• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NASA is hoping to hand International Space Station over to a commercial entity

Celebrity

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is an incredibly exciting and unsurprising announcement from NASA official Bill Hill, as he recently mentioned that the ISS will be sold. This is great news for both privately funded space companies, as well as NASA. The ISS was designed to last through last year, but it is still operable.

"NASA’s trying to develop economic development in low-earth orbit," Hill said, "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, we figure that will be in the mid-20s."
Click to expand...

This facility is one of two known operational space stations with life support systems, along with Heavenly Place, China's space station which is now being retired.

With the rise of a private space industry, and a decline in governmental commitments to the station, commercial partners will be essential in maintaining the station. However, because of the station’s cost, it’s not clear exactly what this arrangement will look like, or if any of the commercial space companies out there will be interested. As NASA sets its sights on Mars, the fate of the station will likely depend on its role in future interplanetary missions.
Click to expand...

The obvious question is: how will privately funded research build upon what NASA has already done? I assume that NASA will only sell to an American buyer. Lower earth orbit has the potential to be a very lucrative area. One of the most expensive steps in that area of research is launching materials from the ground, which NASA has already done with the ISS.

NASA is hoping to hand International Space Station over to a commercial entity in the next decade | The Verge
 
Sounds like a good idea, its better to let commercial contractors handle the expenses rather than the taxpayers. I believe the best way for space exploration and colonization is through private industry, that way it will be driven by profit and not by politics.
 
I'm neutral on it, but I want to see a quieter program to prepare for the weaponizing of space which is just beginning, and we can't afford get behind here. There is no refuge.
 
Celebrity said:
There is an incredibly exciting and unsurprising announcement from NASA official Bill Hill, as he recently mentioned that the ISS will be sold. This is great news for both privately funded space companies, as well as NASA. The ISS was designed to last through last year, but it is still operable.



This facility is one of two known operational space stations with life support systems, along with Heavenly Place, China's space station which is now being retired.



The obvious question is: how will privately funded research build upon what NASA has already done? I assume that NASA will only sell to an American buyer. Lower earth orbit has the potential to be a very lucrative area. One of the most expensive steps in that area of research is launching materials from the ground, which NASA has already done with the ISS.

NASA is hoping to hand International Space Station over to a commercial entity in the next decade | The Verge
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. Just one less thing govt will be wasting time and money on. Not that they wont actually stop spending. Theyll either subsidize it or shift the money to something else we dont need.
 
Celebrity said:
There is an incredibly exciting and unsurprising announcement from NASA official Bill Hill, as he recently mentioned that the ISS will be sold. This is great news for both privately funded space companies, as well as NASA. The ISS was designed to last through last year, but it is still operable.



This facility is one of two known operational space stations with life support systems, along with Heavenly Place, China's space station which is now being retired.



The obvious question is: how will privately funded research build upon what NASA has already done? I assume that NASA will only sell to an American buyer. Lower earth orbit has the potential to be a very lucrative area. One of the most expensive steps in that area of research is launching materials from the ground, which NASA has already done with the ISS.

NASA is hoping to hand International Space Station over to a commercial entity in the next decade | The Verge
Click to expand...

Sounds fine, if we keep up and even step up R&D.
 
PoS said:
Sounds like a good idea, its better to let commercial contractors handle the expenses rather than the taxpayers. I believe the best way for space exploration and colonization is through private industry, that way it will be driven by profit and not by politics.
Click to expand...

It's not like anything has been stopping them from doing it.
 
If only the military-industrial complex would commit itself to the colonization of space (Mars, Asteroids, Jovian moons, etc)...
 
Abbazorkzog said:
If only the military-industrial complex would commit itself to the colonization of space (Mars, Asteroids, Jovian moons, etc)...
Click to expand...

Elon Musk had an...interesting idea on how to start terra forming Mars. In a nutshell, shoot a bunch of nukes at the Martian ice caps, both melting them and ejecting a large amount of water vapor with the hope of using both said water vapor and other materials dispersed via explosion to thicken the atmosphere. Scientists, however, haven't warmed to the idea because while yes, it may indeed have the noted effects, the pros would likely be dwarfed by the cons in said scenario.
 
commercial space travel probably won't be happening 'really' until we have some way to get to and from space 'without' large solid fuel rockets. space planes are an option, but really nothing short of an orbital elevator is going to be getting us into space en-masse.
 
Deuce said:
It's not like anything has been stopping them from doing it.
Click to expand...

They have been competing against taxpayer funded government agencies like NASA, so it made it doubly harder for them to gain a foothold in the market.
 
PoS said:
Sounds like a good idea, its better to let commercial contractors handle the expenses rather than the taxpayers. I believe the best way for space exploration and colonization is through private industry, that way it will be driven by profit and not by politics.
Click to expand...

Nope. The time scales and financial scales are too large for private industry to start it up. They can, like they will do in this case, take over from infrastructure established. But it will be excessively difficult for private industry to start up a colonization or exploration (beyond drones, which we've already done) program completely unaided.

Science is one of those things that has huge start up costs and long, long time lag between the development and payout. There's a reason why things such as Bell Labs no longer exist. The financial and temporal scales are too large for private business to handle properly.

It's too bad that NASA is at the point that it must get rid of it's ISS. I would much rather we spend money on science and engineering than blowing up brown people in the ME ad nauseam. In terms of space travel and exploration, that's going to need to be done on the government level. Only government have the money and stability to invest in decade long projects to advance base science and understanding. Once the infrastructure is made, once the initial R&D is done, there will be a lot private industry can do to develop the science and engineering for profit. But they need to leap-frog from the initial investment of science and engineering. Without that initial push, it's far too expensive to be profitable.

Right now we have a few eccentric companies trying for something, such SpaceX. But to truly advance our technology and capabilities, government will be necessary to produce the base science and R&D.
 
Ikari said:
Nope. The time scales and financial scales are too large for private industry to start it up. They can, like they will do in this case, take over from infrastructure established. But it will be excessively difficult for private industry to start up a colonization or exploration (beyond drones, which we've already done) program completely unaided.

Science is one of those things that has huge start up costs and long, long time lag between the development and payout. There's a reason why things such as Bell Labs no longer exist. The financial and temporal scales are too large for private business to handle properly.

It's too bad that NASA is at the point that it must get rid of it's ISS. I would much rather we spend money on science and engineering than blowing up brown people in the ME ad nauseam. In terms of space travel and exploration, that's going to need to be done on the government level. Only government have the money and stability to invest in decade long projects to advance base science and understanding. Once the infrastructure is made, once the initial R&D is done, there will be a lot private industry can do to develop the science and engineering for profit. But they need to leap-frog from the initial investment of science and engineering. Without that initial push, it's far too expensive to be profitable.

Right now we have a few eccentric companies trying for something, such SpaceX. But to truly advance our technology and capabilities, government will be necessary to produce the base science and R&D.
Click to expand...

I wish I could like this post repeatedly. So many things get funded in front of science that won't have even nearly the same potential benefit. Bravo :applaud:
 
PoS said:
They have been competing against taxpayer funded government agencies like NASA, so it made it doubly harder for them to gain a foothold in the market.
Click to expand...

What market? Competing with NASA over what? Are you arguing for less competition?
 
Ikari said:
Nope. The time scales and financial scales are too large for private industry to start it up. They can, like they will do in this case, take over from infrastructure established. But it will be excessively difficult for private industry to start up a colonization or exploration (beyond drones, which we've already done) program completely unaided.

Science is one of those things that has huge start up costs and long, long time lag between the development and payout. There's a reason why things such as Bell Labs no longer exist. The financial and temporal scales are too large for private business to handle properly.

It's too bad that NASA is at the point that it must get rid of it's ISS. I would much rather we spend money on science and engineering than blowing up brown people in the ME ad nauseam. In terms of space travel and exploration, that's going to need to be done on the government level. Only government have the money and stability to invest in decade long projects to advance base science and understanding. Once the infrastructure is made, once the initial R&D is done, there will be a lot private industry can do to develop the science and engineering for profit. But they need to leap-frog from the initial investment of science and engineering. Without that initial push, it's far too expensive to be profitable.

Right now we have a few eccentric companies trying for something, such SpaceX. But to truly advance our technology and capabilities, government will be necessary to produce the base science and R&D.
Click to expand...

I disagree, we do not need quantum leaps in technology. We have the means to colonize places like the moon and Mars. Those few eccentric companies you mentioned are game changers. The key isn't advanced tech, but cost and efficiency, and the private sector has got the advantage over plodding government agencies.

Deuce said:
What market? Competing with NASA over what? Are you arguing for less competition?
Click to expand...
You misunderstood me. NASA created the market, but now private industry will be at the forefront since NASA stumbled due to politics.
 
PoS said:
I disagree, we do not need quantum leaps in technology. We have the means to colonize places like the moon and Mars. Those few eccentric companies you mentioned are game changers. The key isn't advanced tech, but cost and efficiency, and the private sector has got the advantage over plodding government agencies.
Click to expand...

We always need leaps in technology, it's what humans do. We do not have the means to colonize places like the moon and mars, we in fact do not currently have the means to even land on the moon.

We cannot succeed as a People, as a nation, as a species without moving forward. Humanity has gotten no where through stagnation, it's slow death. And all the tech we currently enjoy all started out somewhere, and that somewhere is a government lab or a university, all funded with taxpayer dollars. If we do not fund science and engineering, then we will stagnate. The private sector cannot fund base science, it's too expensive and the pay outs are too far away. But you cannot have the top of the pyramid without the base.

Cost and efficiency can be worked out once proof of principle is demonstrated through funded research. There's lots of things private businesses can do to develop technology. But to really push technology and human understanding, we need to expand our base knowledge and understanding. That is something private business is not equipped to handle. They cannot afford it, they cannot wait that long for profit. Given what we were accomplishing in the 50's and 60's, where we stand now should be an embarrassment to us all. We are way way behind the curve and private business alone cannot, will not, catch us up. Private business alone may give you a better cell phone every few years, but it will not bring us the stars, it won't even bring us the solar system.

Without progress, humanity is doomed to extinction.

And the few eccentric companies I mentioned are NOT game changers, not yet. We'll see what comes of their actions, but as for now they remain novelties. Not any real push forward.
 
PoS said:
You misunderstood me. NASA created the market, but now private industry will be at the forefront since NASA stumbled due to politics.
Click to expand...

That seems likely. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson pointed out, the bank bailout was larger than the entire 50-year running budget of NASA. It's not that we can't afford to fund space travel, it's that our funding priorities are warped.
 
FullMoon2010.jpg
 
PoS said:
I believe the best way for space exploration and colonization is through private industry, that way it will be driven by profit and not by politics.
Click to expand...

The issue being that it's not really profitable.

Space is 99.9999999% empty.
 
No but seriously, R&D and space exploration will not happen under the quarterly profit model. The turnaround is too far away and there's no guarantee of a good return.

Humanity can afford it, we're just too busy living in playland and blowing each other up right now. The problem is social, not economic.

The only way forward is with publicly funded R&D. Space exploration has and always will require a united front.
 
Ikari said:
We always need leaps in technology, it's what humans do. We do not have the means to colonize places like the moon and mars, we in fact do not currently have the means to even land on the moon.

We cannot succeed as a People, as a nation, as a species without moving forward. Humanity has gotten no where through stagnation, it's slow death. And all the tech we currently enjoy all started out somewhere, and that somewhere is a government lab or a university, all funded with taxpayer dollars. If we do not fund science and engineering, then we will stagnate. The private sector cannot fund base science, it's too expensive and the pay outs are too far away. But you cannot have the top of the pyramid without the base.

Cost and efficiency can be worked out once proof of principle is demonstrated through funded research. There's lots of things private businesses can do to develop technology. But to really push technology and human understanding, we need to expand our base knowledge and understanding. That is something private business is not equipped to handle. They cannot afford it, they cannot wait that long for profit. Given what we were accomplishing in the 50's and 60's, where we stand now should be an embarrassment to us all. We are way way behind the curve and private business alone cannot, will not, catch us up. Private business alone may give you a better cell phone every few years, but it will not bring us the stars, it won't even bring us the solar system.

Without progress, humanity is doomed to extinction.

And the few eccentric companies I mentioned are NOT game changers, not yet. We'll see what comes of their actions, but as for now they remain novelties. Not any real push forward.
Click to expand...

Space X has done more in a few years than NASA has done in the last thirty so yes, they are game changers.

We can go to Mars now if we wanted to. NASA has been dragging its heels because of budget problems and politics. Great leaps in science are not cooked up by massive government agencies, but by the market. Government funding is wasteful and inefficient.
 
PoS said:
Space X has done more in a few years than NASA has done in the last thirty so yes, they are game changers.

We can go to Mars now if we wanted to. NASA has been dragging its heels because of budget problems and politics. Great leaps in science are not cooked up by massive government agencies, but by the market. Government funding is wasteful and inefficient.
Click to expand...

OMG...no they haven't. They're starting to develop a novel system, but they haven't done what NASA has done. NASA put men on the moon when we funded it properly, let me know when SpaceX does the same. And even when they do, they're just emulating NASA. There are problems with NASA, but those are tied to politics more than anything else. It doesn't mean that NASA has contributed nothing, and it's absolutely laughable to laud the limited success of private enterprises such as SpaceX as being greater than the aggregate advancements brought to us by NASA.

We cannot go to Mars right now, we don't have the tech. We don't have the tech to go to the Moon right now. The largest inefficiency with NASA is that they are held to the whims of Presidents, whom change ever 4 or 8 years. Great leaps in science are not always done by the market and in today's environment the possibility of private labs discovering something like the Transistor is becoming increasingly unlikely.

Government funding of science and engineering is essential to the course of scientific progress, the advancement of the Nation, and the support of our continued international dominance. Bell Labs no longer exists because it cannot exist any longer in our economy. Base science cannot be funded and researched in the private industry, it is too expensive and takes too long to get to a payout. They can do, as they do now, as SpaceX even has done now, and piggy back off of government research; but they do not have the means to do it all.
 
PoS said:
Space X has done more in a few years than NASA has done in the last thirty so yes, they are game changers.

We can go to Mars now if we wanted to. NASA has been dragging its heels because of budget problems and politics. Great leaps in science are not cooked up by massive government agencies, but by the market. Government funding is wasteful and inefficient.
Click to expand...

But you're ignoring Space X was effectively handed $billions in government funded research, conducted over decades at NASA and for military purposes, essentially for free.

I think a more reasonable conclusion is that it's not an either/or proposition. We need government funded research and private industry to bring the potential to market to realize the maximum public good coming from that research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom