Who Will Pay For a Commercial Space Station After the End of the ISS?

MarkWhittington writes: While NASA is planning its road to Mars, a number of commercial interests and place policy experts are discussing what happens after the International Space Station ends its operational life. Currently, the international partners have committed to operating ISS through 2024. Some have suggested that the space station, conceived by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, could last as long as 2028. But, after that, there will still be a need for a space station of some sort, either in low Earth orbit, or at one of the Lagrange points where the gravity of the moon and Earth cancel one another out.

Comments

we could easily afford outer space vacations

[Anonymous Coward]

once we stop wmd on credit blackholing our current digs?

"...there will still be a need..."

[turkeydance]

there will?

Re:"...there will still be a need..."

[gstoddart]

In order to support the business model of the people on this panel, yes.

Re:"...there will still be a need..."

[Anonymous Coward]

There won't--unless someone can figure out how to make a lot of money off fake science experiments and a bunch of bullshit PR stunts.

Re:"...there will still be a need..."

[Anonymous Coward]

We are going to Mars. Upgrade it (more solar panels, nuk power) and pack full of food, O2 bottles, what ever. AND SEND IT FIRST. When Man does get there, the 7-11 will be there and waiting.

Just like B4 being sent back in time to support the war between light and dark.

Re:"...there will still be a need..."

[Anonymous Coward]

There was never a need for it and it is only another way to distribute the pork. It just so happens that it is also a brand of pork that has robust support from geeks who will help sell it [cause Star Trek!] until they are blue in the face.

Re:"...there will still be a need..."

[Anonymous Coward]

We are going to Mars.

No, we're not. We're only "going to Mars" in the sense that Presidents will keep promising this and NASA will keep agreeing, and the date will keep moving farther out each time they say it (long after their administrations will be long gone and earlier NASA officials are long retired). Under the Bush/Obama Administration the date for a Mars landing is 2035. By the time a new administration comes in, it will likely go to 2045...then to 2055....etc., etc.

A man will one day set foot on Mars. But he won't have a NASA patch on his pressuresuit.

Re:"...there will still be a need..."

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what use is a space-station to the global caliphate?

Re:"...there will still be a need..."

[Moof123]

+1

I have not gotten a coherent explanation of the value of the current one. It is just more and more long term effects of space studies. What other science of note or value is being done there that could not easily have been done unmanned for far less? Other than milking the vanishingly small amount of residual cool factor that remains, what will it buy us.

Re:"...there will still be a need..."

[lucien86]

Dumbass.

Re:"...there will still be a need..."

[eric_harris_76]

Exactly. Who would miss it after it was gone? Would they miss it enough to be willing to foot the bill for extending it or replacing it, either as a group effort or by buying the services they care about, ala carte?

My hunches are: (1) politicians, scientists, businesses, and space enthusiasts (mostly the second group); (2) nope, nope, maybe, and maybe (respectively).

Too big an effort for Kickstarter, and who would be the one to propose it if there were a place to crowdfund it?

"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Nutria]

How's it going to protect crew (and equipment) from hard radiation? Seems to me that getting all that (lots of) extra mass to escape velocity would make it *way* more expensive than.

Would it be more practical to build a habitat in one of those caves that the Moon is supposed to have?

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Flavianoep]

How's it going to protect crew (and equipment) from hard radiation? Seems to me that getting all that (lots of) extra mass to escape velocity would make it *way* more expensive than.

Would it be more practical to build a habitat in one of those caves that the Moon is supposed to have?

But how can one deal with moon dust?

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be more practical to build a habitat in one of those caves that the Moon is supposed to have?

I suspect that would make leaving the station a lot more difficult. I believe it currently is mostly "just jump into that direction, let the gravity do its job and be careful when entering the atmosphere and when hitting the land". On the moon gravity would hinder the process, not help.

There's also the issue that you limit your line of sight by having quite a large object blocking half of it it all the time on the station. The direction also varies, so no direct communication to Earth for some (half?) of the time.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Anonymous Coward]

There is quite a lot of random crap orbiting around in lagrange points.
You could, theoretically, scrap it down to useful building materials and just seat it in place around the space station.
You don't need to make it perfect workable material, just some gravel-tier material to fill a cavity to hold it in place.
If we are speaking making an actual presence in space, it is realistically the easiest way to go about it in near Earth space.

At present, we aren't near the time periods where space mining will be gaining any useful minerals.
In fact, going by the current timelines of companies and countries interested in space mining, scouting ships will be in the process of travelling to the asteroid belt to tag them.
So that industry will literally be in its baby steps in the 2020s period.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Anonymous Coward]

spray the inner of the cave with a layer of spray-on concrete (made on site, of course).

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Anonymous Coward]

Lead

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Anonymous Coward]

    With good old American know-how. We've beaten bigger problems on the road to space.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Anonymous Coward]

Lagrange? How how how....

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Big Hairy Ian]

Given that reaching the nearest viable Lagrange Point is going to mean going atleast 150K miles rather that the three to four hundred currently needed for LEO I think Radiation Shielding is the least of their problems given how ridiculously expensive it is getting into space to start off with (Which I know the price is coming down). I think we're going to see a lot of weird & wonderful space stations in LEO from commercial space companies long before anyone goes to a Lagrange point with a manned mission.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Henning Rogge]

How's it going to protect crew (and equipment) from hard radiation? Seems to me that getting all that (lots of) extra mass to escape velocity would make it *way* more expensive than.

Would it be more practical to build a habitat in one of those caves that the Moon is supposed to have?

Maybe they could build a spacestation into an asteroid that they pulled into the Lagrange point. A few meters of nickel-iron would be a good protection.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Crowd Computing]

Water is a simple solution if we can get it to orbit cheaply. Building an underground moon base is probably cheaper if somebody can design a cheap moon dust-proof robotic excavator.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[findoutmoretoday]

For concrete they just have to mix said dust with moon-water

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Anonymous Coward]

Use a magnifying glass and use that big ball of fusion in the sky to melt the area you want to build your stuff in. Dust -> slag -> big rocks instead of dust.

Heck, start building rovers with magnifying glasses and have them crawl across the moon, solidifying the dusty surface.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be more practical to build a habitat in one of those caves that the Moon is supposed to have?

Or even more practical to build the habitat somewhere in North Dakota and just pretend it's the moon.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Nutria]

if we can get it to orbit cheaply

But that's the problem which is nowhere near being solved.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Nutria]

Maybe they could build a spacestation into an asteroid that they pulled into the Lagrange point.

By the time you can afford to do that, you can also afford to launch lead and water to shield your station.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[peragrin]

Concrete isn't air tight or structural by itself.

Granted it if you find enough water on the moon it is a good part of being useful.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[parenthephobia]

Given that reaching the nearest viable Lagrange Point is going to mean going at least 150K miles rather that the three to four hundred currently needed for LEO I think Radiation Shielding is the least of their problems given how ridiculously expensive it is getting into space to start off with

Orbital mechanics does not work that way. Expense doesn't simply scale with distance.

Getting to LEO requires ~10km/s of delta-v, whilst going from there to L4/5 requires an additional ~4km/s, which could be undertaken using highly fuel efficient ion or VASIMR engines.

The fuel required to for the second leg of the journey wouldn't be more than a single percent of the total fuel for the trip, which could take a few months.

If you want to get there really quickly you could do it in nine days using traditional chemical engines, at the expense of three times the fuel. You might reasonably do that for light but perishable things like fresh food or astronauts.

Re: "or at one of the Lagrange points"

[WindBourne]

Water.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[tmosley]

You have space miners bring in an asteroid for that. You can also get plenty of water that way.

Re: "or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Nutria]

That's the simplistic way of saying "mass". Which is really expensive to launch.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[tmosley]

That's like saying its just as hard to pull something down a mountain as it is to pull it up. Material already in space is orders of magnitude cheaper than material boosted to orbit. Everyone who knows even the barest amount about space mining knows this. This is why the driving factor of that industry is expected to be water rather than the trillions of dollars of precious metals available from a single asteroid.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[FlyHelicopters]

The same side of the moon points towards Earth all the time. If you don't know that, the rest of your post is rather equally useless. :)

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[cellocgw]

There's a much simpler solution to the water problem. Don't send meatbags. Do all the work with robots & advanced waldo systems. Even ignoring the water, you could afford to lose (completely) several robotic mining systems for the cost of one human-rated craft.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Nutria]

Everyone who knows even the barest amount about space mining knows this.

Space mining engineers have as much practical experience as astrobiologists.

Re: "or at one of the Lagrange points"

[WindBourne]

uh, no. Water makes a great shield for radation. In particular, when things like lead is used, it actually causes a great deal of scatter. Water does not. In addition, water is required for life so it will already be there. Just need to add more.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[david_thornley]

This is orbital mechanics. It is as hard to pull something down a gravity well as to pull it up, unless you either want it to hit something at the bottom of the well or want it to do a fly-by. Typically, when moving something down the mountain, you use some form of lithobraking to get the proper velocity at the end. That doesn't work in space.

As long as we're talking about Lagrange points, we're talking about a two-body system, so we can presumably do a gravitational slingshot maneuver to reduce the speed, but it still has to move towards a Lagrange point, and we still have to be able to change its velocity to match orbital velocity. For something that large, it's a LOT of delta-V, and it's going to require a lot of mass.

It may be a good idea anyway, but it isn't going to save mass lifted from Earth.

Re: "or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Nutria]

uh, no.

It's not mass?

Water makes a great shield for radation.

It's a low-density shield. Lots of launches would be required to lift the requisite amount of water.

(lead) causes a great deal of scatter

But it would be scattering the radiation *away* from the station, right? Because otherwise it wouldn't be shielding us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection#Shielding/

http://www.adl.gatech.edu/research/tff/radiation_shield.html/
How do present-day astronauts survive? The answer is - they can't for very long.
Veteran astronauts caught on Space Stations during such storms must spend their time inside specially-built chambers (generally made of plastic sheets, perhaps with some water bags around them) to ride out the storm - and be brought back to Earth as soon as possible. These are not options for long-term human habitats.

The bottom line is that radically new launch technology (that doesn't spray octillions of radioactive particles into the atmosphere during successful launches, much less during "mishaps") is needed before any science fiction dreams can come true.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[thinkwaitfast]

Nowhere near being solved and nowhere being researched as much as how to do X in space. If we'd have concentrated all space research into getting there cheaply instead of researching how gerbils mate in weightless environment, we'd have rovers on all the bodies in the solar system by now.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Coren22]

3.77 to Earth Moon L1. That makes a little more sense.
3.42 to EM L2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

or if you prefer slow boating the difference

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[SuricouRaven]

There's another resource the moon has in abundance: Power. You can enjoy slow-tracking unfiltered sunlight, suitable for use in either photovoltaics or solar furnaces. What do you get if you melt moon-dust and resoldify it into a casting basin?

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[SuricouRaven]

You could try atmospheric braking your asteroid to shed some of that unwanted energy. You'd better be really sure of your calculations though, or braking becomes breaking.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Anonymous Coward]

L1 and L2 are at unstable equilibrium and would require a constant supply of fuel to maintain position. The L4 or L5 seem like better options for long term structures.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Coren22]

Thank you, I had not thought of that.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[D.McG.]

That's false. The L1-L3 points are unstable and require satellites to perform station-keeping maneuvers with propellant to maintain their halo orbits. Natural satellites cannot balance precisely at those points, and fall off to one side towards a gravity well. Trojans (random crap) only exist at L4-L5 points.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Anonymous Coward]

L4 and L5 are potentially cluttered with trojans.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[ColdWetDog]

Didn't think there was that much sex at the ISS.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[tmosley]

Red herring. Physics is well known. Just accept that you are wrong about lifting huge amounts of fucking LEAD off the Earth's surface being the same or less costly than parking an asteroid there. Maybe you can grow as a person.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Nutria]

Physics is well known.

Life is more than equations on a whiteboard.

Just accept that you are wrong about lifting huge amounts of fucking LEAD off the Earth's surface being the same or less costly than parking an asteroid there.

Since (1) just parking an asteroid is spectacularly useless as shielding (you've got to actually do something with all that rock once it's at the Lagrange point, and that's going to be ex-pen-sive), and (2) everything that NASA proposes turns out to be 20x more expensive than they say it will be, the only "evidence" that I'm wrong is pie in the sky handwaving.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Trogre]

I think the additional problem of regolith would make that idea, while not impossible, less attractive than other options.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Anonymous Coward]

The ISS requires a constant fuel supply to avoid falling out of orbit. Stationkeeping at L1 or L2 would actually be cheaper.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Moof123]

Storage is a problem. So yes, you can get over 1kW/m^2, but you have to plan around 2 weeks of darkness at a shot.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Moof123]

We have yet to beat public apathy, and the public is the funding source.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[ChrisMaple]

You'll have to be sure of more than just calculations. You have to be certain that there are no equipment failures that might send the asteroid tumbling into the Earth, thereby ending civilization and most of current life. Seems like a poor risk-reward ratio to me.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[SuricouRaven]

That was the joke: I proposed a solution that would solve the specified problem, but with a significant risk of mass extinction if anything went wrong.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[dgatwood]

Not necessarily super-expensive. Automatic mining machines already exist. You'd have to modify them a bit to make them work in microgravity, of course, by finding some way to anchor them initially while they drill the first few feet into the material, and you'd have to modify both the drilling machines and the haulers to have wheels on all sides with springs to hug the tunnel walls, and you'd have to come up with something more complex than a gravity-dependent conveyor belt to move the rock into the hauler, but that's only going to be super-expensive if government does it. :-D

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Nutria]

Not necessarily super-expensive.

This is delusional fantasy.

Automatic mining machines already exist.

Powered by a tad more than some Plutonium RTGs.

You'd have to modify them a bit to (incredibly expensive, if not impossible modification #1), and (incredibly expensive, if not impossible modification #2), (incredibly expensive, if not impossible modification #3), and (Free Market FTW!).

You've forgotten that all the easy stuff which happens in science fiction novels is... fiction handwaved away to propel the story forward, and not future history.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[lucien86]

14 days of darkness + some very cold temperatures. The Luna night is colder than anything on Mars. (reaches -170 C) - Some of the polar craters (where the water is) are in permanent darkness and colder than Pluto. Not to mention that during the Luna day temperatures can reach over 100 C. Plus the extremely harsh sharp Luna dust. and more radiation than Mars. The Moon is one of the harder places to choose to learn to live in space we could choose.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[lucien86]

"These cows are small. Those cows are far away." And how much would a civilization ending asteroid weigh? oh about 10 billion to 100 billion tons. How much would an asteroid we could actually move enough to reach a desired orbit weigh? Less, a lot less. Lets try say about 1,000 to 10,000 tons at the outside. One is about 10 million times larger than the other.. That's the weight of a bowling ball verses the weight of the Empire State building.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[lucien86]

It is solved - the basic solution is nuclear rockets. -
The cleanest nuclear rocket type should be Gas Core Closed Cycle - but these haven't been researched in detail yet.
Solid core engines have been almost fully researched and could do it but with a finite risk of dropping nuclear particles into the atmosphere.
Nuclear pulse engines could do and would have much bigger orbital payload capacity - but with the small price of dropping fallout into the atmosphere.

Each launch of a nuclear pulse rocket might statistically kill some 50 to 100 people. That might sound a lot but is trivial when compared say to the pollution from cars and trucks which probably kills well over 500,000 people per year.. All nuclear needs is a level playing field and the money invested in research and it can reduce the costs to orbit by about 5 to 10 times.

Re:"or at one of the Lagrange points"

[Nutria]

It is solved - the basic solution is nuclear rockets. -
The cleanest nuclear rocket type should be Gas Core Closed Cycle - but these haven't been researched in detail yet.

I do not think "solved" means what you think it means.

Lot of questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Just read that Elon Musk wants to launch thousands of low altitude satellites for internet access. But NASA is already grappling with how to deal with all the large junk navigating around the Earth. It even encroaches on affecting deep space launches because finding windows through all the junk is getting hard. I even suspect the Space Station may well be the last orbiting large object when its end of life happens. When you have even small objects traveling at over 17,500 MPH your going to have some real problems in the even those objects hit something. What we need is a Sanford and Sons in space. A way to safely collect all the junk that's been collecting for decades. Funny how we never required every satellite in orbit to have a series of boosters to push it out of orbit and into deep space? I guess the added costs was too much.

Re:Lot of questions

[Anonymous Coward]

The space debris problem isn't nearly as bad as you're alluding to, the ISS has only had to adjust its orbit about a dozen times since its construction to avoid debris. Now it could get real bad real quick (Kessler Syndrome), but we're not there yet. Most modern satellites ARE required to be able to either deorbit or enter a "graveyard orbit". and there are more than a few research projects underway to test debris removal systems (though most focus on larger dead satellites).

No one.

[Anonymous Coward]

A commercial space station would have to pay for itself and make a profit. Quite frankly, there is nothing in space that is capable of doing that. The space station is pure research, a scientific curiosity, and the only entities willing to fund something like that would be a non-profit (not enough resources, as well as unreliable funding sources) and government.

A purely commercial space station is a pipe dream concocted by people that have read way too many Ben Bova novels.

Re:No one.

[bill_mcgonigle]

people that have read way too many Ben Bova novels

Or the news articles that went around last month about the asteroid that just buzzed by with $5 trillion worth of platinum on it.

Clearly no RoI there. Low-orbit docking for such efforts would have no value. :/

Re:No one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite frankly, there is nothing in space that is capable of doing that.

That's like saying there's no market for mega-yachts 'cause nobody can afford one... and yet there's plenty of those. Problem now is that there's no place to go to in space---and "tourism" (e.g. in a tin-can, up and down) is boring.

Once tech catches up to "hike on the moon, dirt bike on the moon, etc., then enjoy a stay at the moon-hotel, in low gravity spa", there will be plenty of folks who'd drop *tens of millions* (yes, hopefully it gets cheaper by then) for a week long vacation there (this might be one of those "once in a lifetime" vacation for the super rich---and there are plenty of those to sustain the economy of this).

e.g. for all the folks with say $30 million to their name, would you spend $10 million for a week long hike & dirt bike trip on the moon?

Re:No one.

[PvtVoid]

Or the news articles that went around last month about the asteroid that just buzzed by with $5 trillion worth of platinum on it.

Clearly no RoI there.

If you ever managed to mine that platinum, it wouldn't be worth $5 trillion any more. It's a commodity. The market would collapse. Gross demand for platinum in 2013 was only about 260 metric tonnes.

Re:No one.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want a commercial space station. Commercial entities have already fucked up everything there is to fuck up on earth.

Captcha: fascism

Re:No one.

[parenthephobia]

Sure, if you mine it and dump it all on the market at once.

In reality, anyone able to pull off a commercially viable asteroid mining operation probably has enough savvy that they wouldn't just flood the market: they'd control the supply to keep prices just below that of available terrestrial sources.

This is really no different from De Beers controlling the price of diamonds, or OPEC controlling the price of oil.

Re:No one.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

If you ever managed to mine that platinum, it wouldn't be worth $5 trillion any more. It's a commodity. The market would collapse.

Not if de Beers was mining it. Wives will be demanding platinum engagement and wedding rings, because, "Platinum is Forever".

In a Schrödinger's Cat type situation, there will be simultaneous be a glut of platinum . . . but at the same time a shortage, which will make those platinum rings very expensive.

Re:No one.

[thegarbz]

If you dumped it on the market all at once there won't be any people left alive to buy it.

Re:No one.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Commercial entities have already fucked up everything there is to fuck up on earth."

As have governments. As have non-commercial, non-governmental groupings of people.

Tell it like it is. PEOPLE have already fucked up everything there is to fuck up on Earth.

Re:No one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because when you mine for a material the second you arrive it is separated into neat uniform bricks which you can instantly ship back to market? It takes time to establish a mine, time to set up refinement and time to work out the logistics. In the long haul you're probably going to depress the price somewhat, but as the price slowly gets lower people tend to find new uses for it as well increasing the volume you sell. Once upon a time steel was an expensive material to work with, ships were usually built with wood and only certain necessary parts would be built with steel. As mining and refinement processes improved it became cheap enough to build the entire ship out of steel, today it is much cheaper to build large ships out of steel than to build it out of wood.

Re:No one.

[Anonymous Coward]

The price for platinum is ~US$900/ounce, so 260 tonnes/year is worth ~US$8 billion/year. So that's your cap (roughly). If you take over the platinum market by capturing an asteroid, it can't earn you more than $8b/year, and probably less, because you need to undercut the market price if you want to move your stock. Unless someone discovers new uses for platinum and expands the market, that is.

Re:No one.

[Toshito]

And if you can add some kind of traceability, I for one would love to own a platinum ring that was mined from an asteroid.

Re:No one.

[towermac]

Nice.

Re:No one.

[towermac]

And soon after the moon has rings generated from dirt bike rooster tails.

Re:No one.

[david_thornley]

I'm going to guess that people would find more uses for platinum at $100/ounce, so that's not a cap. That eight gigabucks a year is a reasonable planning figure, though.

Re:No one.

[SuricouRaven]

You might be able to get some government subsidies though. Platinum is really useful stuff - it's a great catalyst for all sorts of reactions, and an excellent electrocatalyst too, plus it's pretty much inert otherwise. If it were cheap, hydrogen might have become a viable means of bulk energy storage by now.

Re:No one.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware, are you not, that De Beers is on the hit list for the US Justice department, and has been for decades? Their cartel-like behaviour has meant they cannot do business in the United States. Not at all. They get by doing business in other jurisdictions and using intermediaries.

De Beers employees cannot operate in the US without being in immediate danger of being arrested.

Yes, it works for De Beers, but they are something of a one-off in being able to make it work.

Indeed - WHY do we need a space station?

[Bruce66423]

At the time it was being proposed, there was a lot of doubt about its value, and it hasn't done much of value except look pretty and produce some fun pictures. The research would almost certainly have been done FAR cheaper on unattended satellites. The main motivation was political.

Of course if the Chinese threaten to launch one on their own, then Congress will suddenly find the money - but probably by raiding lots of other Science budgets. This probably would not be a good thing...

Re:Indeed - WHY do we need a space station?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what has the ISS done? It has accelerated the world's space knowledge at the expense of the US program. Before the ISS, experiments were typically scheduled as part of the shuttle flights so they had to be short duration. One of the reasons the shuttles were so expensive is they were designed to be much more than just a heavy launch vehicle.

It would have been interesting to "retire" the shuttles as in orbit stations...but I suppose the whole issue of how to get the last person back to earth might have been an issue.

Re:Indeed - WHY do we need a space station?

[0123456]

It would have been interesting to "retire" the shuttles as in orbit stations...but I suppose the whole issue of how to get the last person back to earth might have been an issue.

Sure, after you'd built a completely new power generation system to replace the fuel cells, and torn them apart and rebuilt them so they didn't leak air at many times the rate a space station does.

Re:Indeed - WHY do we need a space station?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose the whole issue of how to get the last person back to earth might have been an issue.

Maybe they couldn't dock but they could spacewalk to the ship thats taking them back to earth. Well I do it in Kerbal at least lol.

Re:Indeed - WHY do we need a space station?

[Anonymous Coward]

"research would almost certainly have been done FAR cheaper on unattended satellites"

One of ISS's primary goals was to study long term human habitation in a microgravity/radiation environment with an eye on long duration voyages like a Mars shot, kind of hard to do with unattended satellites. Now the costs to do that have of course been pretty extreme, mostly because it became less of a research facility and more of a symbol of international cooperation with a healthy helping of cost plus defense contractor spending. NASA is trying to reign in the latter, fighting tooth and nail with some in Congress who would prefer to sink all research money into the next gen defense contractor gravy train which is SLS (formerly Constellation).

Re:Indeed - WHY do we need a space station?

[ShanghaiBill]

One of ISS's primary goals was to study long term human habitation in a microgravity/radiation environment with an eye on long duration voyages like a Mars shot

All of that research had already been done on Mir. The ISS did nothing new in this area. Even if there was a need for more research, Mir could have been kept around for 1% of the cost of the ISS.

Re:Indeed - WHY do we need a space station?

[ColdWetDog]

No, you could not have done it on Mir. Mir was small, horribly kludged together and really not extensible. It was going to deorbit in a bunch of pieces by itself or more gracefully (as was done). It was beyond EOL. Well beyond. It was a testament to Russian engineering that it stayed up as long as it did.

Why are we ditching the ISS?

[sjbe]

Is there some technical reason the ISS will no longer work after the mid-2020s or is it merely a budget issue? Why are we not keeping it up there if it is still serving whatever purpose it was designed for?

Re:Why are we ditching the ISS?

[dunkelfalke]

mold maybe?

Re:Why are we ditching the ISS?

[Nutria]

Lots of vital unreplaceable/unrepairable parts would probably be well beyond their design specification and thus prone to failure.

Re:Why are we ditching the ISS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has refused to provide security patches for XP for Space Stations beyond 2024. The only more recent OS certified for space flight is Vista, and NASA figured it'd be less trouble to just accelerate the whole structure toward the Sun.

Re:Why are we ditching the ISS?

[Virtucon]

Lysol. Send the maids up on the next rocket out of Russia.. Send Consuela

Re: Why are we ditching the ISS?

[WindBourne]

Old. Too much stress on it. The fact is, that space is a harsh environment.

Re:Why are we ditching the ISS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its simply the stations expected lifetime, components and systems were only designed/expected to last that long. The station can likely last longer than that but like an old car it will become increasingly time consuming and difficult to maintain. Also like a car many components are difficult to access, in the case of the space station they may be next to impossible to access without depressurizing parts of the station. I'd personally bet that they will run it a bit past its designed life, but NASA is also pretty mindful of not getting into the same boat as the Russians did with MIR. A station that was pushed far past its designed life and even beyond the bounds of sanity, some NASA astronauts considered it a deathtrap with narrow corridors, malfunctioning equipment, and air contaminated with gas from the coolant system.

Re:Why are we ditching the ISS?

[GuB-42]

My guess is that in addition to aging, there is the law of diminishing returns.
When we first build a new scientific apparatus, there are plenty of discoveries being made, then, it goes downhill, because much of what can be done with it has been done.
So the next step is to improve it, for example by adding new instruments, or upgrading the old ones. But there is a limit on what can be done. And at some point you end up with something that is very expensive but produces very little. Sure, we can still hold on to it but it makes more sense to build something new, especially considering that the maintenance costs tend to rise.

Re:Why are we ditching the ISS?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, send megamaid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQAvMUUJr4

a "need" for a space station?

[Anonymous Coward]

or some nerdy Slashdot paper pusher (can't call them editors) wishes there was one?

Re:a "need" for a space station?

[Anonymous Coward]

/. nerds don't push paper. They get cut on it and then they cry and run around in circles bleeding like stuck pigs before passing out and vomiting on the floor.

Why not...

[Anonymous Coward]

Make a corporation to manage it after that, and sell it to that corp recouping part of the investment of all parts involved?

I'm pretty sure someone would be interested in the bidding process.

Why not recycle it..

[coolmoe2]

We keep hearing about all these ideas on how to mine asteroids etc for raw materials to build things in orbit. So to me you have a bunch of highly processed raw materials already up there so why not use it. If we can't then I think the idea of manufacturing in space is already a dead idea.

What has the ISS done for us so far?

[doc d'X]

I'm asking, not arguing, because I don't know. Is there any consensus answer to the question: What is the greatest accomplishment of the International Space Station? Right now all I know is that from time to time I can point my finger to the sky, at a rapidly moving spot of light and say, "Yup, there it is."

Re:What has the ISS done for us so far?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

They tried to make an argument in this "book" (marketing PDF):

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/626862...

The arguments seem to fall into three classes: (1) dual use technologies (stuff developed for the ISS that also has other uses), (2) experiments in microgravity or in orbit, and (3) experiments related to the effect of microgravity on astronauts.

Of these (1) doesn't require actually launching or paying for the ISS; you can have that more cheaply by directly financing those programs. (2) can be done far more cheaply using robotics and remote operation. And (3) is really only a "benefit" if you intend to launch more people into space.

Re:What has the ISS done for us so far?

[peragrin]

I would counter that 2 being done by robots is a lot harder than you realize. Fully automated factories don't exist yet. We are getting closer but all special run stuff is done by hand.

Everything in space is special run. You can't easily automate the tasks.

Re:What has the ISS done for us so far?

[GuB-42]

The greatest, I think it is subjective, but a few Google searches can tell you some of the important findings.
For example there in this video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... the selected three are :
- Cosmic ray detectors on the ISS discovered particles that may confirm the existence of dark matter.
- Study on the effects that living in space has on the body. For example, they discovered that in addition to bone and muscle, the eyes were also affected.
- New generation cancer treatment using micro-encapsulation come directly from the results of research done in micro-gravity on the ISS.

Re:What has the ISS done for us so far?

[doc d'X]

I have read about the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (but most of it goes over my head) is there anything about this piece of science equipment that needs to be on a space station? Besides of course, that's just how it was designed? Can it be credited to the ISS? One nice thing about the Shuttle was its capability to become an instant space station, a talent which was abandoned in favor of it being transport for the ISS.

Re:What has the ISS done for us so far?

[bledri]

I'm asking, not arguing, because I don't know. Is there any consensus answer to the question: What is the greatest accomplishment of the International Space Station? Right now all I know is that from time to time I can point my finger to the sky, at a rapidly moving spot of light and say, "Yup, there it is."

Well, for one thing, a shit ton of research on the effects of micro gravity on humans and how to mitigate them. Which is pretty important for a nation with aspirations of prolonged human space flight.

But it you really want to know, the NASA website has all sorts of information on the goals of the ISS and all the research that is planned or already occurred: International Space Station.

Re:What has the ISS done for us so far?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Everything in space is special run. You can't easily automate the tasks.

It doesn't need to be automated; we are talking about earth orbit, telemanipulation is a perfectly good option. Furthermore, I'm not talking about "everything", I'm talking about the trivial examples in that book, used to justify the ISS. And even if they couldn't have been achieved by telemanipulation, launching new hardware as needed would still have been orders of magnitude cheaper than the ISS.

Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[damn_registrars]

conceived by President Ronald Reagan in 1984

Thank you, samzenpus. I wasn't sure what to thank Saint Ronnie for today. Did he forge the structure with the same death-ray eyes that he used to tear down the Berlin Wall?

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[crow_t_robot]

It's funny to see the rose-colored glasses for Reagan these past couple of years considering he tripled the national debt, sold arms to Iran and packed up the troops and left Beirut after ~250 Marines were slaughtered in the barracks bombing with no one held accountable and a whole host of other shit no one cares to remember.

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[drinkypoo]

The Republicans are remembering a time when they could field a candidate that someone would want to elect, because they don't make lizard-man conspiracy theories seem plausible.

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[0123456]

The Republicans are remembering a time when they could field a candidate that someone would want to elect, because they don't make lizard-man conspiracy theories seem plausible.

The Republican establishment don't want their candidate to become President, because then people might expect them to do something. Having Trump in the White House is their nightmare scenario; they'd rather see Hillary there, so they can keep telling Republican voters 'you must vote for us in Congress so we can stop Clinton!' Why else do you think they keep pushing for another Bush?

They hated Reagan for the same reason they hate Trump: they're both outsiders who could actually win.

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[mbone]

It's Mark Whittington. A nice guy, but a serious believer in the Church of Ronnie.

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[damn_registrars]

It's Mark Whittington. A nice guy, but a serious believer in the Church of Ronnie.

Well, he is in friendly hands here on slashdot. The Church of Ronnie is very popular amongst slashdot readers. It is slightly more popular than the church of Ron Paul, though sometimes slightly less vocal.

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's entertaining to watch all the shitlibs froth at the mouth and lose their minds merely because Ronald Reagan was mentioned for any reason. You're still pissed your side lost the Cold War, aren't you?

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[damn_registrars]

Ronald Reagan was mentioned for any reason

My point is that he didn't actually have anything to do with it, and is getting credit for it just because slashdot has an overwhelming conservative majority. I actually find this somewhat amusing in a way, as of course Reagan is far too liberal to be accepted in the GOP today (in fact a solid argument can be made for him even being more liberal than our current "liberal" POTUS).

You're still pissed your side lost the Cold War, aren't you?

My "side"? What exactly do you think you are talking about with that statement? And for that matter, why do you think anyone "won" the cold war? It just happened that the US had the ability to blow more money on it than did the USSR; had it been the other way then the US would have gone bankrupt instead. Ultimately though nobody really won the cold war.

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes actually.

Our side being the side of freedom and democracy, and 'winning' has meant the expansion of the national security state, nolfy lists, and a host of other offronts to liberty.

Re: Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I suspect many of these neo-conss are still sucking on their reagan dildos.

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[danbert8]

Capitalism won the cold war because it generated enough excess wealth that money could be wasted on destructive and useless government objectives without the system collapsing like under communism. Yet people are still arguing with each other about how much more we should be wasting on destruction and useless government objectives...

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[DNS-and-BIND]

LOL slashdot doesn't have an overwhelming conservative majority. It's just that for once in your life you're venturing outside the left-wing echo chamber, where contrary opinions are deleted and troublesome posters banned. It's a shock to see opinions that differ from your own and the whole experience seems quite hostile. You're not alone, your people during the Cold War felt the same way. Why don't you ask the peoples of the former Soviet Union who lost and who won? The phrase "former Soviet Union" should give you a hint. Your side? Hell yeah they were your side.

"When Communist U.S.S.R. was a superpower, the world was better off."
-- Janeane Garofalo

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[david_thornley]

I still think Reagan would have made a great king. He had presence. I think he'd have had to change his name, though. "Ronald, King of the United States of America and Protector of the Seas" doesn't have the right ring.

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[towermac]

He defeated the Soviet Union using dollars instead of your dad.

Brilliant, although there turned out to be a catch; now we get to listen to you.

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[towermac]

I think you get his little joke. Or maybe not - kids nowadays...

It just so happened. Heh. Obviously, if things had been the other way around; they would have won, we would have lost, and you would be standing in line for bread instead of posting on /.

Can't you kids at least wait until we die before you rewrite history?

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[crow_t_robot]

He defeated

That's cute. We were both running through money at a wild rate. The USSR hit bottom first. We were getting there thanks to brilliant ideas like the Star Wars program.

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[bledri]

It's entertaining to watch all the shitlibs froth at the mouth and lose their minds merely because Ronald Reagan was mentioned for any reason. You're still pissed your side lost the Cold War, aren't you?

Reagan supported the development of "Space Station Freedom," but as happens with all post Apollo space programs, it ran into cost overruns, various conflicts of interests (science, DoD, etc...) and never really got fully funded. The project eventually got merged with other space station projects, scaled down, and with the addition of the Russian Space Agency became the ISS.

It's unfortunate that once again a discussion on slashdot got dragged into the ideological quagmire. damn_registrars' post was inflammatory. But saying Reagan conceived the ISS is a stretch. Just like saying Al Gore invented the Internet. Of course Al Gore never claimed to invent the Internet and Reagan never claimed to have conceived the ISS.

Now if want to see an equal but opposite reaction, mention Al Gore in a summary.

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[towermac]

Exactly. How brilliant was that? It was a complete bluff.

Just in case you weren't there: We all bought into Star Wars. All of us. To a nerd, it seemed kind of far fetched, but plausible in theory. Non-nerds bought it hook line and sinker. They said they could do it. The CIA has secret shit that we don't know about. That's true today; it was certainly true then. To make it a plausible bluff, they needed to convince us first.

Who cares what we thought, really; the Russians bought it. That's what mattered.

There was one alternative to beating them with dollars. I know in hindsight, you think you know a better, third path. One that us mouth-breathers from the previous generation couldn't possibly comprehend, now that you're all enlightened and shit. You really think it was all Reagan just political posturing?

Khrushchev took his fucking shoe off and banged it on the UN podium when he told us he was coming. "We will bury you", I believe, is a direct quote.

Reagan engaged the Russians on the battlefield of his choice, and won handily. Had we engaged them on the battlefields of Central Europe and the US West Coast, (and we all know what battlefield that would have led to), things would have gone far differently; trust me on that.

A good part of the reason you are able to post whatever politics you subscribe to on /. today, is Reagan. You either realize that, or at least realize there is no point in arguing it with those that were actually scared of a nuclear war.

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[towermac]

Oh, and by the way, all the money that were running through was appropriated by a Democratic Congress. Reagan tried repeatedly to balance the budget, and was defeated politically. That was back when the Democrats did the government shutdowns. Although the Republicans still got blamed for it. Weird.

He thought that the temporary debt was worth it; that it could be paid off after the fact with the 'peace dividend'. (Remember that?) He was right, it could have been, and almost was. What other people did after he left is not his fault.

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[fustakrakich]

Reagan was no outsider...

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[damn_registrars]

But saying Reagan conceived the ISS is a stretch. Just like saying Al Gore invented the Internet.

There is an important difference those, though; and that difference shows plainly how conservative the voice of slashdot has become.

No democrat that I have ever seen or heard from has ever tried to claim that Al Gore actually deserves credit for inventing the internet. It is understood that his wording was clumsy when he appeared to take credit for it, and it has mostly been a conservative joke since then.

Yet here, on slashdot, we just tried to give Reagan credit for inventing the space station. The actual statement here, on the front page of slashdot, was

the space station, conceived by President Ronald Reagan in 1984

If it was a misstatement here, nobody seems to be expending any effort into correcting it.

Re:Obligatory Reagan Worship!

[dgatwood]

I'm not convinced the Republicans want to take the White House. After all, most of the real power is in Congress. The President has the power to lead the armed forces, negotiate treaties, grant pardons, replace the heads of various government agencies, direct those agencies to do their work in different ways (within the limits of existing law), nominate judges, and veto legislation passed by Congress. Just about every President in my lifetime who has ever talked about the things he intended to do if elected has been full of it, because no President has the power to do any of those things without an act of Congress.

There are things that a President could do to change the way budgeting is done within the various executive agencies, which if done correctly, could significantly improve the functioning of government, or at least reduce the cost without reducing services. Notice that no presidential candidate has ever talked about wanting to do those things.

Otherwise, ignoring the ability to wage war, a President's power lies mainly in preventing Congress from doing things by vetoing legislation. What I really want to see is a presidential candidate who says, "I will veto any bill that seems overly broad, is likely to have unexpected consequences, or encompasses more than a single issue. If a President really stuck to his/her guns about that, it would prevent a lot of really bad laws and appropriations that get passed as riders on unrelated bills, and our country would be far better off for it. It would also ensure that every issue got a serious debate on its own merits rather than being rushed through and barely even glanced at by the people voting on it. This would have the effect of increasing the quality of legislation across the board. But again, notice that no presidential candidate has ever suggested such use of his or her veto power.

And so on. And this is why I'm unimpressed by the entire field of presidential candidates, without fail, from both parties.

The Market?

[crow_t_robot]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No, but seriously, it won't be the market.

Answer

[Digital Mage]

Who Will Pay For a Commercial Space Station After the End of the ISS?

China

ISS: A $3 billion per year money pit...

[Anonymous Coward]

that starves the real post space shuttle program that Goerge Bush envisioned, Project Constellation. End ISS now!

Re:ISS: A $3 billion per year money pit...

[PopeRatzo]

that starves the real post space shuttle program that Goerge Bush envisioned, Project Constellation.

Mars, bitches!

What cannot be repaired?

[sjbe]

Lots of vital unreplaceable/unrepairable parts would probably be well beyond their design specification and thus prone to failure.

What on it cannot be repaired or replaced? Why would they design it that way? It's basically modular in construction as far as I can tell so it's not clear to me why they couldn't replace any given portion of it. Is it that we don't/won't have an adequate lift vehicle? Just terrible design?

Re:What cannot be repaired?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cost. It's that simple. Each module is probably well over a few billion dollars in cost, actual launch+training+(space)construction cost are likely over $1billion per module too. Plus most were designed to be built/transported by a space shuttle that no longer exists.

Re: What cannot be repaired?

[WindBourne]

It can all be replaced. But the design is too inefficient. Inflatables are better. And other than the backbone, nothing else is really that reusable.

Re:What cannot be repaired?

[ColdWetDog]

Remember, we're really not able to do that kind of 'deconstruction / rehab' in space. All we've managed to do is bolt / unbolt things and plug some wiring harnesses together. Unless the item was specifically designed to be replaced in space, it will be very difficult to do so.

Now, this would be an interesting and useful exercise in and of itself but I don't see it as sexy enough to get funding.

Re:What cannot be repaired?

[dgatwood]

I think most of the repairs they did on Hubble fell well outside the bounds of the sorts of servicing that they designed it for. This is not to say that it is always practical to service some parts of ISS, particularly if it would involve cutting power (heat) and/or air to an ISS module for an extended period of time, but as long as you can keep the repairs within those bounds, I don't see any reason why people couldn't do fairly complex non-structural repairs within the interior of the station. I wouldn't think that there would be a whole lot of difference between repairs up there and repairs down here (other than availability of parts, obviously)....

I mean, you'd have trouble with stainless steel screws; they'd probably need a vacuum cleaner instead of a magnetic screwdriver, and they would need replacement screws that weren't stainless. Soldering could be somewhat challenging, if only because the blobs of hot solder wouldn't drop harmlessly to the floor, but that could probably be mostly solved by taking one of those plastic isolation chambers with the built-in safety gloves, adding some permanently mounted wire clamps on gooseneck attachments, replacing one end of the box with a fine metal screen, and blowing air towards that metal screen. The rosin smell might be murder on the scrubbers, I guess, but otherwise....

Place policy experts?

[Bayoudegradeable]

Seriously? Place policy experts?? That's quite an autocorrect from space policy... (not even worth bemoaning the lack of effort...)

"Conceived by Ronald Reagan"

[mbone]

the space station, conceived by President Ronald Reagan in 1984,

Ronald Reagan no more conceived the International Space Station than he painted the Sistine Chapel. First, ideas for space stations go back to the 1920s, and in the 1970's the US and the USSR both started flying space stations (Skylab and Salyut, respectively). Second, while in 1984 Reagan proposed Space Station Freedom in his state of the union address, it is not what we have flying now. Third, while Reagan was not totally senile in 1984, he was never a technologist, and did not himself play any role in the development of the (proposed) station; the plans were developed by NASA and just announced by the White House.

Re:"Conceived by Ronald Reagan"

[0123456]

If I remember correctly, Reagan supported giving NASA a few billion dollars for a space station, and NASA burned through all that money without putting a single part of it in space?

Then Clinton pushed ISS as a way of making friends with the Russians, and it survived various attempts to cull it on that basis.

Re:"Conceived by Ronald Reagan"

[mbone]

If I remember correctly, Reagan supported giving NASA a few billion dollars for a space station, and NASA burned through all that money without putting a single part of it in space?

Then Clinton pushed ISS as a way of making friends with the Russians, and it survived various attempts to cull it on that basis.

That's not a bad summary.Al Gore actually did a lot of the pushing, it was not so much making friends with the Russians as keeping their scientists and engineers peacefully employed, and getting ESA and Japan on board was also essential (it turns out to be much harder to cut truly international programs), but you got the basics.

Re:"Conceived by Ronald Reagan"

[DNS-and-BIND]

Nobody said Reagan conceived the ISS. What he said was, "During my service in the United States Presidency, I took the initiative in creating the International Space Station." Accurate! According to Vint Cerf, "The ISS would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the President in his current role and in his earlier role as Governor."

Re:"Conceived by Ronald Reagan"

[kellymcdonald78]

You forget the part where Congress and the OMB kept sending NASA back to the drawing board time and time again because the designs were "too expensive" resulting in the spending of more money (in redesigns) than was ultimately saved and deleting key aspects of the stations that would have provided substantial value along the way.

Re:"Conceived by Ronald Reagan"

[argStyopa]

Pedantry.

By that same logic, I'm sure you'd agree then that it shouldn't be called Obamacare, the president cannot claim credit for "Getting Bin Laden" or even signing the Iran deal? Nor, then, should Reagan be blamed for Iran/Contra or the massive deficit spending of his administration?

Did Reagan conceive or build the ISS? Clearly not.
But there's a thing called the "head of government" that (at least used to) means "the buck stops here" giving them credit for programs they championed and disasters that happened on their watch as well.

Re:"Conceived by Ronald Reagan"

[dave420]

Did you honestly think that post would make a point other than "DNS-and-BIND is clutching at straws to try to make a pathetic point no-one else cares about"? Incredible stuff. We get it - you are in love with Al Gore and the thought of it scares you, so you lash out.

I know who....

[Lumpy]

Elon Musk.

That man needs a place where he can wear a silver turtleneck and pet a white cat while laughing at the world with an evil laugh.

I fully welcome our new Elon Overlord.

Re:I know who....

[WrongMonkey]

SpaceX would be broke without NASA contracts. Musk is doing interesting stuff in space, but most of it is with other people's money.

Re:I know who....

[turp182]

I second this, but not because of his evil laugh (which I have never heard), but because he is changing the world and doing amazing things.

I could see Space-X do a space station, or a moon base. Pretty quickly to boot. Once they get manned mission approval (2-3 years?) and first stage recovery (hopefully in 2016) down I think they will do some very interesting things.

Keep in mind he also needs a miniature version of himself to complete the narrative (unless I have my movie memories seriously messed up).

Re:I know who....

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing stuff with other people's money is exactly how business works. You pays your money you gets your ride.

If you had to do it with your own money, you'd never get past the first step in any business, unless you were already rich, and then you'd be poor.

SpaceX makes money on its commercial launches. It doesn't need NASA money to fly Falcon 9s. It's not like NASA pays SpaceX more than Boeing for the same service. Boeing gets about twice as much for the same service, so clearly SpaceX is either subsidizing NASA with commercial launch money, or it is actually cheaper.

And the next Commercial Space Station will be done by Bigelow; though Ridley Scott and Drew Goddard think SpaceX will make the next station

Re:I know who....

[Lumpy]

You seem to not understand how ALL american corporations work.

That Ronnie!

[Ol Olsoc]

I had no idea he was the guy that conceived of the space station.

Re:That Ronnie!

[Anonymous Coward]

He was really big into non-terrestrial power distribution modularity.

"need"? "benefits"?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

But, after that, there will still be a need for a space station of some sort, either in low Earth orbit, or at one of the Lagrange points where the gravity of the moon and Earth cancel one another out.

The ISS cost at least $100 billion over its lifetime, arguably more like several hundred billions. That means I have paid thousands of dollars for it through my taxes. As far as I'm concerned, the money was worse than wasted: not only did the ISS not deliver much of value, it actually held back meaningful space exploration and research.

Look at the bullshit coming from the NASA administrator:

For the United States, "we're seeing some benefits from station that the partners have not yet realized. They are doing more traditional kinds of research, in my words. So they are not quite seeing that return on investment. They still see the cost side," Gerstenmaier added. "The cost side is very easy to measure. The benefit side is not so easy to measure."

What this verbal diarrhea amounts to is that he actually has no data on benefits (let alone a "need"), can't tell us convincingly what the benefits are, and can't even demonstrate to our partners that there are benefits. He just thinks that there are benefits and that's why the tax payers should waste money on his pet project.

So, who should pay for it? Easy: whoever actually thinks that the benefits outweigh the costs. That means people like him should go out and convince investors to invest in his crap. Congress shouldn't give him a dime.

NASA should continue unmanned robotic space exploration and scientific earth observing satellites. No public money should be spent on manned space missions at all at this point.

Re:"need"? "benefits"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind me, what's the current price tag on the piece of junk F-35 program again?

Re:"need"? "benefits"?

[Mantrid42]

Actually, with a $100 billion dollar price tag, and 122 million federal income tax payers, you've probably paid closer to $819.67. That's a pretty good deal for 17 years of space station.

Re:"need"? "benefits"?

[thegarbz]

Yeah the benefit definitely is dwarfed by the cost.
Oh unless we manage to move off this rock and colonise space then the benefit of the research done thus far may break even with the cost.
If we're in space and the earth gets wiped out by an asteroid then the benefit becomes priceless.

That's the problem with science. With hindsight we can see a great deal more than with foresight.
Hertz and Maxwell both sunk money into completely useless theoretical research that didn't have any foreseeable practical applications and Dirac created a completely useless equation. People called for de-funding all of this research and said it was a waste, yet we have our modern way of life thanks to these people, electricity, radio, lasers, etc.

Don't worry you're not alone in your thinking. In the UK it's a hot topic with Lord Mandelson recently saying that we should only be funding practical science which increases future prosperity. Now he's facing backlash from the entire scientific community as it's almost impossible to predict how for example theoretical physics would affect future prosperity.

Could it be a big money pit? Maybe. Could it be the best investment humans have ever made? Maybe.

Re: "need"? "benefits"?

[WindBourne]

Thank god you are not capable of winning a position in CONgress or the WH. Sadly, idiots like you are in the GOP who would rather fund SLS and Putin than America's private space manned program.

Re:"need"? "benefits"?

[Rockoon]

you've probably paid closer to $819.67. That's a pretty good deal for 17 years of space station.

Notice how this defender of the space station has decided to measure the benefit that the space station has given us by counting the years that it been up, rather than by counting the benefit the space station has given us.

Amazing how fucking fanboys can rationalize pretty much anything by throwing out meaningless numbers.

Re:"need"? "benefits"?

[CanadianMacFan]

And what is the benefit you are getting from the F-35 program? Or the $1B or $2B tank refurbishment program that the army didn't want? Or how about the $3T spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Or the $800M on Wall St. bailouts? (And yes I know there are programs that waste large amounts of money in my country too.)

Re:"need"? "benefits"?

[thinkwaitfast]

Same thing. Propping up a high tech industry and manufacturing/skills base that would disappear otherwise.

Re:"need"? "benefits"?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

As I was saying, the actual price tag is arguably several hundred billion dollars, and I (like I hope most people on Slashdot) pay above average income taxes. So, I stand by my statement that I probably paid several thousand dollars for it.

Furthermore, even $819.67 would be too much for that flying piece of junk. In fact, the opportunity cost of all the space exploration NASA didn't do because they kept that rust bucket up there is even worse.

Re:"need"? "benefits"?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Now he's facing backlash from the entire scientific community as it's almost impossible to predict how for example theoretical physics would affect future prosperity.

That is exactly the problem. $100 billion over 17 years could have funded 50000 theoretical physicists. That's more theoretical physicists than exist in the entire world right now. Imagine what kinds of advances we could have made with that kind of spending.

Instead, those $100 billion were wasted on ferrying a few astronauts back and forth between an obsolete rust bucket and earth, while handing out extremely lucrative contracts to corporations close to the government. And we do that because people like you can't tell a government boondoggle from actual science.

Re: "need"? "benefits"?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Thank god you are not capable of winning a position in CONgress or the WH. Sadly, idiots like you are in the GOP who would rather fund SLS and Putin than America's private space manned program.

Actually, idiots like me would redirect this funding to real, basic science, as opposed to the kinds of corporate boondoggles and crony capitalism that you favor.

Re: "need"? "benefits"?

[WindBourne]

OK, so you want science. Let me ask you a dumb question. Do you really think that science can continue with launches that costs 1B or more? How about launches that costs 250-300 million or more? Because that is how much we have been spending for first, the shuttle, and now Atlas and Delta. These are EXPENSIVE.
However, in the interest of human work, SpaceX now has launch below 100 Million. If he gets reuse going, then it will be less than 50M. Likewise, SpaceX is working on a human launcher. This will carry 7 humans to the ISS for less than what it costs us to send 2 ppl via Russia. BUT, SpaceX is looking to land the dragon on earth and then create a lander for Mars and the moon from this. By 2018, SpaceX is looking to send up red dragon to mars and have it land with several tonnes worth of equipment. They will use launch vehicles designed for humans to put 2-5 tonnes of cargo on Mars. And the mission costs? Less than 300 Million.

So, while you are so cock sure of your BS, here is private space, that will do more science on Mars within 6 years, then we have done for the last 20 years. And it will costs less than what we paid before. So, the difference between you and me, is that I WANT science, but I am bright enough to realize that we need to get the costs down. That is also why ppl like Neil Tyson and stephen hawkings support human launches, along with cheap science. And to be fair, I will take THEIR word over yours since it is obvious that you are not capable of intelligent thought.

Re:"need"? "benefits"?

[wisnoskij]

That is exactly the problem. $100 billion over 17 years could have funded 50000 theoretical physicists.

Or just learn to live for the moment and spend it on whores and cocaine.

Re:"need"? "benefits"?

[thegarbz]

Well I'll leave it up to you to define "actual science".

You can start by going through the list of thousands (literally) of experiences that have been run on the ISS and categorise each one individually as science vs not science.

Until you're finished, please stop using all technologies that are the side effect of research of how we can fly to the moon. Putting a man on the moon is clearly also a waste of money so no LEDs used in medicine, worse highway design, no more anti-icing systems which reduced plane accident rates, pull the space blanked from your first-aid kit, stop feeding your baby baby food, and don't even get started on solar power since the creation of that clearly isn't science.

Yep we need an all knowing czar to determine exactly which research will lead to any tangible benefit, and I think you're perfect for the job. /sarcasm

Re: "need"? "benefits"?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

OK, so you want science. Let me ask you a dumb question. Do you really think that science can continue with launches that costs 1B or more? How about launches that costs 250-300 million or more? Because that is how much we have been spending for first, the shuttle, and now Atlas and Delta. These are EXPENSIVE.

We're talking about whether the ISS was worth the money; those are exactly the kinds of launches that the ISS wasted money on year after year. So, you just agreed with me.

So, while you are so cock sure of your BS, here is private space [...] That is also why ppl like Neil Tyson and stephen hawkings support human launches, along with cheap science

How is this new "private space" any different from the old "private space"? Instead of shoving hundreds of billions into the hands of big US corporations for building launch technologies, we are now going to... shove billions into the hands of big US corporations for building launch technologies, with even less supervision.

I think human launches are great, and so is "private space". The problem is that NASA is failing to deliver either. What they are doing is putting a bunch of people into orbit at astronomical costs while engaging in massive crony capitalism.

And to be fair, I will take THEIR word over yours since it is obvious that you are not capable of intelligent thought.

Since you take someone's word in order to make political decisions rather than thinking for yourself, it is obviously you who isn't capable of intelligent thought.

Re:"need"? "benefits"?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You can start by going through the list of thousands (literally) of experiences that have been run on the ISS and categorise each one individually as science vs not science

I don't have to: NASA already selected the most important scientific results and made their best argument in this book: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/626862...

I'm saying: I'm looking at that and I don't think the $100 billion was well spent. I'm saying that I believe spending the same amount of money on 50000 additional research scientists on Earth or doubling the NSF budget would have been better. You yourself gave Hertz, Maxwell and Dirac as examples. You yourself brought up funding for theoretical physics. Those are exactly the kinds of things those $100 billion haven't been funding.

Even though you pay lip service to theoretical physics, the policy you advocate is to hand even more money to military contractors developing jets and rockets, and occasionally shutting a few people into an orbital tin can to conduct some high school science experiments. That's the kind of "practical science" your Lord Mandelson loves, and you evidently support his views wholeheartedly.

Re:"need"? "benefits"?

[thegarbz]

You yourself brought up funding for theoretical physics.

If that's what you think I said then you completely missed the point. The point was that it is not possible to predict which science will lead to life changing discoveries. For Maxwell it was theoretical physics. For Fleming it was a practical and accidental breach of lab rules leading to a discovery on how to manufacture antibiotics.

But if you think you know exactly where to spend money on the next great breakthrough then go ahead. I'm sure I'll read about it when you're richer than God. Then you can rub it in my face. But until then as with nearly all applied and theoretical sciences you can't dictate something has been a waste of money until the entire project is shutdown, dead, and the results have been lost in the annals of uncited, unreferenced publications.

Re:"need"? "benefits"?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

But if you think you know exactly where to spend money on the next great breakthrough then go ahead.

We have a 17 year record of the ISS. $100 billion+ has not produced any breakthroughs in that program, according to the program managers and advocates themselves, who tried to make their best case in their book. Compared to the output of the NSF, which cost about the same, the ISS science output is extremely poor, by any measure of scientific output.

The point was that it is not possible to predict which science will lead to life changing discoveries

No, it is not possible to predict what programs will deliver life changing discoveries. But it is possible with a great deal of certainty to predict what programs will not deliver life changing discoveries, namely those with a lousy scientific track record and those that exist primarily as engines of crony capitalism. The ISS is one of those programs. That's why we shouldn't throw more money at it or similar programs.

After the End of the ISS?

[Anonymous Coward]

ISIS, who else?!

couldn't get elected now / jerb "creators"!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the top tax bracket rate was 50% under pinko Ronnie.

Re:couldn't get elected now / jerb "creators"!

[damn_registrars]

Don't forget the top tax bracket rate was 50% under pinko Ronnie.

Ronald Reagan would never make it as a republican any more, he is far too liberal on that and many other things as well. Hell, Reagan was more liberal than our "liberal" POTUS on many things.

Re:couldn't get elected now / jerb "creators"!

[Anonymous Coward]

Like what?

Obama is for less government control over the economy than Reagan? Could have fooled me. What is your definition of "liberal?"

Re:couldn't get elected now / jerb "creators"!

[kamapuaa]

He had a 50% tax rate, because people were able to deduct more from their taxes. In the 50s, the top tax rate was nominally 90%, but nobody actually paid 90%. It dropped before Reagan, under Reagan, and after Reagan. Reagan was part of a larger trend to tax more of a person's income, but at a lower rate.

As far as social issues, unions, etc. went, no of course Reagan was not more liberal than Obama, just the idea is ludicrous. At the least it demands some kind of explanation.

Re:couldn't get elected now / jerb "creators"!

[damn_registrars]

As far as social issues, unions, etc. went, no of course Reagan was not more liberal than Obama, just the idea is ludicrous

There is nothing ludicrous about it.

Under which administration have we seen a greater decline in the number of workers - private or public sector - working in unions? Obama

Under which administration have we seen a greater stagnation of minimum wage? Obama

Under which administration have we seen a greater increase in the wage gap between the highest and lowest earners? Obama

Under which administration have we seen a greater increase in the number of people who are working less than 40 hours a week per job due to the lack of full time positions made available? Obama

Under which administration have we seen more people give up on dreams of going to college because they can't afford it in their income level? Obama

Under which administration have we seen the largest corporate giveaway in the history of government? Obama

I'm no fan of Reagan, but what he actually did as president - particularly in terms of social and economic policy - was actually more liberal than any president of the past couple decades. The current POTUS is the most conservative we have ever had, bar none. Reagan, on the other hand, if he were alive today would be chased out of the GOP as a "socialist".

Re:couldn't get elected now / jerb "creators"!

[dave420]

Aaah I get it now - you don't have any actual criticism, just a vague misunderstanding of the facts and an innate desire to pin your constructed nonsense on Obama, with the perverse expectation that you will not seem like an ill-informed lunatic. Gotcha.

Re:couldn't get elected now / jerb "creators"!

[damn_registrars]

You can attack me, or attack my argument. The former doesn't help you if your goal is to show understanding of the topic - though you chose it regardless. Feel free to try to show that you have an understanding of the topic, if you would like.

I laid out simple facts that show Obama is indeed more conservative than Reagan ever was, you responded to those facts by attacking me instead of countering the facts. I presented a direct and factual argument that indeed Obama is the most conservative POTUS we have ever had. Indeed, every single GOP hopeful wants to be even more conservative still, but that doesn't change the fact that nobody who has been POTUS before was more conservative than Obama. It also does not change the fact that the GOP is drastically more conservative now than Reagan could have ever hoped to be.

Re:The answer is...

[taiwanjohn]

Bob Bigelow. He's the guy whose company is sending an inflatable module to the ISS later this year. They already have a proof-of-concept module in orbit, and would already have launched their much bigger BA330, but there's currently no rocket powerful enough to loft it. But the upcoming SpaceX Falcon Heavy will be powerful enough, and that should be flying by this time next year.

Their plan is to rent space in the BA330 to countries and/or companies that want to do something in microgravity, but can't afford to launch a whole station themselves. When the Falcon 9 and Dragon 2 are man-rated (ca. 2017), the cost of getting humans to LEO will plummet, making this a very attractive option for many entities that currently would never dream of such ventures.

No one

[Anonymous Coward]

Except maybe aging billionaires seeking virtual immortality via Big Expenses. A private space station is like a medieval cathedral or a Pyramid, a tribute to monumental ego.

Other than that, these billionaires could invest in bioinformatics and work on life extension.

Re:No one

[Anonymous Coward]

A private space station is like a medieval cathedral or a Pyramid, a tribute to monumental ego.
 
As opposed to those who claim to be doing "the will of the people" and sit on TRILLIONS of dollars annually that do next to nothing of the sort.
 
Ummm... I vote for the big egos.

USA will pa of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Like we pay for lots of other things all the time. People will still call us dicks though.

Tourism

[mbone]

I went to this meeting, and I thought it was one of the best commercial space meetings I have been to.

The summary was pretty on point, except that it didn't mention the prospect of tourism really taking off as the costs and complexity of going on-orbit decrease. (Right now, among other things, you have to learn Russian to become a space tourist.) It really looks like commercial space stations will become a reality in the not too distant future.

Re:Tourism

[mdm-adph]

And that's too bad. It seems like the established space-faring, rocket-launching community is against tourism as being "below" them, but I'd still bet it's economically viable -- there are many communities, towns, states, and even entire countries that base their economies off of tourism. It's not the best long-term economic plan, but it'd definitely work in the short-term to get space travel to become commonplace, which is all we really need.

Re:Tourism

[mbone]

Tourism was certainly discussed at the meeting, and Bigelow (for example) is counting big on it, but it didn't seem to make the summary.

No one, unfortuately

[peter303]

The Chinese and Russians will put up smaller replacements. Neither US political party is interested in space and continually starve NASA. One party thinks social programs are way more important. The other party thinks research spending should be private, not government.

and lets not even get started on Congress & sp

[Thud457]

outgoing Presidents:manned Mars mission::Lucy:football

Obama's doing it
Bush the lesser did it
Clinton did it
Bush sr did it

What a joke

[WindBourne]

Mark blames Obama in the last paragraph. Yet Obama increased NASA funding when dems were in place, but since the gop took congress, they have cut NASA, as well as funneled money from private space to putin and SLS. Iow, the gop have become supporters of Russia over American business and big expensive wasteful communist style projects over fast inexpensive private launchers.

And u would be full of shit.

[WindBourne]

First, it is the dems that keep NASA going. In addition, the dems, esp Obama, have been the supporters of private space. Otoh, the GOP congress continue to cut nasa's spending, while funneling to the SLS. Oddly, the GOP have cut private space, including trying to kill off spacex ( not just from funding, they want to kill it off ), but have actively funneled money to Putin than to support private space.

Re:And u would be full of shit.

[thinkwaitfast]

Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats? - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Re:And u would be full of shit.

[WindBourne]

neither of these political groups are scientific.
The GOP refuse to accept the overwhelming data about AGW, let alone Evolution, Abortion, etc.
But, then you have the dems that refuse to acknowledge that AGW will require shutting down coal QUICKLY, and AE is NOT capable of replacing coal in time. IOW, we NEED something else, which is gen IV nukes. MSTR have been proven to be safe. Yet, the dems fight nukes. In addition, they scream about America, but ignore China. China's emission are far far higher than the ENTIRE WEST.

Tourism is not the money.

[WindBourne]

If the GOP will quit trying to kill private space, then bigelow and ilc/dover can get their private space stations going. That by itself will NOT be money makers. However bigelow wants the moon. If he starts making progress to get to the moon, then every nation that can afford it , will want to put ppl on the moon for exploration. At that point, every nation will use private space to build their space agencies on. In effect, you will see at least 50 ppl in space training to go to the moon. All that is needed is to get the GOP to quit supporting Russia and have them support America's private space.

Re: The answer is...

[WindBourne]

Delta IVH can easily take up the BA-330. No problem. The reason why BA has not gone up, is there is not a human launcher that he can use. In addition, they prefer to have 2 launchers, but will go with just spacex's dragon.

conceived by President Ronald Reagan

[nitehawk214]

What use is that statement? Ronald Reagan came up with the idea of a space station, or specifically ISS? Yeah, the US wanted to make their own station that he announced in 1984, but to give him credit for coming up with the idea is downright foolish. It did not become an international project until the 90's at the end of the cold war. People have been dreaming of internationally operated space projects for as long as we have known we could put things in orbit.

Re:The answer is...

[solartear]

would already have launched their much bigger BA330, but there's currently no rocket powerful enough to loft it.

This is not true. Their website, which you linked to, says "The B330 can be deployed by multiple launch vehicles". It could currently be launched on Ariane 5, Delta IV Heavy, and Proton-M. Bigelow has repeatedly said he is just waiting for a way to transport astronauts, which makes sense for a space station to be crewed.

Gaskets and Seals

[painandgreed]

Is there some technical reason the ISS will no longer work after the mid-2020s or is it merely a budget issue? Why are we not keeping it up there if it is still serving whatever purpose it was designed for?

IIRC from a previous ./ article, the gaskets and seals are only rated to work so long and their effectiveness is decreasing with time. The ISS already leaks and has to be resupplied and as time goes on, the cost of maintenance will go up. Any attempt to replace these parts in space would end up costing so much that it would be cheaper to just build a new space station and send it up. This is one of the obstacles to any Mars trip. They'll need something that can contain its atmosphere with minimal leakage over a time period of years. Right now, such a thing would have been like looking for a 50's American car that doesn't leak oil. It's probably possible, but won't be around for many years from now.

Asspained libs unleash their disapproval

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to see here.

Re: The answer is...

[taiwanjohn]

I stand corrected, thanks. In any case, the point remains that Bigelow is ready and waiting to launch the "next" space station, and that wait will be over in a couple of years. I think the vast majority of people out there are unaware of how radically different the launch market will be in just a few years from now. Very likely, in about six weeks, SpaceX will "stick the landing" of the booster stage on their next launch. That historic event will bring an order-or-magnitude drop in the cost of getting to space. And that will change everything.

Right now, the "market price" for a ride to LEO is about $70 million per person, and hardly anyone can afford it. But what happens when it's $7 million? There's going to be a waiting list for bunks at the Bigelow Orbital Hotel & Resort, and the "space economy" will be off and running.

The Google Lunar X-Prize will be happening around the same time, opening the moon to private exploration and exploitation. Planetery Resources and Deep Space Industries are also gearing up for their role in that new economy. I think this tipping point is going to happen much more rapidly than most people appreciate.

Re: The answer is...

[WindBourne]

market price. Good point in quoting it. SpaceX is promising that they can launch 7 for 140 million of 20 million / seat.
Sadly, NASA is looking to only send up 4 at a time, which makes it somewhat expensive, though much less than Russia's current BS.

As to BA, if SpaceX can launch BEAM this year, then BA will likely start building their space station as soon as one of the human launchers is approved by NASA.

Do not count on SpaceX being successful with their landing. Right now, they have thrusters on the end of the barge, but, it is about keeping the barge in a singular location. What it does NOT solve is the pitch, yaw, and roll that the barge has in heavy seas. And the north Atlantic is heavy in fall-winter. While I am a fan of spaceX, I do not think that they will succeed at landing on the barge this winter/fall.

Re: The answer is...

[thinkwaitfast]

I'd think it would be difficult to keep an unsecured 30 story cylinder upright on a ship at sea. It's difficult enough to land a helicopter.

Re: The answer is...

[taiwanjohn]

Do not count on SpaceX being successful with their landing

Doesn't matter if they land the booster on this flight or the next (etc.) they are clearly making progress toward that goal,and will reach it soon enough. And I agree, Bigelow will shift into gear as soon as a reliable, affordable man-rated launch system is available.

But keep in mind, SpaceX's quote of $20m per seat is based on the throw-away-booster cost model. The minute you start reusing boosters, that model will change. We don't know how much yet, because we don't know how many times you can reuse a booster. But assuming it's at least 10x per airframe, that will probably get you into single-digit territory.

The next few years are going to be very interesting.

Aluminum

[Anonymous Coward]

The pyramid on top of the Washington Monument is made of cast aluminum. Purified aluminum commanded about the same price per ounce as silver, plus very few people knew how to cast such an object. Nowadays, aluminum is inexpensive and probably would not be used for a capstone.

Re: The answer is...

[WindBourne]

Oh, I agree with most of what you are saying.
My only issue is that until the pitch,yaw and roll of the barge is controlled, they will not be able to land a pendulum on that moving barge.

Re: The answer is...

[taiwanjohn]

True enough. But even if they land it, only to have it teeter off a bit later, that will still be the proof of concept they need.

The answer to all considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

Seveneves

why will it concern Americans ?

[Anonymous Coward]

you cant be arsed bothering to go!

Do you mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the Brinmuskgates station?

What's it taste like "eating your words"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Change your diet: Eating your words != Good Nutrition Dave420 http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

What's it taste like "eating your words"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Change your diet: Eating your words != Good Nutrition Dave420 http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...