Slashdot Mirror


NASA To Allow Private Companies To Hook Up Modules To ISS (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Private space companies may soon get the opportunity to add their own habitat modules to the outside of the International Space Station. That's according to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, who announced the new initiative today as a way to help expand the number of companies and people that can do work and research in space. That can eventually help companies gain the experience and capability to create private space stations of their own. "A vibrant user community will be key to ensuring the economic viability of future space stations," wrote Bolden in a White House blog post. The announcement of this new opportunity comes just a few months after NASA asked private companies for ideas of how they might use one of the docking ports on the ISS. Based on the responses NASA received, Bolden said companies had a "strong desire" to attach commercial modules to the station that could benefit both NASA and the private sector. Bolden didn't specify which companies expressed interest, but one company in particular, Bigelow Aerospace, has been very vocal about its desire to hook up habitats to the ISS; the company wants to attach its next big inflatable habitat, the B330, to the ISS as early as 2020. One of Bigelow's experimental habitats is already connected to the ISS, though its stay is only temporary and meant to gather data about Bigelow's habitat technology. While the new ISS initiative is meant to foster innovation in the private sector, it will also presumably help jumpstart the space station's transition from a state-run project to one helmed by the private sector. The ISS is set to retire in 2024, and NASA is looking to move beyond lower Earth orbit and send humans to Mars by the mid-2030s. But before NASA abandons the ISS, the space agency wants to leave the orbiting lab in some private company's capable hands. "Ultimately, our desire is to hand the space station over to either a commercial entity or some other commercial capability so that research can continue in low-Earth orbit," Bill Hill, NASA's deputy associate administrator for Exploration Systems Development, said at a press conference in August. President Barack Obama also said Tuesday that the country will send Americans to Mars by the 2030s and return them "safely to Earth," which is part of a long-term goal to "one day remain there for an extended time."

64 comments

  1. So the NSA runs a hooker in SPACE?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  2. Looks like NASA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is washing its hands of manned spaceflight for the next couple of decades at least. Wishing SpaceX the best of luck..

    1. Re:Looks like NASA... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't NASA need to get permission from it's partners in the ISS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or are they just going to hijack it for corporate America?

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    2. Re:Looks like NASA... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I sure hope they are washing their hands. I mean during a long space missions we are will be in a box full of bacteria and virus. Then we are going to land such a box in a new environment where such hardy version of life may exist or thrive on it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. Just say no to Matt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care what modules they send up to the ISS, just don't let Matthew McConaughey anywhere near them.
    captcha: irately

    1. Re:Just say no to Matt by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I would be more concerned about Matt Damon, just look what he did to the ship in Interstellar.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  4. Re: Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. They've done enough damage here, along with poprocks.

  5. Cosmic Radiation by RivenAleem · · Score: 1, Funny

    So apparently they plan to solve the issue of cosmic radiation by attaching 1,000's of Nokia phones to the outside of the crew compartments, rendering the ISS impervious to all forms of damage and radiation.

    1. Re:Cosmic Radiation by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Well, how else?

      They should have tiled the shuttle in 3310s.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    2. Re:Cosmic Radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And fueled it with Note 7s.

  6. Space Tourism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is potential in the space tourism market. Instead of sending people up into space and straight back down, they would let them stay aboard an ISS module designed for tourists.

    The ultimate get away. They make a Space Station module to accomodate the tourists, they get to spend a day in space, see their planet from the space station.

    It's 20 million dollars a flight for tourists on these proposed space trips, that's no chump change.

    Once you've established that market, you could add extra modules, a Trump Casino module, a Trump Russian Hookers module. The possibilities with our new president are wide and varied and not limited by any kind of ethics or legality! Why build a Casino in Cuba when you can build one in Space! Make American great again!

    1. Re:Space Tourism by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I could definitely see the ISS being turned into a hotel, with the current bits being preserved as a museum attached to the much larger accommodation and entertainment sections. And maybe a few new labs for scientists.

    2. Re:Space Tourism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ultimate getaway? The ISS is closer to you than most destinations on this planet!

      www.distancetomars.com

      See that little ISS how close it is to the surface?

    3. Re:Space Tourism by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "The ultimate getaway? The ISS is closer to you than most destinations on this planet!"

      Not in terms of energy expenditure to reach places, which is the measure that really counts.

    4. Re:Space Tourism by cavreader · · Score: 1

      While all these ideas sound like fun there is one minor complication. There have only been 533 humans who have actually made it into earth orbit over the last 50 years. Of those only 24 made it past low earth orbit. Getting to orbit is also not for the faint of heart and while a lot of people would accept the danger how many of them would be willing or able to pay a few million dollars for the trip?

    5. Re:Space Tourism by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Just under a century ago (1919), a transatlantic flight took 23 days, and required 53 merchant ships to provide navigation waypoints.

      Today, it's more like six hours. And costs about a week's pay for a poor man....

      It should be noted also that fuel costs for a trip to LEO are comparable to fuel costs for a transatlantic flight. A transatlantic flight would cost millions per passenger if we used each airplane once too....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Space Tourism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and all that was because THERE WAS SOMEWHERE TO *GO*. Space is EMPTY.

      Get it?

    7. Re:Space Tourism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A significant amount of the reason why "only 533 humans" have been into orbit is that until a decade ago (at least here in the US) it was ILLEGAL for private companies not accompanied by a government sponsoring agency to even make the attempt (at least here in the US). I think that was finally abolished a little over a decade ago, shortly after multiple companies began developing advanced, cost effective, launchers. One of which has shook the launch industry to its core (Falcon 9) by cutting launch costs by several orders of magnitude and is set to do more if they can improve their reliability and prove reusability. And they are just the first to the start line, there are several more behind them (Blue Origin, Stratolaunch, etc) As more flights take place reliability will improve and costs will come down which is a far cry from the stagnant nature of the launch industry over the past 40 years.

    8. Re:Space Tourism by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      Well, a few have paid in the past...

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

      Of course, at $20 Mi a pop, it's not for everyone. But plenty can "afford" that amount now:

      "According to the Forbes report released in March 2015, there are currently 1,826 U.S. dollar billionaires worldwide, from 66 countries, with a combined net worth of $7.05 trillion..."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      But yeah, even assuming an optimistic 10% take-up, that's still less than 200 potential clients...still, even a 100 would net a handy $2 Bn for the program

    9. Re:Space Tourism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it is only "533 humans" because it is extremely difficult, expensive, and dangerous trying to get to orbit. The only entities capable of absorbing the associated R&D costs has been governments. The private companies providing launch services today are able to take advantage of billions of dollars of R&D paid for by the government in their attempts to increase reusability, safety, and lower the associated costs. And these private ventures are not charities. They generate the bulk of their revenue providing satellite launch services. And there are only so many satellites to launch when distributed across multiple private companies. Once that revenue starts dropping off what happens then? There is no ROI with sending people on one way trips to other planets in the solar system that all require heavy amounts of life support technology just to get people there. Instead of sending one way trips to Mars we should concentrate on putting people on the moon first so we can develop the life support technology needed to go anywhere first. We should concentrate on building orbital facilities capable of serving as launch platforms for space craft that only have to make it to orbit once.

    10. Re:Space Tourism by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link! I love stuff like that. I've been messing around in Space Engine. The controls are a bit clunky, but it's fun zipping around the solar system low warp speed. Also fun editing the ship config file so it can go roughly this fast.

      I think it's exciting. No, warp drives aren't real, but we don't need them to get to Mars. We just need to science the shit out of it.

      Except there's one thing. Didn't we used to do shit because it was hard, not because it was easy? Or was that just some jingoistic fantasy they told me about in history class back in high school? Were the old federal textbooks just propaganda, and should I get the corrected version from Ms. Hanley explaining how the Apollo missions were faked to bankrupt the Soviet Union?

      (Don't answer that, flat earth guy!)

    11. Re:Space Tourism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many more pressing problems for the 7 billion people already here that need "science the shit out of it".

      "Didn't we used to do shit because it was hard, not because it was easy?"

      Yes, where is the leisure society with guaranteed living conditions for everyone on this planet? Oh, too hard. Got it.

    12. Re:Space Tourism by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      The ISS is closer to you than most destinations on this planet!

      Well, that all depends on where it is at a given time. At best, it's between 250-350 miles away. At worst, I'd imagine that it's around 7400-7500 miles, if you go on a straight path. Of course, to do that, you have to go through a big chunk of rock.

      Time? Well, generally it takes 2 days, which is about how long it takes to fly half-way around the world commercially. That said, with proper planning, it can be done in as little as six hours.

    13. Re:Space Tourism by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The fare for your terrestrial flying is proportional, roughly, to how much fuel it takes to get to your destination. For air travel this cost goes up linearly up to the range of your aircraft.

      The costliest segment of a space flight per unit distance, on the other hand, is the ride to LEO, which can only be accomplished at multiples of G using large amounts of fuel. From there, the thrust requirements drop off substantially. That is why it will eventually cost a lot less to build large space structures orbiting 1000 km from Earth out of asteroidal metals, rather than those lifted from nearby Earth.

    14. Re:Space Tourism by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      There have already been space tourists who've paid $20+ million. There are enough billionaires out there to support a single room hotel, though not much more than that.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  7. Bezos is a pedo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    go to amazon.com, and look in the upper left-hand corner of your screen. don't you think that dog (or fox) looks like pedobear???? i do. i think this is pedodog (or fox) and bezos is a pedo.

    1. Re:Bezos is a pedo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go to amazon.com, and look in the upper left-hand corner of your screen. don't you think that dog (or fox) looks like pedobear???? i do. i think this is pedodog (or fox) and bezos is a pedo.

      Rol.... I'm sure Bezos isn't a pedo, but I thought the same thing when I saw that graphic.

      I'm not sure what they're thinking....??? Yeah, that shit looks like a yellow pedobear. Someone in their marketing department isn't on their game.

    2. Re:Bezos is a pedo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bezos is bald, and I've never trusted bald people. They scare me.

    3. Re: Bezos is a pedo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time for some therapy. Uncle Ernie messed you up, but he's still living rent-free in your head.

  8. Yes let's build Elysium (for the rich, of course) by hughbar · · Score: 1

    I'm not actually sure that the maths works out for large, luxurious, permanent, private space habitats, but I see this as a step in that direction. Makes it easier to countenance wrecking this one, for anyone that can afford it. For example, as Neal Stephenson wrote in Seveneves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (in a different context, the moon disintegrated) 'we' could just go up until things straightened themselves out a bit.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Alternative 3 looking less and less like a joke or a piece of conspiracy theory now. Everyone seems to want to rush to Mars now, too, although, that seems to me to be a lot less realistic than near-earth habitats.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  9. Zero-G Sex Study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1000 points to the company who sends up a customized module for conducting full-time sex-in-space "studies".

    Couples, or whatever, could volunteer to go up and participate in the study for a small $1 to 20 Million processing fee. Think of all the much needed research that could be accomplished, all the critical questions that could be answered. For instance; Will Courvoisier and a waterbed work as well to seduce an astronaut in space as well as it does on Earth?

    1. Re:Zero-G Sex Study by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      For any venture of his type there is an early adopter market of people willing to pay a lot and take high degrees of risk.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:Zero-G Sex Study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is brothel a portmanteau for bro hotel?

  10. Obama's speech by jonwil · · Score: 1

    Too bad Obama's speech wont have anywhere near the impact of another space-related speech given by another Democrat president half a century ago.

    1. Re:Obama's speech by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      To be fair, a whole lot of that impact had to do with a bullet's impact on said president's head.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Obama's speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That had more to do with the Cold War than anything else.

      But President Hillary will be putting us back in the Cold War. Maybe we'll get a mission to Mars out of that, along with nuclear attack drills in schools again.

    3. Re:Obama's speech by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      And the direct military applications of space technology.

  11. Mars by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ain't no one going to Mars. The radiation and gravity differences alone will kill you. We have evolved to live on Earth in its gravity and biosphere. No amount of scifi is going to fix that. Welcome to Earth and enjoy your stay because you aren't going to go anywhere else.

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

      What, we evolved for Earth then evolution just stopped on fascist dipshit?

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

      Please, there are plenty of jobs more dangerous than the radiation danger from an UNSHIELDED trip to Mars let alone one with any reasonable level of shielding and we don't freak out about those. The radiation levels on the surface are about that of ISS, throw some dirt on top of the habitat module and you're probably down to Earth levels. The radiation dangers have been overstated, they are by no means non-existent, but much in the same way that people freak out over Nuclear power (one of the lowest fatality rates of any energy source) while blithely ignoring the dangers of coal power (which kills thousands and effects tens of thousands), people are really bad assessing the risks in comparison to real world scenarios.

  12. Why Retire the ISS? by dwillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's modular, drop the outdated/worn-out modules to burn up, attach new modules, build it out, expand it. having an arbitrary retirement date for a modular facility does not make sense. If they are serious about Mars they should be planning on adding on to the ISS, in order to use it as part of the process and route out of Earth Orbit to Mars. It can be a fueling station, build the Mars space craft of smaller modules sent up and parked at the ISS as they are assembled. Just abandoning it eight years from now seems very short sighted.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    1. Re:Why Retire the ISS? by spaceman375 · · Score: 1

      As time goes on it becomes harder to keep the inside infection free. The ISS has no immune system, let alone an adaptable one. Mir was filled with lots of nasty bacteria and fungi after a short lifetime, which showed us that we need to build spacecraft with super cleanliness in mind, but we still can't get it right over the long term. Now and then it will be prudent to just build a new one and try not to cross-infect it with equipment and people exchanges before we burn it with reentry.

      --
      On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
    2. Re:Why Retire the ISS? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      1. A good, long exposure to a good, hard vacuum should kill off a lot of undesirable flora.

      2. Next Hollywood blockbuster, ISIS sneaks a module with a bomb aboard the ISS. A ragtag team of astronauts from various nations must come together to take the station back and save it from falling on the Whitehouse. Onboard political officer from the NSA turns out to be a good guy in the end. Uh, maybe this more a Ben Stiller movie, Tropic Thunder in space.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    3. Re:Why Retire the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISS is a collection of machinery, not a living organism. You're going to have a few areas of course that will collect certain organisms but mushrooms aren't going to grow out of the aluminum hull. Wiping down the counters and bleaching the water system are some pretty common activities to maintain a home, People on ISS might be expected to do a little more maintenance as their "home" ages just like any structure here on Earth but vines aren't going to start growing out of the walls. Mirs issues were caused by MECHANICAL troubles which resulted in humidity, heat, cold, ventilation issues, maintenance, etc that caused growth, much as a person who failed to replace their broken bathroom ventilation fan would see mold growth.

    4. Re: Why Retire the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the actors don't go full retard.

  13. Is this really a good idea? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 2

    Just make sure to not connect the OpenOffice module to the Microsoft Office module, those two never work together.

     

    1. Re:Is this really a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that this seems foolhardy and potentially dangerous. Security concerns are already quite high but adding all these independently-manufactured components would create an absolute nightmare of potential liability. It could only take one malicious, or simply even negligent, contractor (particularly some combination of malice and negligence) to wreck the entire ISS. The extra overhead to minimize this risk sounds quite high to me, and ultimately unable to mitigate it completely.

    2. Re:Is this really a good idea? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      I have news for you both: the ISS already has an experimental inflatable Bigelow module attached to it. It's too late.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  14. Time to beef up on the specs and design my AI POD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ISS Owners workshop manual
    I'm thinking this will be a must for even getting started.
    http://amzn.to/2dJ7mGB

    Here's what I envision - Should have it's own solar power and data link
    Self learning away from government control and manual override.
    Learns from Facebook posts about humans and what drives them.
    What could possibly go wrong?

  15. Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who are we to argue with Darwin?

  16. Now they want access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They weent exactly queuing up to help pay for thdesign building and actually putting it therebut in the interest of 'free enterprise' charge them what the going rate unsubsidised would be.

  17. I first read that as "Hook up modules to ISIS!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I first read that as "Hook up modules to ISIS" LOL! Thank goodness NASA is only allowing private companies to hook modules up to the INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION :)

  18. Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia wants a higher orbital inclination, so the ISS will go over more Russian territory. Their new space station is planned for a 64.8-degree inclination. The early parts on the ISS are from ~2000. Russia also has disputes with the US over Syria and Ukraine. All sound like good reasons to me. Frankly, high development costs in America, and the Space Shuttle drove costs of the ISS up. Delta IV heavies, a manuevering spacecraft, and Russian designed modules could produce a cheaper Space Station.

  19. Welcome by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    I for one, welcome our inevitably to come space pirates.
    Aaaargh!

  20. Re: Space DDOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the first years of the Internet, people didn't consider viruses or malware; we were too consumed with getting it connected and working. In the first few years of the Open ISS, we didn't consider viruses or malware; we were too consumed with getting things to connect and work.

  21. Standardization by HMFIC · · Score: 2

    As we start to seriously consider space exploration it would be a major step to go ahead and create some standards for space equipment, doors, ports, and connections need to be standardized so that they can be more modular, anyone should be able to build something using the standards for connecting and powering modules.. Like USB/microUSB.

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

      Naah, it's called iSS for a reason, proprietary ports to victory, with courage!

    2. Re:Standardization by jwdb · · Score: 1

      Already done to some degree. See, for instance, the International Docking Adapter that launched last July (and also Feb 2015, but that one blew up). This is NASA's implementation of the international docking standard, and should allow anyone to dock with the ISS. I believe this standard is also meant to be used for berthing, so could potentially be used to join modules permanently.

  22. Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He’s the founder of ISS. He’s the founder of ISS. He’s the founder. He founded ISS.