that just drain resources, but it’s too early for that just yet.