Leonard David says that the Bigelow mission is in orbit. I haven't been paying enough attention to this to have any profound thoughts [When did that ever stop you before? -- ed Quiet, you], but it's clearly good news, and big news.

[Update in the afternoon]

I'm in the middle of meetings, but Clark Lindsey is continuing to follow this and provide links here and here.

From the Bigelow mission statement:

It is possible that the primary use of space complexes has yet to be discovered. So much of our technological development has been a result of happenstance, brought about by simple trial and error. Our goal is to get humanity into space so we can experiment, toy with ideas, try new and different things, and eventually make that miraculous mistake leading to a discovery that will change life forever.

In 2000, I announced our original goal of 2015 (and $500,000,000 later) as being the year we would have our first commercial space complex (CSC) in orbit. We might be ahead of schedule. The problem is transportation. We expect to fly two spacecraft this year in 2006 that we are referring to as Genesis I and Genesis II. By 2010, Bigelow Aerospace hopes to have flown 6-10 pathfinder/demonstrator spacecraft. By 2012, Bigelow Aerospace may be ready to fly its first full-scale habitable structure.

With only two modules (BA 330's) in orbit the flight rate demand in the third year of operation alone is 16 rockets the size of the Atlas V-401s or Falcon 9s to transport people and cargo. Perhaps, we will even use a foreign transportation system if a domestic alternative is not available or is too expensive. We just don't know. I have recognized all along that we may be ready with a destination but must wait for the progress of affordable, available transportation to catch up.

A marvelous step forward, indeed.

>> The problem is transportation.... I have recognized all along that
>> we may be ready with a destination but must wait for the progress of
>> affordable, available transportation to catch up.

> A marvelous step forward, indeed.

Yes, indeed, Bill, and notice this quote directly contradicts your mantra that the development of affordable transportation must wait for NASA to finish building "destinations."

"The problem is transportation." That should be your new mantra.

Oh no! They launched the Genesis Device!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_device

Bigelow is working to provide a market that may initially be serviced by high cost transportation, but its very existence will make it more likely that low cost transportation will be developed. It's aesier to raise money when there is a real market compared to polls that predict a market.

This is a good thing. Congratulations to the entire Bigelow team.

"Yes, indeed, Bill, and notice this quote directly contradicts your mantra that the development of affordable transportation must wait for NASA to finish building "destinations." "

To be fair to Bill, I think your are the one making this a strawman by inserting the word 'must' in there. I am sure that if a private infrastructure develops in absence of a destination assigned by NASA, he will not reject it.

Thanks Mike, that was to be my exact response.

I would greatly prefer private sector funded destinations rather than merely accept them however except for Bigelow is anyone else planning on building a space destination?

When will it be fully inflated?

> I would greatly prefer private sector funded destinations rather than
> merely accept them however except for Bigelow is anyone else planning
> on building a space destination?

Bill, you've completely missed the point.

Bigelow said the destinations "must wait for the progress of affordable, available transportation to catch up."

That's the exact opposite of your thesis that any progress on affordable space transportation must wait until after someone (NASA or Bigelow) has built big mining colonies on the Moon.

Edward, a human rated Bigelow hab is the perfect destination for tourists and will help the emergence of lower cost affordable transport. No NASA needed. Is LEO tourism enough? We do not know.

Bigelow is only saying his human rated habs might be ready before NewSpace is ready with human rated Earth-to-LEO capability. In the meantime, Bigelow will probably accept customers who travel via Soyuz.

No facilities on the Moon are needed for Bigelow habs to draw people, but that said, how many people would prefer LEO tourism to Luna tourism?

> No NASA needed. Is LEO tourism enough? We do not know.

Saying you don't know is an improvement. Nevertheless, Bill, there is such a thing as market research. This is not like the inside of a black hole, which is impossible to know.

> Bigelow is only saying his human rated habs might be ready before NewSpace is ready

No, he's also saying "we may be ready with a destination but must wait for the progress of affordable, available transportation to catch up."

The keyword there is "wait" -- in contrast to your oft-repeated statement that "we can't wait" for affordable transportation.

He's not calling for an immediate "moonrush" to build a lunar mining colony using "existing" Shuttle-derived vehicles.

> how many people would prefer LEO tourism to Luna tourism?

A lot more than NASA can afford to send. What's your point?

Even if the Moon is sexier than LEO -- why does that make sending a few astronauts to the Moon, unaffordably, more important than developing affordable transportation that would low-cost access to LEO *and* the Moon?

And how many people would prefer Mars tourism? Or Alpha Centauri? Do we have to wait for NASA to go there, too, before we develop an affordable means to get off this planet?

No facilities on the Moon are needed for Bigelow habs to draw people, but that said, how many people would prefer LEO tourism to Luna tourism?

Look at places 50-746 in the Forbes world's richest people list. These are the people that can't afford $2.5B for lunar surface tourism but would be quite happy to put down $40m for a fortnight on a Bigelow habitat.

Even for the people on the bottom of the list this is only 1/25th of their net wealth. It's almost an impulse buy.

There is also a potentially huge market for human-tended lab space in the pharmaceutical and materials science industries. This is probably what will deliver the majority of the passenger and cargo volumes necessary to support cheap LEO transport.