Bigelow's bigger ambitions

Tony Rusi, Seattle, Washington — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:59:23 GMT

I think the reason for the announcement of the end of the "Fly your own Stuff" program is obvious. This is Mr. B speak for "we have customers." They have found paying customer payloads for the rest of the test flights, or probably more accurately, timid customers have finally come forward. Hats off to Bigelow, nothing succeeds like success! The real question is why are these customers willing to fly with Bigelow and unable, or unwilling to fly with NASA? Maybe the decade long delays had something to do with it? Maybe private enterprise likes dealing with private enterprise?

Bigelow's bigger ambitions

Loren Davidson, SF Bay Area, CA — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:09:58 GMT

I, for one, certainly hope they're going to be able to do more, sooner than they hoped. I would love to see private space enterprise eat NASA's lunch - in this case, the government *needs* competition.
.
I don't think the "Fly Your Stuff" program has thought things out thoroughly. If you read the Website, they're looking for objects "smaller than a golf ball." I've got an inquiry in to them now about flying CDs - wider than a golf ball, but you can fly a stack of 100 in the same volume as maybe 20-30 golf balls, make three times the revenue per cubic volume, and I'll bet they'd look better floating around the cabin. Hell, even *NASA* is smart enough to "get" the appeal of people's info on CDs in space, i.e. with Deep Impact. But if Bigelow's going to go with Big Corporate Customers and lose the grassroots appeal, I guess they'll fly what they choose to fly.

Bigelow's bigger ambitions

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:53:27 GMT

Perhaps, but anyone who does even a sliver of due diligence (which can be as simple as following space-related sites like this one) knows that the "Fly Your Own Stuff" program is a giveaway (though a useful attention-getter on something they'd launch anyway), and so, doesn't have quite the same meaning as lined-up paying customers. In other words, you could be right, but it's not a secret.

And there are three likely reasons for dealing with Bigelow over NASA:

1. You may be right about private enterprise dealing with private enterprise, in that NASA likely has more regulatory and red tape hoops to jump through, to get the same thing done.

2. Bigelow may simply be cheaper. (This, after all, is what we hope for from the new commercial space people)

3. NASA simply may not *offer* what they want. (just try to buy a tourist seat on the shuttle, for example, and see how far you get) This may be the biggest reason not to deal with NASA or Big Aerospace.

Bigelow's bigger ambitions

Alan Sheets, Loveland, CO — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:26:40 GMT

I wonder what it would take to get these folks to agree to fly an amateur radio transponder on one of their future test flights? A quick check of the OSCAR AMSAT pages indicates that most of the amateur radio satellites are off line or running at less than optimum capacity (http://www.projectoscar.net/birds.php).

And I would STILL be interested in seeing one of the next few test launches be sent on a track that would eventually catch up with ISS, or a slight reconfiguration into a solar sail (who says this gear always has to be in a tubular form?)

Bigelow's bigger ambitions

a p garcia — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 04:18:39 GMT

I wonder when and if NASA will ever use a Bigelow on the ISS without having one of the partner nations objecting.