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."
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.
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!
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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/...
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.
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.
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.
Just make sure to not connect the OpenOffice module to the Microsoft Office module, those two never work together.
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.
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"
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
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!)
I for one, welcome our inevitably to come space pirates.
Aaaargh!
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.
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.
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.
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
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?