Bigelow Aerospace Announces the Creation of Bigelow Space Operations

LAS VEGAS, NV, February 20, 2018 (Bigelow Aerospace PR) – Bigelow Aerospace is excited to introduce Bigelow Space Operations (BSO), a new commercial space company that is the sales, operational and customer service company that manages and operates space stations developed by Bigelow Aerospace.

With the two launches of B330-1 and B330-2 expected in 2021, the time is now in 2018 to begin BSO activity. These single structures that house humans on a permanent basis will be the largest, most complex structures ever known as stations for human use in space.

These single structures that house humans on a permanent basis will be the largest, most complex structures ever known for human use in space. BSO begins now in 2018 to market these facilities and prepare engagements that lead to transportation of crew, clients, cargo and station operations.

The customers that B330 will seek to accommodate will be very diverse.

Bigelow Space Operations has a mission to market and operate these and other space stations including future generations developed by Bigelow Aerospace that are so capable, so diverse and so large that they can accommodate virtually unlimited use almost anywhere.

Over time, Bigelow Aerospace will manufacture a single station, launched on a single rocket that will contain over 2.4 times the pressurized volume of the entire International Space Station, and we intend for BSO to market and operate these also. A new manufacturing facility for these giant stations would have to be built in Florida, Alabama or other suitable location.

But first, there is something very important that BSO must do this year. The time is now to quantify in detail the global, national and corporate commercial space market for orbiting stations. This subject has had ambiguity for many years. BSO will be spending millions of dollars this year to establish concrete answers.

BSO is hiring now to fill many diverse positions. Many of you need to be willing to travel.

For more information on Bigelow Space Operations visit Interact with Bigelow Space Operations at,, and

For more information on Bigelow Aerospace visit Connect with Bigelow Aerospace at, and

  • ThomasLMatula

    Its about time that someone is doing a proper marketing study. When they do they will find that a latent market is there. Two B330 means about 16 Dragon2 launches a year. Looks like SpaceX will be busy.

  • therealdmt

    I hope so, but I am not as confident as you regarding the market.

    Bigelow has said that it’s biggest target market is national governments. This makes sense as national governments are by far the biggest spenders on human space flight. However, WHY do governments conduct human space flight? Unless the cost is low enough, I’m not sure a private, U.S.-based space station is gonna tick all those boxes.

    As for the U.S. government (admittedly the Big Enchilada), well, we’ll see. So far, the US manned space flight program seems largely about spending money in Alabama, and a private space station accessed and maintained by private rockets, private cargo ships and private crew vessels doesn’t immediately come across as being particularly beneficial to Alabama. However, a bunch of astronauts constantly up in LEO could give Johnson new life, and Florida would certainly be happy

  • Aerospike

    I hope that the people they hire for the market study and to conduct all that operations business (that will hopefully follow) are more competent than those who wrote this PR piece…

  • ThomasLMatula

    There is also been a private market for research and even speciality manufacturing in space. It started to appear in the 1980’s but was basically driven away by the difficulty of working with NASA and their complete lack of interest in the needs of industry. If Bigelow Aerospace is able to tap into them it will dwarf the sovereign markets just as the comsat market dwarfs the government space program.

  • Geoff T

    Somehow a lot of Bigelow’s PR looks pretty shoddy. The number of CG renders they’ve done where Dragon 2 is docked without a trunk attached or the B330 is shown in a fairing without proper scaling. They seem to be very slapdash and I hope it’s not reflective of their tech!

  • Michael Vaicaitis

    Launch cost, launch cost, launch cost!!. Forget the hab tech and cost, all ambitions of commercial human presence in space will fall at the first hurdle -> how much it costs to get there. Basically, everything hinges on Bezos and Musk. It’ll be interesting to see if Bigelow (and expandable habs) survive when launch cost and payload volume are no longer the overwhelming limiting factors that they are at present.

  • Michael Halpern

    Definitely not reflective of tech based on BEAM, it’s hard for artists to get scaling right without good size reference, service modules and in the case of Dragon, trunks, are frequent omissions in artist renderings largely because they aren’t aesthetically pleasing. This is the difference between artist renderings and engineer drawings, the purpose of the renderings is to get the general idea, if you want the proper sizes you need an engineer drawing

  • Michael Halpern

    Habs aren’t “expendable” they just aren’t necessarily re-entry capable, they will thrive with low launch cost, manufacturing, research and several other expanded dpace utilization, need a lot of permanent volume in orbit

  • Michael Vaicaitis

    Not “expendable” habs, “expandable” hab tech (expandable as in “inflatable”) – with increased payload volume of BFResque launchers, will the need and desire for expandable hab tech dwindle. How will Bigelows business case fair against large “tins cans”?, carbin fibre cans?, skinned spaceframes?.

  • Michael Halpern

    No they won’t you still have limited volume in BFS besides BFS enables the deployment of BA 2100

  • Valerij Gilinskij

    Does the Alpha station not have a place for berthing of a cargo spacecraft? This is a serious drawback. The universal racks that are used on the ISS proved to be very convenient and useful for locating equipment and upgrading.

    Docking units designed for docking manned spacecraft have small hatches through which it is impossible to deliver serious equipment to the station.

  • Tom Billings

    More specifically, the skinned spaceframes and other structures made in space will be for a market in which the customer has a longer time horizon. While Bigelow expandables will endure as units, their first leasing market will be among customers that want to lease a station within a shorter timeframe, so that Bigelow will know year-by-year what its lease revenues will be for each station module, … not too dissimilar to the source of Bigelow’s nest egg in building motels and apartments.

    The made in space structures will have a market where they *first* demonstrate their building tech on-orbit, then begin shipping more materials and equipment for building new structures, and only *then* get orders for larger structures. It will actually require some group like Bigelow to be there first, doing market-building for them by demonstrating that people can make a profit, of whatever sort interests them, using facilities in Space. Their time-to-build will inevitably be longer than the time-to-lease that a customer can get from Bigelow once Bigelow has a good number of modules in various orbits.

    That’s Okay too. The competitive edge for the made in Space firms will be that they can build more volume, and more customized volume, with more of whatever capability the customer specifies, per ton of lifted mass, than Bigelow’s system can deliver. Neither need put the other out of business for quite some time, because they will service different needs for customers.

  • Michael Halpern

    There is also the fact that its easier to get pressurized volume from expandable modules than from on orbit manufacturing

  • Tom Billings

    Yes! Contributing to greater speed of entry into Space for the customer, which again, enhances Bigelow’s contrast with both what NASA was doing with its 3 year pre-launch negotiations/preparations/scheduling maze, and with the time it will take for whatever the made in space groups can offer.

  • Michael Halpern

    And the in space manufacturing can handle the external hardware end so hybrid of the methods can work really well

  • therealdmt

    Cost is going to have to be *low* for private industry to pay for research on a manned platform. There is research going on on the ISS, but it’s on the back of billions upon billions of dollars of constantly flowing public money to supply, operate, maintain and repair the ISS (completely disregarding the cost of the ISS itself).

    Just 1 cargo dragon costs $60 million for the rocket (iirc) and, iirc, $20 for the Dragon. This is aside from the cost of the supplies themselves. Then there’s the cost of the Dragon2 and it’s rocket to bring up the crew. Oh yeah, the crew have to be paid. Then there’s the cost of the station itself, divided by the users. And then there’s a profit for the investors.

    That better be some pretty sweet research.

    Of course, *if* NASA agrees to be the anchor customer and after SpaceX recoups it’s reuseability investments and brings prices down on all of the above, the situation could look much more promising

  • duheagle

    Bigelow habs could serve future big projects by Made in Space and its competitors as the equivalent of the foreman’s office trailer on a terrestrial construction site.