Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bigelow Launching New Company To Sell Private Space Stations (popularmechanics.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the space-habitats dept.

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.

57 comments

  1. No.2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it was/.

  2. Weird by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

    Most crowd funding projects have better sites, CAD than this. Luckily with 3 years left it's more rocket science than aeronautics like the F35 stuff

    1. Re:Weird by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most crowd funding projects appear to pour most of their development effort into the site rather than the product. Can't win them dollars without parallax scrolling and cool animated infographics, right? Bigelow do have a rather spartan website. I suppose they do not have to woo the crowd to get funding; their investors know what they are up to.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.

    3. Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plus, their Space Stations come equipped with all of the Tea you can drink

    4. Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bigelow got his money from the hotel industry - a hard currency source of income.
      This isn't Silicon Valley vaporware.

    5. Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. interesting by c6gunner · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · · 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, 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 hardware into account. But even at $50,000 per trip, I'm sure a lot of customers would show up.

    2. Re:interesting by Sad+Loser · · Score: 2

      How long before they get C-Beams - now those would be worth seeing!

      --
      Humorous signatures are over-rated.
    3. Re:interesting by Insanity+Defense · · 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.

    4. Re:interesting by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      At $50k or maybe even $100k for a real trip (i.e. a brief stay in orbit, not Virgin's kiddie ride), hell, even li'l old me would consider it. Before I'm too old to go. Even if I could just barely afford it, it would be worth it.

      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 beyond my reach.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:interesting by Nidi62 · · Score: 0

      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. Of course, plenty of people will still do it just for the chance to play astronaut.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:interesting by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:interesting by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      $7M is perhaps optimistic, but anything under $100M is really going to be a bargain. And $100M is rather conservative.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:interesting by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      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

      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....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:interesting by coofercat · · Score: 1

      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 space elevator or some equally gentile route up.

    10. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    11. Re:interesting by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      $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 price point.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    12. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going to space for a vacation probably isn't subject to the "10%" rule you are mentioning. People might save for 5 years at 10k a year or 10 years at 5k a year for a chance to go to space. Also, once you are making ~$250k a year the space trip is just a trade off on other frivolous spending. I.e. you don't buy the latest Porsche that year. I make far less than a million a year and could easily consider paying the $50k as long as it was a one time thing. You need the million dollar income to make YEARLY space trips.

      $50k isn't a lot of money when you are thinking about the entire earths population having the opportunity to spend that and go to space. What is the "supply" of trips? You are talking tiny fractions of the population even being able to go from a supply side. Demand would outstrip supply at $50k a person.

    13. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're flying old launchers or specifically trying to whittle down your astronaut/cosmonaut pool you might need people in peak physical condition. But the modern commercial crew craft are being designed to common theme park ride requirements (3G or less I believe). If you can ride the centrifuge at your local fair you can probably endure a trip into space on a modern rocket.

    14. Re:interesting by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    15. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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'll save some time and answer that for you. How long? No effect on flat Earth beliefs whatsoever. Delusionals are never impacted by facts, witness how many political party believers continue to be faithful long after that party does the opposite of what they promised, such as increasing instead of decreasing the national debt.

    16. Re:interesting by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      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.

    17. Re:interesting by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      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 cheap for an African big game hunt and I've met guys that went on multiples of those who were just CPAs or pawn shop owners. If they can get a $50k space vacation and there are no serious health requirements, they're be enough takers to make booking one an issue.

    18. Re:interesting by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      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.

    19. Re:interesting by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      Beyond tourism, there are private companies making plans to do manufacturing in orbit. ( https://www.popularmechanics.c... ) 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.

    20. Re: interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Au contraire, most of us realize that the truth. The Earth is, indeed, differentially flat and is not only obvious and intuitive, but you can also prove it with math.

    21. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they believe antarctica is a Game-of-Thrones style wall around the "earth" if memory serves right, without a consistent idea of what is beyond.

    22. Re: interesting by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Very cool. I can't wait to see that!

  4. One step closer towards ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the hippy space commune

    1. Re: One step closer towards ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. Getting rid of people will be as easy as accidentally opening an airlock, killing power, altering their orbit on accident, locking the escape system in place, etc. So many ways to remove undesirables if they're in a hostile environment.

  5. More clutter in space, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, that's all we need is more clutter in space. Exactly how does anyone make money in space? I agree the only viable ideal so far is space tourism and we are not yet sure how many ultra rich will buy a ticket for that?

    1. Re:More clutter in space, great by TWX · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:More clutter in space, great by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      No clutter. We'll finally be able to afford removing the existing clutter, and there's fairly strict (and increasingly stricter) regulations for creating new one.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:More clutter in space, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's all we need is more clutter in space.

      If your desire is to never see anyone or anything put in space, then space clutter threatens nothing and it doesn't matter if we put more there or not.

      If your desire is to see people in space, then the very things those people will be living in, by definition, can't be labeled as "clutter"

    4. Re:More clutter in space, great by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:More clutter in space, great by TWX · · Score: 1

      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 enough to rescue personnel if there's a problem.

      Plus we've got this orbital altitude worked out. Let's push ourselves again.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  6. Finally by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Finally my dream of getting off this rock stuck in a gravity well is here! See ya!

    1. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the consensus is that the rock CREATES the gravity well and thus it is not "stuck in a gravity well".

    2. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the rock that creates the gravity well is itself stuck in a gravity well.

    3. Re:Finally by Dare+nMc · · 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!

  7. Bigelow, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Space Gigolo.

    Coming to a private station near you!

  8. Trump wants to commercialize ISS? by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Ahm, as if the other participating agencies: Roscosmos, JAXA, ESA, and CSA will blindly agree to that...

    Or might the Trump administration be brooding on some Trans-Spacial Partnership with JAXA, ESA and CSA,
    sidelining the Russkies?

    1. Re:Trump wants to commercialize ISS? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      It's not Trump, this idea has been floated as early as 2015. Which shouldn't surprise anyone, the ISS was going to be decommissioned in 2016 originally, but they got an extension for 10 more years or so.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Trump wants to commercialize ISS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly Trump wants the first space hotel to be a Trump-branded hotel.

  9. Doesn't Bigelow make tea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see Bigelow in the super market all the time. They make boxes of foil-wrapped tea bags of various flavors, including Earl Grey.

    Tea, Earl Grey, Hot! Make it so!

  10. Their ultimate plan. by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    Given the success reported by Elon Musk in launching his Tesla car in the space, for sure they are planning to transform the space into a giant parking lot.

    1. Re:Their ultimate plan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      transform the space into a giant parking lot.

      Nuke it! Blow up space and pave over it!

    2. Re:Their ultimate plan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm waiting for some other billionaire to go into space just to recover Musk's car and return it to him ;-)

  11. Re:RRRRight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sanity not needed.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge_%28Lake_Havasu_City%29

  12. Dump probably made a deal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These guys probably had these plans in the works, and gave Dump money to "have the idea" of privitising things like the ISS.

  13. Re:RRRRight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone not EDUCATED STUPID knows that the canonically fraudulently sold bridge is in Brooklyn
    But sure, go with the London bridge, since it currently is located just down the road from Bigelow Aerospace.

  14. Tea by clarksonator · · Score: 1

    Damn, I thought my favorite tea company was jumping on a bandwagon like Long Island and blockchain

  15. Deuce Bigalow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Male Gigolo