NASA Considers Handing Over ISS To A Private Company

[DocM]

Mid-2020's, rather than splashing it into the ocean when funding runs out. 

 

The US is already planning a cislunar (near the Moon) exploration outpost using commercial logistics etc., as well as plans for a possible Moon return and Mars missions. There's also the possibility of NASA expanding their participation in SpaceX's Mars plans, which has already started with the Red Dragon missions.

 

If the Russians, as threatened, take several of their modules to create a "MIR 2" the US could replace them with Bigelow X-BASE modules, ISS units based on their B330. X-BASE is already under consideration for replacing the BEAM module after its test mission ends in 2 years.

 

I think the article is missing low hanging fruit WRT a takeover; Bigelow and Boeing have had a cooperative agreement for several years. Taking over ISS, upgrading it with X-BASE's and offering Starliner taxis seems a natural fit.

 

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/iss/nasa-considers-handing-iss-private-company/#t1dJsmlXF9wkGIzW.99

 

Quote

NASA CONSIDERS HANDING OVER ISS TO A PRIVATE COMPANY

 

The International Space Station (ISS) could soon fall into private hands, according to a statement made by a NASA official on Thursday, Aug. 18. The agency is mulling the possibility of handing-off control of the orbital laboratory to a commercial company by the mid-2020s.

NASA revealed the possibility during a press conference focused on future manned missions to Mars.

NASAs trying to develop economic development in low-Earth orbit, said Bill Hill, NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Development. 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.

The agency did not reveal any further details about the possible ISS handover, not even specifying any potential buyers. Moreover, as the station is jointly managed by international partners, it is unclear how will they react to this proposition. The space station could be transferred to a commercial company as a whole or it could end in handing over only NASAs part  this issue also needs to be determined.

NASAs announcement was coincidentally made not long after a statement made by the Roscosmos last week, about the possibility of cutting down its station crew size from three to two.

While the Russian space agency and NASA are committed to maintaining the current level of space station operations until 2024, the latest declarations from both sides seem to suggest that these two biggest ISS players are trying to end their commitment to the orbiting outpost and it may even come sooner than expected.

NASA spends a hefty $4 billion every year on space station operations and transportation  about 20 percent of the agencys annual budget. The agency is continuously being criticized for allotting too many funds for Earth science and low-Earth orbit operations instead of focusing on deep space missions. Therefore, handing over the ISS activities to the private sector could help save NASA funds necessary for the planned crewed endeavors to asteroids and Mars.

While the possible handover is still in its infancy, there is already one entity that currently manages some activities aboard the ISS for NASA  the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS). They are a U.S. government-funded national laboratory and manage some operations regarding research aboard the space station.

It is also worth noting that in 1999 the MirCorp company was created to be a private operator for the Russian Mir space station. The company used the station as a commercial platform, albeit briefly, for a variety of space operations like a privately funded cargo resupply mission, a crewed expedition, and even spacewalks. Thus, the idea of a commercially owned space station isnt new in the history of space operations. Due to a variety of reasons, including the fact that Mir was aging (it was well past its designed lifetime of 5 years), the Russian space station was deorbited in March 2001.

 

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

This is unbelievable. What is next outsourcing the military to Mercs??

[Draggendrop Veteran]

The following is just my opinion...

 

Parabolic Arc, as some are aware, has been having article issues, and Spaceflightinsider has been down the same path, with some real bad articles, and most being old news.

 

This is one. The articles and discussions have been going on for months now, and they still misrepresent this.

 

This is my list of issues with this.

 

1) The major partners are signed on till 2024. This is a done deal.

 

2) The station is paid for. Roscosmos takes care of it's own side. NASA made the decision to offset ESA costs onto Orion, that is their problem with SLS being the culprit again.

 

3) No where have I seen the ISS major members informed of this "idea", they are all in for 2024, some maybe longer.

 

4) CASIS is a disaster for recruiting science on the station. No real numbers have been shown, but I can vouch for a lot of subsidized experiments going up and I really doubt that this is a profitable area at the moment

 

5) There was a lull with SpaceX and Orbital due to accidents, but even then, supplies always made it via Progress. There was no shortage. Now we have SpaceX and Orbital on an increased pace with supplies, which will also allow Roscosmos to take a break and reduce shipments/operational  costs.

 

6) The ISS will be even more cost effective by use of commercial crew and cargo transport.

 

7 The ISS is no spring chicken. The wear and tear in this environment will show and the original technology (particularly power) is old, outdated and inefficient. Newer systems are much more cost effective. There is no way that a private venture will give much, in purchase price, considering the upkeep of this older system. A smart outfit would cannibalize to add onto new modules, hence newer station...and there must be money in it or it won;t happen.

 

8) NASA has 6 companies with an interest with various habs and equipment...but...bottom line is that they will not likely put much up on their own dime.

 

9) Roscosmos has already envisioned a new station when ISS EOL approaches.This is not news

 

10) The lousy press for Roscosmos staff reduction has been unwarranted as they have a valid reason. Oil prices are down which directly works it's way to the space program. Russia has had to tighten the belt and spend wisely on their future plans. They have 2 units ready to go up, are waiting till late 2017/early 2018, to get their science module up. Until then, they barely have enough work for two people, let alone 3. It makes sense to cut back to 2 cosmonauts, save resources and even have the other seat for partner use. The science lab and modules are going up and will be tested for a few years till ISS EOL. The Russian units are self supporting and can easily be removed to help create a new station. When the science lab goes up, there will be plenty of work for 3 cosmonauts then. This approach makes perfect sense.

 

11) The science budget at NASA has been under stress for years. NASA is top notch in its science programs, yet congress continually reels the cost down, all while throwing money away on Constellation and now SLS. Now it appears they want to blame the earth sciences for cost...utter garbage. Congress is to blame...leave science out of it.

 

12) The SLS fiasco has now advanced to the NASA advertisement section by using any excuse as their plan for Mars. NASA has no plan to Mars. NASA can't even get SLS completed on time. NASA appears to have a number of financial books of which none make sense. NASA does not have the ability to land on another planet yet. NASA can't seem to do anything without mentioning it's for the journey to Mars. By the time SLS is ready for a Mars trip, they will be using SpaceX data, and will be greeted by SpaceX personnel on Mars.

 

I am already tired of hearing about Mars power point plans, and don't need to hear it  for another decade. NASA should be allowed to do what they do best...science and helping startups, while partnering with "newspace" to get the best bang for their buck.

 

The SLS has the ability to totally cripple NASA...meanwhile Russia, China, ESA and a host of contributors will be building stations and putting an installation on the moon. I do not know how NASA will be able to keep up with SLS as a ball and chain.

 

Rant over.....aaaaaah!

 

   Let NASA do "it's" thing...and it's not SLS.

 

[DocM]

Neither of those sites made it up, and it's widely reported.

 

NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Development Bil Hill said to a NASA staff meeting,

 

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....

 

Several companies have expressed interest.

 

Its already US policy to cede LEO to commercial operators. That's pretty much a done deal.

China and Russia are ramping up to national LEO stations while the US moves out to cislunar space, the inner solar system and Mars. The US etc. will rent space on the commercial LEO outposts. 

To support the outward move, both by government and outfits like SpaceX, the US is ramping up to a "Solar System Internet"; interplanetary digital RF and optical at >broadband speeds, with space-based data centers which get periodic push updates (email, media etc..) The first Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking (DTN) node has been installed on ISS.

 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Both those sites took artistic licence and distorted the real reasons for the events unfolding, and even worse, did not explain the reasons for other members decisions, for most of which have been known for a long time. For those that do not follow these events, it paints a very different picture. Like Mark Twain's quote "Get your facts first, then distort them at your leisure". 

 

The points I listed above are of real concern.

 

The possible handover...yes, if there was a taker after EOL, if so great and yes, it has been known ...But the other garbage is taken out of context...period, and the silliness with the science reductions or the reason for Russia going to a 2 person crew till the science lab went up...that part is utter garbage. The 4 billion expense also takes into account the ESA transfer to Orion, that is an SLS issue,

 

Science has been the bread and butter for NASA, on a reduced and shrinking budget, then to use this as an excuse. The money spent on ISS is what has given NASA and many others the knowledge to venture deeper into space...good value for the buck. SLS gas done nothing but drag NASA down, and now science is the next victim. Very poor article on their part...this data is widely available and I have covered this in the ISS thread as well. NASA's budget is a token of what it used to be but they still manage to get great science done....this is not to be a scape goat...Congress is the problem, not the cost of the ISS.

 

As far as CASIS goes...what have they actually done, besides hold meetings and botch up co-ordination with NASA.

 

On a side note...

 

Here are a few contenders....most of which will not go up on their own dime.

 

 

 

Concept image of Lockheed Martin's refurbished multi-purpose logistics module prototype

 

Concept image of Bigelow Aerospace's XBASE docked to the International Space Station.

 

Concept image of Orbital ATK's cislunar habitat based, based on the design of the Cygnus spacecraft.

 

Concept image of Sierra Nevada Corporation's habitation prototype, based on its Dream Chaser cargo module.

 

 

https://www.inverse.com/article/19485-six-deep-space-habitat-prototypes-nasa-wants-built

 

And here is one from Russia...pre EOL

 

Russia's possible next station...

 

Just a sampling here...

[Unobscured Vision]

Gentlemen, good points on both sides of the discussion. Our ships all sail fly in the same orbital trajectory .. the furthering of Space Exploration, and we all agree on that.  Let's see how this plays out.

 

I think we all also agree that SLS/Orion has been one big, giant, smelly, red herring that NASA was tasked in chopping down the mightiest oak in the forest with. Oh, and while NASA was at it, they were commanded to buy a shrubbery with the Science Budget. (One that looked nice. And not too expensive.) 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Just trying to be realistic.

 

Money talks and no one is doing anything unless there is a buck in it.

 

SpaceX is a different case and they have the vision, and a business model to carry them forward.

 

Space mining is where I see great profits.

 

NASA has been on a shoestring budget for too long. If they don't have the funding to do what they have now, good luck with the grandiose plans.

 

I have a feeling NASA and SpaceX will take care of Mars in a joint venture.

 

China and Russia will have their new stations.

 

A lunar outpost will be done, either by China on its own, or more likely an ESA/China/Russia venture.

 

The ISS is over 2 decades old in technology. Sections can be used with newer modules at EOL but there has to be monetary potential for someone to take it over. Even a near giveaway still incurs great cost to keep it going and who will foot that bill?

 

Now, if NASA partners and injects cash for rental of a deeper station, it may have a chance, but then NASA is still putting out cash equivalence as to the ISS.

 

The big kicker is the cost for each launch of SLS. NASA is going to need a bigger budget eventually or programs will suffer.

 

As a side note, at EOL, the Russian sections can easily disconnect, are self sufficient and able to join new sections. At that point, the ISS has no reboost capability, therefore it will need Dreamchaser or another mechanism to do reboost..an expense again for the new "owners to be".

 

This is not an argument by any means, just pointing out issues to be solved...away from powerpoint presentations.

 

What really bothers me are the number of articles that appear to be thrown together and conveniently not telling the whole story.

[Beittil]

Ah Parabolic Arc, I used to read that website a long time ago... But ever since Doug started raping his website with those annoying embedded popup ads I put his website on my 'never go here again' list where it has since joined the likes of Space.com...

[DocM]

Doug was also banned from NSF for pushing his ideas to the point of evangelizing. Warned several times too.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

On 8/22/2016 at 10:20 AM, DocM said:

If the Russians, as threatened

That's gotta be the worst choice of a word.

[DocM]

Starting with their first mentions of leavibg, this isn't it, "threat" is the exact word.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

59 minutes ago, DocM said:

Starting with their first mentions of leavibg, this isn't it, "threat" is the exact word.

How dare the Russians take with them that what's theirs!

 

Insecure much? I mean, you gotta be if you are being "threatened".

 

And who's threatened whom? Could you please provide the exact quotes?

 

Besides, it's now apparent that both sides are going to refurbish their respective segments of the ISS instead of setting the whole station on a destruction course as originally scheduled. The only difference being is that the Russian modules will continue to be managed by Roscosmoc, while the U.S. parts will be given to a private company.

 

What's the big deal?

[DocM]

1 hour ago, Mirumir said:

How dare the Russians take with them that what's theirs!

The main module in the Russian segment was paid for, and belongs to, the US - as well as most of the power systems, solar panels, truss and so on. 

 

Quote

And who's threatened whom? Could you please provide the exact quotes?

 

Dmitry Rogozin. May 14, 2014. 

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

38 minutes ago, DocM said:

The main module in the Russian segment was paid for, and belongs to, the US - as well as most of the power systems, solar panels, truss and so on. 

If US or NASA believe they are being treated unfairly, they can take Russia to court.

 

Quote

Dmitry Rogozin. May 14, 2014. 

Quote please or do I have to scroll thru his tweets?

[DocM]

Not the only source, 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/14/nasa_and_the_iss_russia_threatens_to_abandon_international_space_effort.html

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

3 hours ago, DocM said:

Not the only source, 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/14/nasa_and_the_iss_russia_threatens_to_abandon_international_space_effort.html

Just proof that anti-Russian propaganda is nearly omnipresent in the western media, including the coverage on science (and culture!) unfortunately.

 

A threat would be akin to the following in my mind: "if you do this or that, then we do something else".

 

Besides, how is it a threat if the project was going to last this long? So, again, how dare Russia make plans after the project is over!

[DocM]

Rogozin's statement was interpreted as a threat at in the west because it was an ultimatum that they were going to prematurely end the collaboration, take their ball and go home because they were in a snit over Ukraine. Most Americans; certainly those in the midwest, south and west, would interpret that as schoolyard bully crap and not react well.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

5 hours ago, DocM said:

Rogozin's statement was interpreted as a threat at in the west because it was an ultimatum that they were going to prematurely end the collaboration, take their ball and go home because they were in a snit over Ukraine. Most Americans; certainly those in the midwest, south and west, would interpret that as schoolyard bully crap and not react well.

You should read attentively this article. The whole thing please. You may as well learn a few new things about your own country.

 

[DocM]

Old news, and you won't find me supporting the cancer on the world that is Gorge Soros.  His influence on the liberal media and Democratic Party has dragged them as far to extreme left as much or more than far right influences have on the other side.  He's had his hands in both.

 

The one thing Soros actually supports is George Soros. His game is currency manipulations;'he'll go into France, UK, US or where ever and support which ever elements or policies will destabilize things then make money on the recovery. He's largely responsible for Black Wednesday in 1992, and was pretty much driven out of France for insider trading. Now he's playing his games in the US, Europe as a whole and Russia.

 

The SEALs and Spetsnaz could do worse than teaming up to hijack the SOB and drop him off in Antarctica.