ISS Ownership Up for Grabs?

[Mazon Del]

From the following: http://www.fastcompany.com/3054332/fast-feed/nasa-were-leaving-the-space-station-to-the-private-sector

The NASA chief of Human Spaceflight implied that after the US stops supporting the ISS, the private sector will have a chance to take over NASA's duties if desired.

I'm curious if there is any value to someone, like Musk, in snagging the US modules of the ISS, or if it's probably just better at this point to build a new station from scratch for whatever purposes they might desire.

[HoloYolo]

Is it worth $80? That's all I have. Maybe NASA can compensate.

[Alshain]

6 minutes ago, HoloYolo said:

Is it worth $80? That's all I have. Maybe NASA can compensate.

If you add the word "billion" after that "$80" you'd be pretty close.

Some of those components are only 5 years old. Others are 15.  I wouldn't think the whole thing is ready to go just yet.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Alshain

[HoloYolo]

2 minutes ago, Alshain said:

If you add the word "billion" after that "$80" you'd be pretty close.

I'll get there eventually.

[Darnok]

3 minutes ago, Alshain said:

If you add the word "billion" after that "$80" you'd be pretty close.

Item is worth as much as people are willing to pay for it, not as much as owner wants

[Alshain]

3 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Item is worth as much as people are willing to pay for it, not as much as owner wants

True, but I was cross referencing the cost to build, which has been estimated about $100 billion.  Now, I don't know what the depreciation of a space station is (you know they lose value the moment you launch them off the pad), but $80 billion seems about right.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Alshain

[PB666]

You could get a consortium to pay that much, you could probably hotel 20 people at a time, as long as the average occupancy is under eight. 

You could charge a billion dollars a trip. 

[adsii1970]

It would depend on if the ISS had any commercial value. As it stands right now, probably more nostalgic than actual usable value. I cannot imagine SpaceX buying the NASA modules for any real purpose. It would probably be in their interests to build an all-new station with commercial purposes in mind. I could easily see Virgin Galactic building a station whose sole purpose was for space tourism while SpaceX would probably want something a bit more industry-oriented...

[Darnok]

42 minutes ago, Alshain said:

True, but I was cross referencing the cost to build, which has been estimated about $100 billion.  Now, I don't know what the depreciation of a space station is (you know they lose value the moment you launch them off the pad), but $80 billion seems about right.

I read somewhere that half of ISS belongs to Russians and if they are going to detach their part... US part of ISS is going to be useless.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Darnok

[Stone Blue]

By the 2020 or 2024 ISS end-of-life, THESE should be in production:

Inflatable Modules

More useable space for the same mass, and probably easier/cheaper to launch, and to assemble... So yeah, ISS would have to go cheap...Plus, half of it (the all important command/control and, IIRC, power sections) are Russian owned...So it depends on what the Russians also want to do with their half... I bet they keep it and add to it themselves... They are hurting for funding, even worse than NASA, I think... Or, if they cant afford to do that, they will probably sell it all off and get out of permanent manned LEO operations all together...

 

Edited December 8, 2015 by Stone Blue

[Pronoes]

I'm not American or know much about politics so forgive me if I'm off base. Just going off what snippets I read and hear, here and there.

It's sad really. There's a vicious circle of NASA saying "We're going to do X". The US government saying, "Oh wow that's amazing, but we need you to do it with Y less $." NASA comes back a few months later and says, "We spent 1/2 of our budget on X, but with the cuts, it's all scrapped." Joe Public are waaah waah, waste of money in space exploration, too many scrubbed missions and wasted development. Government wants votes and cuts more.

 

Things like this quote from Robert Zubrin are frustrating to read. (Courtesty of wikipedia :S)

• "Obama called for sending a crew to a near Earth asteroid by 2025. ... Had Obama not canceled the Ares 5, we could have used it to perform an asteroid mission by 2016. But the President, while calling for such a flight, actually is terminating the programs that would make it possible."

Edited December 8, 2015 by Pronoes

[Stone Blue]

^^

Yes, as Zubrin also said, basically, a specific program needs to be able to be accomplished in no more than 6 or 7 years...(less than 2 4yr Presidential terms)... The way the American political system is now a joke, a program needs be pretty much done from the time its started in one term, to the end of the next, so an incumbent Pres. doesnt have time to cancel what his predesessor started... And yes, Americans have become such raving capitalists and conservatives, they only want very short term goals, with IMMEDIATE gains... Except of course where the industrial military complex is concerned: that is fed by the stoked fires of American fear, ignorance, and greed...THAT will continue chugging along and getting fatter and fatter quite nicely...

Edited December 8, 2015 by Stone Blue

[Alshain]

47 minutes ago, Pronoes said:

Things like this quote from Robert Zubrin are frustrating to read. (Courtesty of wikipedia :S)

• "Obama called for sending a crew to a near Earth asteroid by 2025. ... Had Obama not canceled the Ares 5, we could have used it to perform an asteroid mission by 2016. But the President, while calling for such a flight, actually is terminating the programs that would make it possible."

That quote is inaccurate for several reasons.

1. The Ares 5 was massively behind schedule and likely wouldn't have gone anywhere by 2025, let alone 2016.

2. It wasn't so much canceled as the plan was shifted.  There are parts of the Ares 5 in the SLS design, including the entire Orion.  The SLS really IS the Ares 5, it was just separated from the idea of multiple launch vehicles (Ares I and Ares IV) for different goals and brought it into a single vehicle which is more sustainable and got the plan back on track.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Alshain

[razark]

2 hours ago, HoloYolo said:

Is it worth $80? That's all I have. Maybe NASA can compensate.

I'm torn between "Delivery not available, purchaser must pick up item", or "Delivery guaranteed.  Please provide latitude/longitude/altitude.  Contact Australia for feedback on delivery service."

[fredinno]

4 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

It would depend on if the ISS had any commercial value. As it stands right now, probably more nostalgic than actual usable value. I cannot imagine SpaceX buying the NASA modules for any real purpose. It would probably be in their interests to build an all-new station with commercial purposes in mind. I could easily see Virgin Galactic building a station whose sole purpose was for space tourism while SpaceX would probably want something a bit more industry-oriented...

Won't stop people from trying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MirCorp

And Mir was in a worse situation than ISS will be in late 2020s. There probably is not enough demand right now for the upfront cost of building an entirely new station currently.

 

To be honest though, I wanted NASA use of ISS to last as long as possible, to at least make use NASA LEO Presence stays after 2024. NASA wants to leave the next "ISS" to commercial sector (entirely dependent on politics, though, and looking at CCDev, not likely.) http://www.hngn.com/articles/81077/20150330/nasa-denies-russias-claims-two-agencies-will-build-successor-international.htm

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

That quote is inaccurate for several reasons.

1. The Ares 5 was massively behind schedule and likely wouldn't have gone anywhere by 2025, let alone 2016.

2. It wasn't so much canceled as the plan was shifted.  There are parts of the Ares 5 in the SLS design, including the entire Orion.  The SLS really IS the Ares 5, it was just separated from the idea of multiple launch vehicles (Ares I and Ares IV) for different goals and brought it into a single vehicle which is more sustainable and got the plan back on track.

No, to be precise, SLS was JUPITER Direct, just repurposed for BEO rather than LEO and the Moon.

3 hours ago, Darnok said:

I read somewhere that half of ISS belongs to Russians and if they are going to detach their part... US part of ISS is going to be useless.

The smaller half, yes.

[LordFerret]

7 hours ago, Pronoes said:

I'm not American or know much about politics so forgive me if I'm off base. Just going off what snippets I read and hear, here and there.

It's sad really.

You got that right ... sad, pitiful. The man in charge has successfully dismantled the space program along with just about everything else here ... he's all but reached his goal. Utterly amazing.

[Kryten]

Aye, it's really terrible how Obama personally caused the RS-68 clustering problems with Ares 5 and the underperformance and safety issues of Ares I. I here they found him personally trying to sabotage the -IX before the launch.

[ChrisSpace]

I'm curious if there is any value to someone, like Musk, in snagging the US modules of the ISS, or if it's probably just better at this point to build a new station from scratch for whatever purposes they might desire.

Well, most of the US modules are still capable of doing their job, and using modules that are already in space saves billions of dollars in launch costs. If all of the American space station modules were taken out they could be rebuilt into a space hotel (by Virgin Galactic), resource depot (by Deep Space Industries or Planetary Resources), lunar space station or even the first bits of a Mars exploration ship (by SpaceX). The modules could also be rebuilt into the first bits of a space battleship, much like the USS George W Bush from Iron Sky.

[Nibb31]

The end-of-life date that is often mentioned is around 2024. By then, most of the hardware on board will be much older than Mir was when it was abandoned. The solar panels will only be producing enough power for the most vital systems. Seals, gaskets, filters, fluids, will need replacing in a lot of non-serviceable systems, meaning that the whole systems will need replacing.

Also, even if the US sells off the USOS, that will not cover the Russian segment or Columbus and JEM. Many systems are intertwined, so you can't just disconnect the Russian segment and expect both sides to fly independently. There would need to be a lot of work, including EVAs, to deconstruct stuff that has taken decades to construct.

So buying the ISS, even for $1, will still cost the acquirer a LOT of money, just to get it back into shape and to keep it flying. It really isn't worth it. They would be much better off launching a brand new station, purpose-built for whatever purpose they want.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Nibb31

[LordFerret]

8 hours ago, Kryten said:

Aye, it's really terrible how Obama personally caused the RS-68 clustering problems with Ares 5 and the underperformance and safety issues of Ares I. I here they found him personally trying to sabotage the -IX before the launch.

That's taking it a stretch, don't you think? It's all in the power of his pen.

[fredinno]

17 hours ago, Alshain said:

That quote is inaccurate for several reasons.

1. The Ares 5 was massively behind schedule and likely wouldn't have gone anywhere by 2025, let alone 2016.

2. It wasn't so much canceled as the plan was shifted.  There are parts of the Ares 5 in the SLS design, including the entire Orion.  The SLS really IS the Ares 5, it was just separated from the idea of multiple launch vehicles (Ares I and Ares IV) for different goals and brought it into a single vehicle which is more sustainable and got the plan back on track.

Yeah, Ares is a bad example. A better one is Apollo, or Space Station Freedom.

9 hours ago, ChrisSpace said:

 

 

Well, most of the US modules are still capable of doing their job, and using modules that are already in space saves billions of dollars in launch costs. If all of the American space station modules were taken out they could be rebuilt into a space hotel (by Virgin Galactic), resource depot (by Deep Space Industries or Planetary Resources), lunar space station or even the first bits of a Mars exploration ship (by SpaceX). The modules could also be rebuilt into the first bits of a space battleship, much like the USS George W Bush from Iron Sky.

There's probably no use for such an expensive (but difficult to avoid)  weapon, except maybe assasinating leaders you don't like, then grabbing your popcorn an sunglasses. Actually, that's a great use for it... at least if it was WWIII.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, LordFerret said:

That's taking it a stretch, don't you think? It's all in the power of his pen.

He's being sarcastic.

[fredinno]

8 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

The end-of-life date that is often mentioned is around 2024. By then, most of the hardware on board will be much older than Mir was when it was abandoned. The solar panels will only be producing enough power for the most vital systems. Seals, gaskets, filters, fluids, will need replacing in a lot of non-serviceable systems, meaning that the whole systems will need replacing.

Also, even if the US sells off the USOS, that will not cover the Russian segment or Columbus and JEM. Many systems are intertwined, so you can't just disconnect the Russian segment and expect both sides to fly independently. There would need to be a lot of work, including EVAs, to deconstruct stuff that has taken decades to construct.

So buying the ISS, even for $1, will still cost the acquirer a LOT of money, just to get it back into shape and to keep it flying. It really isn't worth it. They would be much better off launching a brand new station, purpose-built for whatever purpose they want.

The end of lifetime actually is 2024-2028, depending on if the last 4 years is funded, which is dependant on budgets and politics. (I'm hoping for the latter) The ISS was also designed to last longer, with successors only sincerely considered years after ISS construction was complete, while Mir replacements were considered while it was stil being built. Mir also had more damage (from a crash with a Progress Spacecraft) and was more dangerous at the time (there was a a fire aboard the station).

 

The Russian Segment (much of it) is supposed to be taken off and made as part of a new station. This still leaves the old US and Russian Core modules, though. And taking sections of the newer parts of the US side has been considered- modules are expensive to build and launch, companies wanting to use orbital infrastructure will most likely lack the money to build dedicated stations. EVA flights are needed to build new stations too, along with the extra design work, construction, and launch by HLVs. All are very expensive- really, saying what is more expensive really should not be argued, since nobody really knows for sure. No cost-benefit studies have been done yet.

 

If things get bad for dimplomacy for the non US sections, they would be able to be blocked off due to their position on the station until things are worked out.

[Flymetothemun]

For Sale:

A nice home fit for a king. Previous owner had many computers and scientific equipment installed into walls. 32,000 Cubic feet. Former government building. Has central heating and cooling. Solar panels were installed by previous owner. Long commute to anywhere. Internet is slow and may be spotty from time to time. Previous owner built on many additions but took some off before sale. Great view. Excellent security with a great neighborhood. Please call for pricing, serious inquiries only: 1-067-555-1998.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Flymetothemun

[PB666]

Just to correct some of the misinformation and loose facts.

Solar panels last in excess of 50 years, most are expected to survive 25, and the best guess is that they lose 1.25% of their remaining power each year. Thus solar panels are not dying as fast as described and any lost capacity could be made up by adding a few additional panels.

With regard to some of the other statements, many systems can be replaced by abandon in place of the old-systems, and new modules could be added to the system in order to do this (with some additional piping).

One of our more popular nay-sayers here has a tendency to overstate his case. Got to check his facts.