Bigelow Launching New Company To Sell Private Space Stations (popularmechanics.com) 57
hyperclocker shares a report from Popular Mechanics: The future of spacecraft in lower Earth orbit (LEO) looks to be an increasingly commercial affair. Bigelow Aerospace, a Las Vegas-based company that builds livable space habitats, has now created a spinoff company known as Bigelow Space Operations (BSO). BSO will market and operate any space habitats that Bigelow sells. The creation of BSO signals that Bigelow is preparing for a future of commercial space living. Recently leaked NASA documents show that the Trump Administration wants to convert the International Space Station into a commercial venture, and BSO is betting that businesses including private scientific ventures and hotels will be interested in creating a profit above the Earth. A prototype Bigelow habitat, the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM), has been connected to the ISS since 2016. It's proven such a successful addition that last year NASA extended its contract for an additional three years. But Bigelow is thinking past the BEAM. In its press release announcing BSO, it highlights its planned launches of the B330-1 and B330-2, spacecraft with 6-person capacity, in 2021.
Weird (Score:1)
Re:Weird (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Most crowd funding projects haven't launched two test stations INTO ORBIT. Maybe they could use some help with their PR, but personally I put more stock in production of actual hardware & testing (see SpaceX) than flashy websites and posters.
interesting (Score:3)
BSO is betting that businesses including private scientific ventures and hotels will be interested in creating a profit above the Earth
I'm curious about what kind of profit they think they might generate. At this point the only potentially profitable venture seems to be space-tourism marketed to the ultra-rich. While NASA has done some interesting experiments in orbit, it seems unlikely that the returns from orbital experiments would ever produce results which could result in profit for private enterprise.
I am however looking forward to space tourism, if for no other reason than sheer curiosity about how long flat-earth beliefs will persist after private individuals are able to go into orbit.
Bigelow, (Score:1)
Space Gigolo.
Coming to a private station near you!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the only potentially profitable venture seems to be space-tourism marketed to the ultra-rich.
They are expecting costs to fall significantly thanks to SpaceX and friends. At less than $100 per kg, outer space vacation will be available to more than just the ultra-rich.
According to this [wikipedia.org], SpaceX's BFR payload capacity to LEO will be up to 150,000kg (as a reusable launcher) with an estimated cost of $7M per launch. That comes down to $47 per kg, or $3700 per (naked) person on average.
Obviously you won't be able to cram 150,000kg of humans in a launcher, and I'm not taking supplies and life support hard
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that we'll be seeing tourist trips at those prices in my lifetime though. It might be possible to offer them at that price soon, but small capacity and a huge demand likely means that they can get away with asking a multiple of that sum for a good while, and sadly that's
Re: (Score:1)
the only potentially profitable venture seems to be space-tourism marketed to the ultra-rich.
They are expecting costs to fall significantly thanks to SpaceX and friends. At less than $100 per kg, outer space vacation will be available to more than just the ultra-rich....But even at $50,000 per trip, I'm sure a lot of customers would show up.
Even in America, if you have $50,000 (which is almost as much as the current median household income in the US) in liquid, disposable income that you can spend on a vacation, you are ultra rich. According to a Forbes article from last year, the average American spends around 10% of their annual household income on vacations. So for a 1 person household, that's 500k a year income. For 2 people that's 1 million a year. Going into debt for a vacation, even for a trip like going into space, is a bad idea.
Re: (Score:1)
$50k is about what people pay to have a chance at climbing the Everest. Almost 1000 people attempt the climb annually.
As a side note, given the risks and costs implied, the demographics of space tourism will probably be quite close to that of the eight-thousanders.
Re: (Score:2)
$50k is about what people pay to have a chance at climbing the Everest. Almost 1000 people attempt the climb annually.
All either professional climbers or highly experienced amateur climbers. So basically people with enough free time or flexibility to spend weeks every year traveling to fairly remote mountains to climb, over many years, and the income to support that lifestyle. You don't just call up a guide company and book a climb on Everest. They only take skilled, experienced climbers otherwise it is essentially assisted suicide. So again, not something the average person would ever experience, especially at that pr
Re: (Score:2)
FYI $50k won't get you a climb to the peak of Everest ($100k just for the permit.)
Your post is 100% about going to the peak of Everest, but many thousands of people who are not skilled climbers do sign up to climb Everest (max Everest climb for them is to reach base camp1) then they climb to some lower peaks.near Everest. Your correct if talking reaching the peak, that is a long training journey, then at least a month in the mountain. The other climbs to the first base camp, can be around 1 week.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in America, if you have $50,000 (which is almost as much as the current median household income in the US) in liquid, disposable income that you can spend on a vacation, you are ultra rich.
Not really, but you are well off and probably retired. My dad could afford that and he made less than I did when he retired, but he got a career job early and invested as much as he could the rest of his life. He goes on several hunting trips that cost a large fraction of that cost every year. He takes me and I meet lots of other guys that are similar. Some are from wealthy families or are successful doctors, but about half are just guys that invested their money their entire lives. $50k is pretty much che
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to go on vacation every year. This is more of a once per lifetime thing. Having $50000 doesn't make you ultra rich. Having $50000000000 makes you ultra rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many of the slightly overweight, first-class food riddled rich of the world could actually survive the flight? It's quite a big deal getting to and from space - it requires a level of physical fitness and stamina.
That said, when I was single, I'd probably have thought about spending $50K to go into space for a day or two. Nowadays I've got other responsibilities, and by the time they're not so much of a concern I'll be too old and fragile to make the trip. Although maybe by then we'll have a sp
Re: (Score:3)
How long before they get C-Beams - now those would be worth seeing!
Re: (Score:1)
While NASA has done some interesting experiments in orbit, it seems unlikely that the returns from orbital experiments would ever produce results which could result in profit for private enterprise.
You do recognize that NASA does little research at generating marketable products don't you? They are more into "pure" science than commercial research or production. Bigelow is hoping that people with potential commercial ideas will be using their stations. Also of course their stations can allow pure science to be done without (much) NASA participation and with for example SpaceX transporting the people and materials at much lower cost than was previously possible.
Re: (Score:2)
The flat earthers will just claim that it's distortion from the curved window installed by the sphere-cucks to make the earth look round, when it is in fact... Actually, I'm not sure what shape they think it really is, I mean is it an infinite plane or is there an edge you can fall off?
Re: (Score:2)
The Flat-Earthers won't go into space in any case, so they won't be seeing anything that breaks their world picture.
And frankly, who really cares? Their minor insanity doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's not nearly as much a problem as the anti-vaxxers....
Re: (Score:2)
I am however looking forward to space tourism, if for no other reason than sheer curiosity about how long flat-earth beliefs will persist after private individuals are able to go into orbit.
I think the vast majority of flat-earthers are trolls, and don't really believe that the earth is flat...
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond tourism, there are private companies making plans to do manufacturing in orbit. ( https://www.popularmechanics.c... [popularmechanics.com] ) They may need a permanent station to a support equipment, crew, computers, etc., and may welcome a functional pre-fab option, so they can focus more of their efforts on their manufacturing.
Re: interesting (Score:2)
Very cool. I can't wait to see that!
Re:More clutter in space, great (Score:5, Interesting)
There are manufacturing processes that do not work so well when gravity is a factor, for such things as Foam Metals. It's also possible that such habitats would be useful for orbiting platforms for workers that deal with the machines that would do space-based resource extraction, though admittedly that may be quite some time in the making.
I doubt that anyone actually involved thinks this will be inexpensive. To the contrary, this stuff will probably be very expensive, but research and development usually is expensive.
I'm curious if Falcon Heavy and a suitable capsule ever get man-rated, if a new space station could be constructed further out and cost-effectively crewed and resupplied. Something out as far as geostationary first, then possibly an Earth-Moon Lagrange point like L4 or L5 where simple stationkeeping wouldn't require much if any fuel. It's not going to be easy or cheap, but if launching the rockets needed to put payloads that far out becomes much less expensive than it historically has cost then it might not be entirely unfeasible.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, the plan is not to man-rate the Falcon Heavy, but rather the Falcon 9 and the BFR. Musk is hoping the BFR is a real breakthrough, even with the Falcon 9 and Heavy operating. I'm not betting against him.
I don't see why a further-out space station would be a good idea. It would cost significantly more in fuel, the station would be exposed to significantly more radiation, and the only advantage you've proposed is that it would be easier to keep station.
Re: (Score:2)
Space stations in close orbit require regular attention to keep them from falling from orbit. A space station further out would not suffer this and would also be further from current patterns of orbital debris. Additionally a lagrange-point orbit would be a nice laboratory in preparation for deeper solar system missions where the personnel might even be able to be rescued if there's a problem, kind of how a lunar base might help us learn about missions to other planetary bodies where the outpost is close
Re: (Score:2)
Finally (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
If the hooker in the trunk of Musk's Tesla can escape the gravity of the earth, their is hope for you too do it someday as well!
Trump wants to commercialize ISS? (Score:2)
Or might the Trump administration be brooding on some Trans-Spacial Partnership with JAXA, ESA and CSA,
sidelining the Russkies?
Re: (Score:2)
Their ultimate plan. (Score:2)
Tea (Score:1)