Slashdot Mirror
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.
there will?
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?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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.
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 $5 trillion worth of platinum on it.
Clearly no RoI there. Low-orbit docking for such efforts would have no value. :/
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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...
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?
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.
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."
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?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No, but seriously, it won't be the market.
Who Will Pay For a Commercial Space Station After the End of the ISS?
China
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.
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?
Mars, bitches!
You are welcome on my lawn.
Seriously? Place policy experts?? That's quite an autocorrect from space policy... (not even worth bemoaning the lack of effort...)
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
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.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
I had no idea he was the guy that conceived of the space station.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Remind me, what's the current price tag on the piece of junk F-35 program again?
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.
If you dumped it on the market all at once there won't be any people left alive to buy it.
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.
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.
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.
outgoing Presidents:manned Mars mission::Lucy:football
Obama's doing it
Bush the lesser did it
Clinton did it
Bush sr did it
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
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.
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.
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.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
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.)
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.
Try it! Library of Babel
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Nice.
And soon after the moon has rings generated from dirt bike rooster tails.
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
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.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
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.
Same thing. Propping up a high tech industry and manufacturing/skills base that would disappear otherwise.
Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats? - Neil deGrasse Tyson
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
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.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
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.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
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".
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
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.
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.