Save the International Space Station and give it to the private sector

Big Data · Sep 17, 2017

Save the International Space Station and give it to the private sector
TechCrunch | by Bob Brumley | 09 17 2017

...

Every generation or so, a US President has this chance of moving humankind further off-planet and into space. Kennedy challenged NASA and American industry to successfully conduct a Moon Landing in the 60’s; Reagan transferred the role of commercial space transportation from NASA to the private sector in the 80’s.

... saving the ISS from de-orbiting in 2024, sets the stage for humankind’s movement out of earth orbit, to our nearest neighbor –- the Moon. ...

America — and the world — is engaged in a conversation about the future possibilities of living “Off-Planet” – whether it be the Moon, Mars or beyond. And a “New Space Generation” of visionaries and commercial risk takers are considering the practical, social and economic challenges to work, produce, and live off-planet. This generation is young, multi-national, creative, opportunistic, technically skilled, and realistic about the challenges and risks that lay ahead in pursuing opportunities “out there”, beyond Earth’s orbit.

...

... the ISS could be re-purposed and re-deployed from its current low earth orbit, to an orbit around the Moon. This one step would provide a significant critical, stable infrastructure for human expansion onto the lunar surface.

Divesting the ownership of the ISS in favor of the private sector just makes good economic and public policy sense. Why throw the ISS away, when it could be offered to the international private sector for use as a lunar-staging infrastructure?

New space pioneers will need a safe harbor which would provide the stability of safety and security, particularly in times of trouble. The ISS could be such a safe harbor, orbiting around the Moon, and readily accessible from the lunar surface – providing security, stability, and a transition point between the Earth and the Moon for bi-directional commerce, communications, and safety.

...

Source

This article is rather lengthy. It goes into some detail. I've tried to shorten it with excerpts from the first few paragraphs rather than whole paragraphs. I'm not trying to skirt forum rules by this I was only trying to give a better base for discussion. If it's not acceptable to the Moderators please edit it to an acceptable size. I apologize in advance for any error in judgment I may have made.

With that being said let me comment on the article itself.

I'm sure there are many who will scoff at the suggestion of transferring the ISS to the private sector. The complexity of such a transfer are beyond my scope of understanding of international law. I admit that. But it should be possible if all partners get a fair cut out of the pie.

I'm equally sure many will scoff at the idea of moving the ISS to a lunar orbit. It does sound like a sci-fi fantasy but if it's possible to do why not do it?

The ISS is scheduled to de-orbit in 6+/- years anyway so what could it hurt to try? If it can be salvaged and re-purposed what better use of the billions of dollars already spent?

It just makes sense to me to give it a try.

DaveFagan · Sep 17, 2017

Fantôme said:
Save the International Space Station and give it to the private sector
TechCrunch | by Bob Brumley | 09 17 2017

View attachment 67222869

This article is rather lengthy. It goes into some detail. I've tried to shorten it with excerpts from the first few paragraphs rather than whole paragraphs. I'm not trying to skirt forum rules by this I was only trying to give a better base for discussion. If it's not acceptable to the Moderators please edit it to an acceptable size. I apologize in advance for any error in judgment I may have made.

With that being said let me comment on the article itself.

I'm sure there are many who will scoff at the suggestion of transferring the ISS to the private sector. The complexity of such a transfer are beyond my scope of understanding of international law. I admit that. But it should be possible if all partners get a fair cut out of the pie.

I'm equally sure many will scoff at the idea of moving the ISS to a lunar orbit. It does sound like a sci-fi fantasy but if it's possible to do why not do it?

The ISS is scheduled to de-orbit in 6+/- years anyway so what could it hurt to try? If it can be salvaged and re-purposed what better use of the billions of dollars already spent?

It just makes sense to me to give it a try.

I don't know if the ISS "wears out," or not. I do know that the loads are from the inside out and pretty much the opposite of our gravity structures. It does seem to me that any issues could be repaired, but I dont know. It would take very little power to move it to lunar orbit as compared to it's initial launches. "Corporate" wants a lunar station and for that reason, it will probably happen, because that is the "WHO" that pulls political strings. Then, there are military applications and the MIC. Distressing options. If we could get the Russians, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, and others to make this a joint endeavor, it might be a vehicle for a more peceful Planet. We'd have to keep the Corporations out and the Military.
/

Goshin · Sep 17, 2017

You say Corporations as if SpaceX were some sort of evil empire.

ttwtt78640 · Sep 17, 2017

As with any proposal the devil is in the details. A private (non-profit?) corporation is the most logical replacement but I fear many would want some nightmare of an NGO controlled by, and thus accountable to, basically nobody.

Northern Light · Sep 17, 2017

Transferring a public asset worth billions to private hands? It's in line with how government has been behaving these past 10 years.

If it becomes private then all the research done there will become proprietary. Do we really want that to happen? World governments spent billions putting together this research station and we're just supposed to give it to some company so they can renew it for personal profit?

If it has truly outlived its usefulness then I say let it burn. Otherwise, continue honoring our public investment in space.

Weren't they going to give the ISS to the Russians at some point?

PoS · Sep 17, 2017

The ISS is nothing but a waste of taxpayer's money. It has done nothing to advance manned space exploration. Get rid of it.

Kal'Stang · Sep 17, 2017

Fantôme said:
Save the International Space Station and give it to the private sector
TechCrunch | by Bob Brumley | 09 17 2017

View attachment 67222869

This article is rather lengthy. It goes into some detail. I've tried to shorten it with excerpts from the first few paragraphs rather than whole paragraphs. I'm not trying to skirt forum rules by this I was only trying to give a better base for discussion. If it's not acceptable to the Moderators please edit it to an acceptable size. I apologize in advance for any error in judgment I may have made.

With that being said let me comment on the article itself.

I'm sure there are many who will scoff at the suggestion of transferring the ISS to the private sector. The complexity of such a transfer are beyond my scope of understanding of international law. I admit that. But it should be possible if all partners get a fair cut out of the pie.

I'm equally sure many will scoff at the idea of moving the ISS to a lunar orbit. It does sound like a sci-fi fantasy but if it's possible to do why not do it?

The ISS is scheduled to de-orbit in 6+/- years anyway so what could it hurt to try? If it can be salvaged and re-purposed what better use of the billions of dollars already spent?

It just makes sense to me to give it a try.

If it were to be moved to the private sector then there has to be a major incentive for them to take it over. They're not going to take it over if there is no gain in it for them. What would be the incentive? What would they gain? Note that the private sector at this time really only cares about one thing...Money. They wouldn't be taking it over for scientific purposes unless those scientific purposes can guarantee a profit. And considering the costs to conduct such a scientific venture anything that came out of it from the private sector would require a huge price tag to offset the costs. Leaving whatever is to be found pretty much only available to those that are rich.

JANFU · Sep 17, 2017

Northern Light said:
Transferring a public asset worth billions to private hands? It's in line with how government has been behaving these past 10 years.

If it becomes private then all the research done there will become proprietary. Do we really want that to happen? World governments spent billions putting together this research station and we're just supposed to give it to some company so they can renew it for personal profit?

If it has truly outlived its usefulness then I say let it burn. Otherwise, continue honoring our public investment in space.

Weren't they going to give the ISS to the Russians at some point?

Then take a cut on all development.

Goshin · Sep 17, 2017

Kal'Stang said:
If it were to be moved to the private sector then there has to be a major incentive for them to take it over. They're not going to take it over if there is no gain in it for them. What would be the incentive? What would they gain? Note that the private sector at this time really only cares about one thing...Money. They wouldn't be taking it over for scientific purposes unless those scientific purposes can guarantee a profit. And considering the costs to conduct such a scientific venture anything that came out of it from the private sector would require a huge price tag to offset the costs. Leaving whatever is to be found pretty much only available to those that are rich.

SpaceX is an exception. Elon is more interested in advancing space travel than in profits.

Absentglare · Sep 17, 2017

Well, i seriously doubt ownership can be transferred without costs. Just delivering the raw specifications would be extremely cumbersome, and a system like that would need to its information transferred from groups of experts holding in-depth training sessions.

It would take a deep level of understanding in order to develop a plan to get it to the moon.

So it's not like the options are to "throw it away" or not, it's probably more like a matter of if anyone is willing to spend enough money to buy it. They would probably need a pretty big team just to assess the viability. At some point, i imagine they'd ask why they don't just build their own. The ISS is not really well-suited for food production, for example.

I guess i see two questions:
(1) do we keep the ISS in space, or let it burn up?
(2) do we keep the ISS public, or make it private?

I don't see why they should be dependent. We should probably keep the ISS in space if we can. Taking it to the moon is one good idea.

But we should probably also keep it public. If it's a communications/infrastructure hub, it's all the more important to be sure that it continues to empower all individuals and small businesses, all members of the public who funded it, like roads and utilities.

I think the public investment now would pay off in the long run. I think the issue is the joint Russian/US ownership, how do we coordinate the interests of different nations, rather than a fundamental inability of government to provide an enhancement to what they already provided.

Hawkeye10 · Sep 17, 2017

Fantôme said:
Save the International Space Station and give it to the private sector
TechCrunch | by Bob Brumley | 09 17 2017

View attachment 67222869

This article is rather lengthy. It goes into some detail. I've tried to shorten it with excerpts from the first few paragraphs rather than whole paragraphs. I'm not trying to skirt forum rules by this I was only trying to give a better base for discussion. If it's not acceptable to the Moderators please edit it to an acceptable size. I apologize in advance for any error in judgment I may have made.

With that being said let me comment on the article itself.

I'm sure there are many who will scoff at the suggestion of transferring the ISS to the private sector. The complexity of such a transfer are beyond my scope of understanding of international law. I admit that. But it should be possible if all partners get a fair cut out of the pie.

I'm equally sure many will scoff at the idea of moving the ISS to a lunar orbit. It does sound like a sci-fi fantasy but if it's possible to do why not do it?

The ISS is scheduled to de-orbit in 6+/- years anyway so what could it hurt to try? If it can be salvaged and re-purposed what better use of the billions of dollars already spent?

It just makes sense to me to give it a try.

What would be the point? It never did a lot of science and science costs money rather that makes money unless there are patents involved. So far as I know science in space does not generally help make stuff that makes money on Earth. Tourism like a hotel? Maybe, but it is tiny and I hear that it smells bad and who is going to pay big money for that?

The ISS was always a political project mostly, and it never was a good idea considering the high costs.

Maybe the next time we spend big money to build in space we will have a better idea.

I am not terribly optimistic.

Big Data · Sep 17, 2017

Hawkeye10 said:
What would be the point? It never did a lot of science and science costs money rather that makes money unless there are patents involved. So far as I know science in space does not generally help make stuff that makes money on Earth. Tourism like a hotel? Maybe, but it is tiny and I hear that it smells bad and who is going to pay big money for that?

The ISS was always a political project mostly, and it never was a good idea considering the high costs.

Maybe the next time we spend big money to build in space we will have a better idea.

I am not terribly optimistic.

You make a good point about the ISS was mostly a political project from the start. So why not sell it off to the private sector space industries? They could use it for profit as far as I'm concerned. That's what has always driven exploration. The search for profit is not a new enterprise. It drove ancient nomads to find better hunting grounds. It drove the Spanish and Portuguese to conquer the Americas. So it will drive our outward expansion into the solar system.

I think selling it to the private sector rather than destroying it makes more sense. For that reason alone I doubt it will happen. It makes too much sense. Hope I'm wrong.

Hawkeye10 · Sep 17, 2017

Fantôme said:
You make a good point about the ISS was mostly a political project from the start. So why not sell it off to the private sector space industries? They could use it for profit as far as I'm concerned. That's what has always driven exploration. The search for profit is not a new enterprise. It drove ancient nomads to find better hunting grounds. It drove the Spanish and Portuguese to conquer the Americas. So it will drive our outward expansion into the solar system.

I think selling it to the private sector rather than destroying it makes more sense. For that reason alone I doubt it will happen. It makes too much sense. Hope I'm wrong.

It makes no sense, it was always low value, its main value was political symbolism but what it was trying to sell is long dead.

IT'S JUNK

Big Data · Sep 17, 2017

Hawkeye10 said:
It makes no sense, it was always low value, its main value was poltical symbolism, and what it was trying to sell is long dead.

IT'S JUNK

So why not sell it? What would it hurt? If some company or consortium can find a use for it and will ante up to buy it and pay to move it... what's the downside?

Hawkeye10 · Sep 17, 2017

Fantôme said:
So why not sell it? What would it hurt? If some company or consortium can find a use for it and will ante up to buy it and pay to move it... what's the downside?

Could be up to 100,000 dead people if it is not deorbited correctly...that tops my list.

*Made up number, but you will take my point I am sure*

Goshin · Sep 17, 2017

One issue with moving the ISS to Lunar orbit is that is outside the Earth's magnetic field.

The ISS wasn't designed to deal with solar radiation outside that protection; it would have to be significantly modified.

I have no problem with selling it off to private companies if someone wants it.

Goshin · Sep 17, 2017

Hawkeye10 said:
Could be up to 100,000 dead people if it is not deorbited correctly...that tops my list.

*Made up number, but you will take my point I am sure*

A very made up number and any deaths are improbable. Anything remotely like 100k is just.... astronomically wrong.

Hawkeye10 · Sep 17, 2017

Goshin said:
A very made up number and any deaths are improbable. Anything remotely like 100k is just.... astronomically wrong.

Well that is the reason we did not use nuclear....

Still why take the chance?

Big Data · Sep 17, 2017

Hawkeye10 said:
Well that is the reason we did not use nuclear....

Still why take the chance?

I'm confused. Do you think it's not riskier to de-orbit the ISS and let it, hopefully, burn up completely in the atmosphere with no debris ever reaching the ground and killing any one or to move it out of orbit and toward the moon where if it crashes into the moon no one, that we are aware of (unless there is a hidden base on the moon or a colony of ET aliens living there), will be harmed?

I'd say it's a safer plan to use the latter rather than the former mode of disposal.

Hawkeye10 · Sep 17, 2017

Fantôme said:
I'm confused. Do you think it's not riskier to de-orbit the ISS and let it, hopefully, burn up completely in the atmosphere with no debris ever reaching the ground and killing any one or to move it out of orbit and toward the moon where if it crashes into the moon no one, that we are aware of (unless there is a hidden base on the moon or a colony of ET aliens living there), will be harmed?

I'd say it's a safer plan to use the latter rather than the former mode of disposal.

I say that I dont trust a private company to do this, I want people who are accountable to me, my government, to do it.

Not that I trust them either, but I figure I have more influence with my government than I do with a company, maybe not even American.

Big Data · Sep 17, 2017

Hawkeye10 said:
I say that I dont trust a private company to do this, I want people who are accountable to me, my government, to do it.

Not that I trust them either, but I figure I have more influence with my government than I do with a company, maybe not even American.

That makes sense. I think your concern is well founded.

If the companies buying the ISS have to pay up front for it I believe they would have an incentive to do it safely and efficiently and no one would be harmed. That would be a better guarantee than trusting NASA to do it by committee with no one held accountable for mistakes.

Skeptic Bob · Sep 17, 2017

If the options are letting it crash into the ocean or giving it to someone like SpaceX, then I vote for giving it to SpaceX.

Renae · Sep 18, 2017

DaveFagan said:
I don't know if the ISS "wears out," or not. I do know that the loads are from the inside out and pretty much the opposite of our gravity structures. It does seem to me that any issues could be repaired, but I dont know. It would take very little power to move it to lunar orbit as compared to it's initial launches. "Corporate" wants a lunar station and for that reason, it will probably happen, because that is the "WHO" that pulls political strings. Then, there are military applications and the MIC. Distressing options. If we could get the Russians, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, and others to make this a joint endeavor, it might be a vehicle for a more peceful Planet. We'd have to keep the Corporations out and the Military.
/

You type this on a corperate built computer, run for profit, it's transmitted on corporate controlled internet which was advanced by the military...

spud_meister · Sep 18, 2017

Space is a long way off from being profitable. Selling off the ISS would set humanity back.

the_recruit · Sep 18, 2017

Kal'Stang said:
If it were to be moved to the private sector then there has to be a major incentive for them to take it over. They're not going to take it over if there is no gain in it for them. What would be the incentive? What would they gain? Note that the private sector at this time really only cares about one thing...Money. They wouldn't be taking it over for scientific purposes unless those scientific purposes can guarantee a profit. And considering the costs to conduct such a scientific venture anything that came out of it from the private sector would require a huge price tag to offset the costs. Leaving whatever is to be found pretty much only available to those that are rich.

I'll start the bidding. $1

$1 and a quarter anyone?

Going once...

Save the International Space Station and give it to the private sector

Iconoclast

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Sometimes wrong

The Light of Truth

Minister of Love

Land by the Gulf Stream

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Buttermilk Man

Buttermilk Man

Buttermilk Man

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Buttermilk Man

Buttermilk Man

Veni, vidi, dormivi!